Armorama :: Enhanced photography in online competitions

Site Talk
Site announcements, comments, or feedback about the site.

Hosted by Darren Baker, Jim Starkweather

Enhanced photography in online competitions

Thudius

Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2014 - 08:36 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You answered it yourself, its not 'true' image of the model, it is 'truer'. Very good camera and very good lighting will not fade stuf, it will make any mistakes more visible if anything. You can't make an HDR image using any regular setup available, other than that with HDR preset. I repeat, good camera will not make an HDR or HDR like image. You've seen the photos in question, so you know they were not poor, quite good actually. 'truer' photos are not 'true', not real.

Ok, so we're punishing people for creating something that's too good.

Kimmo

Pedro

Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts

PROFILE

WWW

Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2014 - 08:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

You answered it yourself, its not 'true' image of the model, it is 'truer'. Very good camera and very good lighting will not fade stuf, it will make any mistakes more visible if anything. You can't make an HDR image using any regular setup available, other than that with HDR preset. I repeat, good camera will not make an HDR or HDR like image. You've seen the photos in question, so you know they were not poor, quite good actually. 'truer' photos are not 'true', not real.

Ok, so we're punishing people for creating something that's too good.

Kimmo

Where did you got the notion that anybody wants to punish anyone? If you think that amending contest rules is punishing, then I'm being punished by not being able to enter an AFV with figure in hatch? Not realy. Where did I ever wrote anything stating HDR is too good? I only wrote it's not real that is the whole point.

M4A3E8Easy8

Washington, United States
Joined: February 04, 2006
KitMaker: 302 posts
Armorama: 300 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Sunday, August 17, 2014 - 04:01 PM UTC

I will throw my two cents in here, I have entered the monthly contest before but I will not enter it again with out hdr enhanced pics. That and I will check the picture on a couple of different computers due to my last shots being dark when the contest posts, but looked good on my screen. This whole thing is a slippery slope, I have seen some really cool videos of people making a not so pretty girl look like a super model. Nothing says that can not be done here, but is that scale modeling or computer modeling. Seems tought to police and a call for the guy running the contest.

mmeier

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 07:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You answered it yourself, its not 'true' image of the model, it is 'truer'. Very good camera and very good lighting will not fade stuf, it will make any mistakes more visible if anything. You can't make an HDR image using any regular setup available, other than that with HDR preset. I repeat, good camera will not make an HDR or HDR like image. You've seen the photos in question, so you know they were not poor, quite good actually. 'truer' photos are not 'true', not real.

Even the low grade EOS1100D can make High Dynamic Range pictures with little effort. Put the DLSR on a tripod (I'd do that anyway for a model shot) and make three pictures. One two steps darker, one with normal exposure and one two steps lighter all with a single press of the remote trigger.

Feed into Lightroom (Again I do that anyway since I shoot RAW and have to "develop" the picture), tell the software "make HDR" and done.

Higher level EOS can do that automatically and deliver a RAW or JPEG HDR (IIRC the 700D can). And in all cases we are talking amateur equipment in the below 600€ range in both cases.

All HDR does is play with the light, showing more detail so you can actually see more errors. And let us be honest, if I do a HDR properly - you will not realise it is one. That is actually the idea behind that type of pictures. Same for quite a few other elements programs like Lightroom can do. In the end I say "export as JPEG" and "No EXIF" and you can only guess what I did.

And where do we stop anyway? My DSLR can do custom white balance so my colors are "closer to the real stuff" than that of a cheap compact or a tablet cam. Is that manipulation? And what about the step from RAW to JPEG that I do in Lightroom since the in-camera stuff does not work for 3rd party lenses like my Tamron? It will automatically correct for lens errors, the effects of high f-stops and short focal length. Straighten corners, adjust the picture to horizontal etc.

