DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> HDR Disqualified
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 42, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/30/2012 04:27:26 PM · #1
I'm stunned. My shot 'Very Convenient' in the 'Convenience Store' challenge has been DQ'd on the grounds that it was multiple images ( yes thats allowed under the rules ) but that the scene must not change. So the 5 shots I took were within a second of each other, shot as a single burst. Yes the guy moved slightly, but how else do you capture HDR street shots? Ask the world to stop? seems very petty to me.......

Note sent to council, lets see.
11/30/2012 04:36:09 PM · #2
Aw nuts. HDR merges are really touchy. This sort of DQ has happened in the past. Good luck
11/30/2012 04:45:48 PM · #3
That challenge was a while ago? When did they DQ you--seems they must have had to argue that one out if it was a recent DQ. BTW, I have gone to using Adobe Photoshop single frame HDR tool. In many way sit seems better than traditional. My problem here is the wind. It blows constantly, even making outdoor HDR's a bit tricky.
11/30/2012 04:49:06 PM · #4
Aw, that sucks. While it seems the SC could be a little more liberal in interpretation of that rule, the bottom line is if the person moved even a little, you probably had to choose the image of the person from one of the frames. That would be a rules violation.
11/30/2012 04:50:56 PM · #5
Oh no! I love that image!

I suspect you're doomed, though... since I'm sure that guy in the background walking also moved.

Bummer. BIG bummer.
11/30/2012 05:00:29 PM · #6
This is crazy. Sorry but these rules need to be rewritten or updated or something, there is too much room for error. How is it your entry was a DQ but this one was verified?
11/30/2012 05:12:38 PM · #7
Sorry for your DQ, but it's nice to have some company :)
11/30/2012 05:18:46 PM · #8
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

This is crazy. Sorry but these rules need to be rewritten or updated or something, there is too much room for error. How is it your entry was a DQ but this one was verified?


That is an odd photo. . .between the source material and the original. . .hmm.
11/30/2012 06:23:07 PM · #9
This is one of the reasons I don't even bother with HDR. At least not here, unless it's expert editing. There IS no way to do street with merged images because things are always moving. And while I do agree that the rule makes no sense, it is the rule. So sorry for the DQ. Seems it was a long time in coming too. Too bad.
11/30/2012 06:26:08 PM · #10
I don't understand this one either. Deb's wonderful image seemed to have more significant ghost effects due to movement than your shot....

11/30/2012 08:15:53 PM · #11
I think the difference between Deb's and Alan's is that Deb left the ghosting, indicating she didn't pick just one clean exposure (or at least a clean object from one exposure) of her multiple exposures. The same fate that befell Alan's also took down the beautiful swan photo.

I believe the folks by the arch are OK to be cloned out because they weren't considered to be essential to the photo (quite the opposite, actually). If a clean shot of them had been included, I believe it would have received a DQ as well.

I say "I beleive" a lot because I believe I know what I'm talking about, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should.
11/30/2012 09:14:51 PM · #12
Hmmm. Too bad you couldn't consider slight movement of a person within the scene as a "minor imperfection".

Advanced Rules
You may: "clone out incidental power lines, twigs, dust specks, stray hairs, and similar minor imperfections within any capture used."
11/30/2012 10:28:48 PM · #13
I don't see how anyone here can express an opinion of support or dissent without seeing the originals. The frames we judged went from two people standing apart in the foreground to one bending over and completely obscuring the other. We do allow for some slight movement between frames, but not for picking the best composition in an obviously changing scene.
11/30/2012 10:42:26 PM · #14
Originally posted by scalvert:

I don't see how anyone here can express an opinion of support or dissent without seeing the originals. The frames we judged went from two people standing apart in the foreground to one bending over and completely obscuring the other. We do allow for some slight movement between frames, but not for picking the best composition in an obviously changing scene.


party pooper.
11/30/2012 10:43:54 PM · #15
Originally posted by scalvert:

I don't see how anyone here can express an opinion of support or dissent without seeing the originals. The frames we judged went from two people standing apart in the foreground to one bending over and completely obscuring the other. We do allow for some slight movement between frames, but not for picking the best composition in an obviously changing scene.

11/30/2012 11:00:47 PM · #16
Thanks for comments all, yes it was over a month ago now, i had completely forgotten about that challenge until the email popped up this morning. WTF.....!

I had assumed the fact that Photomatix gets rid of "ghosting" for you that it was covered by the aforementioned "minor imperfections".........
11/30/2012 11:04:57 PM · #17
Originally posted by scalvert:

I don't see how anyone here can express an opinion of support or dissent without seeing the originals. The frames we judged went from two people standing apart in the foreground to one bending over and completely obscuring the other. We do allow for some slight movement between frames, but not for picking the best composition in an obviously changing scene.


