| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2008 02:11:37 AM · #401 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the worst that could happen is a no-penalty DQ (breaking other, well established rules would still count, of course). |
I wouldn't assume a DQ without penalty would be much of a consolation to people who spent hours editing for a challenge like this. |
The alternatives would be letting an illegal shot stand or DQ with penalty. Pick your favorite. |
Your statement gives the impression that a DQ is OK as long as there's no penalty. Your stance seems to be - let us figure out what is and what isn't legal after all the entries are in. There is a chorus of people here trying really hard to understand what will get a DQ. IMO, saying a DQ is no big deal is a bit flippant. It is a big deal to some.
I still go back to my earlier point, since when is DNMC a DQable offense? Validating that the images are in sequence is understandable. But past that determining what is and what isn't a natural progression is just way too much to put on the SC. It's not fair to them and not fair to the members. There is the impression that there will be many DQs. I doubt there will be, but the tone is "we'll let you know when we decide, and if you get a DQ, get over it"
I say leave it up to the voters like in every other challenge. My guess is that Kiwi's church shot would not score so well, while Roz's shot would not suffer the same fate.
We have several challenges where the several of users are often incorrect on what the essence of the challenge is. "Environmental Portrait" was one. There were many people upset that their portraits of flowers were getting hammered. Didn't seem to bother the SC there.
My entry fits you bulleted list, but then, so does Roz's golf shot. So I am no closer to understanding what "Time Lapse" is in the mind of the SC than I was when the challenge was announced.
I also get the feeling that once something is said or stated by the SC there is no going back. It's OK to be wrong in good faith. And I think the SC is wrong on the golf shot, and apparently so do many others.
I say all this with respect and appreciation for all the site council members.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 02:44:47 AM · #402 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by SaraR:
So assuming thatthe composition between each frame didn't differ, would this day-long time-lapse be legal, even though it has the appearance of having internal borders/frames? |
Yes, it would be legal. No internal frames may be added, but the rules say nothing about a sharp transition in masking. A similar shot posted by Falc was discussed much earlier in the thread. |
So just to be clear creating distinct shapes in post process is legal? For examples this shot by De Sousa that got DQ and doesn't even have that sharp a transition is now legal?
Message edited by author 2008-01-05 02:45:11.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 03:07:02 AM · #403 |
David, if I didn't think a DQ was a big deal to some, I wouldn't have bothered trying to explain what was legal a few posts back (nor would I be awake at 3am posting this). Failure to meet the challenge is not a DQable offense, but submitting a Photoshop composite of arbitrary, multiple frames has always been illegal. A late decision was made to allow time-lapse in Advanced in a noble effort to provide for more possible techniques and creativity, but there's just no easy way to distinguish between the natural time-lapse images we intended and arbitrary multi-image composites like Gary's. If you can figure that one out, let me know.
Roz's golf shot and your entry both fail to meet the "simple, linear motion rather than complex or random movement" part of my bulleted list (though yours might be considered close). Are they time lapse? Yep. Are they any different in principle from Gary's shot? No, not really... all three were set up to feature a subject with multiple, varying motions through a frame from which the photographer chose specific poses. I agree that this is confusing, and I don't like it either. All I can really do is offer suggestions for what to do and what to steer clear of. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 03:08:06 AM · #404 |
Looking at the golf shot again... I can see the SC's argument. Clearly the third position in the sequence is out of position in the frame based on where the ball was teed up.
In fact, the sequence may have gone more like this: practice swing #1, Tee the ball #2, Walk behind he ball for preshot routine/waggle #3. Pretty tough to figure it out unless you were the photographer. Wouldn't that be a hoot if the sequence was supposed to be read from right to left? :P Thanks roz for the lesson and allowing us to use your shot for illustration.