Do we disallow the guy with the KB DSLR that can easily play around with depth of field in a way that no compact camera (and not even a APS-C DSLR) can? Or DLSRs in general since they have superior optics that can do stuff a compact or mobile phone cam can not? What about studio lights and flashes? An interested photo amateur (and that is a hobby that merges nicely with scale modelling - shoot them than build them) will accumulate some stuff that can greatly enhance even a normal picture.

Thudius

Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: October 22, 2012
KitMaker: 1,194 posts
Armorama: 1,077 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 08:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

You answered it yourself, its not 'true' image of the model, it is 'truer'. Very good camera and very good lighting will not fade stuf, it will make any mistakes more visible if anything. You can't make an HDR image using any regular setup available, other than that with HDR preset. I repeat, good camera will not make an HDR or HDR like image. You've seen the photos in question, so you know they were not poor, quite good actually. 'truer' photos are not 'true', not real.

Even the low grade EOS1100D can make High Dynamic Range pictures with little effort. Put the DLSR on a tripod (I'd do that anyway for a model shot) and make three pictures. One two steps darker, one with normal exposure and one two steps lighter all with a single press of the remote trigger.

Feed into Lightroom (Again I do that anyway since I shoot RAW and have to "develop" the picture), tell the software "make HDR" and done.

Higher level EOS can do that automatically and deliver a RAW or JPEG HDR (IIRC the 700D can). And in all cases we are talking amateur equipment in the below 600€ range in both cases.

All HDR does is play with the light, showing more detail so you can actually see more errors. And let us be honest, if I do a HDR properly - you will not realise it is one. That is actually the idea behind that type of pictures. Same for quite a few other elements programs like Lightroom can do. In the end I say "export as JPEG" and "No EXIF" and you can only guess what I did.

And where do we stop anyway? My DSLR can do custom white balance so my colors are "closer to the real stuff" than that of a cheap compact or a tablet cam. Is that manipulation? And what about the step from RAW to JPEG that I do in Lightroom since the in-camera stuff does not work for 3rd party lenses like my Tamron? It will automatically correct for lens errors, the effects of high f-stops and short focal length. Straighten corners, adjust the picture to horizontal etc.

Do we disallow the guy with the KB DSLR that can easily play around with depth of field in a way that no compact camera (and not even a APS-C DSLR) can? Or DLSRs in general since they have superior optics that can do stuff a compact or mobile phone cam can not? What about studio lights and flashes? An interested photo amateur (and that is a hobby that merges nicely with scale modelling - shoot them than build them) will accumulate some stuff that can greatly enhance even a normal picture.

This is what I've been trying to get across with no success. I'm not up to speed with current camera capabilities but I do know that whatever is a neat or interesting bit of stand alone software now, will be a standard built in feature soon enough and nobody will be the wiser if used properly. Heck, if you're good enough with CAD, you could do something that would be hard to distinguish from an actual kit. Why anybody would bother is an entirely different question.

As I said earlier, photography as we know it is gone. The rules need to reflect this. When we dealt with film, there was only so much advantage somebody could gain with more expensive equipment. Shopping in effects, backgrounds and the like have no place in these types of contests, but HDR does, because it is not an effect, it is a technique. If it looks weird, then the person screwed up. No different from someone painting a tank the wrong colour for a particular theatre or adding modern equipment onto a WWII vehicle. Let the voters decide if they like it or not.

Kimmo

pseudorealityx

Georgia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2010
KitMaker: 2,191 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 09:09 AM UTC

If someone puts a couple of hundred hours into a building a model, who are you or I to tell them how to take a picture of the thing?

Here's some photos I took with my PHONE. All it takes is a few minutes and thought to get good photos out of inexpensive cameras.

