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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Outtakes >> Double Exposure II Outtakes
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/29/2016 12:00:27 AM · #1
Post your outtakes from the Double Exposure II challenge here.
08/29/2016 01:37:08 AM · #2
I really enjoyed this challenge. Here are some other versions of my entry:

which is my entry but 100% bw


In addition to the ones I did in PP there are several I did with my camera built in double exposure feature, which was fun but the results were totally different..

and (too bad the eyes don't fit, sigh)

Thanks for watching
08/29/2016 02:47:17 PM · #3
I honestly was going to try not to drop the question, but since Barbara posted what can be seen as the full source for one of her images I have to ask members of the SC to please explain to me how entries like this are allowed under the Standard editing rules? Are we that lax now that the cloning out of unwanted objects can equate to masking out huge portions of images? As I read it, "Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place." So are we saying that if we removed the entire world behind the model (since that's what was distracting) what's left would be nothing?

I'm not looking for a rash of DQ's in this challenge, but if this is all just fine then I believe we've stretched the ruleset to the breaking point.
08/29/2016 03:57:13 PM · #4
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

I honestly was going to try not to drop the question, but since Barbara posted what can be seen as the full source for one of her images I have to ask members of the SC to please explain to me how entries like this are allowed under the Standard editing rules? Are we that lax now that the cloning out of unwanted objects can equate to masking out huge portions of images? As I read it, "Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place." So are we saying that if we removed the entire world behind the model (since that's what was distracting) what's left would be nothing?

I'm not looking for a rash of DQ's in this challenge, but if this is all just fine then I believe we've stretched the ruleset to the breaking point.


Amen.

I didn't want to start the thread, but wow, that challenge seems to have totally overstepped what we would normally tolerate here. Many of the entries are NOT possible if one followed the 'spirit' of double exposure - a term which has a very specific meaning, and one can easily argue that many of the top images actually were done in a fashion more akin to expert editing than not.

I guess I'm actually mostly curious if this was intended and foreseen, or just something SC didn't see coming?
08/29/2016 04:59:56 PM · #5
My personal approach was to try and simulate as nearly as possible what would happen if creating a double-exposure on film, with the exception of deliberately planning the two frames to be combined, and making slight tonal adjustments to the two images prior to combining. These were each made from two consecutive frames, shot within minutes of each other in the same location -- a close-up/macro of electrical components on a traffic signal pole, and local merchant signs. No cropping, masking, or spot-editing; combined using an alternate blend mode.

Entry: Alternate:
08/29/2016 05:07:02 PM · #6
You're kind of right in terms of what can be done to a single image - but for this challenge people had two images and there were no restrictions on how (or which parts) could be combined. That did allow for the final image to equate to something that goes beyond a single image in standard editing. So many people used that latitude because it was clear that was permissible for this challenge.
08/29/2016 05:33:14 PM · #7
Originally posted by Paul:

You're kind of right in terms of what can be done to a single image - but for this challenge people had two images and there were no restrictions on how (or which parts) could be combined. That did allow for the final image to equate to something that goes beyond a single image in standard editing. So many people used that latitude because it was clear that was permissible for this challenge.


No limitation on how they can be combined but each image, to the best of my understanding, needs to adhere to the standard editing rules. Removing portions of that image and not replacing them with what would have otherwise been a natural portion of that image violates that rule. If silhouettes were shot against black or white then I'm not questioning them, and it would appear that some who did similar compositions did just that. In this particular instance (the base image in the 2nd post in this thread) the headshot does not, and I would suspect that the shot merged in also did not end where the head edges do. It is entirely possible to do this sort of compositing, and I believe that at least one of the two images on the front page is probably OK. My rules question relates specifically to the one posted in this thread.
08/29/2016 05:59:20 PM · #8
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by Paul:

You're kind of right in terms of what can be done to a single image - but for this challenge people had two images and there were no restrictions on how (or which parts) could be combined. That did allow for the final image to equate to something that goes beyond a single image in standard editing. So many people used that latitude because it was clear that was permissible for this challenge.