Shannon ~ Thanks for clarifying that it is OK to pick shots from one sequence to build the final photo. The whole fps issue was wrinkling my brow. That helps tremendously. I'm in for sure.
eta: get some rest! ;) You'll need it when the validation requests start rolling in. ;)
Message edited by author 2008-01-05 03:09:14. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 03:37:19 AM · #405 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
David, if I didn't think a DQ was a big deal to some, I wouldn't have bothered trying to explain what was legal a few posts back (nor would I be awake at 3am posting this). Failure to meet the challenge is not a DQable offense, but submitting a Photoshop composite of arbitrary, multiple frames has always been illegal. A late decision was made to allow time-lapse in Advanced in a noble effort to provide for more possible techniques and creativity, but there's just no easy way to distinguish between the natural time-lapse images we intended and arbitrary multi-image composites like Gary's. If you can figure that one out, let me know.
Roz's golf shot and your entry both fail to meet the "simple, linear motion rather than complex or random movement" part of my bulleted list (though yours might be considered close). Are they time lapse? Yep. Are they any different in principle from Gary's shot? No, not really... all three were set up to feature a subject with multiple, varying motions through a frame from which the photographer chose specific poses. I agree that this is confusing, and I don't like it either. All I can really do is offer suggestions for what to do and what to steer clear of. :-/ |
Shannon we all can sympathize with the problems associated with allowing multi image entries.
In my opinion the can of worms has now been opened in the member challenges and we will forever of more controversy because of this change. What I think would have been better is if time-lapse type of multi- exposure shots should only be an option in a new expert set of rules.
I applaud the changes for HDR type of images now available for advanced editing but I feel this should have been as far as the rules should have changed.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:39:32 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Shannon we all can sympathize with the problems associated with allowing multi image entries.
In my opinion the can of worms has now been opened in the member challenges and we will forever of more controversy because of this change. What I think would have been better is if time-lapse type of multi- exposure shots should only be an option in a new expert set of rules.
I applaud the changes for HDR type of images now available for advanced editing but I feel this should have been as far as the rules should have changed. |
Amen to that. This time-lapse thing is driving me crazy. It makes no sense to me.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:48:39 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by biteme:
you know what really would be cool?
not only getting an email when you've got a new comment, but also when someone added you or a photo of yours as a favorite :D |
It's quiet now, so another take on suggesting this ;)
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 06:53:25 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by biteme:
Originally posted by biteme:
you know what really would be cool?
not only getting an email when you've got a new comment, but also when someone added you or a photo of yours as a favorite :D |
It's quiet now, so another take on suggesting this ;) |
Great idea. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 08:47:19 AM · #409 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Shannon we all can sympathize with the problems associated with allowing multi image entries.
In my opinion the can of worms has now been opened in the member challenges and we will forever of more controversy because of this change. What I think would have been better is if time-lapse type of multi- exposure shots should only be an option in a new expert set of rules.
I applaud the changes for HDR type of images now available for advanced editing but I feel this should have been as far as the rules should have changed. |
Amen to that. This time-lapse thing is driving me crazy. It makes no sense to me.
R. |
The time-lapse thing was put in to balance the large advantage HDRT landscape photographers have, allowing the rest of us to use ten photos. Unfortunately, it is impossible to regulate and rule the almost infinite senarios that will arise with ten photos. I see only two solutions; go back to one photo, or allow the ten photos and let us do pretty much what we wish with them. Otherwise these new rules will generate confusion, frustration, anger, and endless bickering. It's already happening. Right now we are trying to read the minds of SC, trying to guess what they will allow and not. I'm not convinced that they are all that sure about this either.
My suggestion to SC: go back to the single photo rule. Allow HDRT for specific challenges, like a landscape challenge. Definitely don't allow it for a free study challenge (very unfair). Work on the expert rules. This is a good place for the ten photo thing. good luck
PS I like biteme's suggestion...email for a new favorite |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:02:56 AM · #410 |
I may be the minority here, but I will chime in with my minority opinion.
THE NEW RULES ARE GREAT!
I love them. Everything about them, except maybe the exception for panorama stitching, but that is another story.
I don't see why everyone is struggling with the Time Lapse. It seems like a fairly simple concept, and quite easily one that is easy to pull off with a tripod and a remote shutter release.
I looked at Roz's golf shot, and I agree with them saying it would be DQ'd. Her camera was not static, she had to move it in order to get the shot. Now, if the camera was static and she got those shots, then I could see a complaint about what is and what is not fluid motion.