M113
http://armorama.com/forums/220707#1856801

M109A2
http://armorama.com/forums/217085#1824378

Matilda
http://armorama.com/forums/216132#1815627

M3 Lee
http://armorama.com/forums/208317#1748796

DickyF

England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: February 01, 2010
KitMaker: 54 posts
Armorama: 24 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 09:33 AM UTC

Tricky subject no doubt.....firstly I don't think this is an enforceable 'ideal' 'Enhanced photography has or most certainly will become the norm...it happens in blogs as well as competitions. Personally, I have a crap camera and little or no photographic knowledge, for me, an in focus picture is a good picture!

If a picture is too dark or contrast too harsh for example, I'll re-arrange lighting and such until I'm happy but that is all I'm equipped to do. In my opinion, if a modeller has to apply effects/techniques (or whatever you want to label it as) to their pictures that make the finished result look better (or at least different) to the portrayed model then this is, in my opinion, misrepresentation and nothing more!

I have lost count of the times I've attended shows excitedly lookin' forward to seein' this build or that build 'in the flesh' to find myself bitterly disappointed when I realise that what I was droolin' over in a magazine or online bears little or no resemblance to what's in front of me! By all means use whatever methods you need to present a model in it's best light, but like AM, how about letting the voters know if any software was employed and let them decide....sure this takes honesty too - are we goin' in circles here?

retiredmutt

United States
Joined: September 11, 2011
KitMaker: 4 posts
Armorama: 3 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 10:29 AM UTC

I appreciate Paul's comments and thought process, but I have to disagree with the ultimate conclusion.

First, review these photos:

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/gfkug-2.jpg

Next, realize they were made within 3 months of the INITIAL release date of the INITIAL version of this model by Dragon.

All photos were taken with a SINGLE light source (though two differing ones). One set on slide film and one set on negative (print) film. Kodak mastered the disk and I sent it to ML. And yes, in the days when I entered contests here in the U.S., this critter won a small handfull of trophies and a number of placement ribbons/awards.

The lighting angles and levels of the completed model were deliberately chosen to provide dramatic highlights and contrast to show off the detail --- which is exactly what model digital techniques are used to do. All HDR does is take a series of exposures and expand the dynamic range to reduce burned out and underexposed areas....Which is why I disagree with Paul's conclusions FOR CONTEST ENTRIES.

If we follow Paul's logic we have to "level the playing field" and limit the lens used (in 35mm equivilents), the exposure (f/stop and shutter speed), the ISO equivilent, the color balance, and any out-of-camera enhancements. That said, the contest should then require all photos to be taken from a particular elevation and angle. All a bit extreme, I think.

retiredmutt

United States
Joined: September 11, 2011
KitMaker: 4 posts
Armorama: 3 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 10:32 AM UTC

Woops.

use

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/gfkug.htm

ProfessorP

Minnesota, United States
Joined: February 20, 2007
KitMaker: 339 posts
Armorama: 325 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 11:04 AM UTC

Quoted Text

If a picture is too dark or contrast too harsh for example, I'll re-arrange lighting and such until I'm happy but that is all I'm equipped to do. In my opinion, if a modeller has to apply effects/techniques (or whatever you want to label it as) to their pictures that make the finished result look better (or at least different) to the portrayed model then this is, in my opinion, misrepresentation and nothing more!

Dick, it isn't clear from your post if by "re-arrange lighting and such" you mean physically or digitally. But, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that what you mean is moving your lights physically until you get a satisfactory result with your shot. If this is the case, then what you are essentially arguing is that the rules should be set to the lowest common denominator. Since you (and others) don't have (or necessarily want...not a bad thing) the tools to capture images of your model beyond a certain point, than no one else should be able to do that either. Would you apply this same logic to an airbrush? How about a PE bending tool? A Dremel? All of these are tools of the hobby used to make our models look better, assuming we have the resources to purchase them. I fully recognize that not everyone has these resources and I'm not suggesting that you need them to be a better modeler, but in most cases, having these tools makes our job easier at getting a better result. If we are going to include online competitions as part of our hobby, then having a decent digital camera is no different. But along with that camera comes a host of digital aids that help improve the images.