No limitation on how they can be combined but each image, to the best of my understanding, needs to adhere to the standard editing rules. Removing portions of that image and not replacing them with what would have otherwise been a natural portion of that image violates that rule.


Again, you are right but no limitation in how they can be combined includes using layer masks however you would like. The challenge always had the potential to be a two-image composite, albeit with certain limitations - you couldn't use two parts of the same image in a spatially non registered way (for example) as you would have broken the standard editing rule for that single image.

It's just one challenge and people used the latitude to produce some very nice 'products' - as long as the 'process' doesn't break the stated rules, I think pushing the envelope is just fine.
08/29/2016 06:04:23 PM · #9
A lot can "disappear" depending on the blend mode used. Check out what happened to my two exposures simply by using Darken mode:

Entry: Source images:

Base (exposure 1): (exposure 2):

Message edited by author 2016-08-29 18:05:01.
08/30/2016 01:52:19 AM · #10
Usually I'm very careful about respecting the rules.

This time I was reading a post of Bear_Music in this thread:Trying to understand.... which reassured me that the workflow shown in this video is legal:
viedeo showing how to blend images into double exposures
It's about blending modes, I didn't clone anything

Watch Bear's post from 08/14/2016
08/30/2016 06:29:36 AM · #11
Originally posted by primabarbara:

Usually I'm very careful about respecting the rules.

This time I was reading a post of Bear_Music in this thread:Trying to understand.... which reassured me that the workflow shown in this video is legal:
viedeo showing how to blend images into double exposures
It's about blending modes, I didn't clone anything

Watch Bear's post from 08/14/2016


Then they should should have made the challenge expert, or called it something other than "double exposure". It's not as if we haven't talked about actual double exposures in the past on more than a few occasions. I see no difference with removing things with blend modes than a clone stamp.

Again, I'm not complaining about the entries, I'm questioning what is and isn't legal any more and wondering why we don't just have one rule set and simply modify the limit on the number of source images.
08/30/2016 08:11:22 AM · #12
Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:


Then they should should have made the challenge expert, or called it something other than "double exposure".


Ah, I can see your point now
08/30/2016 02:46:47 PM · #13
After giving this some thought, I must admit that perhaps Extended Editing may have been a better choice in this particular case. The reason I say this is that it takes the pressure and ambiguity off the photographer / editor, and puts it a bit more on the voter to decide whether the challenge has been met without worrying whether a rule has been broken.
08/30/2016 03:42:30 PM · #14
Originally posted by tate:

After giving this some thought, I must admit that perhaps Extended Editing may have been a better choice in this particular case. The reason I say this is that it takes the pressure and ambiguity off the photographer / editor, and puts it a bit more on the voter to decide whether the challenge has been met without worrying whether a rule has been broken.


Tate, you of all folks should KNOW that the voter should NEVER vote based on adherence to rules. We are supposed to assume, in good faith, that the rules have been met - and report any images we suspect. My understanding is that we should NEVER deduct from our votes for this.

With that being said, I otherwise fully agree - it's aggravating to have challenges like this run under rulesets that invite trouble.

Message edited by author 2016-08-30 15:43:38.
08/30/2016 03:45:53 PM · #15
Originally posted by Paul:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by Paul:

You're kind of right in terms of what can be done to a single image - but for this challenge people had two images and there were no restrictions on how (or which parts) could be combined. That did allow for the final image to equate to something that goes beyond a single image in standard editing. So many people used that latitude because it was clear that was permissible for this challenge.


No limitation on how they can be combined but each image, to the best of my understanding, needs to adhere to the standard editing rules. Removing portions of that image and not replacing them with what would have otherwise been a natural portion of that image violates that rule.


Again, you are right but no limitation in how they can be combined includes using layer masks however you would like. The challenge always had the potential to be a two-image composite, albeit with certain limitations - you couldn't use two parts of the same image in a spatially non registered way (for example) as you would have broken the standard editing rule for that single image.