OK, so lets be clear. I didnt pick the best frame, if I was going to do that I would simply have used that one, and then "stretched" them in aperture before taking into Photomatix. The resultant image is a result of Photomatix's automatic de-ghosting algorthim. I woudl have thought the spirit of that rule was to prevent people taking several images and composing a brand new scene. The five images submitted ( as you'll see from the metadata ) were taken within a second, 5FPS, the fatest I could manage given the lighting.

Intent to cheat was not there.
11/30/2012 11:22:15 PM · #18
I'm sorry, Alan. This is not an accusation of cheating or question of intent, and it doesn't matter if it was one second or one week. The scene changed substantially from two standing people to one visible person bending over. Therefore the frames cannot be used together to create your entry (unless it's Expert Editing).
11/30/2012 11:43:43 PM · #19
Originally posted by crowis:

Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:

This is crazy. Sorry but these rules need to be rewritten or updated or something, there is too much room for error. How is it your entry was a DQ but this one was verified?


That is an odd photo. . .between the source material and the original. . .hmm.


For freaking real!? Did you all fail photoshop 101 or what!? This same thing is easy to create even in the most simplest photoshop elements with an overlay layer. We are discussing using multiple photos versus normal HDR Which mean one photo different exposures in RAW merged. Real simple. Now we are dissing Damon's photo because some one doesn't have the simple photoshop skills to understand how simple an edit it is?!
12/01/2012 12:48:06 AM · #20
Take it easy, dude. This isn't a "how did he do that?" editing issue. The specific topic of discussion is the legality of being able to pick and choose which elements can remain in a submission if during the capture of multiple exposures an object has moved.

So the reason that photo was referenced was because there were two captures (one without people and one with people). The people didn't appear in the submitted photo and it passed the SC's review.

In this photo the people remained, but the single capture that represented them best was selectively chosen from the multiple exposures, and SC ruled it wasn't legal.

It's worth the effort to talk about it to figure out where the line is.
12/01/2012 07:55:45 AM · #21
Originally posted by bohemka:

Take it easy, dude. This isn't a "how did he do that?" editing issue. The specific topic of discussion is the legality of being able to pick and choose which elements can remain in a submission if during the capture of multiple exposures an object has moved.

So the reason that photo was referenced was because there were two captures (one without people and one with people). The people didn't appear in the submitted photo and it passed the SC's review.

In this photo the people remained, but the single capture that represented them best was selectively chosen from the multiple exposures, and SC ruled it wasn't legal.

It's worth the effort to talk about it to figure out where the line is.


Just out of curiosity, what if Doug had said he used pseudo hdr and only submitted one image. Would sc even know? I'm only asking here, but does sc have to take us on merit or can they tell the difference between the two processes?

Seems like it would take an awful lot of time to validate images if some amount of honesty wasn't assumed.
12/01/2012 08:24:37 AM · #22
Not really an expert on the topic, but isn't is better to use pseudo HDR when it comes to street shots.. I generally do it quite often since even slight movements which are inevitable can end up ruining the shot and cause ghosting.



12/03/2012 01:43:41 AM · #23
Would it not make sense for SC to post a "How Not To Do That!" with the DQ'd photographers permission and all the relevant images?
12/03/2012 03:04:46 AM · #24
Originally posted by rockyrajan:

Not really an expert on the topic, but isn't is better to use pseudo HDR when it comes to street shots.. I generally do it quite often since even slight movements which are inevitable can end up ruining the shot and cause ghosting.



Pseudo HDR is fine, I also use it a lot, in act I think I've won awards on here using it. But you do get far better depth if the original images are used, even better I'll admit if not ghosting is involved, which is all we're talking about here.

Anyway, I'm over it, I accept it, petty as it may seem, it's a rule.

If SC are happy to allow me, I'll gladly put the 5 images up to allow people to see.
12/03/2012 03:45:40 AM · #25
Originally posted by dougi555:

Originally posted by rockyrajan:

Not really an expert on the topic, but isn't is better to use pseudo HDR when it comes to street shots.. I generally do it quite often since even slight movements which are inevitable can end up ruining the shot and cause ghosting.



Pseudo HDR is fine, I also use it a lot, in act I think I've won awards on here using it. But you do get far better depth if the original images are used, even better I'll admit if not ghosting is involved, which is all we're talking about here.

Anyway, I'm over it, I accept it, petty as it may seem, it's a rule.

If SC are happy to allow me, I'll gladly put the 5 images up to allow people to see.


In the interest of us beginners, that might be a good exercise in learning if we could see them.. Btw, I have browsed through your portfolio and love 'it... Especially the taj mahal shot and the safdarjung repetitive patterns.. I find your processing technique interesting too!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:58:32 AM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:58:32 AM EDT.