There are lots of modeler who don't have an airbrush but have devised methods to get an outstanding finish through other means. There is such a thing as ingenuity and lots of modelers who don't have high-end tools are able to produce stunning results. I would argue that this same logic should apply to capturing images of our models. Not all of us have the tools or ability to take great photos. If you have a crappy camera and poor lighting, then upping the contrast or lightning the image electronically should certainly not be a disqualifier in an online contest where the best presentation is likely to win. It's almost unrealistic to expect that given the wide range of possibilities in cameras, monitor resolution, available digital imaging tools, and even viewer preferences that the best model will always win, but that can be said about in-person, physical model contests as well. I just don't see the point of trying to police this unless we want the rules to be so restrictive that we proscribe what type of camera, lighting and backgrounds are acceptable.

Quoted Text

I have lost count of the times I've attended shows excitedly lookin' forward to seein' this build or that build 'in the flesh' to find myself bitterly disappointed when I realise that what I was droolin' over in a magazine or online bears little or no resemblance to what's in front of me!

That's likely due to the fact that lighting in most show situations is absolutely terrible for viewing models. Or at the very least, it is not nearly as good as what most of us are used to using when we work on our models. Personally, I work under 300+ watts of daylight-corrected lighting and I use that same lighting to photograph my models. But if I took that same model to a show, many of the details would be less noticeable, the colors would appear differently as would the levels of contrast. It would just look different in a lot of ways. Similarly, celebrities that we see online and in the magazines, don't really look like that when you see them in person. Lighting, hair and makeup can work wonders. But is that cheating? I would say no, it's just presenting an "idealized state", of what we want something to look like.

SdAufKla

South Carolina, United States
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts

PROFILE

WWW

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 11:18 AM UTC

While I understand, and largely agree with the position here that HDR can (and is often used to) radically alter the appearance of the photo's subject, I just don't see that as a problem with these contests.

These contests, such as they are, are merely based on popularity. Posters vote for the model they "like" best, and while some of us may think that skill and craftsmanship should win out, that's not the criteria being used. The criteria for winning is just how many folks like a particular model.

If you don't "like" the model photo that you think has been altered with HDR, then don't vote for it.

By the same token, some brilliant piece of work could be entered, but the photo of it is simply "ka-wap." If it doesn't win, then what? Should the better model "get voted on a curve" just because it's photo wasn't as good as the others?

Maybe if these were juried contests with expert judges using some standardized criteria, entering altered photos of the models might be construed as "cheating," but as it really is... It's just about who "likes" which picture.

joepanzer

North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 11:50 AM UTC

I've been thinking on this for a couple days now. I can see both sides of the argument. But I did go back to the original contest post just to view the other entries and I realized that I had dismissed a couple of the kits based solely on the quality of the photo. Wasn't trying to be biased, but with those particular photos, it was impossible to get a grasp of the level of detail and technique. Don't think there's a fix, but on the flip side, doesn't seem fair that photo editing/rendering/enhancing to certain levels are allowed-essentially because there are prizes involved. Again, don't really see a fix.

mmeier

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Monday, August 18, 2014 - 12:42 PM UTC

I think people over-value what the normal "three shots" HDR can and will do. It is not image manipulation or editing. It will not remove any flaws or add missing parts. It will lighten up parts of a picture that will normally be too dark and tone done others that will be to bright.

Alan (alanmacs) link on the first page actually shows the typical HDR. If one takes this to the extrem HDR actually shows what is REALLY THERE since our eyes dynamic range are actually bigger than that of the camera. HDR is three shots taken with exactly the same camera position and most settings jzst varying exposure.

