Old 12-28-2009, 07:06 AM   #51
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Be warned Mr. Ween I may have more questions in the future and I would suggest you block me or ignore my posts so as to not cause you anymore concern!
And you could do the same thing...[/suggestion, not directive]
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 02:53 PM   #52
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

Funny thing about this HDR stuff. I've played around with it a little and have a couple on here, but it's hard to tell.

For example, this shot is not HDR but the effects of a CP filter. This is just how it came out with in single frame, and I've had several e-mails telling me it was HDR.
Image © Chris Zygmunt
PhotoID: 304122
Photograph © Chris Zygmunt


However, because the lighting by Peter Lerro was so skewed, the image was extremely bright on one side. Seeing this, I took several images at different exposures and put them together to get a more even lighting balance.
So this one is HDR.
Image © Chris Zygmunt
PhotoID: 298398
Photograph © Chris Zygmunt


So I see it as just one more tool to correct images.

Chris Z
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 02:30 AM   #53
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Z View Post
Funny thing about this HDR stuff. I've played around with it a little and have a couple on here, but it's hard to tell.

For example, this shot is not HDR but the effects of a CP filter. This is just how it came out with in single frame, and I've had several e-mails telling me it was HDR.
Image © Chris Zygmunt
PhotoID: 304122
Photograph © Chris Zygmunt


However, because the lighting by Peter Lerro was so skewed, the image was extremely bright on one side. Seeing this, I took several images at different exposures and put them together to get a more even lighting balance.
So this one is HDR.
Image © Chris Zygmunt
PhotoID: 298398
Photograph © Chris Zygmunt


So I see it as just one more tool to correct images.

Chris Z
Nice images Chris.

I completely agree in that HDR/TM is just another tool, unfortunately with RP guidelines they actually prohibit this level of manipulation as far as I can tell and been told. This would also prohibit exposure blending when using differently exposed images I suspect. It's not that I couldn't submit HDR/TM images or for that matter any number of manipulations and possibly get them in, but I will honor RP's guidelines as they stand now. Good luck.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 02:40 AM   #54
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
I completely agree in that HDR/TM is just another tool, unfortunately with RP guidelines they actually prohibit this level of manipulation as far as I can tell and been told. This would also prohibit exposure blending when using differently exposed images I suspect. It's not that I couldn't submit HDR/TM images or for that matter any number of manipulations and possibly get them in, but I will honor RP's guidelines as they stand now. Good luck.
I'm not going to reread this entire thread, but haven't you just been told the exact opposite of what you just wrote?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 02:45 AM   #55
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Regarding your quote from the guidelines, those seem to be well out of date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
I agree, photography doesn't sit still and moves forward...rules should not be static but also evolving and keeping in step with the times.
One thing I just noticed, you misinterpreted an earlier comment of mine that I now see was ambiguous. My statement, quoted above, was not intended to mean what you took it to mean, also quoted above. Rather, it should have conveyed that the current guidelines text is well out of date with respect to current RP practice.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 04:12 AM   #56
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

J, stop being a forum bully.
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 04:40 AM   #57
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
J, stop being a forum bully.
You callin' me out, Ween-o? I'm going to come out to Colorado and kick your butt, *GASP* after *GASP* I take a few weeks *GASP* to get acclimated to the *GASP* altitude! Watch out!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 05:01 AM   #58
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
One thing I just noticed, you misinterpreted an earlier comment of mine that I now see was ambiguous. My statement, quoted above, was not intended to mean what you took it to mean, also quoted above. Rather, it should have conveyed that the current guidelines text is well out of date with respect to current RP practice.
Ha...I see!

Still, just because many may be doing it and having some in the archives doesn't make it right. It may just mean the screenies do not know of the manipulation, heck they get lots of images thrown at them it would be very difficult to always catch these. Or it could mean something else, all I know is that the rules prohibit any manipulations beyond simple cropping, sharpening and leveling. I respect their rules and wish not to infringe by deliberately doing otherwise. My understanding of the rules, HDR/TM and even multi-exposure manual blending falls way outside of the guidelines otherwise I think an admin would have stipulated differently long ago.

