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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Question about HDR and DQ'd Procrastination image
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 41 of 41, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/15/2007 08:50:44 PM · #26
I think some people need to have a conference and get their stories straight before answering questions they seem to have no business answering ;D
 01/15/2007 08:53:58 PM · #27
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by kirbic:
AFAIK, there has been no change in the legality of in-camera multiple images (still legal at this time).

Edit: when all are shot within the challenge timeframe.


But...

Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Multiply exposures are not allowed unless it is somehow done in camera (Nikon D200 - I believe has this feature)

This is now not legal in neither Basic nor Advanced.




I believe that Matt was referring to multiple physical exposures in the context of using them for HDR. Definitely *not* legal in Basic or Advanced.


Well, maybe so, but it didn't sound like that.

FWIW, even though I tend to disagree a lot with Robert (Bear_Music), I think that he has a point in that multiple physical exposures used for HDR should be legal in advanced. I understand that the controlling of it would be close to a nightmare, but at least in theory it should be legal. There is no point in lumping multiply physical exposures used for HDR together with the use of multiple images for composites of all kinds.
 01/15/2007 08:59:42 PM · #28
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:
Why would you say, "when all are shot within the challenge timeframe"? It makes it sound like you are thinking that overlays are also legal. In-camera multis, unless you shot them right at turnover, would always be withing the challenge timeframe.


There is at least one camera out there that can overlay any two (possibly more?) images, they don't have to be consecutive images, and you don't have to choose that mode prior to shooting. Such an overlay is indistinguishable from an overlay of consecutive shots, since in both cases only one final file is written.
If we determined that someone used an older exposure as one of the shots, it's darn likely that it would be DQ'd.
Things like this were not forseen when the "anything done in-camera is legal" determination was made.


You're wrong, they are distinguishable (EXIF data). It sometimes almost sounds if SC is saying that because multis and overlays are difficult to distinguish visually, they both should be not allowed? That makes no sense.
 01/15/2007 09:11:06 PM · #29
I don't believe there has been any move to disallow in-camera multiple exposures. But in Alan's Utopia, it would be banned. Personally, I don't feel multiple exposures (in camera or not) are within the spirit of the rules here. It gives users of certain cameras an unfair advantage, and produces results that others wouldn't be able to achieve legally. But that's just me.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Multiple exposures is not legal "in-camera" anymore? Since when?
01/15/2007 09:12:14 PM · #30
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I don't believe there has been any move to disallow in-camera multiple exposures. But in Alan's Utopia, it would be banned. Personally, I don't feel multiple exposures (in camera or not) are within the spirit of the rules here. It gives users of certain cameras an unfair advantage, and produces results that others wouldn't be able to achieve legally. But that's just me.


Amen.
 01/15/2007 09:24:26 PM · #31
Originally posted by ursula:
You're wrong, they are distinguishable (EXIF data). It sometimes almost sounds if SC is saying that because multis and overlays are difficult to distinguish visually, they both should be not allowed? That makes no sense.


Nonononono... don't get me wrong. There may currently be a way to distinguish them via EXIF, but that's not necessarily so; it's up to the camera to report it as "Overlay Mode" or "Multi-Exposure Mode." But you need to pick thru the EXIF to figure it out, and the next camera to implement it might not report it in any way, making it truly impossible to tell.
The current situation is that it's all legal. We don't make any distinction based on how it's done, as long as it's in-camera. If that changes, and there's no move to do so at this point, I'd almost guarantee that we would not try to split hairs and say that doing it one way is OK, but the other way is not (even if both/all source images are legal). That would just be absolute heck to enforce.
Anyway, all this "if we did limit it..." stuff is pure conjecture and personal opinion. For now, it's all legal. Period.
01/15/2007 09:28:51 PM · #32
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I don't believe there has been any move to disallow in-camera multiple exposures. But in Alan's Utopia, it would be banned. Personally, I don't feel multiple exposures (in camera or not) are within the spirit of the rules here. It gives users of certain cameras an unfair advantage, and produces results that others wouldn't be able to achieve legally. But that's just me.



The equipment advantage will be present regardless of multis or not multis. I would like to have a good long lens to capture birds in flight, I don't, that's an equipment disadvantage - but you're not going to say that birds caught in flight with a long lens are not legal anymore.

As for the results being such that they couldn't be achieved legally otherwise, that again, IMHO, is one of those things that make little sense to me, because they simply speak to one way of looking at the world of photography.

