| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2007 01:46:20 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's gonna take me a while to screw up the courage to run the 20D in "sepia" mode and use it for a minimal editing challenge, though :-)
R. |
It's gonna be hard for me to take my camera out of RAW mode... I suppose I could do Raw+jpeg...
I haven't ever touched the parameters on either the Rebel or the XT...
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 01:47:41 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Why should rotating be allowed? If you're going to get this serious about straight out of the camera you should understand how to rotate your camera. I predict that a studio shot will win the first challenge covered by these rules. |
You can rotate the camera to a portrait (vertical) orientation, but the image still comes out of the camera in a horizontal orientation 'cuz that's the way the sensor lies. You have to rotate it to orient it, just like you would a print or a slide. As for the 180-degree rotation, I've been known to take shots upside-down with the center column reversed, to get the lens as close as possible to the ground.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 01:49:06 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Why should rotating be allowed? If you're going to get this serious about straight out of the camera you should understand how to rotate your camera. I predict that a studio shot will win the first challenge covered by these rules. |
Not all cameras have in-camera rotation of the outputted Jpegs. So, I suppose the rule helps keep those without from having to shoot all landscape oriented shots.
As far as studio... you might be right, I'm sure Cindi is cooking up something right now... LOL
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 01:49:38 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Why should rotating be allowed? If you're going to get this serious about straight out of the camera you should understand how to rotate your camera. I predict that a studio shot will win the first challenge covered by these rules. |
You can rotate the camera to a portrait (vertical) orientation, but the image still comes out of the camera in a horizontal orientation 'cuz that's the way the sensor lies. You have to rotate it to orient it, just like you would a print or a slide. As for the 180-degree rotation, I've been known to take shots upside-down with the center column reversed, to get the lens as close as possible to the ground.
R. |
yes, and some people prefer to take photos while standing on their head, so that rule's there just in case, LMAO! |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 01:49:49 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by Shakalaka:
It's gonna be hard for me to take my camera out of RAW mode... I suppose I could do Raw+jpeg...
I haven't ever touched the parameters on either the Rebel or the XT... |
I have just reset my definable parameters 1, 2, and 3 to get a range of settings at my fingertips, and reset the camera for RAW + JPG (medium) 'cuz I don't want to run the risk of missing a printable image birthed by this challenge. No way I'm giving up my RAW, though I'm OK with not using it for the challenge :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:04:02 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
If we are going basic minimal photography then eliminate the use of other photographs as main or background use. Minimal photography is the entire setup, a finished photo as a part of or significant part of the background is getting around the concept of basic or minimal. No background pics allowed. |
So a head shot of my friend Alice with a large billboard filling the background is a no-no? How about a billboard with a steaming cup of coffee and carefully positioning the model so s/he appears to be lifting the coffee cup to taste it? What about backdrops? Is a plain black one OK? What about a paisley print? Can I pose you in front of a large piece of contemporary art?
See the problem?
R. |
Nope , don't see a problem. If the picture cannot stand on it's own merit nope, the model using a billboard so it looks like she's drinking coffee ... how about setting up the shot so she really is drinking coffee. Why use someone elses (or your own "advanced processed") art work to make your pic understandable or believable. A normal background or even a paisley print is fine but using a finished photo in a way that holds the composition together as a main element is not basic or minimal photography. Heck almost every rule set but this one allows "extreme" processing. Most basic challenges are darn close if not better than many advanced. I see this as getting back to absolute ability of the photographer to find a great subject, pose, frame, adjust settings and show us your photo skills not the skills of a finished processed main element background. Basic is not even close to basic anymore, this brings us back to skill behind the lens. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:04:10 AM · #132 |
.
How do I set my camera to something other than RAW mode? :-(
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:04:35 AM · #133 |
Oh boy! Another ruleset to read endless, pointless arguments about! :/
Key question is the same as it always is - where to draw the line - in camera software increasing editing onboard capabilities - good luck with the line drawing. Anyway, if it stops people from whining about the other rulesets, I'm all for balance in the universe. It will be interesting as always.
I'm just looking forward to the "Cave Drawing Only" Ruleset. :)
 |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:09:26 AM · #134 |
First, I love it. Second, I also love expert editing. Third, we now have the range that was promised back when expert first came out. I look forward to stretching myself in both directions simultaneously; I plan to enter both challenges posted tonight.
Now for a question and a suggestion:
1) Where does it say you can only sharpen once?
"You may ... sharpen your entry using your editing software's "sharpen" or equivalent option. The use of customizable sharpening tools, such as Unsharp Mask, is not allowed."
Seems to me I can choose "Sharpen" as many times as I like.
2) If you're not allowed to use in-camera editing, I think the rules had better be crystal clear on that point. Something like:
"You may not ... use any feature of your camera to edit the photo after it is captured beyond what is otherwise allowed by these rules."
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:15:20 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Nope , don't see a problem. If the picture cannot stand on it's own merit nope, the model using a billboard so it looks like she's drinking coffee ... how about setting up the shot so she really is drinking coffee. Why use someone elses (or your own "advanced processed") art work to make your pic understandable or believable. |
That kind of misses the point: the billboard is in the environment, and the photographer chooses to use it to make a visual pun, as it were. This kind of stuff is done all the time. There must be a million shots out there of guys "holding up" the leaning tower of Pisa, shot by their girlfriends.