This reminds me of the saying "dirty little secret" and "don't ask don't tell"!

This whole multi-image manipulation for HDR/blending will be ending within the next few years I suspect... when the next-gen cameras DR are increased enough to cover most shots DR. So RP will not have to update their rules if they wait long enough.

It is good though to see RP folks using HDR/TM to help them garner better images, I kinda suspected they would.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 05:22 AM   #59
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Serrator, I still don't understand your concern with RP, you seem to be either antagonized by or defending rules that don't really exist anyway. Other than the rule, better called a principle, that the image appear representative of what the human eye might see. Perhaps that is too ambiguous or subjective for your tastes.

Aside from that, I disagree with your technical assessment of dynamic range. My sense, informed only by general reading and not engineering background, is that DR is a much tougher nut to crack than noise reduction. For one, even if the sensor manages to capture a wider dynamic range, there will still be the problem of how to best map that range into the narrower range that the usual display devices can attain. That is where the disagreements or differences in preference lie, and that is not going to be resolved by a different sensor technology.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 05:45 AM   #60
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Serrator, I still don't understand your concern...
Np. We can leave it at that.

Quote:
Aside from that, I disagree with your technical assessment of dynamic range. My sense, informed only by general reading and not engineering background, is that DR is a much tougher nut to crack than noise reduction. For one, even if the sensor manages to capture a wider dynamic range, there will still be the problem of how to best map that range into the narrower range that the usual display devices can attain. That is where the disagreements or differences in preference lie, and that is not going to be resolved by a different sensor technology.
True, it supposedly is a tougher nut to crack, but there may be other ways to crack the nut! I suspect if they can't get around the sensor DR increasing (which they will) they may take 3 or more images simultaneously in camera and do the conversion/TM as well in camera...so this would negate multi-image issues, such ghosting and such and allow us to then make our final normal adjustments to tweak in the image from the real to surreal. I also predict our monitors will be catching up as well...okay I know not much of a prediction when they already exist...they are just a little pricey!
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 01:41 PM   #61
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
Nice images Chris.

I completely agree in that HDR/TM is just another tool, unfortunately with RP guidelines they actually prohibit this level of manipulation as far as I can tell and been told. This would also prohibit exposure blending when using differently exposed images I suspect. It's not that I couldn't submit HDR/TM images or for that matter any number of manipulations and possibly get them in, but I will honor RP's guidelines as they stand now. Good luck.
I think you missed the point. So, what you are saying is that my multiexposed slide film in camera from the eighties and nineties would be prohibited because it was over manipulated?

Chris Z
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 01:59 PM   #62
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
Ha...I see!

Still, just because many may be doing it and having some in the archives doesn't make it right. It may just mean the screenies do not know of the manipulation, heck they get lots of images thrown at them it would be very difficult to always catch these. Or it could mean something else, all I know is that the rules prohibit any manipulations beyond simple cropping, sharpening and leveling. I respect their rules and wish not to infringe by deliberately doing otherwise. My understanding of the rules, HDR/TM and even multi-exposure manual blending falls way outside of the guidelines otherwise I think an admin would have stipulated differently long ago.

This reminds me of the saying "dirty little secret" and "don't ask don't tell"!

This whole multi-image manipulation for HDR/blending will be ending within the next few years I suspect... when the next-gen cameras DR are increased enough to cover most shots DR. So RP will not have to update their rules if they wait long enough.

It is good though to see RP folks using HDR/TM to help them garner better images, I kinda suspected they would.
As others have clearly stated repeatedly, you seem to be missing the entire point. The other members, who are obviously quite familiar with the guidelines on manipulation have told you what is acceptable and what is not. While yes, you're correct in that the current guidelines state that manipulation of any sort, is strictly prohibited, but as of recent years, it is clearly visible that HDR and similar associates of HDR are accepted into the database. It is not a matter of the screeners being unaware of the manipulation, it is simply acceptable, to an extent. If it appears tastefully done, then in most cases, it is acceptable. If it clearly appears "fake", then most likely, the screeners will nab it for manipulation. Obviously, the screeners have not addressed the issue any further, as other members have again, repeatedly stated.