The HDR picture from 1721Lancer on page 1 (besides showing how bad the used software is

) shows what HDR can do and does - show more of the present details. But that is all, those details are physically there they are not "added" and a person on the spot could see them since our eyes are better than our camera at that. And said person would likely also see "one color" since our eyes are good at doing custom white balance

HDR together with CustomWhiteBalance, Focus-Stacking and "shooting RAW+development" instead of trusting the camera-internal JPEG engine are all legal IMHO since they do not change what is present, they just show it more clearly. It's just like using high (f22 or more) on a good lense for getting a better depth of field. Doable with a DSLR while most phone cams will produce something horrible.

After all even the JPEG engine in the camera plays with the data based on what the manufactures things is a "good" picture and/or what style the camera is set to (Natural, Portrait, Panorama etc). If your cam can do RAW (many better "Compacts" can) try it. Shoot RAW+JPEG and then run the RAW through a developer program with no special settings activated (The trial of LR or the free Lightzone) and compare them. Chances are the results are different.

Taking out Photoshop and my trusty WACOM Tablet PC and doing some image manipulation by removing/adding parts, painting over blemishes etc. - THAT would be unacceptable. Undetectable for most if done properly but not ok for a contest.

1721Lancers

England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: March 21, 2012
KitMaker: 1,673 posts
Armorama: 1,640 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 03:55 AM UTC

MBR the software I have is a test version I grabbed from the net,that was the first of the 50 odd pre-sets you can use. There are at least 1000 gadgets, widgets, buttons and dials to play with, but I just wanted a fast example to post.

Well then by the way things look, the majority want this HDR bull to be legal tender in competitions.
If that's the way it's going to be, then someone better start explaining it to the next gen of new model makers.

Start by telling them if don't have the software then don't try and compete because it is a waste of time.

Then tell them "you have got to buy the software xxx that costs between 30€ and 200€".
All you teens out there just go and annoy your parents, they'll give in in the end.

Also explain that this new gift they have found only works online, and hope that no-one turns up at the show with a print (magazine etc.) of the changed subject.

I think that's enough.
I for one know that I am not the worlds best kit maker, but I do know that I will never enter an HDR picture into a competition.
To get a decent picture all that is needed is cheap photo tent;

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/222317&page=1

which as you can see has been posted here on Armorama, and a digi camera and possibly a cheap table tripod.
Even ceiling spots and a "daylight" table lamp with a white backdrop/table cover is enough. That gentlemen is how to take an honest picture where no software add-ons are needed.

I have also stated that a relatively cheap Digi cam will do, I use the Samsung ES75 for in build progress and a Nikon Coolpix L810 for the gallery pics. The Nikon was more mid priced, it cost me about three new Dragon kits.
So as far as I can see there is no need for the HDR in online competitions, if it's for a magazine or an Arty pic to hang on the wall then ok.
I still think, if you need to use HDR then you are in the wrong game.

Paul

pseudorealityx

Georgia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2010
KitMaker: 2,191 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 04:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Well then by the way things look, the majority want this HDR bull to be legal tender in competitions.
If that's the way it's going to be, then someone better start explaining it to the next gen of new model makers.

Start by telling them if don't have the software then don't try and compete because it is a waste of time.

Then tell them "you have got to buy the software xxx that costs between 30€ and 200€".
All you teens out there just go and annoy your parents, they'll give in in the end.
Paul

Paul, I think you're being over dramatic. There's no point in actually discussing it with you because you don't want to discuss it, you just want to yell how about unfair it is to you.

Sorry man.

philmmusic

Solothurn, Switzerland
Joined: August 06, 2014
KitMaker: 70 posts
Armorama: 69 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 04:27 AM UTC

HDR I assume is alright. Cheating would be using Photo Shop to enhance details and colors of a model photo.

1721Lancers

England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: March 21, 2012
KitMaker: 1,673 posts
Armorama: 1,640 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 04:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Paul, I think you're being over dramatic. There's no point in actually discussing it with you because you don't want to discuss it, you just want to yell how about unfair it is to you.

Sorry man.

If you remember I said at the start of this;
"I have a question and I wish to state my opinion too."