If you start regulating what you can and cannot use as background or supporting elements in DPC images, you wind up in a quagmire. We already WERE in a quagmire, which is one of the things they addressed when they rewrote the rules.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 02:25:43 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Nope , don't see a problem. If the picture cannot stand on it's own merit nope, the model using a billboard so it looks like she's drinking coffee ... how about setting up the shot so she really is drinking coffee. Why use someone elses (or your own "advanced processed") art work to make your pic understandable or believable. |
That kind of misses the point: the billboard is in the environment, and the photographer chooses to use it to make a visual pun, as it were. This kind of stuff is done all the time. There must be a million shots out there of guys "holding up" the leaning tower of Pisa, shot by their girlfriends.
If you start regulating what you can and cannot use as background or supporting elements in DPC images, you wind up in a quagmire. We already WERE in a quagmire, which is one of the things they addressed when they rewrote the rules.
R. |
I agree in principal with what you say, I just have an issue in a photo competion that does not allow advanced processing and editing to use another photo that was fully processed to be the main thread that hold a basic or minimal photo together. Agreed it is done throughout the advertising amd media world but then again they have no restrictions and if you want to look like you are in Africa ya can be in Africa. I just feel it's a way to get around the processing limits far too often. Kinda like the issue of animals in "their natural environment" many thinks that animals only exist in zoos too ;). If a billboard, sign or photo is in the background but not used to get-around the processing rules then no problem, if it is the thread that holds it all together with it's advanced editing ... nope, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree my friend. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 03:04:28 AM · #137 |
| I love the the idea of a straight from the camera rule set. The only thing I don't like about this one is that RAW isn't allowed. I'd be totally fine with not allowing any adjustments in the RAW conversion, I just don't want to have to change the settings on my camera specifically to shoot for a challenge (I shoot in RAW and don't like to use the +JPEG (seems like a waste of memory card space when I can easily generate preview JPEGS on my computer)). |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 03:04:43 AM · #138 |
For those of you wondering about multiple exposures done in camera, this would be prohibited by the following line of the rules:
Originally posted by The Rules:
You Must ... create your entry from a single capture. |
As for in-camera editing, the 'You Must' and 'You Must Not' sections have precedence over the 'You May', thus any in-camera feature that uses a tool that's covered in the 'You May Not' section is not permitted.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 03:52:58 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by kearock:
(I shoot in RAW and don't like to use the +JPEG (seems like a waste of memory card space when I can easily generate preview JPEGS on my computer)). |
Just add the small jpeg - it's plenty big for challenge photos and really doesn't take that much space. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 03:55:03 AM · #140 |
oh, i like it :-) , finally some point and shoot approach \o/
i mean sometimes it's nice to take photos, come home ... upload it to the pc/laptop , choose one , resize it and upload it ... then wonder why damn 3's and 4's keep coming up the score :-)
seriously, i like the idea 100%. if anyone cares :-)
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 04:27:35 AM · #141 |
| So just to clarify, when we resize, or save for web, can you use the 'Bicubic Sharpen' option? |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 04:40:17 AM · #142 |
I think this challenge has some merit as a learning tool, though I dislike the idea of publishing 'unfinished' work. To me the images which come out of the camera are the raw material and need to be polished before publication.
Painters never really publish the preliminary sketches, which is what we are talking about here.
I haven't decided whether or not to skip this one yet.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 04:42:21 AM · #143 |
| I just hope the SC get a raise for all the additional work they will have validating. |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 04:48:28 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by Tygerr:
So just to clarify, when we resize, or save for web, can you use the 'Bicubic Sharpen' option? |
Yes, that would be permitted, since it's not a custom sharpening tool.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 06:00:54 AM · #145 |
| Sorry if this came up already. It is allowed to use the basic sharpen filter, but can I used it twice? |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 06:07:08 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Refwhett:
Sorry if this came up already. It is allowed to use the basic sharpen filter, but can I used it twice? |
As long as there's no settings for the tool (ie you either use it or don't), then it shouldn't matter how many passes you make.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 06:10:33 AM · #147 |
| cool, thanks. Oh, what about the EDIT--> fade thing. I suppose that would not be approved. Right? |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 06:12:56 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Refwhett:
cool, thanks. Oh, what about the EDIT--> fade thing. I suppose that would not be approved. Right? |
Indeed not :o)
|
|
|
|
01/19/2007 06:16:28 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Refwhett:
cool, thanks. Oh, what about the EDIT--> fade thing. I suppose that would not be approved. Right? |
Indeed not :o) |
Darn :o) |
|
|
|
01/19/2007 06:24:11 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by davyaldy:
Flame me if you will, but it seems to me that those with advanced editing options in the camera will do best at this. Of course, we have to pick our shots carefully but minimal software editing, again as it seems to me, still allows camera editing. |
I don't agree. The rules say that "You may... use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry." They do not say that you may use features of your camera to edit your entry after-the-fact.
~Terry |
Excellent! I see that my discussion from last month is starting to take effect!!! (Thread.)
Unfortunately the rule
"You may:
*
use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry."
is written exactly the same in all rulesets but now has different meanings or implications?!?! Do you really want to open that can of worms? My opinion is get rid of this exceptionally useless phrase, barring that interpret it exactly the same through all rulesets.
I still favor
"You may
- while photographing your entry, use any post processing feature of your camera that does not violate any rule in this ruleset." |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:56:30 AM EDT.