I'm still uncertain as to what the big deal is and the nearly two page debate. If you're a frequent visitor to RP, you'll notice from time to time, that HDR stuff is accepted. So why continue to make a fuss and make a huge and rather pointless deal over it? If you're this curious over it, then simply upload an HDR image and see what happens.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 03:10 PM   #63
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post

"Manipulation:

The purpose of our website is to display genuine, authentic photographs of trains and railroad related scenes. Bearing this in mind, digital manipulation of photographs (beyond standard post-processing techniques such as levelling, sharpening, dust removal, etc.) is not permitted on photographs submitted to RailPictures.Net."



.
Has post processing changed much since this site was created? Do you expect the site not to move forward with technology? I think standard processing isn't what it use to be and has grown. People also forget that film had a higher dynamic range then most digital cameras even if it wasn't much.

Go back to the first photos accepted on this site and ask your self if that is what you only want to see. HDR is what color was to black and white back in the day in my opinion. Standard processing can mean alot of different things to different people. To a pro - standard processing mean much more then to a newb using Paint to process his photos. A lot of people also miss the "etc." at the end of (beyond standard post-processing techniques such as levelling, sharpening, dust removal, etc.) which can mean a lot of things. Is using a noise filter or program beyond normal processing? I bet it was when this was written. It all comes down to it looking as close to real as a screener feels is acceptable.

Bottom line - the standards have grown along with the rest of the photography world.

Last edited by travsirocz; 12-29-2009 at 03:15 PM.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 02:43 AM   #64
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Z View Post
I think you missed the point.
I must have missed your point perhaps...and your point is?

Quote:
So, what you are saying is that my multiexposed slide film in camera from the eighties and nineties would be prohibited because it was over manipulated?
Not sure where this idea came from, but no I have not said this or alluded to it. My comments as far as I have been posting have been meant for digital camera captures only. Since most digital cameras that I know of don't have the ability to do "multi-exposures" like film cameras can, there is no reason to even discuss. The guidelines only refer to 'digital manipulations' so whether or not RP considers multi-exposed film images to be over manipulated is interesting. That might be a great question to ask RP.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 02:51 AM   #65
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Nikon can do muti exposures on one image. Why Canon doesn't? Probably because it is just the same to do it in PS.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 03:25 AM   #66
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
I must have missed your point perhaps...and your point is?
My point is that I used HDR and mulitple exposures to correct an imbalanced exposure so that it looks right and the way that I remembered seeing it with my eyes. The lighting set up did funny things to skew the original exposures. Is correcting exposure over manipulation?

And yes, my digital camera does multiple exposures on one image. But is that any different than making separate images and putting them together later?

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now.

Chris Z

Last edited by Chris Z; 12-30-2009 at 03:28 AM.
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 04:18 AM   #67
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
As others have clearly stated repeatedly, you seem to be missing the entire point.
Chase, is it that I have to be "missing the point", or that perhaps I don't agree with the point presented? I think I completely understand some of the folks comments/opinions/thoughts/hopes, but just because I may not agree or have some other viewpoint consistent with the guidelines...it falls into the realm of interpretation, mine perhaps more strict, while others more loosely. No big deal.

Quote:
The other members, who are obviously quite familiar with the guidelines on manipulation have told you what is acceptable and what is not.
Let me get you up to speed and better informed...here are some of what these same members have told me and or said in other threads regarding HDR:

"No, they aren't technically in the realm of what would be accepted as it violates the manipulated 'guidelines'"

"If I want to see digital manipulation, I'll play a video game."

"It's not about capturing the image anymore, it's how can I best use my software to manipulate it? With HDR, pseudo-HRD, etc., the skill being displayed is how good someone is on their computer, not with their camera. And to me, that = fail."

"It's even more subjective what editing is tasteful and what isn't. Hell, this is an argument that could go on indefinitely between the uploading-unedited-jpg crowd and my camp, and nobody would be any closer to a clear definition of manipulation rules on this site."

"HDR shots are interesting creations, but they are just that - creations... not photographs (at least in the traditional sense)."