I will not change my opinion like a flag that changes the direction it sways in when the wind direction changes.
Also this makes 6 other members who out this HDR stuff also "dramatic".
I have pm'd the competition leader (Keith Forsyth) again and hope for answer soon.
Also that sort of answer which you have given is rather pathetic. It's not about me it's about plastic kit making and not photography tricks. Have you got it now?

Paul

pseudorealityx

Georgia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2010
KitMaker: 2,191 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:16 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Paul, I think you're being over dramatic. There's no point in actually discussing it with you because you don't want to discuss it, you just want to yell how about unfair it is to you.

Sorry man.

If you remember I said at the start of this;
"I have a question and I wish to state my opinion too."

I will not change my opinion like a flag that changes the direction it sways in when the wind direction changes.
Also this makes 6 other members who out this HDR stuff also "dramatic".
I have pm'd the competition leader (Keith Forsyth) again and hope for answer soon.
Also that sort of answer which you have given is rather pathetic. It's not about me it's about plastic kit making and not photography tricks. Have you got it now?

Paul

How should we enforce your "no HDR/photo enhancements" rule?

mmeier

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:17 AM UTC

Quoted Text

MBR the software I have is a test version I grabbed from the net,that was the first of the 50 odd pre-sets you can use. There are at least 1000 gadgets, widgets, buttons and dials to play with, but I just wanted a fast example to post.

Well then by the way things look, the majority want this HDR bull to be legal tender in competitions.
If that's the way it's going to be, then someone better start explaining it to the next gen of new model makers.

Start by telling them if don't have the software then don't try and compete because it is a waste of time.

Then tell them "you have got to buy the software xxx that costs between 30€ and 200€".
All you teens out there just go and annoy your parents, they'll give in in the end.

Also explain that this new gift they have found only works online, and hope that no-one turns up at the show with a print (magazine etc.) of the changed subject.

I think that's enough.
I for one know that I am not the worlds best kit maker, but I do know that I will never enter an HDR picture into a competition.
To get a decent picture all that is needed is cheap photo tent;

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/222317&page=1

which as you can see has been posted here on Armorama, and a digi camera and possibly a cheap table tripod.
Even ceiling spots and a "daylight" table lamp with a white backdrop/table cover is enough. That gentlemen is how to take an honest picture where no software add-ons are needed.

I have also stated that a relatively cheap Digi cam will do, I use the Samsung ES75 for in build progress and a Nikon Coolpix L810 for the gallery pics. The Nikon was more mid priced, it cost me about three new Dragon kits.
So as far as I can see there is no need for the HDR in online competitions, if it's for a magazine or an Arty pic to hang on the wall then ok.
I still think, if you need to use HDR then you are in the wrong game.

Paul

Actually HDR software costs nothing. I use Lightroom (around 100€) since photography is a big hobby of mine and it is has a lot of useful features like image catalog.

But Lightzone will do as well including lens corrections and most other image development stuff LR can do(1). And that is free software these days (Was a commercial LR contender a few years back). IIRC even the software tools that come with my camera can do a "3 shot HDR". So the "software investment" argument is invalid.

I do not get the "only works online" argument. If I create a HDR and export it to say JPEG and than have a commercial service do a 9x13 picture of it (cost: 20 cent) - it will look just the same. Because the PICTURE and the MONITOR will support the full dynamic range of the human eye. Unlike the camera that has limited DR. Safe to assume anyone that sells pictures to a magazin will, if necessary, use HDR.

It is one of the easiest, fastest and cheapest ways to show the existing detail of a kit. Actually a lot of the stuff one does with light tents and spots just generates the same effects one gets with a HDR. Lightenin shadows with secondary spots, toning down lights with indirect / softened main lights. If the cam can do that for me - why waste the money on a tent and extra spots?

