I would like to see the ruling changed on this site so that only good honest builds with normal photographs are allowed in. Also anyone trying to enter an enhanced picture should be automatically disqualified.

Cheers


Paul

Quoted Text

---

I would like to see the ruling changed on this site so that only good honest builds with normal photographs are allowed in. Also anyone trying to enter an enhanced picture should be automatically disqualified.

Cheers


Paul

---

How would you enforce these rules? In other words at what level do you say a model is disqualified? Say the photographic image is a little dark and you lighten it to see more of the detail, would that constitute a ban? How are you going to know if a photo has had any work done on it in the first place.

What's a "good honest build" by the way?

I can see your point of view but struggle to know how you can fairly and effectively enforce it.

Alan

In a similar vein, some modelers have access to better tools, dedicated work space, more cash for after market goodies and so on. Should the rules be modified to level the playing field a la OOB

Quoted Text

---

In a similar vein, some modelers have access to better tools, dedicated work space, more cash for after market goodies and so on. Should the rules be modified to level the playing field a la OOB

---

Kimmo, IMHO this is also part of the hobby, and part of the build, nobody can asses how much aftermarket goodies those models have, PE is mostly barely visible, still you need to have skill to install it properly and that is how your model is built. It is OK. If you draw this PE stuff in PS, then no it is not ok.

You can get an idea of how much after market is used if you know what the base kit was. And adding anything to the build that wasn't in the kit is after market; be it stowage, ammo, etch whatever. I was trying to make the point that enhanced photography is a presentation skill; if the contest is about the presentation and not the build, then why should enhancement be off limits? If it is about the build, then the contest needs to be re-thought completely.

My camera sucks, no custom settings apart from the presets which don't work well for these kind of pics, ok, one in a thousand shots might turn out close to perfect. I can't afford a better one, but I know I can make slight adjustments to the levels and tweak the sharpness in GIMP or Photoshop to make the picture better and more presentable as if I had used a better quality camera with which you can control these aspects. This is the key to my argument: if you can't take a decent picture with the camera you can afford, you aren't going to get very far. If you don't have a couple hundred to spend on a camera, you are automatically put at a disadvantage and doesn't do anything to encourage people to enter because they know the pictures aren't going to be good enough. Think of it like this; you don't need an airbrush and compressor to achieve a great paint job, so how much you have available to spend for the hobby side is more or less a moot point, it comes down to skill and technique. I look at enhancing as another tool at our disposal these days, and with GIMP, it's absolutely free and available to everyone.

As to how much enhancement is too much, that's like asking how long a piece of string is, or better, how long does a piece of string have to be before it is considered a ball of string?

Kimmo

Quoted Text

---

You can get an idea of how much after market is used if you know what the base kit was. And adding anything to the build that wasn't in the kit is after market; be it stowage, ammo, etch whatever. I was trying to make the point that enhanced photography is a presentation skill; if the contest is about the presentation and not the build, then why should enhancement be off limits? If it is about the build, then the contest needs to be re-thought completely.

My camera sucks, no custom settings apart from the presets which don't work well for these kind of pics, ok, one in a thousand shots might turn out close to perfect. I can't afford a better one, but I know I can make slight adjustments to the levels and tweak the sharpness in GIMP or Photoshop to make the picture better and more presentable as if I had used a better quality camera with which you can control these aspects. This is the key to my argument: if you can't take a decent picture with the camera you can afford, you aren't going to get very far. If you don't have a couple hundred to spend on a camera, you are automatically put at a disadvantage and doesn't do anything to encourage people to enter because they know the pictures aren't going to be good enough. Think of it like this; you don't need an airbrush and compressor to achieve a great paint job, so how much you have available to spend for the hobby side is more or less a moot point, it comes down to skill and technique. I look at enhancing as another tool at our disposal these days, and with GIMP, it's absolutely free and available to everyone.

As to how much enhancement is too much, that's like asking how long a piece of string is, or better, how long does a piece of string have to be before it is considered a ball of string?

Kimmo

---

When its straight it is a string no matter the lenght... and HDR is HDR. Do you know what HDR is and did you saw the photos in the gallery of the entry in discussion?. Do you see the differences between the pictures and how they affect how the model looks or not? Surely the un-HDR-ised photos don't look as if someone took them with a phone without a cam, but they do also show the model as-it-is. HDR is not normal photediting procedure like sharpness or balance. It is a different type of photograph altogether, it is made of three exposures of the same scene with different settings. You dont do this to enhance bad photo, you need three good photos taken on a tripod to make it or use special software. I ask again, do you see the difference?

Maybe we should not have used the word enhancement as I see it is a problem?

Cheers
Greg

HDR in this case is distorting reality, shows what is not there.

Greg

Quoted Text

---

HDR in this case is distorting reality, shows what is not there.

Greg

---

Is it not showing what is there, just in a better light?

Using the light values within the HDR image to "light" and determine the exposure of the subject rather than the physical ones determined by the exposure settings.

Technological advances you say, so in the next competition I can enter with 3d generated textured model? hmmm hmmm... contrasting photos and balance shifting helps you see what is there mostly, alleviates lighting insufficiency, HDR in this case is distorting reality, shows what is not there.

Greg

Quoted Text

---

Technological advances you say, so in the next competition I can enter with 3d generated textured model? hmmm hmmm... contrasting photos and balance shifting helps you see what is there mostly, alleviates lighting insufficiency, HDR in this case is distorting reality, shows what is not there.

Greg

---

You're being deliberately obtuse with the 3D comment. So merging 3 different shots with 3 different settings is somehow magically showing something that is not there? As I understood it, HDR allows you to have consistent focus and depth of field and to be able to bring out details that a single shot can't through multiple exposures. You can do it manually in Photoshop and GIMP, though it is hit and miss. The software just simplifies the process. Again, I don't know why you guys are up in arms over this, it's a legitimate technique that improves images without resorting to "airbrushing" blemishes and what not. If using HDR shows a truer reality of what the model looks like, what's the big deal? It's not like the technique is being used to hide glue marks and unfilled seams.

Kimmo

I ask n'th time, have you seen the photos in question, and if you did and did compared them to the non HDR versions, do you still think all it did was 'illustrate' the model better and in no way "enriched" some effects while covering some other?