| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2008 01:59:42 PM · #426 |
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. |
Well, one alternative would be to send a note to the membership discussing the possibility of new rules and inviting people to send in questions and examples. Then the SC and the membership discusses same. Then, when there's some clarity, you institute new rules.
Isn't that how the last round of rule changes happened? Didn't the SC post proposals and let things get hashed out for a while before implementing them?
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 02:26:32 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Originally posted by Bear Music:
Amen to that. This time-lapse thing is driving me crazy. It makes no sense to me.
R. |
Welcome to my world!!!! |
So, the much-too-rare incidence of the extremely fun Expert Editing was dumped because this is not a 'digital art' site. But time-lapse/sequence photography rules were instated because... this wants to be a digital video site?
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! |
Once again, the humble prove smart as hell. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 02:55:20 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
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. |
I don't think Shannon was setting the limits in his post. Rather, I think he was trying to give a general set of guidelines, within which you're sure not to get DQ'd.
Sort of like if someone asked you what speed to drive to not get a ticket. Shannon's response is like saying "stay 5 mph under the speed limit." Yes, you could go exactly the speed limit, and in most places, even 5-10 mph over the speed limit. And the advice doesn't tell you not to do those things. But you're definitely safe 5 mph under the limit.
In that spirit, Shannon, Terry, Karma, and other SC who have been participating, could you please look over this list I posted a while back?
Originally posted by levyj413:
Let's see whether I can sum up. Can someone on the SC please verify these?
All answers assume every shot is taken within the challenge period.
Does it have to be one continuous motion? Yes.
Can the subject change direction within the frame, as long as it's one continuous motion (e.g., a surfer or runner turning)? Yes.
Do you have to use every shot in a sequence capturing that one continuous motion? No.
Can you have other shots intermingled in a long sequence (e.g., one that takes place over hours or days) and leave out those shots? Yes. But each shot used in the final image has to be use exactly the same framing.
Can you use pieces of various shots taken at different times to show the time of day changing (what has been called HDTR elsewhere)? Yes, even if you use hard edges between the various pieces.
Can you use transparency in the layers to avoid overlapping subjects? Yes.
Can you move pieces of various images relative to the frame? No. This means no diptychs or triptychs. |
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 03:49:28 PM · #429 |
Pardon me if this has already been said, but to me, the fact that the new rules say " All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates" implies something beyond the limits of recording a "simple, linear motion" -- unless you're recording, say, the movement of a glacier in a seven-day period.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:03:38 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Pardon me if this has already been said, but to me, the fact that the new rules say " All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates" implies something beyond the limits of recording a "simple, linear motion" -- unless you're recording, say, the movement of a glacier in a seven-day period. |
That's standard "boilerplate" language common to al rule sets, though it does allow (for example) shots of the moon from evening-to-morning (covering two days) or even changing phases over the course of a week, or the opening of a flower over more than one day (a classic time-lapse subject).
Message edited by author 2008-01-05 16:04:22. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:19:20 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by citymars:
Pardon me if this has already been said, but to me, the fact that the new rules say " All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates" implies something beyond the limits of recording a "simple, linear motion" -- unless you're recording, say, the movement of a glacier in a seven-day period. |
That's standard "boilerplate" language common to al rule sets, though it does allow (for example) shots of the moon from evening-to-morning (covering two days) or even changing phases over the course of a week, or the opening of a flower over more than one day (a classic time-lapse subject). |
But these are classic time-lapse, using video and some stop motion. Doing this with a DSLR is not the same thing. I think this challenge is going to prove one step too many for most people here, hence the low entry rate. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:21:12 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Let's see whether I can sum up. Can someone on the SC please verify these? |
My opinions:
Does it have to be one continuous motion? Yes.
Can the subject change direction within the frame, as long as it's one continuous motion (e.g., a surfer or runner turning)? Yes, but Kiwiness' example could be argued as exactly that, hence my suggestion of limiting your entry to a simple, linear motion to avoid subjective calls like the golfer shot.
Do you have to use every shot in a sequence capturing that one continuous motion? No, but cherry-picking different poses from a series of variable motions risks the same issue as above. Using a few frames to avoid overlap on the stages of a single action wouldn't be a problem.
Can you have other shots intermingled in a long sequence (e.g., one that takes place over hours or days) and leave out those shots? Yes. But each shot used in the final image has to use the same framing AND be taken from the same motion sequence, not multiple takes.
(Paraphrased)- Can you divide your entry with sections of multiple shots taken at different times to show the time of day changing (what has been called HDTR elsewhere)? Ordinarily, I would say no since that would be creating arbitrary shapes within your entry and/or a triptych-like image, but the consensus looks like it'll be OK for this purpose as long as no borders are used between the divisions.
Can you use transparency in the layers to avoid overlapping subjects? Yes.