"Only thing allowed should be sharpening, resize and leveling and lets see how many people stop submitting because they know their shots are PURE CRAP without the big Photoshop enhancements."

"Unfortunately, the "no major editing allowed" is simply not enforced enough here, leaving us with the inconsistency that, as John pointed out earlier, only gives the anti-RP crowd more ammunition. This is one area that I wish there would be a "black or white" type rule for, but I guess it doesn't matter as long as the nose door is closed!"

"If your photos are manipulated, I don't want to see them and they do not belong on this website. "

...and lastly a quote from Mr. Weens himself on his thoughts about HDR that I asked him:
"I can't speak for the admin, but I do think this falls outside of the scope of allowed manipulation."

So, you see maybe it is not so clear as you may have thought and others have mentioned the same as I view the guidelines. Here are couple more for reference regarding the guidelines:

"A pity. There are some who still take the view that only the techniques we had available in the 19th century are valid for RR photos. I honestly don't understand the thinking, but it's not my website."

"Looking at today's #1 PCA, which is obviously HDR, why is it allowed? I figured it was manipulation. If it's going to be allowed, then change the rules, but, LET EVERYBODY VOTE ON IT."

I am not alone in my estimation of the guidelines.


Quote:
While yes, you're correct in that the current guidelines state that manipulation of any sort, is strictly prohibited, but as of recent years, it is clearly visible that HDR and similar associates of HDR are accepted into the database.
So my view is validated?? I have been consistent in my view of the guidelines, I can't say the same for others who seem to have shifted their view while the guidelines have not moved one letter. Which is fine, I will continue to honor the original guideline requests and others will see fit to do what they want. I think I may have been the first to even ask about HDR back in '07, so it is of interest to me to see how it developed here. btw all of the above quotes are within the last couple of years.

Quote:
I'm still uncertain as to what the big deal is and the nearly two page debate. If you're a frequent visitor to RP, you'll notice from time to time, that HDR stuff is accepted. So why continue to make a fuss and make a huge and rather pointless deal over it?
Who said it was "big deal"? Not me. "Fuss", no consternation here, I just asked a simple question and get zinged for it...so if you mean fuss from others than you will have to ask them. I admit I have a interest in HDR otherwise I wouldn't ask such questions and or discuss it. Why do you find it "pointless", I found that this issue is still in the same shape it was 2 years ago...some say yes some say no and the only one that matters is RP and they remain silent IMHO. So are you telling me to stop checking in on any rule changes?
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 04:29 AM   #68
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

2 years of debate. 2 years of checking in. Time spent on the forums confusing people and droning on and on and I wonder...

Have you e-mailed the admin and asked them?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 04:36 AM   #69
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
Has post processing changed much since this site was created? Do you expect the site not to move forward with technology? I think standard processing isn't what it use to be and has grown. People also forget that film had a higher dynamic range then most digital cameras even if it wasn't much.

Go back to the first photos accepted on this site and ask your self if that is what you only want to see. HDR is what color was to black and white back in the day in my opinion. Standard processing can mean alot of different things to different people. To a pro - standard processing mean much more then to a newb using Paint to process his photos. A lot of people also miss the "etc." at the end of (beyond standard post-processing techniques such as levelling, sharpening, dust removal, etc.) which can mean a lot of things. Is using a noise filter or program beyond normal processing? I bet it was when this was written. It all comes down to it looking as close to real as a screener feels is acceptable.

Bottom line - the standards have grown along with the rest of the photography world.
Travis..I think you make some interesting points! I totally agree that when the rules were written they could not or did not even consider future abilities. That is why they should be amended to grow with the times IMHO.

