| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2014 12:06:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by littlemav:
...if I had left some of the (icky) background showing would that have made this legal??? Is the 20% texture a good rule of thumb??? |
I don't think so. To me that's not serving as a texture, but as a red mossy sort of background object. Replacing backgrounds is not the purpose of this rule. |
|
|
|
09/09/2014 12:15:05 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Replacing backgrounds is not the purpose of this rule. |
Totally agree here. A texture overlay is that, an overlay, over the entire image, and must not create objects that wereren't in the original composition.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2014 12:59:49 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by littlemav:
...if I had left some of the (icky) background showing would that have made this legal??? Is the 20% texture a good rule of thumb??? |
I don't think so. To me that's not serving as a texture, but as a red mossy sort of background object. Replacing backgrounds is not the purpose of this rule. |
Figured as much but... You can't blame a girl from trying!! LOL (note to self... watch the backgrounds before you shoot STUPID) |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 06:11:24 PM · #54 |
The answer has already been given here, but I think for future generations it might be helpful to reword the rules so that it clearly allows the use of software filters — not just an actual image — to achieve the texture.
Originally posted by zee Rules:
use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules. |
|
|
|
|
09/29/2014 06:54:50 PM · #55 |
| So does the rule exception to the "source" requirement make all textures pulled from internet, etc valid? |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 09:10:13 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
So does the rule exception to the "source" requirement make all textures pulled from internet, etc valid? |
Yes. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 09:30:02 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mefnj:
So does the rule exception to the "source" requirement make all textures pulled from internet, etc valid? |
Yes. |
So are all the effects in Nik software that apply textures, right?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2014 10:30:04 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mefnj:
So does the rule exception to the "source" requirement make all textures pulled from internet, etc valid? |
Yes. |
So are all the effects in Nik software that apply textures, right? |
As long as they ARE textures, and USED as textures, sure. But be aware that there is stuff in all these third party editing programs that can constitute "added features", such as light leaks, motion blur, and other stuff.
You have to be sensible here. When the effect takes over the image, that's too far, basically. |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 10:33:55 AM · #59 |
| Eeeeeee! So excited! I'm so proud of "the powers that be" for taking this progressive step that I think will make our photography so much more artful and interesting! I have a feeling it will increase the number of entries and the number of votes. THANK YOU! |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 03:05:57 PM · #60 |
Can a multiple or double exposure not achieve the same effect? A photo with texture applied in pp is, after all, a composite. So it seems to me that if one or more of the exposures superimposed in camera fits the texture definition then it should be allowed. Others may not agree, but I feel that this is a much simpler question than the one of When is an overlay not a texture?
|
|
|
|
01/07/2015 03:51:25 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by tnun:
When is an overlay not a texture? |
IMO when it provides distinct subjects/features/shapes rather than a repetitive or randomized abstract pattern.
Message edited by author 2015-01-07 15:52:00. |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 03:52:41 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Can a multiple or double exposure not achieve the same effect? A photo with texture applied in pp is, after all, a composite. So it seems to me that if one or more of the exposures superimposed in camera fits the texture definition then it should be allowed. Others may not agree, but I feel that this is a much simpler question than the one of When is an overlay not a texture? |
In principle, sure, it could work. For example, shoot an overexposed picture of a textured wall and then shoot a portrait and merge them in-camera, that's a texture effect. There's no issue with that. The only issue we have is with the EXIF data: if the camera produces a valid EXIF for the merged image we are good to go. Or so I think, anyway. I'm not aware this has been tested, but that makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 04:11:26 PM · #63 |
| Not sure what is meant by "a valid EXIF for the merged image." My multi- exposure cameras give me one image for multi's, but hardly any exceptional exif info - it's sort of like they feel TMO, and cop out. |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 04:14:33 PM · #64 |
| So when a separate texture photo is used and the EXIF has to be validated, wouldn't the double exposure be along the same lines? |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 04:19:37 PM · #65 |
| We don't require a validation image for added textures, as they have no date/time or authorship restrictions on them. The problem with in-camera double exposures goes the OTHER way: sometimes we don't get a valid EXIF at all, the only EXIF appended to the resultant image is showing that the EXIF is "modified", and we require unmodified EXIF, a "true original", to validate. It's how the rules are written. |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 04:29:29 PM · #66 |
| Makes sense on one level while not making sense on another(allowing anything to be added without being created during the challenge dates seems crazy to me), but thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 04:52:03 PM · #67 |
| Jon, my interpretation of that is to just be mindful of your original image. Don't gum up your exif data with multiple exposures in camera for the sake of adding a texture. |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 05:11:32 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's how the rules are written. |
better to say that is the limitation of verification/camera technology...
too bad the more original performance of multi exposure in camera (for most cameras) is still limited to Expert/Break the Rules.
perhaps my preference for more of the above AND for more basic editing is shared by few. I see the Advanced rule set expanding at the expense of what to me is cameratic originality.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2015 05:26:44 PM · #69 |
| Well, I'd say the current Ghost challenge offers an excellent opportunity to show off cameratic originality ... |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 05:46:37 PM · #70 |
|
|
|
01/07/2015 10:16:18 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Makes sense on one level while not making sense on another(allowing anything to be added without being created during the challenge dates seems crazy to me), but thanks for the clarification. |
There's a method to the madness: MOST commonly-used sources of texture in imaging are 3rd-party textures and don't provide any sort of original EXIF. Think Instagrams, grunge textures, Photoshop texture libraries, etc. If we'd decided to limit the use of "textures" to images shot BY the photographer DURING the challenge period, we'd be sculling against a rapidly-ebbing tide. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 08:03:58 PM EDT.