As for "cheap digicam" - those are the purpose build cameras that actually do the most IN-CAMERA processing with the least user input options. Only beaten by the cams in a mobile, some of those do HDR automatically to get a good picture without even telling. Heck even my next DSLR (2) can do HDR automatically generating a "ready to use" JPEG with a single trigger press(3)

But even if I leave HDR out of the picture AND restrict my DSLR to generating JPEG instead of RAW(4) the picture will likely be sharper and more vivid than a 100€ compact. Bigger sensor (possibly more Pixel as well), better lens and a more powerful image processor as well as better focus system etc. will likely see to that. Tell the cam "uncompressed/minimum compressed JPEG" and the base for downscaling to 1024x800 pixel has less artifacts etc.

(1) It lacks some of the library functions and the LR interface is nicer IMHO.

(2) EOS 700D or 750D, depends on when the 750D becomes official and what sensor it will use

(3) Doing it from 3 RAWs still produces better quality at least with the 700s engine

(4) Not that I would. Always use the best format you can and for 90+ percent of the shots that is RAW (uncompressed, unprocessed) and do the processing later with either the camera tools delivered with the cam or extra software.

mmeier

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Paul, I think you're being over dramatic. There's no point in actually discussing it with you because you don't want to discuss it, you just want to yell how about unfair it is to you.

Sorry man.

If you remember I said at the start of this;
"I have a question and I wish to state my opinion too."

I will not change my opinion like a flag that changes the direction it sways in when the wind direction changes.
Also this makes 6 other members who out this HDR stuff also "dramatic".
I have pm'd the competition leader (Keith Forsyth) again and hope for answer soon.
Also that sort of answer which you have given is rather pathetic. It's not about me it's about plastic kit making and not photography tricks. Have you got it now?

Paul

How should we enforce your "no HDR/photo enhancements" rule?

You can not. As said before: I do the HDR, export to JPEG with no EXIF (or if one demands them an edited set) and thats it. A link on page 1 of the thread shows that it is next to impossible to distinguish a well done HDR from a normal picture.

pseudorealityx

Georgia, United States
Joined: January 31, 2010
KitMaker: 2,191 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:27 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Paul, I think you're being over dramatic. There's no point in actually discussing it with you because you don't want to discuss it, you just want to yell how about unfair it is to you.

Sorry man.

If you remember I said at the start of this;
"I have a question and I wish to state my opinion too."

I will not change my opinion like a flag that changes the direction it sways in when the wind direction changes.
Also this makes 6 other members who out this HDR stuff also "dramatic".
I have pm'd the competition leader (Keith Forsyth) again and hope for answer soon.
Also that sort of answer which you have given is rather pathetic. It's not about me it's about plastic kit making and not photography tricks. Have you got it now?

Paul

How should we enforce your "no HDR/photo enhancements" rule?

You can not. As said before: I do the HDR, export to JPEG with no EXIF (or if one demands them an edited set) and thats it. A link on page 1 of the thread shows that it is next to impossible to distinguish a well done HDR from a normal picture.

Exactly. Which is my point. Rules that are unenforceable are useless.

We might as well say we can't use airbrushes, because they offer a superior paint finish.

docdios

#036

England - West Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 1,998 posts
Armorama: 1,236 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:30 AM UTC

Hi all

I have spoken to Jim S regarding this "issue" when Paul first raised it with me and this is the reply.

Quoted Text

Hi Keith,
Sorry for the late reply. I don't think we would seriously be able to stop this even if we wanted to. And that said you can bet the magazines are putting all their photos through the photo shop mill to get the best possible photos printed. In a sense the contest is both a model making contest and a photography contest as well. So yeah... HDR is going to have be okay.

Thanks,
Jim

Now whether you agree or disagree with it HDR is here to stay for the foreseeable future, currently there is nothing in the the rules that state you can or cannot use it, so its a little hard to disqualify someone for using it.

