| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2008 09:52:04 AM · #1 |
After reading most of the posts when the moderators decided to allow time lapse into DPC, I thought that most people might understand the rules. The current challenge undergoing voting "Time Lapse" seems to have completely forgone all of the suggestions/rules that the moderators put in place.
"combine captures of different scenes, or combine different subjects to create a new scene. The allowance for “natural subject motion” above is intended to permit time-lapse photography."
Most of the entries have subjects that were placed in the scene. That wasn't intended was it?
I feel like this rule along with the HDR addition should be in a completely different category.
Any thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 10:31:34 AM · #2 |
it's gonna be hard to discuss this while voting for the challenge is going on ... no specifics may be discussed at this time.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 11:12:11 AM · #3 |
It is evident that some photographers mistakenly interpreted "Time Lapse" as long exposure.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 11:54:27 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
It is evident that some photographers mistakenly interpreted "Time Lapse" as long exposure. |
We shouldn't be discussing this until voting is over. I don't have an entry in, so have no personal axe to grind, but I do believe you are wrong (with one possible exception) in your surmising. I believe this thread should be suspended until the end of voting and then we shall find out. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 12:04:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
It is evident that some photographers mistakenly interpreted "Time Lapse" as long exposure. |
No, they combined multiple images over time. For example, showing day going into night. You can't have daylight going into night in one exposure.
This was one of the specific examples discussed in the rules thread.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 09:42:18 PM · #6 |
So now that the challenge is complete, I think it's time to discuss again what the site council really meant about time lapse photos. I for one, have been under the impression that the artificial introduction of a subject to a photo is what the site council was trying to steer people away from. More along the lines of something like a rose slowly wilting over time.
To lump the advanced editing with this and HDR seems like a major hit on the people that are using the site for pure photography with basic editing skills. Like most of us here I would guess... Can we somehow split it up into yet more categories? |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:07:35 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by chefsam:
... Can we somehow split it up into yet more categories? |
We just did, by removing this type of editing from the latest version of the rules. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:43:29 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by chefsam:
... Can we somehow split it up into yet more categories? |
We just did, by removing this type of editing from the latest version of the rules. |
Errr ... but my shot would still be legal, right? Combining multiple exposures with exactly the same framing? BTW, Les, you can't do what I did in a single long exposure without some pretty fancy moving of masks around during a bulb exposure.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 02:16:26 PM · #9 |
Never mind. I see Falc asked the same question in the rules change thread and SC members are discussing it. They'll post answers over there.
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 14:51:00.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 06:12:41 PM EDT.
