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 151 - 175 of 541, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/31/2007 12:55:46 PM · #151
Originally posted by cloudsme:

I think what is sad is a certain type of photograph will have an unfair advantage over other types.


This is just nonsense to me. HDR is simply another tool to improve dynamic range of a photograph. Is this an "advantage?" Sure it is, just as much advantage as it is to have f1.4 glass over f5.6 glass. Maybe I should vote those images I feel were taken with better glass than I have low???

Originally posted by cloudsme:


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


I'd say just as good of chance as you do now. At least some here have done very well in open challenges with them.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/738/120/584617.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/738/120/584617.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 12:58:19.
12/31/2007 01:35:23 PM · #152
Originally posted by cloudsme:

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 basically 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?


I think this is really overreacting. There had long been an active cry to allow a truly photographic technique, HDRI, in the advanced ruleset. A lot of us use HDRI imaging extensively in our personal work, and it is in no way "contrary" to the spirit of single-image photography. And it's not just applicable to landscapes. Granted, wherever you have a moving subject HDRI is hard to do, but there's still the very attractive option of single-image HDR/tone mapping in those cases. A lot of successful portraits have been made in DPC using that approach. HDRI is also very appropriate for architectural work, urban cityscapes especially, and indeed anywhere there is an extreme tonal range to deal with.

We have had people using "quasi-HDR" on all these subjects for some time, and it's always been a little ludicrous that we have been forced to use less-than-optimum processing techniques because of an arbitrary rule. But even so, I don't see any of tjhe great images that were made without HDRI suddenly becoming less great just because this new tool is in the kit for those that need it.

R.
12/31/2007 01:39:20 PM · #153
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

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 basically 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?


I think this is really overreacting. There had long been an active cry to allow a truly photographic technique, HDRI, in the advanced ruleset. A lot of us use HDRI imaging extensively in our personal work, and it is in no way "contrary" to the spirit of single-image photography. And it's not just applicable to landscapes. Granted, wherever you have a moving subject HDRI is hard to do, but there's still the very attractive option of single-image HDR/tone mapping in those cases. A lot of successful portraits have been made in DPC using that approach. HDRI is also very appropriate for architectural work, urban cityscapes especially, and indeed anywhere there is an extreme tonal range to deal with.

We have had people using "quasi-HDR" on all these subjects for some time, and it's always been a little ludicrous that we have been forced to use less-than-optimum processing techniques because of an arbitrary rule. But even so, I don't see any of tjhe great images that were made without HDRI suddenly becoming less great just because this new tool is in the kit for those that need it.

R.


Well said, Robert! I agree completely with you. And for those that don't know how to do processing like this, the internet has loads of tutorials and helps on this stuff. Everything I do has been learned by reading and experimenting.
12/31/2007 01:47:54 PM · #154
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

in the kit for those that need it.

R.


No one needs it...but some want it...as I stated above somewhere I think it will give an unfair advantage to some. First - not everyone has the capability or the ability to do HDR of any form so those that have the software do have an advantage in that respect. Two - HDR produces images, if done correctly, that do stand out from the rest - the look, pop or wow factor, etc. so those without the capability or ability are at a disadvantage competing against those that do and use it.

I don't post that much but I do read the forums quite a bit and there were only a small handful of people consistently whining for the use of HDR. Sorry, I just don't see the need for it in challenges and if we have to have it it should be left at the EXPERT level.
12/31/2007 01:56:01 PM · #155
Originally posted by CEJ:


I don't post that much but I do read the forums quite a bit and there were only a small handful of people consistently whining for the use of HDR. Sorry, I just don't see the need for it in challenges and if we have to have it it should be left at the EXPERT level.


I never saw any "whining" for it's use. This whole "it gives an unfair advantage" BS is whining though and completely absurd. It's just a photographic tool that any and all of us have access to just as any and all of us have access to nice cameras, great glass, tripods, locations, etc...
12/31/2007 02:01:28 PM · #156
Originally posted by CEJ:

No one needs it...but some want it...as I stated above somewhere I think it will give an unfair advantage to some. First - not everyone has the capability or the ability to do HDR of any form so those that have the software do have an advantage in that respect. Two - HDR produces images, if done correctly, that do stand out from the rest - the look, pop or wow factor, etc. so those without the capability or ability are at a disadvantage competing against those that do and use it.


I think I can help you out there CEJ. I am still working with PS7, so no HDR capabilities unless I buy an expensive plug-in. SO I went searching. I now use fdrtools, which is freeware and does a fair decent job of it. It even has the ability to do HDR and tone mapping from a single photo. It does take a few hours of fiddling with it to get the hang of, but overall a great and FREE tool. Here's the link to their site.