Newton defined it for us a long time ago. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. As long as what you are photographing started a motion and continued in that motion and your camera was stationary, then there shouldn't be a single problem.
Back to what I said, I love the freedom of the new rules. I enjoy HDR photos. I have always wanted to do the kind of shots the Time Lapse challenge calls for. This is a great opportunity.
If you don't like HDR photos, then don't do them. If you don't like the look that overprocessed HDR photos have then don't vote them high. In the end, you are still voting whether you like a photo or not. The technique shoul dbe an afterthought when you read how that particular photo was captured.
Everyone always seems to want change, but then they are never happy with what was changed. Give it time, if you don't like these rules, they will undoubtedly be changed again in the future. In the mean time use these new techniques to enhance your already brilliant skills as photographers. I have never seen such wonderful photos and creativity on other sites that I see on this site. With that amount of creativity I would think that everyone here will be able to embrace these new rules and creat some dynamic photos that will really set a new standard in photos on photography forums.
Why try to overcomplicate this whole rules set by asking all of these wierd questions. Everyone knows what the spirit of the rules say, just follow that and let your concious guide you when you press the shutter relase.
Again, the box has Tide in it, and all views expressed by me represent my views, and my views only. I do not claim to speak for anyone, anything, or any institution other than myself. I I represent no entity other than myself with these views and these views are in no way a representation of the views of anything but myself. There, that should cover the legalitlies of expressing my opinion in a public forum.
Message edited by author 2008-01-05 09:05:01.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:10:22 AM · #411 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Shannon we all can sympathize with the problems associated with allowing multi image entries.
In my opinion the can of worms has now been opened in the member challenges and we will forever of more controversy because of this change. What I think would have been better is if time-lapse type of multi- exposure shots should only be an option in a new expert set of rules.
I applaud the changes for HDR type of images now available for advanced editing but I feel this should have been as far as the rules should have changed. |
Amen to that. This time-lapse thing is driving me crazy. It makes no sense to me.
R. |
The time-lapse thing was put in to balance the large advantage HDRT landscape photographers have, allowing the rest of us to use ten photos. Unfortunately, it is impossible to regulate and rule the almost infinite senarios that will arise with ten photos. I see only two solutions; go back to one photo, or allow the ten photos and let us do pretty much what we wish with them. Otherwise these new rules will generate confusion, frustration, anger, and endless bickering. It's already happening. Right now we are trying to read the minds of SC, trying to guess what they will allow and not. I'm not convinced that they are all that sure about this either.
My suggestion to SC: go back to the single photo rule. Allow HDRT for specific challenges, like a landscape challenge. Definitely don't allow it for a free study challenge (very unfair). Work on the expert rules. This is a good place for the ten photo thing. good luck
PS I like biteme's suggestion...email for a new favorite |
My understanding of the principle method with HDRT is to blend images of the same frame or shot but at a different exposure level to gain a higher tonal range.
But with the time-lapse scenario we are required to take an shot/image of something that is moving within the frame but that movement has restrictions put on by the rules whicho prevent us staging “unnatural motion” this is clearly an arbitrary interpretation of the term motion.
How could anyone interpret the shots I took today of my dog chasing its tail?? Would it meet the rule set? No probably not because the motion was circular not a linear motion so therefore would be DQ. So why have a set of rules designed to show motion or time-lapse if that motion can only be in one direction?
I know we are dealing with a new concept and I’m all for change but I think these rules regarding “linear motion” needed to a little bit more input by members before being implemented but I will abide by whatever the higher authority come up with…….skippy where are you.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 09:20:55 AM · #412 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
I
I looked at Roz's golf shot, and I agree with them saying it would be DQ'd. Her camera was not static, she had to move it in order to get the shot. Now, if the camera was static and she got those shots, then I could see a complaint about what is and what is not fluid motion.
