The results of the "Masters' Free Study II" challenge have been recalculated, due to the former 5th place image being disqualified. Congrats to our new 5th place!
The whole DQ on Saberis image is nonsense. A true master of DPC pushed the boundaries of a standard star trail shot and gets DQ'd for it. Very very Wrong.
Swan aside here - in a stacked star trails shot surely stars move into frame and move out of frame, thus engaging the rule that nothing in the shot can change or be introduced - but they have not been DQ'd in the past. Granted this time the swan swam into view, but that is no different to a star moving into view, or out of view. Just wondering how big an object has to be before it is classed a major feature - in a star trail shot, surely the stars are a major feature? But as I said, before this hasnt been an issue.
Just wondered would a stacked star trail shot be illegal?
Stacked stars, yes, star trail, no. That would be a time lapse photo. "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene, nor is it intended to allow a subject to appear in multiple places within a scene."
The scene should be basically unchanged in every frame. We'll give some leeway for lining up two handheld shots of a static scene or a little cloud movement, but if something is shown moving across the frame, that's going to be DQ'd every time.
I am sure I have an email to Kirbic asking if I could use startrail software to stitch some exposure togther to create a trail. Could you dig that out for me pleaSE? along with his answer
here it is
DPChallenge user kirbic has sent you the following private message:
Hi Alex,
Yes, combining up to 10 captures to achieve long star trails is legal in Advanced. The startrails software is one way to achieve it; it can also be done purely in photoshop.
When was that sent? It was briefly allowed under the "time lapse" rules in January, but somebody just asked this question recently and there was pretty clear consensus that it's not legal under the current rules.
What about this image that basically did the opposite. He tracked the stars for 5 exposures, which would have made the foreground trees very blurry and move abit in the composition. Then took an image with the tracking mount off for three minutes which I am guessing would have made some star trails which were not shown in the final composition. Yet stitch the best parts of each is ok?
I haven't seen Alex's originals, but if the other exposures are completely black where the swan is, I am not sure I see why it is illegal, if the bird was just floating around all blurry in each shot except for the one with the flash, would it be legal like like jlanoue's?
When was that sent? It was briefly allowed under the "time lapse" rules in January, but somebody just asked this question recently and there was pretty clear consensus that it's not legal under the current rules.
That was sent about a week before the masters voting started. Ask Fritz.
Based on what I have read here, I really think this needs to be cleared up for the current challenge 'Stars' or we may see a few DQ's before the week is out.
Okay I am going to play the devils advocate here. Say the photographer took 10 images one after the other...with no obvious gaps between the photos. A swan swam into the fifth photograph. So does the photographer -
A - Clone out the swan and gets DQ'ed for removing a major element.
B - Leave the swan in and gets DQ'ed for including an major element that was not in the other frames.
C - Scrap all the photos that have been taken and start again, crossing their fingers that another bird doesn't appear.
What should the photographer do to not be DQ'ed in a situation that is controlling purely by nature itself?
the dq was because the swan was in one original, not the others.
Ah, OK, but surely if a star that was otherwise out of frame in shot one, but was in the shot by shot ten then you have added a major element.. so, that would be illegal? Likewise, a star that was in frame in shot one, but out of frame by shot ten would be removing an element... but according to Saberi, Kirbic said this was legal, hence the reason he entered it..
Where does it say that the frames used need to be consecutive frames? The rule states that the frames used need to be such that the scene whose composition/framing does not change.
Okay I am going to play the devils advocate here. Say the photographer took 10 images one after the other...with no obvious gaps between the photos. A swan swam into the fifth photograph. So does the photographer -
A - Clone out the swan and gets DQ'ed for removing a major element.
B - Leave the swan in and gets DQ'ed for including an major element that was not in the other frames.
C - Scrap all the photos that have been taken and start again, crossing their fingers that another bird doesn't appear.
What should the photographer do to not be DQ'ed in a situation that is controlling purely by nature itself?
Well, Judi, he STROBED the swan... That's pretty intentional on his part. And it's been clear, at least to me, after the MAJOR debate on the multi-exposure advanced ruleset, that you can't use the exposures the way he did, effectively, here. I'm not saying he intentionally broke the rule, I'm just saying I'm not surprised it's been DQ'd. I remember when I looked at the image I tried to figure out how in HELL he could legally have gotten that effect...
Look at it from the opposite perspective; I asked SC if I could set up my tripod in a busy downtown intersection and snap 6 pictures of a building in traffic, then combine the parts that didn't have any traffic to make a composite, no-traffic image and they said no. There's actually software for this, btw, that reads whatever changes between frames and eliminates it from the scene. It's a godsend for architectural photographers, but DPC isn't allowing it.
Okay I am going to play the devils advocate here. Say the photographer took 10 images one after the other...with no obvious gaps between the photos. A swan swam into the fifth photograph. So does the photographer -
A - Clone out the swan and gets DQ'ed for removing a major element.
B - Leave the swan in and gets DQ'ed for including an major element that was not in the other frames.
C - Scrap all the photos that have been taken and start again, crossing their fingers that another bird doesn't appear.
What should the photographer do to not be DQ'ed in a situation that is controlling purely by nature itself?
I think you're forgetting that he intentionally popped a strobe at the swan to catch him. If the above was truly the dilemma, then the swan would have been all but invisible without the flash.
*just my uninformed, amateur two cents*.
Loved the image, by the way, thought it was better that 5th really, but I do agree with SC that it doesn't fall within the rules. I know they were not intentionally broken though.
eta typo, and Robert - you got in a second before me :)
