DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Site Updates and Advanced Editing
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 541, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/31/2007 08:53:20 AM · #126
Originally posted by marbo:

Originally posted by biteme:

Can someone post an example of "Time lapse"?

I really have no clue what it means.


There are no examples as it has never been done :-)

It should be re-named multiple exposures or long exposures.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Here's one taken in the back yard just today - I used 5 shots out of the 350 I fired at. The hit rate is LOW!!
12/31/2007 09:00:14 AM · #127
720x720 //
IMO it should be horiz+vertical <= 1440 ( vert. has a maximum of 720)
that way we can still have 360x1080 ;)
I.E. 320x933
edit2:vert not horz max....

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 11:16:43.
12/31/2007 09:13:24 AM · #128
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/363/120/210638.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/363/120/210638.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Ok, with the question of multiple selves in a picture - stated above it is not legal. Using multiple images to create them I can agree with not being legal as the rules are now written. But what about multiples created with only ONE image as the one above. This was shot with the shutter only being fired once but the flash being fired three times. Is this type of image still legal?
12/31/2007 09:21:07 AM · #129
How is this different from a subject being posed multiple times? If you waited long enough between shots, the bird could be shown in 2 different places on the branch and on the perch ... appearing as 3 birds ... which is not legal, right?

Originally posted by Falc:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
12/31/2007 09:22:55 AM · #130
Originally posted by hopper:

How is this different from a subject being posed multiple times? If you waited long enough between shots, the bird could be shown in 2 different places on the branch and on the perch ... appearing as 3 birds ... which is not legal, right?

Originally posted by Falc:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


I have no idea to be honest - this is my way of testing the interpretation.
SC ..... do you have a view?
12/31/2007 09:27:23 AM · #131
Originally posted by Mambe:

Hi !

Except the new size , it all sounds very caotic for me...
Sorry but I still don't understand why this is not allowed ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/683/120/517082.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/683/120/517082.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' , is it because the selective desat or because something else ?



They used software to create shapes (the roller strokes) that weren't there in the original.
12/31/2007 09:40:29 AM · #132
Originally posted by hopper:

How is this different from a subject being posed multiple times? If you waited long enough between shots, the bird could be shown in 2 different places on the branch and on the perch ... appearing as 3 birds ... which is not legal, right?

Originally posted by Falc:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I don't think this would fly as legal (no pun intended). I think this example would be considered multiple subjects.

My understanding of the multiple image use is to
Originally posted by Langdon:

"allow for things like true HDR, noise reduction, and time-lapse photography".


But then again, a traditional use of time-lapse photography is to show the blooming of a flower, or the rise of a mushroom, etc...same subject in mulitple positions. If it's the same bird...???

12/31/2007 09:41:38 AM · #133
Originally posted by CEJ:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/363/120/210638.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/363/120/210638.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Ok, with the question of multiple selves in a picture - stated above it is not legal. Using multiple images to create them I can agree with not being legal as the rules are now written. But what about multiples created with only ONE image as the one above. This was shot with the shutter only being fired once but the flash being fired three times. Is this type of image still legal?


The key to this shot is "This was shot with the shutter only being fired once"...should be legal even in basic editing.
12/31/2007 10:17:04 AM · #134
i really like love it that we are emailed
comments now, thanks langdon!
12/31/2007 10:49:10 AM · #135
Originally posted by Falc:

Originally posted by hopper:

How is this different from a subject being posed multiple times? If you waited long enough between shots, the bird could be shown in 2 different places on the branch and on the perch ... appearing as 3 birds ... which is not legal, right?

Originally posted by Falc:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/5354/120/627643.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


I have no idea to be honest - this is my way of testing the interpretation.
SC ..... do you have a view?


One person's view, and not a consensus, so take it for what it's worth... I believe this one would be legal. You didn't coach the bird ;-) and you've shown the progression of motion from the branch to the perch.
12/31/2007 10:55:56 AM · #136
Originally posted by kirbic:



One person's view, and not a consensus, so take it for what it's worth... I believe this one would be legal. You didn't coach the bird ;-) and you've shown the progression of motion from the branch to the perch.


Feels a little 'loose' to be perfectly frank !!
12/31/2007 11:00:46 AM · #137
Originally posted by Falc:

Originally posted by kirbic:



One person's view, and not a consensus, so take it for what it's worth... I believe this one would be legal. You didn't coach the bird ;-) and you've shown the progression of motion from the branch to the perch.


Feels a little 'loose' to be perfectly frank !!


And perhaps it is. It's something that we'll have to build consensus on over the coming weeks. It certainly could be argued that your (arbitrary) choice of the frame with the bird on the lower branch takes it away from time lapse and into "multiple subject" but one could just as easily argue that it meets the spirit of the rule. We'll see. I'm sure this area of the rule will be tested.
12/31/2007 11:02:16 AM · #138
This is simple enough but still gonna cause some pain for some... for a while ;) As long as SC's can handle the heat, with a couple of challenges, people should get the idea and have some winning samples :)
12/31/2007 11:22:16 AM · #139
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Falc:

Originally posted by kirbic:



One person's view, and not a consensus, so take it for what it's worth... I believe this one would be legal. You didn't coach the bird ;-) and you've shown the progression of motion from the branch to the perch.


Feels a little 'loose' to be perfectly frank !!


