| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/12/2010 04:17:03 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) I cannot imagine that stacking star trails would get you DQ'd in advanced editing. |
It should be ok, if you stick to the 10 images limit that advanced allows you.
The only photo I did of star trails was with stacking (outside DPC, since it was composed by 200 x 30s photos).
Since I have a shutter cable, I just left in on lock, and put the camera in high-speed shooting, with 30s exposures.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 11:48:00 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) I cannot imagine that stacking star trails would get you DQ'd in advanced editing. |
Please see  GeneralE's post from yesterday. It *will* get you DQ'd. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 11:55:26 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) I cannot imagine that stacking star trails would get you DQ'd in advanced editing. |
Please see GeneralE's post from yesterday12/11/08. It *will* get you DQ'd. |
;) |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 01:08:38 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) I cannot imagine that stacking star trails would get you DQ'd in advanced editing. |
Please see GeneralE's post from yesterday. It *will* get you DQ'd. |
Was Paul speaking for himself or for the whole SC?
Interestingly, the stacking was originally thought of for use in astrophotography, but we all know that for that the mount actually moves the camera to track the sky. Wouldn't this run afoul of changing the composition if we are going to get nitpicky enough to say the stars are moving (but the camera isn't) for star trails? You can't follow the letter of the law in one application and the spirit of the law in another.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 01:12:03 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) I cannot imagine that stacking star trails would get you DQ'd in advanced editing. |
Please see GeneralE's post from yesterday. It *will* get you DQ'd. |
Was Paul speaking for himself or for the whole SC?
Interestingly, the stacking was originally thought of for use in astrophotography, but we all know that for that the mount actually moves the camera to track the sky. Wouldn't this run afoul of changing the composition if we are going to get nitpicky enough to say the stars are moving (but the camera isn't) for star trails? You can't follow the letter of the law in one application and the spirit of the law in another. |
At the best, if you tried it, you'd be getting somewhat of a split vote since Paul would vote to DQ you. If you want to risk a split vote...
I agree with what you're saying... as well as  kirbic. Attempting to stay in line with existing rules and not making special allowances makes this rule very muddled and inconsistent... |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 02:08:37 PM · #31 |
Damn, now I'm curious... GeneralE, can you possibly clear up the matter a bit by elaborating on your original post? Your original wording implied that stacking multiple photos of the SAME composition to achieve star trails isn't legal. That would of course be ridiculous since you can achieve the exact same effect in a film camera. I'm guessing you meant that grabbing star trails from a different composition and dropping it into another would be illegal (which would make total sense in Basic or Advanced Editing).
I had previously asked Site Council about combining 10 or less multiple light painting exposures of the same exact composition since only the light source itself moved. I was informed that this is legal in Advanced Editing.
My original inquiry:
"Site Council,
I had a question regarding Advanced Editing rules and thought I'd ask before submitting an entry tomorrow night. While I know we can combine up to 10 photos if the composition and objects therein don't change, can we still do so if the lighting itself changes? The reason I ask is because I have 8 frames of the same composition in which I light painted different parts of the scene (all objects that stay in the same place for each shot) and want to combine them using the blending mode of the layers set to Lighten. Is this still legal under Advanced Editing? Thanks!
Sean"
Site Council's reply:
"Sean,
So very sorry for the delayed response. This one got lost in the shuffle. The answer to your question is "yes for advanced" and "no for basic"
Hope that helps even at this late time.
Frisca"
Since this is the case, and stars are just points of light in the scene which move without influence of the photographer, wouldn't it then be legal to combine up to 10 exposures of the exact same composition? Clarification would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks, man! :) |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 02:40:24 PM · #32 |
The problem is that with the Earth's rotation, consectutive star trails shots are not "identical" to each other in composition. Imagine you have a really good camera and can capture not only star trails, but the big antenna tower in your shot. For shot #1, "Star A" is to the left of the tower. For shot #10, it is now to the right of the tower. If you stack all of those so that the tower images are superimposed, the same Star A will now appear on both sides of the tower, with a long streak arcing past it -- this is compositionally different from any of the source photos. That's what I'm saying is not legal.