So if I were to take your reasoning out... if I were to clone out/add-in an object in my image to make it more natural this is acceptable? The "ect." seemingly is all-encompassing?
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 04:40 AM   #70
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
Nikon can do muti exposures on one image. Why Canon doesn't? Probably because it is just the same to do it in PS.
Really, that is wild! I am only familiar with the Canon side of the cameras which to my knowledge does not have this capability. I guess if folks wanted too they could kinda do the same thing with the black card trick in front of the lens while in bulb or longer type exposures.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 04:48 AM   #71
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
Chase, is it that I have to be "missing the point", or that perhaps I don't agree with the point presented? I think I completely understand some of the folks comments/opinions/thoughts/hopes, but just because I may not agree or have some other viewpoint consistent with the guidelines...it falls into the realm of interpretation, mine perhaps more strict, while others more loosely. No big deal.
I've gathered that you don't quite comprehend the subject. According to other members, you've been arguing about this same thing for years. To me, that is pointless. If it really bothers you that much, submit an image, or clearly accept the fact that HDR is accepted under certain circumstances, it just has not been clearly stated in the submission guidelines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
"Looking at today's #1 PCA, which is obviously HDR, why is it allowed? I figured it was manipulation. If it's going to be allowed, then change the rules, but, LET EVERYBODY VOTE ON IT."

I am not alone in my estimation of the guidelines.
Today's number one PCA does not appear to be HDR. Would you please elaborate on this? As Jim Thias as stated before, it is impossible to capture HDR on a moving subject.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
So my view is validated?? I have been consistent in my view of the guidelines, I can't say the same for others who seem to have shifted their view while the guidelines have not moved one letter. Which is fine, I will continue to honor the original guideline requests and others will see fit to do what they want. I think I may have been the first to even ask about HDR back in '07, so it is of interest to me to see how it developed here. btw all of the above quotes are within the last couple of years.
No, your view is not validated. While you're entitled to your opinion, in this case, facts prove that your opinion is clearly inaccurate. It is an extremely easy thing to understand and why you seem to be having trouble comprehending it, I'm not certain. You can argue all day, but the fact is, you're not quite understanding the reality of the situation. I will explain it again in a simple way.

- RP standards from 2002 state that HDR is prohibited.

- As time progresses, as does technology. HDR become popular.

- RP adjusts to the new technology, therefore accepting HDR, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances being that the image looks "real" and not "fake".

- In 2009, while RP has not updated the guidelines stating that HDR is acceptable, most likely due to the fact that if they do indeed state that HDR is acceptable, the queue will become overwhelmed with fake, horrible looking HDR. With that being said, they limit the amount of HDR that is acceptable and keep it to a minimum. Those who contribute the HDR do so in a decent way, thus getting accepted. I'm quite certain a lot of HDR is rejected.

Does this help at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
Who said it was "big deal"? Not me. "Fuss", no consternation here, I just asked a simple question and get zinged for it...so if you mean fuss from others than you will have to ask them. I admit I have a interest in HDR otherwise I wouldn't ask such questions and or discuss it. Why do you find it "pointless", I found that this issue is still in the same shape it was 2 years ago...some say yes some say no and the only one that matters is RP and they remain silent IMHO. So are you telling me to stop checking in on any rule changes?
It is a neat discussion and worthy of having a debate, although the two year conflict and the continuing sentences asking the same questions over and over can after a while seem rather pointless to even bother arguing over.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 04:54 AM   #72
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Z View Post
My point is that I used HDR and mulitple exposures to correct an imbalanced exposure so that it looks right and the way that I remembered seeing it with my eyes. The lighting set up did funny things to skew the original exposures. Is correcting exposure over manipulation?
..according to RP guidelines and Mr. Ween (and others), yes this is beyond the allowed minor tweaks. Do I personally feel it is wrong, no, but alas my feelings and others are not the rule.

Quote:
And yes, my digital camera does multiple exposures on one image. But is that any different than making separate images and putting them together later?
Yes. They are totally different methods, one requires 'you' to digitally manipulate (combining) the images with a PP program while apparently with your camera it does not and does it in camera. An interesting question for sure to RP.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 05:02 AM   #73
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrator View Post
Let me get you up to speed and better informed...here are some of what these same members have told me and or said in other threads regarding HDR:
Out of curiosity, how many of those folks screen photographs for Railpictures? We obviously all have different pinions on photography. When you get right down to it, almost any if not all of those opinions could be responded to with: "So?"