Can you move pieces of various images relative to the frame? No. Everything must retain its position within the scene as captured, and you can't repeat the scene side-by-side in separate frames like a triptych.
Clear as mud? :-/ |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:25:15 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Let's see whether I can sum up. Can someone on the SC please verify these? |
My opinions:
Does it have to be one continuous motion? Yes.
Can the subject change direction within the frame, as long as it's one continuous motion (e.g., a surfer or runner turning)? Yes, but Kiwiness' example could be argued as exactly that, hence my suggestion of limiting your entry to a simple, linear motion to avoid subjective calls like the golfer shot.
Do you have to use every shot in a sequence capturing that one continuous motion? No, but cherry-picking different poses from a series of variable motions risks the same issue as above. Using a few frames to avoid overlap on the stages of a single action wouldn't be a problem.
Can you have other shots intermingled in a long sequence (e.g., one that takes place over hours or days) and leave out those shots? Yes. But each shot used in the final image has to use the same framing AND be taken from the same motion sequence, not multiple takes.
(Paraphrased)- Can you divide your entry with sections of multiple shots taken at different times to show the time of day changing (what has been called HDTR elsewhere)? Ordinarily, I would say no since that would be creating arbitrary shapes within your entry and/or a triptych-like image, but the consensus looks like it'll be OK for this purpose as long as no borders are used between the divisions.
Can you use transparency in the layers to avoid overlapping subjects? Yes.
Can you move pieces of various images relative to the frame? No. Everything must retain its position within the scene as captured, and you can't repeat the scene side-by-side in separate frames like a triptych.
Clear as mud? :-/ |
Seems reasonable. Time to shoot! ;) |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:25:31 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Clear as mud? :-/ |
Whatever the outcome of this, thanks for sticking with it and not losing your temper as we all try to figure this out. My interest is theoretical at this point since I won't have a submission for tomorrow anyway. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:31:31 PM · #435 |
One of my original ideas was to set up across the parking lot of our hospital's emergency department, shooting the comings and goings of ambulances, etc. from a distance.
Am I right then, after reading Shannon's recap, that this wouldn't be acceptable, as it would show several individual series of motions?
It sounds, to me, that it's necessary that our subject be the object in motion, so that we can control that motion to a single series, rather than have our main subject something static with uncontrollable motion ocurring around it. Am I on the right track? I'm still reallllly confused :( |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:32:15 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by citymars:
thanks for sticking with it and not losing your temper as we all try to figure this out. |
I think my temper rolled under the couch a couple of days ago. Let me know if anyone finds it. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:34:25 PM · #437 |
| that Q&A was one of the clearest things on this post Shannon. Thanks. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:42:46 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
One of my original ideas was to set up across the parking lot of our hospital's emergency department, shooting the comings and goings of ambulances, etc. from a distance.
Am I right then, after reading Shannon's recap, that this wouldn't be acceptable, as it would show several individual series of motions? |
Personally, I think your idea sounds fine. My suggestions were a fairly narrow interpretation intended to help people avoid a DQ for something that might appear to be a composite of different "poses" rather than time lapse as intended. Since this is the first (and maybe last) time we've tried this, I don't have the benefit of prior decisions to say definitively what's legal or not. I can only offer one opinion. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 04:56:00 PM · #439 |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:02:13 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
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. |
As scarbrd mentioned earlier this is a HUGE shift by which the SC would validate. You are basically now making DNMC a DQable offense. Leave that up to the voters to determine. Don't DQ photos because you think it might have broken a rule. DQ a photo when the exif data or the editing steps/setup described strongly indicates that the shot was illegal. Anything short of that and reasonable doubt should prevail much like what happens with all of the self portrait shots that get validated which may or may not have been shot/setup by the photographer.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:02:39 PM · #441 |
OK gang, after I saw Roz's shot and the DQ rational going back and forth I decided to submit mine for validation. Today I received the response, not acceptable.
While I think this is a continuos motion, the SC did not.
I am posting this not to call out the SC but to show another example of something that wasn't even controversial in my mind, but did not fit the "spirit" of the challenge according to the powers that be.
Good luck everyone! |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:08:00 PM · #442 |
| OK how about "natural motion of an inanimate object or candid of human or animal in a linear natural motion". |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:15:29 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
OK how about "natural motion of an inanimate object or candid of human or animal in a linear natural motion". |
Or what about just that? To me Roz' shot screams linear to me. It even produces a vanishing point effect with the subject. What is to determine a linear path when the subject has arms and legs that may go back and forth left to side?
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:15:50 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fixedintime:
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. |
As scarbrd mentioned earlier this is a HUGE shift by which the SC would validate. You are basically now making DNMC a DQable offense. Leave that up to the voters to determine. Don't DQ photos because you think it might have broken a rule. DQ a photo when the exif data or the editing steps/setup described strongly indicates that the shot was illegal. Anything short of that and reasonable doubt should prevail much like what happens with all of the self portrait shots that get validated which may or may not have been shot/setup by the photographer. |
This is not a DNMC issue. Remember that under the new Advanced rules, time lapse is permitted for other than just the time lapse challenge.