If you took several consecutive pictures with nothing but star trails, and then stacked and shifted them so that all the trails line up on top of each other -- not next to each other -- it would be legal.
Basically, what you cannot do is piece together several images to get longer star trails than what you capture in any single exposure, somewhat similar to the ban on stitched panoramas ...
Hope that makes it clearer. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 03:43:36 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The problem is that with the Earth's rotation, consectutive star trails shots are not "identical" to each other in composition. Imagine you have a really good camera and can capture not only star trails, but the big antenna tower in your shot. For shot #1, "Star A" is to the left of the tower. For shot #10, it is now to the right of the tower. If you stack all of those so that the tower images are superimposed, the same Star A will now appear on both sides of the tower, with a long streak arcing past it -- this is compositionally different from any of the source photos. That's what I'm saying is not legal.
If you took several consecutive pictures with nothing but star trails, and then stacked and shifted them so that all the trails line up on top of each other -- not next to each other -- it would be legal.
Basically, what you cannot do is piece together several images to get longer star trails than what you capture in any single exposure, somewhat similar to the ban on stitched panoramas ...
Hope that makes it clearer. |
And is this your one vote on the SC or are you speaking for the SC as a whole? There's a difference.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 03:52:41 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Basically, what you cannot do is piece together several images to get longer star trails than what you capture in any single exposure, somewhat similar to the ban on stitched panoramas ...
Hope that makes it clearer. |
But we *can* take one photo of short star trails, and since some motion is present, we can "enhance" it in post, essentially create fake extensions of the trails, and this is legal. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that in this case the SC's interpretation of the rule just makes no sense.
Some of the most beautiful star trail shots incorporate foreground landscape elements (like your tower example). The composition of the foreground scene does not change, only the (natural) movement of the stars in the sky. I simply cannot see how allowing good practice (stacking shorter exposures) is contrary to the rule. The motion is there in all exposures, it's not like we are using the multiple exposures to duplicate objects.
Message edited by author 2010-05-12 15:57:04. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:00:27 PM · #35 |
| Perhaps related, if I was creating an HDR image of a landscape using multiple exposures and the clouds moved during my exposure, would that also be DQ'd? It seems that this would be the same situation as with the star trails. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:04:23 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... it's not like we are using the multiple exposures to duplicate objects. |
Sure, you're duplicating the star trails, "just as if" you cloned extensions onto them.
I'm speaking as to how I understand the situation -- I'm pretty sure there is at least a modicum of diversity of opinion among various SC members, and my DQ record should show I'm not always of the majority viewpoint, even when I'm right ... ;-)
What if I took a burst sequence through which a compact flock of birds flew in such a manner that, once I stacked the images, I now have a constant stream of birds traversing the entire frame? Wouldn't that both be "creating new objects" and "changing the typical viewer's description?" If the star trails are the subject, why should they not be considered similarly?
Can someone perhaps post images for comparison, perhaps the first frame and then the finished sequence? I have a feeling this would be clearer with pictures, but my drawing skills are why I use a camera ... |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:15:59 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Perhaps related, if I was creating an HDR image of a landscape using multiple exposures and the clouds moved during my exposure, would that also be DQ'd? It seems that this would be the same situation as with the star trails. |
Actually, I specifically asked this very question and was given the pass on this image:
The camera was not moved, but the clouds came from a shot perhaps 20 minutes (I'd have to check) after the shot that comprises the rest of the picture. I just happened to like that one the best.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:18:56 PM · #38 |
A hypothetical situation:
Photographer 1 takes picture of night sky. Photog 1 takes 1 image of 60 minutes. The image contains star trails of 10X length and the image also contains some portion of the skyline including trees etc..
Photographer 2 takes picture of night sky at exactly time, location and same position as Photographer 2. Photog 2 takes 10 images of 6 minutes in immediate succession for a total exposure of 60 minutes. The individual images contain star trails of X length and the skyline including trees etc. In post processing, Photog 2 'stitches together' the 10 star trails from the 10 images to create star trails of the same length as those taken by Photog 1.