In the end, RP dictates their own guidelines mainly by the pictures they allow in the database.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 05:47 AM   #74
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
I've gathered that you don't quite comprehend the subject. According to other members, you've been arguing about this same thing for years. To me, that is pointless. If it really bothers you that much, submit an image, or clearly accept the fact that HDR is accepted under certain circumstances, it just has not been clearly stated in the submission guidelines.
Hmmm...you mean by "comprehend" that I must agree with your assessment, I think I have shown overwhelmingly that it is at least a confused issue. Please show me where I am arguing...let me say again, I just asked if the guidelines have been changed or some admin has made a declaration. No arguing on my part I just have imparted my opinion like you...take it or leave it. Here is my question for reference:

" So are HDR images being openly accepted here now or do they still violate RP's submission rules? "



Quote:
Today's number one PCA does not appear to be HDR. Would you please elaborate on this? As Jim Thias as stated before, it is impossible to capture HDR on a moving subject.
...well if I really need to. Understand this is a quote from an earlier thread from the last several years as I noted...so I am not sure of the exact date but it is referring to that image at that time.

Actually HDR can be done on moving objects, I do them all the time. I have some cool waterfall shots that I do believe the water was moving and just about every landscape HDR image I do has moving clouds too...and they look fine to me. Now more specifically regarding moving trains there are a lot of factors that would decide whether or not a good or natural HDR image could be done, but I am sure it could be achieved. Here is one simple way, track a train in your car (have somebody else drive) and shoot off your exposures!




Quote:
No, your view is not validated. While you're entitled to your opinion, in this case, facts prove that your opinion is clearly inaccurate. It is an extremely easy thing to understand and why you seem to be having trouble comprehending it, I'm not certain. You can argue all day, but the fact is, you're not quite understanding the reality of the situation. I will explain it again in a simple way.
Okay, I thought I presented a clear and concise reason to you...you don't agree, cool no problem. You continue to call this an argument, but really I don't even see this as much as you don't like my opinion with supporting facts.

Quote:
- RP standards from 2002 state that HDR is prohibited.
yep!

Quote:
- As time progresses, as does technology. HDR become popular.
Yes, but one point, HDR has always been popular well before digital.

Quote:
- RP adjusts to the new technology, therefore accepting HDR, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances being that the image looks "real" and not "fake".
...and where is this guideline found? ...and does it supersede the current minimal manipulation rule?

Quote:
- In 2009, while RP has not updated the guidelines stating that HDR is acceptable, most likely due to the fact that if they do indeed state that HDR is acceptable, the queue will become overwhelmed with fake, horrible looking HDR. With that being said, they limit the amount of HDR that is acceptable and keep it to a minimum. Those who contribute the HDR do so in a decent way, thus getting accepted. I'm quite certain a lot of HDR is rejected.
Well all this is just fine and dandy but it does not have any validity. It is all your conjecture and opinion. Simply having HDR shots accepted does not negate any rules or somehow magically change everyone's thoughts on it. It could very well mean that the screenies accidentally allowed some in...no different from some of any number of unlevel, cloned or whatever contraband that may get in. The only fact is that there are some HDR shots in the database, no more no less.

Quote:
It is a neat discussion and worthy of having a debate, although the two year conflict and the continuing sentences asking the same questions over and over can after a while seem rather pointless to even bother arguing over.
Again, your insistence that this is some kind of argument or conflict is baseless...at least from my perspective. Heck I even learned something today that Nikon's can do in-camera multi-exposures! No harm discussing, if you see it that way ignore the thread.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 05:56 AM   #75
Serrator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
Out of curiosity, how many of those folks screen photographs for Railpictures? We obviously all have different pinions on photography. When you get right down to it, almost any if not all of those opinions could be responded to with: "So?"
I do. I always screen my photos before uploading them to RP...oh you mean actually screen others posted images for RP, then that would be a negative! Gotta have some fun.

Quote:
In the end, RP dictates their own guidelines mainly by the pictures they allow in the database.
Joe, your comment cuts it down to the chase...only RP can dictate ultimately, no question about that. ...and no existing image(s) can dictate that any future image will be accepted.
Serrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.