It's just one challenge and people used the latitude to produce some very nice 'products' - as long as the 'process' doesn't break the stated rules, I think pushing the envelope is just fine.


This all makes sense, but.... Tell me what blending mode does this? ;-)

- To be clear, I think this is a BRILLIANT image - I just have NO idea how it's passed muster... Is it simply that no-one reported it so SC has not (and will not?) review the legality of it?

Message edited by author 2016-08-30 15:46:36.
08/30/2016 04:08:38 PM · #16
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Paul:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by Paul:

You're kind of right in terms of what can be done to a single image - but for this challenge people had two images and there were no restrictions on how (or which parts) could be combined. That did allow for the final image to equate to something that goes beyond a single image in standard editing. So many people used that latitude because it was clear that was permissible for this challenge.


No limitation on how they can be combined but each image, to the best of my understanding, needs to adhere to the standard editing rules. Removing portions of that image and not replacing them with what would have otherwise been a natural portion of that image violates that rule.


Again, you are right but no limitation in how they can be combined includes using layer masks however you would like. The challenge always had the potential to be a two-image composite, albeit with certain limitations - you couldn't use two parts of the same image in a spatially non registered way (for example) as you would have broken the standard editing rule for that single image.

It's just one challenge and people used the latitude to produce some very nice 'products' - as long as the 'process' doesn't break the stated rules, I think pushing the envelope is just fine.


This all makes sense, but.... Tell me what blending mode does this? ;-)

- To be clear, I think this is a BRILLIANT image - I just have NO idea how it's passed muster... Is it simply that no-one reported it so SC has not (and will not?) review the legality of it?


"For this challenge you may combine two images, both shot within the challenge time period, either in-camera or in post, to create a double exposure"

Nothing was specified about the blending, so all the similar images are ok, no doubt about it. Said that, it would be better to make yellow flag with a better explanation of the editing limits of this challenge
08/30/2016 04:16:37 PM · #17
Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Paul:

Originally posted by JakeKurdsjuk:

Originally posted by Paul:

You're kind of right in terms of what can be done to a single image - but for this challenge people had two images and there were no restrictions on how (or which parts) could be combined. That did allow for the final image to equate to something that goes beyond a single image in standard editing. So many people used that latitude because it was clear that was permissible for this challenge.


No limitation on how they can be combined but each image, to the best of my understanding, needs to adhere to the standard editing rules. Removing portions of that image and not replacing them with what would have otherwise been a natural portion of that image violates that rule.


Again, you are right but no limitation in how they can be combined includes using layer masks however you would like. The challenge always had the potential to be a two-image composite, albeit with certain limitations - you couldn't use two parts of the same image in a spatially non registered way (for example) as you would have broken the standard editing rule for that single image.

It's just one challenge and people used the latitude to produce some very nice 'products' - as long as the 'process' doesn't break the stated rules, I think pushing the envelope is just fine.


This all makes sense, but.... Tell me what blending mode does this? ;-)

- To be clear, I think this is a BRILLIANT image - I just have NO idea how it's passed muster... Is it simply that no-one reported it so SC has not (and will not?) review the legality of it?


"For this challenge you may combine two images, both shot within the challenge time period, either in-camera or in post, to create a double exposure"

Nothing was specified about the blending, so all the similar images are ok, no doubt about it. Said that, it would be better to make yellow flag with a better explanation of the editing limits of this challenge


Thing is, the images both still should have conformed to the base ruleset, I'm not sure that's the case here. Dunno - just seems like this was courting controversy and could have been avoided.
09/05/2016 02:13:33 AM · #18
There's no problem at all with that image under the rules as stated. One image of the staircase alone and one of the staircase with the person and frame. Selectively mask the portion of the frame to be transparent, invert the selection and then paint the lower layer through.

It's really the same technique I used on my own entry.

Each image passes muster and there were no restrictions on how they might be combined.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:15:49 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: 03/29/2024 03:15:49 AM EDT.