A lot of people wanted to know how I did this so here I go...
I found a photo of the Earth on NASA and in PS inverted the colors and placed it on a black BG.
I then put it on my comp screen.
I set my D200 to multiple exposure and took the first shot of the Earth and then moved over and took the second exposure of my girlfriend's eye. It took me about 10 tries to get them to align properly.
In PS, I simply invered the image which brought the Earth back to it's original colors. Then desaturated the cyan in the skin.
Well, I'm just saying...if you want a shot of something for a basic editing challenge, you shouldn't be allowed to put it on your computer monitor, and photograph it...just doesn't seem right...but just saying is all.
Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not combine multiple exposures.
I don't see a "unless everything is done in-camera" qualifier in the rules. But apparently it's been discussed at length as someone else mentioned, so if I understand this correctly, multiple exposures are only allowed if you have one very specific model camera and if you don't have it then you're screwed? You only get special privileges if you have a special camera? Isn't that rather blatantly biased?
Note that this isn't an attack on the photo or its artist, but this ruling seems really really really super duper sketchy.
so if I understand this correctly, multiple exposures are only allowed if you have one very specific model camera and if you don't have it then you're screwed? You only get special privileges if you have a special camera?
yes.
I have a feeling this is one of the things that might get rehashed when the new rules come out though.
under basic editing, it DOES say
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission. "
this is no combining multiple exposures like it says... this is work done in camera. well done, kosmikkreeper.
under basic editing, it DOES say
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission. "
this is no combining multiple exposures like it says... this is work done in camera. well done, kosmikkreeper.
But it is combining multiple exposures. There are two distinct shots taken and they are combined. Whether in or out of camera should be irrelevent, because frankly, how is this image any different than me taking two pictures and overlaying them in a photo editing program? In-camera vs. out does not really hold water as an argument for this one in my opinion.
Anything done in camera has always been legal, period. So yup, if you have a camera that can't do them (like mine), you're screwed. Just like you're screwed if you see some animal miles away and want to take a close up but only have a wide angle lens. Them's the breaks.
I suspect that if there are future modifications to this rule, it will have to do with various editing capabilities, etc. that are popping up on the newest cameras.
But it is combining multiple exposures. There are two distinct shots taken and they are combined. Whether in or out of camera should be irrelevent, because frankly, how is this image any different than me taking two pictures and overlaying them in a photo editing program? In-camera vs. out does not really hold water as an argument for this one in my opinion.
rules is rules and they were not broken with this shot. I'd love to see a cleaned up version.
ooh, can't wait for the first cam with PS on it lol
See, that's exactly my issue. It violates the spirit of the basic editing rules. That is my objection. If I am not allowed to do it with PS or whatever, then you should not be allowed to do it with your camera, either, since both methods are really just a matter of software. The location of that software should be totally irrelevent. The ruling is horribly biased. I don't break the rules, but neither am I the type to blindly or blithely resign myself to rules that are poorly conceived.
rules is rules and they were not broken with this shot. I'd love to see a cleaned up version.
ooh, can't wait for the first cam with PS on it lol
See, that's exactly my issue. It violates the spirit of the basic editing rules.
Using two different shots (exposures) isnt legal in advanced either.
I guess it's like people having different editing software. Although most of them do everything else that the other's do. Although I know there is stuff in PS CS that you cant do in PS 7. I only have PS 7 so is therefore unfair to me that I cant do what other people can do in PS CS? Not really. So the fact his camera can do in-camera multiple exposures and mine cant is pretty much the same thing.
"See, that's exactly my issue. It violates the spirit of the basic editing rules. That is my objection. If I am not allowed to do it with PS or whatever, then you should not be allowed to do it with your camera, either..." - karmabreeze
Multiple exposure in-camera is something you can fake, and it is a technique that people have been using even before the digital age. outlawing it in images is not, in my opinion, something that should be done. This is like not allowing me to take advantage of my higher burst rate just because many other people do not have this capability in their cameras. besides, i think that things like this are too nit-picky for a photo site that is for fun. This is just my opinion, and i hope that i have not offended anyone.
Ok what if he used ONE exposure but tricked the camera and got the same result? For example, using a long shutter speed and covering the lense when he switched the eye and globe. Technically he would be capturing two images but with one exposure. Does that violate the spirit of the rules in your opinion?
i think you probably know this, yanko, but i'll say it anyway. that is exactly what the camera is doing, the only difference is that the mirror is going twice for one photo. if you didn't know, glad to help, if you did, i'll shut up now.
This is like not allowing me to take advantage of my higher burst rate just because many other people do not have this capability in their cameras.
Exactly. Same could be said for any other "feature" of a higher-or-lower-end camera. You use the tools available to you to take the best photograph you can. I don't think a feature-rich piece of equipment, high-end glass, or a tripod that can be placed on a 45 degree incline should be grounds for disqualification. Because at the end of the day, it's the photographer, not the equipment, that determines how good the picture is.
As proof, just look at all the great pictures JoeyL took with that piece of crap he had. ;)
