| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/12/2010 05:26:08 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
I agree. I'll be the first to take a photo of the fluid trail left by the worm crawling out of the can :) |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:29:14 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
I have some slow chickens... |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:31:59 PM · #53 |
First, let me be clear that I actually don't support either train of thought, as I will try to do something regardless of being legal one thing or the other.
Having said that, we can't just say that if we get the same results the means at to which we achieve those results should be both legal.
In the recent challenge (Double Exposure), everybody had to do the shot with one exposure, getting the exact same results as they would get using two exposures. So result is identical, but the way to get there is not.
I actually agree that stacking star trails is not significantly changing the viewers conscience :)
Message edited by author 2010-05-12 17:32:33.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 06:08:04 PM · #54 |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 06:52:51 PM · #55 |
If I followed the hypothetical balloon in my camera to keep it in the same spot, could I stack those images?
|
|
|
|
05/12/2010 07:39:41 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Compare with these exposures which have been aligned and stacked to improve the dynamic range, in the intended fashion of HDR:...
IMO the latter conforms more closely to the rules as written, and is enforceable with far less subjectivity required on the part of the SC members voting on the validation. |
Well, Paul, here's my challenge to you: go out and shoot your hypothetical source images for your "this is what should be legal" demo? How would you propose to do this? Shoot 8 shots on consecutive nights at exactly the same time? 8 cameras? If you think about it a little you'll realize that you can't roll back time after each exposure to get the same trail position in each shot. So your suggestion that noise reduction is the only technical benefit or valid reason to stack this kind of shot is really not accurate.
Message edited by author 2010-05-12 19:40:10. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 08:33:49 PM · #57 |
I *believe* in astrophotography it's done by having the camera track the stars to that the stacked images are in the same relative position in the frame -- foreground objects are not a factor. However, the stars/trails *should* stay in the same relative position to each other, so yes, you should be able to reposition exposures over each other to merge for tone/noise modification only. Such superimposition is/was the basis for many discoveries of non-stellar objects -- the name the technique for flicking back and forth between the two images to spot the blinking of the one object which has moved escapes me for the moment.
I just don't think assembling a series of short star trails into one long continuous trail falls within either the letter or spirit of the Advanced rules as they are written, and it would be an unenforcable mess (c.f. my earlier example with birds) if allowed. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 10:28:28 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...it would be an unenforcable mess...if allowed. |
And that's different from the status quo...how? ;P |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 11:32:29 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I *believe* in astrophotography it's done by having the camera track the stars to that the stacked images are in the same relative position in the frame -- foreground objects are not a factor. However, the stars/trails *should* stay in the same relative position to each other, so yes, you should be able to reposition exposures over each other to merge for tone/noise modification only. Such superimposition is/was the basis for many discoveries of non-stellar objects -- the name the technique for flicking back and forth between the two images to spot the blinking of the one object which has moved escapes me for the moment.
I just don't think assembling a series of short star trails into one long continuous trail falls within either the letter or spirit of the Advanced rules as they are written, and it would be an unenforcable mess (c.f. my earlier example with birds) if allowed. |
You are confusing astrophotography, where the objective is to keep the stars stationary, and star trail photography, which depends for its effect on the motion of the stars. The two are entirely different techniques. In the former, any foreground objects will be blurred as the camera rotates relative to them. In the latter, the foreground scene remains constant while the sky rotates, creating trails. If we were to follow your proposed example, the tower would wind up in different places/rotations in each image. You'd need to counter-rotate the foreground scene differently in each image while leaving the sky alone, something which is *certainly* not in the spirit of the rules.
The fact is there is a dead easy test as to whether stacking for exposure control (long exposure daylight shots) or for exposure time extension (night shots) was the purpose. If you could obtain the same result with a single long exposure of equal total length, then there should be no reason at all the split-up exposures should not be legal. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 11:34:45 PM · #60 |
"create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" seems to be the offending clause. I would argue (as shown in Paul's exhibit) the composition in each frame does indeed change - if the moving subject is included as part of the scene.
I would DQ star trails under the present wording, but would love to see Fritz's "unless it can be accomplished with a long exposure" clause amended to the rule. Although, the doors opened with such a rule would not make SC's job any easier.
Interesting... |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 01:37:14 AM · #61 |
I have loved reading this thread and it inspired me to go on a shoot tonight.
Went to the local marina:
perfect weather
water like glass
lots of ambient light
blue ribbon for sure
Scout location 20 min
Set up aperture, ISO, Shutter speed. 15 min
5 min exposure only to realize my memory card in is in my computer..........priceless....