The major difference, Photog 2 has a combined photo that is low in noise. Photog 2 has a single image that has lots of sensor noise due to the long exposure.
GeneralE - This is where we are all confused. We are not trying to 'trick someone'. We are trying to remove the limitations of the equipment we have at our disposal to improve the quality of the images. Stiching together multiple star trail images allows us to do (good night sky with low noise) what a single capture cannot.
Message edited by author 2010-05-12 16:23:06. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:21:00 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Perhaps related, if I was creating an HDR image of a landscape using multiple exposures and the clouds moved during my exposure, would that also be DQ'd? It seems that this would be the same situation as with the star trails. |
Actually, I specifically asked this very question and was given the pass on this image:
The camera was not moved, but the clouds came from a shot perhaps 20 minutes (I'd have to check) after the shot that comprises the rest of the picture. I just happened to like that one the best. |
So that was just one of the frames that you used for the clouds then? I'm thinking of something more akin to the star trails where I can achieve an even more pronounced sense of movement by using the clouds in all of my frames. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:22:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Perhaps related, if I was creating an HDR image of a landscape using multiple exposures and the clouds moved during my exposure, would that also be DQ'd? It seems that this would be the same situation as with the star trails. |
Actually, I specifically asked this very question and was given the pass on this image:
The camera was not moved, but the clouds came from a shot perhaps 20 minutes (I'd have to check) after the shot that comprises the rest of the picture. I just happened to like that one the best. |
So that was just one of the frames that you used for the clouds then? I'm thinking of something more akin to the star trails where I can achieve an even more pronounced sense of movement by using the clouds in all of my frames. |
Yes, the sky is all one frame.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:24:13 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
GeneralE - This is where we are all confused. We are not trying to 'trick someone'. We are trying to remove the limitations of the equipment we have at our disposal to improve the quality of the images. Stiching together multiple star trail images allows us to do (good night sky with low noise) what a single capture cannot. |
Exactly! What are you gaining other than a lowering of noise between the two methods?
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:39:49 PM · #42 |
If stacking stars is legal, then the rainbow created by stacking exposures of distant balloons, moving across the sky, has to be legal. Or the pattern created by leaves blowing across the landsape, etc...
There is no rule you can write that would exclude everything except stars. Star trails would have to be explicitly added in the rules.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:50:47 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
If stacking stars is legal, then the rainbow created by stacking exposures of distant balloons, moving across the sky, has to be legal. Or the pattern created by leaves blowing across the landsape, etc...
There is no rule you can write that would exclude everything except stars. Star trails would have to be explicitly added in the rules. |
My impression of the rule was that it was originally meant to stop people from duplicating elements in the image - like the shots where there would be 10 copies of the same person in different poses in the frame. I would think you could write the rule in such a way as to allow for the creation of new elements so long as they show a fluid and continuous movement. This would allow star trails, fluid clouds, and your balloon rainbow example, but would disallow the 10 duplicate models.
ETA: Now that I think about it, wasn't that originally included in the rule but was then removed because of some ambiguity in how it could be interpreted? Does anyone else remember this?
Message edited by author 2010-05-12 16:51:55. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:51:33 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
If stacking stars is legal, then the rainbow created by stacking exposures of distant balloons, moving across the sky, has to be legal. Or the pattern created by leaves blowing across the landsape, etc...
There is no rule you can write that would exclude everything except stars. Star trails would have to be explicitly added in the rules. |
Can you get the balloons or whatever to show up clearly only with an alteration of the blending mode? or would they appear "see through"? You can do that with star trails.
No selections were made in this picture which is three 10 minute exposures stacked. It would be "basic legal" other than changing the blending mode.
Message edited by author 2010-05-12 16:54:00.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 04:55:05 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
If stacking stars is legal, then the rainbow created by stacking exposures of distant balloons, moving across the sky, has to be legal. Or the pattern created by leaves blowing across the landsape, etc...