Jack
12/31/2007 02:10:38 PM · #157
Originally posted by CEJ:

No one needs it...but some want it...as I stated above somewhere I think it will give an unfair advantage to some. First - not everyone has the capability or the ability to do HDR of any form so those that have the software do have an advantage in that respect.


"Ability" is irrelevant, unless you support the dumbing-down of the site to the least common denominator; anyone can learn to use it. "Capability" is almost irrelevant; as jaxter pointed out, there's at least one free HDR tool, and anyone who runs CS2 or 3 has HDR capability without paying anything extra. Granted, for those who use lower-end image processors it's more problematic, but CS2/3 has a LOT of stuff in the bag that you can't do as well with other image editors, so why single out HDR?

Originally posted by CEJ:

Two - HDR produces images, if done correctly, that do stand out from the rest - the look, pop or wow factor, etc. so those without the capability or ability are at a disadvantage competing against those that do and use it.


That's a fairly absurd statement; there are LOTS of techniques available to us that let us produce images that stand out from the rest, and anyone who doesn't take the time to learn/use these techniques is at a competitive disadvantage. So what else is new? Again, why single out HDRI?

Originally posted by CEJ:

I don't post that much but I do read the forums quite a bit and there were only a small handful of people consistently whining for the use of HDR. Sorry, I just don't see the need for it in challenges and if we have to have it it should be left at the EXPERT level.


Speaking in general, there's USUALLY only a "small handful" pushing for ANY change, and for that matter only a small handful opposing those changes. The number of folks who post regularly to the forums is just a tiny percentage of our total membership, and even of our active membership.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 14:11:18.
12/31/2007 02:12:41 PM · #158
Originally posted by CEJ:

...as I stated above somewhere I think it will give an unfair advantage to some. First - not everyone has the capability or the ability to do HDR of any form so those that have the software do have an advantage in that respect.

This has got to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen. An unfair advantage? Puh-lease! Even the most basic point and shoot cameras can be placed on a tripod and shot with different exposures, and there are free software tools available to process the results. Unfair advantages, if there is such a thing, are tools and techniques that AREN'T available to everyone, like insanely expensive f/1.2 lenses, incredible scenery or models at your disposal, full studio lighting equipment, and decades of experience. HDR is WAY down the list, and can even be a handicap if voters (like myself) don't really care for a cartoonish look. IMO the truest unfair advantage is having the imagination to make the best use of whatever tools are available to you.
12/31/2007 02:16:09 PM · #159
Shannon, I'm agreeing with everything you say today ?! Is that really you?

:)
12/31/2007 02:19:29 PM · #160
To clarify - I have HDR capability in my editor (single and multiple image) as well as Photomatix.
12/31/2007 02:19:55 PM · #161
Originally posted by hopper:

Is that really you?

No, the 'real' scalvert wears a jester hat! ;-P
12/31/2007 02:26:55 PM · #162
I don't want to speculate about how the rules developed, but I wonder if the time lapse portion was added as balance to the HDR/landscape photogs. While I can hardly imagine using time lapse to come up with an image on a regular basis (except this week), I could imagine the sports photog or even the studio/effects photog will like the possibilities. So the new rules have something for lots of people.
12/31/2007 02:30:17 PM · #163
FWIW, we considered just allowing a narrow range of specific techniques, but we kept coming up with things that didn't fit those boxes, yet seemed like they should be allowed. In the end, we decided on more generic language that includes a *lot* of things, and only excludes arbitrary composite images. This should be easier to adjudicate as well, but we'll take that one as it comes 8-o
12/31/2007 02:32:21 PM · #164
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't want to speculate about how the rules developed, but I wonder if the time lapse portion was added as balance to the HDR/landscape photogs. While I can hardly imagine using time lapse to come up with an image on a regular basis (except this week), I could imagine the sports photog or even the studio/effects photog will like the possibilities. So the new rules have something for lots of people.


It's my guess that the time-lapse component derives from a difficulty drawing up a rule that allows HDRI on other-than-landscape shots, or even landscape shots for that matter, where things are moving. For instance, if I shoot a seascape in true HDRI I have issues with the waves breaking differently in every shot. Since this has to be allowed for, there's a window opened up in there for not-quite-the-same exposures, and thus the time lapse element comes into play. It has to be allowed for HDRI work, and it was probably anticipated that some would see this as a loophole and start compositing (on purpose) images with moving subjects.

So, I am guessing, they decided to codify that aspect as well and put limits on what's allowed.

R.