An example:

Multis can be all sorts of stuff. Two consecutive images, if combined in camera, are legal. If combined in PS, they are not. There is little difference in the end result. But, two images (overlays) combined in camera are not legal. Combined physically (printing out one, putting subject on top, making second image) they are. They are not exactly the same thing, but often it comes very close, and there is no checking on whether this second printed image was done within the challenge timeframe. This makes me sort of angry. [Sorry, Shannon :)]

Anyway.

[EDIT: I guess I was wrong, overlays in camera are legal. I have no example. :) ]

[EDIT2: It is an example, since "in camera" they have to be during the challenge; outside of camera, but not on computer, only one has to be within the dates; on computer, not doable.]

Message edited by author 2007-01-15 22:58:55.
 01/15/2007 09:30:23 PM · #33
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:
You're wrong, they are distinguishable (EXIF data). It sometimes almost sounds if SC is saying that because multis and overlays are difficult to distinguish visually, they both should be not allowed? That makes no sense.


Nonononono... don't get me wrong. There may currently be a way to distinguish them via EXIF, but that's not necessarily so; it's up to the camera to report it as "Overlay Mode" or "Multi-Exposure Mode." But you need to pick thru the EXIF to figure it out, and the next camera to implement it might not report it in any way, making it truly impossible to tell.
The current situation is that it's all legal. We don't make any distinction based on how it's done, as long as it's in-camera. If that changes, and there's no move to do so at this point, I'd almost guarantee that we would not try to split hairs and say that doing it one way is OK, but the other way is not (even if both/all source images are legal). That would just be absolute heck to enforce.
Anyway, all this "if we did limit it..." stuff is pure conjecture and personal opinion. For now, it's all legal. Period.


Allright. Sorry. I was under the impression that overlays in camera were not legal, because you could combine an image from 2 months ago with one from today.

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?
 01/15/2007 09:51:08 PM · #34
Originally posted by ursula:

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?


Yes. As long as the images are shot within challenge dates.
 01/15/2007 10:21:02 PM · #35
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?


Yes. As long as the images are shot within challenge dates.


And how will you tell?
 01/15/2007 10:37:57 PM · #36
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?


Yes. As long as the images are shot within challenge dates.


And how will you tell?


We can always ask for the source images.
 01/15/2007 10:55:44 PM · #37
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?


Yes. As long as the images are shot within challenge dates.


And how will you tell?


We can always ask for the source images.


OK, that makes sense. He, he, soooo, I DO have an example after all (below, or above). :)

But, I still cannot combine the same two NEFs on the computer. Yes in camera, no on the computer. Weird.

Message edited by author 2007-01-15 22:57:52.
 01/15/2007 10:58:27 PM · #38
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?


Yes. As long as the images are shot within challenge dates.


And how will you tell?


We can always ask for the source images.


OK, that makes sense. He, he, soooo, I DO have an example after all (below, or above). :)

But, I still cannot combine the same two NEFs on the computer. Yes in camera, no on the computer. Weird.


Yep. Weird covers it!
 01/15/2007 10:59:26 PM · #39
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ursula:

So, you're saying that IS LEGAL for now, in basic?


Yes. As long as the images are shot within challenge dates.


And how will you tell?


We can always ask for the source images.


OK, that makes sense. He, he, soooo, I DO have an example after all (below, or above). :)

But, I still cannot combine the same two NEFs on the computer. Yes in camera, no on the computer. Weird.


Yep. Weird covers it!


:) Can I call SC "weirdos" now?
 01/15/2007 11:01:47 PM · #40
Originally posted by ursula:
:) Can I call SC "weirdos" now?


Sure! But remember, you still resemble that remark, at least a little ;-)
 01/15/2007 11:03:14 PM · #41
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I don't believe there has been any move to disallow in-camera multiple exposures. But in Alan's Utopia, it would be banned. Personally, I don't feel multiple exposures (in camera or not) are within the spirit of the rules here. It gives users of certain cameras an unfair advantage, and produces results that others wouldn't be able to achieve legally. But that's just me.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Multiple exposures is not legal "in-camera" anymore? Since when?


It can be done with a camera that doesn't have that feature. It's just not as automated.

Long exposure - cover lens, recompose.

Long exposure - strobed flash.

No matter what the rules are, people are going to find a way to do what they want to do. We've seen it many times (the whole LCD monitor background craze, for example).
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/02/2025 09:26:47 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/02/2025 09:26:47 AM EDT.