As for some of the other comments, we ask you to vote on a single picture that way its the same for everyone, the entries we receive I have between 3 or 20 pictures depending upon the person entering. The quality and shots again differ from person to person and we ask the entrant to choose the shot he wants to use for his entry. If voting picture isn't chosen by the entrant then I will pick it and I try and pick one that give the best overall view of the model, not always easy to do with the limited pictures I some times receive.

HTH

Keith

mmeier

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Quoted Text

Paul, I think you're being over dramatic. There's no point in actually discussing it with you because you don't want to discuss it, you just want to yell how about unfair it is to you.

Sorry man.

If you remember I said at the start of this;
"I have a question and I wish to state my opinion too."

I will not change my opinion like a flag that changes the direction it sways in when the wind direction changes.
Also this makes 6 other members who out this HDR stuff also "dramatic".
I have pm'd the competition leader (Keith Forsyth) again and hope for answer soon.
Also that sort of answer which you have given is rather pathetic. It's not about me it's about plastic kit making and not photography tricks. Have you got it now?

Paul

I have "gotten it" that you can not distinguish between photography tricks like image editing in Photoshop and what HDR is/does. If one follows your concept of a "proper contest picture" we have to specify:

Focal length in 36mm equivalent
ISO and f-stop
Number and placement of light sources
Output of light sources
Type and placement of background
Other equipment used

to make "all pictures equal". Otherwise a user might pull "tricks" like using a softbox, a few slave flashes, a reflector etc. to make the model look better. (1)

As long as I controll the lights and environment I can achive the same effects that HDR can. Just takes more time and equipment. I can rent a complete studio for 20-30€/hour around here. Granted, they'll look at me like I am crazy if I show up with scale models instead of persons. But they rent it (co-modeller did it once) and the equipment there is in the 2000+€ range with matching qualities.

(1) Not that uncommon to own if you do a bit more portrait/person shots. A useable "3rd party" slave is around 40€, controllers from 30-70€/pair depending on capabilities.

mmeier

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 06:01 AM UTC

Quoted Text

HDR I assume is alright. Cheating would be using Photo Shop to enhance details and colors of a model photo.

Even that is a "grey" area and difficult to rule IMHO.

The JPEG generated by the processor in most compact cams actually does enhance/brighten colors, perform WhiteBalance and sharpens edges because that is what people "expect". The comment "my (Insert compact/mobile phone) makes brighter/more vivid/sharper pictures" is a common comment if you show people the unenhanced "embedded" JPEG found in many RAW(1). Play around with picture styles and see the differences in what the camera does.

Running a RAW file through say DPP (the standard tool Canon delivers with all RAW-capable cams from the G-series Powershot compacts/bridges on upward) will do some processing as well just on a PC instead of in-cam. Likely using the same algorithms as the cam.

About the only thing one can rule out (and one MAY detect) are some elements of image manipulation. Like using the "repair" brush to hide / overpaint a glue smear or adding a figure where none is in the model. Since some other manipulations (rotating the picture so it is horizontal, removing blemishes on the backdrop) are valid IMHO the restriction ultimately is something like "Not allowed to remove/add elements that are physically present/absent on the kit".

Adding a background picture to a vignette through image manipulation is again "grey" territory

(1) That is done without any of the enhancement processing even a DSLR does internal for a JPEG

165thspc

#521

Kentucky, United States
Joined: April 13, 2011
KitMaker: 9,465 posts
Armorama: 8,695 posts

PROFILE

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 06:23 AM UTC

Sounds like the majority are saying that to improve lighting on a model by electronic means (i.e. adjusting exposure and contrast) is OK. Then most appear to feel that to employ HDR is just an extension of exposure adjustment and is therefore OK. However the idea of adjusting color balance is something most folks seem to be a little iffy on. And finally construction of additional features not present on the physical model is something which is definitely out.

All are points I could agree with!

Mike

(p.s. I could agree with adjusting color balance ONLY IF the adjustment serves to make the photograph more correctly represent the actual colors of the model.)

TOP