ETA: Kirbic seems to be backing that up nicely :-)

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 14:32:59.
12/31/2007 03:05:29 PM · #165
A couple pages ago I suggested that for this time-lapse stuff SC might consider a moratorium on DQs being used for penalty time-outs. IN other words, if you get DQ'd for falling afoul of this new rule, it won't count as a DQ for the purpose of assessing suspensions for too many DQs in a specific time frame. There are going to be a lot of people trying to figure out how to work within this rule, all of them with the ebst of intentions, and SC has alreadys aid we'll have to see what shakes out and how it is judged as far as legality goes, so it's kind of an open book.

Any feedback on this possibility, SC?

R.
12/31/2007 03:14:28 PM · #166
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

A couple pages ago I suggested that for this time-lapse stuff SC might consider a moratorium on DQs being used for penalty time-outs. IN other words, if you get DQ'd for falling afoul of this new rule, it won't count as a DQ for the purpose of assessing suspensions for too many DQs in a specific time frame. There are going to be a lot of people trying to figure out how to work within this rule, all of them with the ebst of intentions, and SC has alreadys aid we'll have to see what shakes out and how it is judged as far as legality goes, so it's kind of an open book.

Any feedback on this possibility, SC?

R.


I thought somebody had answered, but I guess not. Anyway. We've always been quite lenient in these matters. In cases like this, where it's a new set of rules, we do not count disqualifications towards penalties. The images stay DQed, but there are no repercussion until the rules are better set down.

Hope this helps.
12/31/2007 03:15:40 PM · #167
Originally posted by ursula:

I thought somebody had answered, but I guess not. Anyway. We've always been quite lenient in these matters. In cases like this, where it's a new set of rules, we do not count disqualifications towards penalties. The images stay DQed, but there are no repercussion until the rules are better set down.

Hope this helps.


Exactly what I was looking for, thanks. Good call.

R.
12/31/2007 03:24:38 PM · #168
Gonna be an interesting week for the League of Death... :) Just the way I'd want it.
12/31/2007 04:03:58 PM · #169
From Rooster's locked thread, my reply to "what is a time lapse,"

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/721/120/579004.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/721/120/579004.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Using multiple photos to illustrate an event that occurs over a period of time. Read the comment on the photo for details.

12/31/2007 04:06:55 PM · #170
Originally posted by strangeghost:

From Rooster's locked thread, my reply to "what is a time lapse,"

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/721/120/579004.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/721/120/579004.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Using multiple photos to illustrate an event that occurs over a period of time. Read the comment on the photo for details.


If this thread is about the rule changes and that thread is about the Challenge of Time lapse shouldn't we have a separate thread?
12/31/2007 04:08:54 PM · #171
Originally posted by kirbic:

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.


But unless the photographer tells you they positioned the subject you wouldn't be able to tell this when validating unless it is incredibly obvious like that kiwiness shot at the church posted earlier. Wouldn't it just be easier to allow this sort of thing and save the headaches of having to figure out who is positioning and who isn't? Unless you limit the DQs to only the insanely obvious I can see people getting DQed who followed the rules and those who didn't getting validated since trying to figure out what the photographer did or didn't do before clicking the shutter would be based on mere guess work.

Message edited by author 2007-12-31 16:12:19.
12/31/2007 04:17:12 PM · #172
Originally posted by rex:

Originally posted by strangeghost:

From Rooster's locked thread, my reply to "what is a time lapse,"

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/721/120/579004.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/721/120/579004.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Using multiple photos to illustrate an event that occurs over a period of time. Read the comment on the photo for details.


If this thread is about the rule changes and that thread is about the Challenge of Time lapse shouldn't we have a separate thread?


Thanks! I was thinking the same thing.
12/31/2007 04:18:33 PM · #173
Originally posted by Rooster:


Thanks! I was thinking the same thing.


Well it looks like both of us would like to talk about the challenge at hand and not have to go through and read 5 pages of other shit to dicuss the topic.
12/31/2007 04:21:29 PM · #174
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) . '

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!!


Try a trained bird instead. :P
12/31/2007 04:30:45 PM · #175
I am not clear on if the new rules permit creating a panorama of a scene from multiple shots. That fits into the allowing of combining up to ten images. It does not really create a new scene- only expand the view of an existing scene. I am not adding something which is not already there. The panorama image could have been captured with a camera with a wide enough lens. I sometimes use a panorama to capture a shot I could not have otherwise gotten due to not having a wide enough angle lens with me. Thanks for a reply.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/19/2021 01:05:44 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: 01/19/2021 01:05:44 PM EST.