There is no rule you can write that would exclude everything except stars. Star trails would have to be explicitly added in the rules. |
No, not at all. It's common-sense application of the rules. If the same result can be obtained by stacking multiple exposures as with long exposure, then either path to the result should be acceptable. Advanced is supposed to be results-based, not methods-based.
think about the difference between
1.) Capturing an image of something multiple times as it moves through a scene (effectively duplicating it)
2.) Splitting up the fluid motion of something into separate exposures, then recombining
Case 1 cannot be duplicated by one long exposure, but (2) is a completely different animal. So the simple test is, "can I obtain the same result using one long exposure?" If the answer is "yes" then the shot should be legal. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:05:27 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
If stacking stars is legal, then the rainbow created by stacking exposures of distant balloons, moving across the sky, has to be legal. Or the pattern created by leaves blowing across the landsape, etc...
There is no rule you can write that would exclude everything except stars. Star trails would have to be explicitly added in the rules. |
No, not at all. It's common-sense application of the rules. If the same result can be obtained by stacking multiple exposures as with long exposure, then either path to the result should be acceptable. Advanced is supposed to be results-based, not methods-based.
think about the difference between
1.) Capturing an image of something multiple times as it moves through a scene (effectively duplicating it)
2.) Splitting up the fluid motion of something into separate exposures, then recombining
Case 1 cannot be duplicated by one long exposure, but (2) is a completely different animal. So the simple test is, "can I obtain the same result using one long exposure?" If the answer is "yes" then the shot should be legal. |
The rainbow created by the stacked balloons would be the same as a long exposure using multiple ND filters. Same with moving leaves. Clouds. Birds. Anything Moving. It would be a fluid, not multiple, exposure.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:08:55 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you get the balloons or whatever to show up clearly only with an alteration of the blending mode? |
Of course. Any color except blue. Wouldn't even need to change the blending mode. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:15:40 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
If stacking stars is legal, then the rainbow created by stacking exposures of distant balloons, moving across the sky, has to be legal. Or the pattern created by leaves blowing across the landsape, etc...
There is no rule you can write that would exclude everything except stars. Star trails would have to be explicitly added in the rules. |
No, not at all. It's common-sense application of the rules. If the same result can be obtained by stacking multiple exposures as with long exposure, then either path to the result should be acceptable. Advanced is supposed to be results-based, not methods-based.
think about the difference between
1.) Capturing an image of something multiple times as it moves through a scene (effectively duplicating it)
2.) Splitting up the fluid motion of something into separate exposures, then recombining
Case 1 cannot be duplicated by one long exposure, but (2) is a completely different animal. So the simple test is, "can I obtain the same result using one long exposure?" If the answer is "yes" then the shot should be legal. |
I agree. Any chance SC could actually get together and develop an opinion as a group on this? It's pretty much that, or someone just does it and freely admits to it - thereby forcing SC to rule on the matter.. Really seems that it would be much better if SC would provide an official ruling on this - clearly there is a reasonable contingent that thinks it would be a good thing.
Personally, I rather like the current rule, as I've gotten pretty good at single exposure star trails... |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:18:26 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you get the balloons or whatever to show up clearly only with an alteration of the blending mode? |
Of course. Any color except blue. Wouldn't even need to change the blending mode. |
I should have included "without making a selection".
Kirbic's rule would be better. If the image looks the same as it would if you took one long exposure, then I think it should fly.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:20:33 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
The rainbow created by the stacked balloons would be the same as a long exposure using multiple ND filters. Same with moving leaves. Clouds. Birds. Anything Moving. It would be a fluid, not multiple, exposure. |
I understand your thought line now... I would maintain that both of your examples should be deemed legal, if there is no difference between the result with stacked exposures and a single exposure of the same total length.
Now, that said, it's going to be damn difficult to achieve with something that moves as fast as a bird. There will be some gap in time between the end of one exposure and the beginning of the next.
A bit of extended discussion on this... your balloon example is a really good one. Breaking up the exposure is probably the only reasonable way to avoid over-exposing a shot like this, even with an industrial-strength ND filter. Mid-day, the longest exposure I can do with a 10-stop filter in place is a few seconds. At daybreak or sunset, I might be able to get a single exposure of a few tens of seconds. |
|