Newton defined it for us a long time ago. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. As long as what you are photographing started a motion and continued in that motion and your camera was stationary, then there shouldn't be a single problem.
|
I too like the change especially the rules regarding HDR images but in the case of roz this is what she was told is wrong with her image;
Sorry, Roz! Let me try to explain more clearly: Time lapse is a very narrow allowance for things like astrophotography, and natural, sequential movements. To allow what you propose, would also open the doors to things like kiwiness' "all my brothers" or something like that. We mean to allow flowing natural movement, not cherry-picked images arranged to look like a natural sequence. Even if the golfer did move in all the ways you show, what you have depicted is no different from taking several shots of a bird sitting on various branches at the bird feeder (not legal under the time lapse rules). I hope that makes things clearer for you.
Pam
Roz has stated her image was static and no-one is disputing that it was allowed because the motion was not a natural linear movement in the view of SC but in my view they were wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 10:06:23 AM · #413 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Some suggestions for people trying to figure out what's legal:
• Stick to recording simple, linear motion rather than complex or random movement (this will help avoid the perception of a composite like the golf shot). |
This is the one I have trouble with. I find this interpretation to be inconsistent with the rule as written. The rules say "natural subject motion" is fine. Nature is many times very random. To restrict the subject to "simple, linear motion" stifles creativity - at least in my mind. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 11:07:06 AM · #414 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
How could anyone interpret the shots I took today of my dog chasing its tail?? |
Did you post this? I can't seem to find it.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 11:36:34 AM · #415 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The time-lapse thing was put in to balance the large advantage HDRT landscape photographers have, allowing the rest of us to use ten photos. |
This "large advantage" is a MYTH. Most images do not NEED HDRI techniques. Many images that benefit from HDRI are not landscapes. Most HDRI Images do not visibly showcase the technique.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 12:46:58 PM · #416 |
Amen to that. This time-lapse thing is driving me crazy. It makes no sense to me.
R.
Welcome to my world!!!! |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 12:57:12 PM · #417 |
Time lapse is probably the wrong term for what is being implemented.
From what I can see it is to allow wind movement during an HDR set of images, not 'time lapse' as in capture something over the course of time. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 12:59:46 PM · #418 |
cpanaioti, I've found this particular rule is more "sequence photography" than time lapse. In time lapse, you put a bunch of stills together to make a short movie. :/
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:04:08 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Time lapse is probably the wrong term for what is being implemented.
From what I can see it is to allow wind movement during an HDR set of images, not 'time lapse' as in capture something over the course of time. |
Yes, they had to make allowance for natural movement in HDRI, so as not to DQ images with waves or moving clouds/leaves, and they cast the net pretty wide.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:10:47 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Time lapse is probably the wrong term for what is being implemented.
From what I can see it is to allow wind movement during an HDR set of images, not 'time lapse' as in capture something over the course of time. |
Yes, they had to make allowance for natural movement in HDRI, so as not to DQ images with waves or moving clouds/leaves, and they cast the net pretty wide.
R. |
Actually, that's not why we decided to allow time lapse. We just did. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:15:54 PM · #421 |
| It might be helpful if a member of the site council who devised the new rules posted an example image that demonstrated a legal way of showing "Time Lapse". |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:17:00 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Time lapse is probably the wrong term for what is being implemented.
From what I can see it is to allow wind movement during an HDR set of images, not 'time lapse' as in capture something over the course of time. |
Yes, they had to make allowance for natural movement in HDRI, so as not to DQ images with waves or moving clouds/leaves, and they cast the net pretty wide.
R. |
Actually, that's not why we decided to allow time lapse. We just did. |
Yeah? and how's that working out so far? ;-) |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:28:48 PM · #423 |
Just a more practical question (don't know if it belongs to this thread): if I have a set of images
of a moving something, is it be legal to put everything on a different layer and erase all stuff on the layers
except the object, just keeping the initial background (even if I erase some other moving objects?) |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:47:37 PM · #424 |
| I'm sure it's probably already been said, but in my humble opinion, the use of multiple images should probably (after this challenge) be limited to those used to create HDR images. Period. The rest is just way too confusing! |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 01:59:37 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm sure it's probably already been said, but in my humble opinion, the use of multiple images should probably (after this challenge) be limited to those used to create HDR images. Period. The rest is just way too confusing! |
You could be right, but that doesn't solve my problem. |
|