Message edited by author 2010-05-13 01:37:34. |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 01:40:55 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by PixelKing:
I have loved reading this thread and it inspired me to go on a shoot tonight.
Went to the local marina:
perfect weather
water like glass
lots of ambient light
blue ribbon for sure
Scout location 20 min
Set up aperture, ISO, Shutter speed. 15 min
5 min exposure only to realize my memory card in is in my computer..........priceless.... |
OUCH!
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 01:41:21 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
"create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" seems to be the offending clause. I would argue (as shown in Paul's exhibit) the composition in each frame does indeed change - if the moving subject is included as part of the scene.
I would DQ star trails under the present wording, but would love to see Fritz's "unless it can be accomplished with a long exposure" clause amended to the rule. Although, the doors opened with such a rule would not make SC's job any easier.
Interesting... |
That doesn't make sense to me, actually. By that standard, HDR with moving clouds would be illegal. Or ripples on a lake. I take "composition" and "framing" to be just that, the overall parameters of the image and not otherwise-moving components within it. But obviously that's not flying with regard to star trails, and I'm confused by the logic.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 04:25:36 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
"create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" seems to be the offending clause. I would argue (as shown in Paul's exhibit) the composition in each frame does indeed change - if the moving subject is included as part of the scene.
I would DQ star trails under the present wording, but would love to see Fritz's "unless it can be accomplished with a long exposure" clause amended to the rule. Although, the doors opened with such a rule would not make SC's job any easier.
Interesting... |
That doesn't make sense to me, actually. By that standard, HDR with moving clouds would be illegal. Or ripples on a lake. I take "composition" and "framing" to be just that, the overall parameters of the image and not otherwise-moving components within it. But obviously that's not flying with regard to star trails, and I'm confused by the logic.
R. |
^--- I'm in this boat..
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 03:43:18 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
"create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" seems to be the offending clause. I would argue (as shown in Paul's exhibit) the composition in each frame does indeed change - if the moving subject is included as part of the scene.
I would DQ star trails under the present wording, but would love to see Fritz's "unless it can be accomplished with a long exposure" clause amended to the rule. Although, the doors opened with such a rule would not make SC's job any easier.
Interesting... |
That doesn't make sense to me, actually. By that standard, HDR with moving clouds would be illegal. Or ripples on a lake. I take "composition" and "framing" to be just that, the overall parameters of the image and not otherwise-moving components within it. But obviously that's not flying with regard to star trails, and I'm confused by the logic.
R. |
Robert, I hope the majority of the SC sees it the way you do and not the way I interpret it. It would open up some interesting opportunities...
Is the SC going to rule on this, or is there already a stated policy in place? |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 04:34:22 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Is the SC going to rule on this, or is there already a stated policy in place? |
I think there is what amounts to a policy in place, however like Robert and yourself, I do hope it gets reviewed. As a participant in the original SC discussions about this, I don't really hold out much hope to change minds, but we can try. We just need to present factual information in a rational manner, and hope for the best.
FWIW, I think that if one searches through the validated HDR shots, one will find plenty of support for the idea that some motion is being allowed (e.g. clouds). |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 04:43:09 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
"create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" seems to be the offending clause. I would argue (as shown in Paul's exhibit) the composition in each frame does indeed change - if the moving subject is included as part of the scene.
I would DQ star trails under the present wording, but would love to see Fritz's "unless it can be accomplished with a long exposure" clause amended to the rule. Although, the doors opened with such a rule would not make SC's job any easier.
Interesting... |
That doesn't make sense to me, actually. By that standard, HDR with moving clouds would be illegal. Or ripples on a lake. I take "composition" and "framing" to be just that, the overall parameters of the image and not otherwise-moving components within it. But obviously that's not flying with regard to star trails, and I'm confused by the logic.
R. |
^--- I'm in this boat.. |
As am I... |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 06:33:34 PM · #68 |
woh, this thread has grown exponentially since i checked it yesterday! thank you everyone for the responses, ill try a photo tonight. thanks for the reminder on Mirror lockup, whoever mentioned it. and i have a stupid remote shuter clicker(it only works from like 5 inches away) and may need new batteries, but ill try and use it too. ill read the rest of the thread as well lol
and its not necessarily for DPC so the legality doesnt matter but thanks everyone for covering that area as well:) |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 06:41:35 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by LadyK:
and its not necessarily for DPC so the legality doesnt matter but thanks everyone for covering that area as well:) |
What?? There's life outside DPC?? Thanks for the reminder Katherine! |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 06:52:48 PM · #70 |
Moving clouds don't link up like a series of individual rail cars to form a picture of a train. I'm pretty sure that when you blend a series of pictures of moving clouds you get a composite which "looks like clouds" but not exactly the same as any of the source images. They don't form a "new shape" in nearly the same way as the star trails.