And perhaps it is. It's something that we'll have to build consensus on over the coming weeks. It certainly could be argued that your (arbitrary) choice of the frame with the bird on the lower branch takes it away from time lapse and into "multiple subject" but one could just as easily argue that it meets the spirit of the rule. We'll see. I'm sure this area of the rule will be tested.


So is the intention really to simply allow HDTR style images
12/31/2007 11:24:43 AM · #140
Originally posted by cloudsme:

And where did this come from? No one was clammoring for this sort of change. It was fine for expert editing...I for the most part just skip those challenges. No vote on this prior to the change, no discussion.

My only recourse will be to vote any photo I think uses hdr a low score.


Speak for yourself. I was one of, and not the only one, "clamoring" for HDR in the advanced rule set. Also, the way you vote is entirely your prerogative, however voting an image low simply because we used something that is perfectly legal according to the rule set is pretty sad.
12/31/2007 11:35:19 AM · #141
Originally posted by Falc:

So is the intention really to simply allow HDTR style images


Oh no, not at all. What the intent is, is to exclude arbitrary composites, where the photographer chooses subject positions. If you're recording the natural progression of a subject's (or subjects') motion, then you're OK, and if you choose the positions where the subject will appear, regardless of a timeline, then you're not OK. Examples of shots that would be legal:
- HDTR shots
- Star trail shots constructed from multiple frames
- Shot of a child progressing down a slide or on a swing
We recognize that there is some grey area, and we'll need to build consensus on where that line is. The language of the rules *may* have to be tweaked, depending on how things go in the following weeks.
12/31/2007 11:41:48 AM · #142
thanks for stepping up, kirbic, i understand now

:)
12/31/2007 12:03:28 PM · #143
Originally posted by cloudsme:



My only recourse will be to vote any photo I think uses hdr a low score.


I've heard of people voting images low because they think the shot violates a rule but I gotta say that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say they're voting someone low for following the rules.
12/31/2007 12:11:19 PM · #144
Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by cloudsme:



My only recourse will be to vote any photo I think uses hdr a low score.


I've heard of people voting images low because they think the shot violates a rule but I gotta say that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say they're voting someone low for following the rules.

It's happened before in the expert editing ruleset.
12/31/2007 12:17:21 PM · #145
Originally posted by timfythetoo:

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by cloudsme:



My only recourse will be to vote any photo I think uses hdr a low score.


I've heard of people voting images low because they think the shot violates a rule but I gotta say that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say they're voting someone low for following the rules.

It's happened before in the expert editing ruleset.


That's because the expert ruleset explicitly encourages people to vote down images that the voter feels are no longer photographic in nature. There's no such question here.

Cloudsme, I suggest voting on whether you like an image, not on how you think it was done. If you don't like the HDR look, vote it low (I happen to not like heavy-handed, cartoonish contrast myself). But don't vote low on images you *think* were made that way but that you would otherwise vote higher.

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 12:19:38.
12/31/2007 12:20:12 PM · #146
I'm so happy I could cry.
12/31/2007 12:23:11 PM · #147
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Well, that's definitely legal, a static subject. No problem. But there IS a gray area because they are allowing time-lapse photography, and they are saying it is only allowed if the movement represents a natural, sequential progression. So this shot's no good, because you arbitrarily posed the kid in several places. But if he'd been, say, sliding down a slide and you froze him in several places with a burst exposure, then combined them all, that's acceptable apparently.


Thanks - been trying to work it out from reading the tread but this turned the light on for me.

I was thinking of trying to reshoot my Self Portrait entry under the new rules:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/780/120/619534.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/780/120/619534.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

However, if I'm getting this all correctly...if my motion between the three heads is natural (e.g. the change of an expression from sad to happy) then it's okay to combine multiple exposures with selective erasing, but if they're unnaturally placed or not representing movement/time lapsing then it's not okay. So shooting this particular photo identically would be wrong, but if I change it to an expression change then I'm okay... does this sound right?!

cheers

N
12/31/2007 12:23:14 PM · #148
Originally posted by jhonan:

I'm so happy I could cry.

There there.

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 12:23:33.
12/31/2007 12:41:04 PM · #149
Originally posted by LanceW:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

And where did this come from? No one was clammoring for this sort of change. It was fine for expert editing...I for the most part just skip those challenges. No vote on this prior to the change, no discussion.

My only recourse will be to vote any photo I think uses hdr a low score.


Speak for yourself. I was one of, and not the only one, "clamoring" for HDR in the advanced rule set. Also, the way you vote is entirely your prerogative, however voting an image low simply because we used something that is perfectly legal according to the rule set is pretty sad.


I read the forums regularly but I could have missed it. I think what is sad is a certain type of photograph will have an unfair advantage over other types. It seems to me that this multiple photograph rule is basicly intended for HDR. The restrictions on the use of multiple photographs doesn't allow it to be useful for much else. I don't see why landscapes should have an advantage over other types of photographs, especially since they do rather well to begin with. What chance will you have in an open challenge with a portrait?
12/31/2007 12:43:17 PM · #150
Originally posted by cloudsme:

What chance will you have in an open challenge with a portrait?


What chance do you have now? A long exposure sunset over water will always beat a portrait. HDR won't likely change that.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/25/2021 06:31:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/25/2021 06:31:59 PM EST.