Think of it more like the motion blur challenges we have had in the past. There are lots of ways a photographer might present motion blur to the viewer. One of them is to take a photograph of a stationary subject and add the motion blur in Photoshop. That method is not legal in Advanced. Such an entry would be DQd, not for DNMC, but for violating the editing rules regarding changing a typical viewer's description of the photograph.
Likewise, Time Lapse now exists in the Advanced rules, and can be used for things other than just the Time Lapse challenge. We are doing our best to set a standard that can be applied to these types of validations in general.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:22:31 PM · #445 |
| I toyed with just doing my shot in one exposure which would make moot all these "natural motion" disputes. People should be aware that such a thing is possible and to once again vote like it was legal. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:29:10 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
OK how about "natural motion of an inanimate object or candid of human or animal in a linear natural motion". |
Or what about just that? To me Roz' shot screams linear to me. It even produces a vanishing point effect with the subject. What is to determine a linear path when the subject has arms and legs that may go back and forth left to side? |
I've been thinking about this for a good part of the day. I've also looked at some of the examples posted here, as well as the ones we've received privately via tickets.
I'll stress that this is just one person's opinion, but I think I can boil down most of the difference between legal and not legal to the word "stop." There are possibly exceptions, especially with non-human subjects, but I think this guideline might cover most cases, at least in my mind.
If your subject does (or would normally) come to a full stop between frames in your subject, the entry is likely to be illegal by virtue of representing multiple activities and not be considered a time-lapse representation of a single activity. If you are representing a single, continuous motion (linear or otherwise), it is likely to be legal.
A good example is Roz's shot. Going through the timeline represented in the shot, the golfer is likely to walk up and bend down to set the tee. As they are setting the tee, there will be a brief stop before they reverse direction and get back up. They will again stop as they line up their target, again as they set their stance before swinging, and most likely at the top of their backswing. In my mind, at least, the photo therefore represents multiple motions, and is more analogous to a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" photo than to a traditional time lapse.
Just one person's view, for whatever it's worth.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:31:42 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I toyed with just doing my shot in one exposure which would make moot all these "natural motion" disputes. |
Yes but would it be a "linear" motion. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:32:27 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I toyed with just doing my shot in one exposure which would make moot all these "natural motion" disputes. |
Yes but would it be a "linear" motion. |
Who cares? There is nothing illegal about non-linear motion done in one exposure, say with strobes or a slot card. |
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:41:06 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fixedintime:
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. |
As scarbrd mentioned earlier this is a HUGE shift by which the SC would validate. You are basically now making DNMC a DQable offense. Leave that up to the voters to determine. Don't DQ photos because you think it might have broken a rule. DQ a photo when the exif data or the editing steps/setup described strongly indicates that the shot was illegal. Anything short of that and reasonable doubt should prevail much like what happens with all of the self portrait shots that get validated which may or may not have been shot/setup by the photographer. |
This is not a DNMC issue. Remember that under the new Advanced rules, time lapse is permitted for other than just the time lapse challenge.
Think of it more like the motion blur challenges we have had in the past. There are lots of ways a photographer might present motion blur to the viewer. One of them is to take a photograph of a stationary subject and add the motion blur in Photoshop. That method is not legal in Advanced. Such an entry would be DQd, not for DNMC, but for violating the editing rules regarding changing a typical viewer's description of the photograph.
Likewise, Time Lapse now exists in the Advanced rules, and can be used for things other than just the Time Lapse challenge. We are doing our best to set a standard that can be applied to these types of validations in general.
~Terry |
Ok. I just hope when this standard is finalized that it is based on facts and not assumptions. The way I see it, if you showed Roz's or David's shot to anybody on the street they would all say both subjects in the photos were depicting natural motions captured in sequence. Neither shot looks posed nor does it look like anything significant has been left out in the sequence of the shots. The only part that should be subjective here is what is deemed significant in the missing frames. I say anything that would change the perception of the viewer that has been ommited from the sequence would be significant and therefore DQable. If however the missing frames doesn't change the the viewer's perception (that is a golfer teeing off and a child running through a play area) then it should be legal.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 05:51:25 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
OK gang, after I saw Roz's shot and the DQ rational going back and forth I decided to submit mine for validation. Today I received the response, not acceptable.
While I think this is a continuos motion, the SC did not.
I am posting this not to call out the SC but to show another example of something that wasn't even controversial in my mind, but did not fit the "spirit" of the challenge according to the powers that be.
Good luck everyone! |
After seeing your shot I have pulled my image for the second time!! I will go back to the drawing board and see what I can come up with.
I might play it safe like the Doc and use a single exposure but I suppose some will say that is not in the "spirit" of the challenge. |
|