I'm just saying how I think the rule is now. No one is stopping anyone from posting a suggested new wording, which might be more helpful than just complaining about the current, obviously clarity-deficient rule ... |
|
|
|
05/13/2010 07:04:10 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Moving clouds don't link up like a series of individual rail cars to form a picture of a train. I'm pretty sure that when you blend a series of pictures of moving clouds you get a composite which "looks like clouds" but not exactly the same as any of the source images. They don't form a "new shape" in nearly the same way as the star trails.
I'm just saying how I think the rule is now. No one is stopping anyone from posting a suggested new wording, which might be more helpful than just complaining about the current, obviously clarity-deficient rule ... |
So just to be clear. Are you saying that if you stacked all these images on top of one another the clouds would not "form a new shape" or would do so in some fundamentally different way than star trails?
For the record I think that idea is silly.
Message edited by author 2010-05-13 19:05:19.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 08:06:43 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Moving clouds don't link up like a series of individual rail cars to form a picture of a train. I'm pretty sure that when you blend a series of pictures of moving clouds you get a composite which "looks like clouds" but not exactly the same as any of the source images. They don't form a "new shape" in nearly the same way as the star trails. |
You obviously haven't tried this, have you?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm just saying how I think the rule is now. No one is stopping anyone from posting a suggested new wording, which might be more helpful than just complaining about the current, obviously clarity-deficient rule ... |
Paul, if you read my earlier posts, you'll realize that I *have* proposed a more logical way to interpret the rule. |
|
|
|
05/14/2010 02:41:50 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Moving clouds don't link up like a series of individual rail cars to form a picture of a train. I'm pretty sure that when you blend a series of pictures of moving clouds you get a composite which "looks like clouds" but not exactly the same as any of the source images. They don't form a "new shape" in nearly the same way as the star trails.
I'm just saying how I think the rule is now. No one is stopping anyone from posting a suggested new wording, which might be more helpful than just complaining about the current, obviously clarity-deficient rule ... |
Here you go:
You must:
* create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.
You may:
* split a long exposure into shorter consecutive exposures if you could obtain the same result with a single long exposure of equal total length.
This can obviously be refined, but gives us a starting point. Thoughts everyone? |
|
|
|
05/14/2010 02:57:25 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by cutlassdude70:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Moving clouds don't link up like a series of individual rail cars to form a picture of a train. I'm pretty sure that when you blend a series of pictures of moving clouds you get a composite which "looks like clouds" but not exactly the same as any of the source images. They don't form a "new shape" in nearly the same way as the star trails.
I'm just saying how I think the rule is now. No one is stopping anyone from posting a suggested new wording, which might be more helpful than just complaining about the current, obviously clarity-deficient rule ... |
Here you go:
You must:
* create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates.
You may:
* split a long exposure into shorter consecutive exposures if you could obtain the same result with a single long exposure of equal total length.
This can obviously be refined, but gives us a starting point. Thoughts everyone? |
Do the math.. 10 exposures..
So what, for a 30 minute exposure, that's going to be 3 minutes per image? With no LENR? Maybe on your 5D, but not on much else.
If you want to do this for the proposed purpose, you need to significantly increase the 10 exposure limit, perhaps 200 exposures? Still though, that's probably insufficient.. It would be better if you were able to use say, 1800 or so images for your star trails.. That would be enough, as a 1 second exposure should be pretty nice as far as noise is concerned..
Or maybe unlimited exposures.
Then again, on the other side of the fence, this is DPC, and there should be some limit to the rules, and thankfully we are unrestricted by these rules in our day-to-day life...
In any case, I don't actually see the stars moving in the frame as a change of composition. Whatever. I have the patience for one exposure trails using LENR, so I don't really need to be able to stack trails for DPC. Would raise the bar a bit though. :) |
|
|
|
05/14/2010 03:11:47 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
If you want to do this for the proposed purpose, you need to significantly increase the 10 exposure limit, perhaps 200 exposures? Still though, that's probably insufficient.. It would be better if you were able to use say, 1800 or so images for your star trails.. That would be enough, as a 1 second exposure should be pretty nice as far as noise is concerned..
Or maybe unlimited exposures. |
Have fun submitting 1800 RAW files for validation within the 48-hour time limit ... ;-) |
|
