STICKY Major Ride of the Year (ROTY) Giveaway Announcement

[NJW]

Then we have photo's like this - instead of light painting the Jeep like I did in a earlier post I made, I've bumped up the exposure tremendously on this shot that I took at 4am. I did this so I wouldn't overexpose the headlights like crazy and have an unusable image. I had to take multiple shots though, one of the sky and one of the foreground and merge those two. It's called focus stacking. I'm not altering what's there, but in order to capture the shot - these are the techniques that are necessary. I would like to enter my best work for the upcoming ROTM contest, that's why I'm asking for clarification.

Here's the unflattering original:

 

[Zorba]

Then we have photo's like this - instead of light painting the Jeep like I did in a earlier post I made, I've bumped up the exposure tremendously on this shot that I took at 4am. I had to take multiple shots though, one of the sky and one of the foreground and merge those two. It's called focus stacking. I'm not altering what's there, but in order to capture the shot - these are the techniques that are necessary. I would like to enter my best work for the upcoming ROTM contest, that's why I'm asking for clarification.

View attachment 361854

That's a beautiful photo - but obviously not "real".

 

[NJW]

That's a beautiful photo - but obviously not "real".

That's why I'm asking for clarification. This photo here was on the same night, completely unedited and straight out of camera - I don't feel like it looks anymore "real" than the previous post. It's just long exposure -

*I'm not arguing that I should be able to enter the previous posted photo, but it's why I raise the question regarding a clear definition of what's allowed and what's not in regards to post processing.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

That's a beautiful photo - but obviously not "real".

What's "real" though? I agree the night shot isn't, but not due to the technique, instead because the eye wouldn't see it with that much light, so the second, darker photo is more "real". The one on the rock outcropping though, I think his edit is probably closest to what a human eye saw there that day.

 

[Zorba]

That's why I'm asking for clarification. This photo here was on the same night, completely unedited and straight out of camera - I don't feel like it looks anymore "real" than the previous post. It's just long exposure -

View attachment 361859
*I'm not arguing that I should be able to enter the previous posted photo, but it's why I raise the question regarding a clear definition of what's allowed and what's not in regards to post processing.

It looks realer because the foreground isn't so light - although yea, the wonderful starfield isn't something you'll often see except way out at sea.

 

[Zorba]

What's "real" though? I agree the night shit isn't, but not due to the technique, instead because the eye wouldn't see it with that much light, so the second, darker photo is more "real". The one on the rock outcropping though, I think his edit is probably closest to what a human eye saw there that day.

Agreed.

 

[Tob]

He knows when you are naughty and he knows when you are nice

Making his ignore list, and checking it twice

 

[freedom_in_4low]

It looks realer because the foreground isn't so light - although yea, the wonderful starfield isn't something you'll often see except way out at sea.

I think with the darker photo, the light levels between the foreground and the starfield look pretty well matched. The San Juans in SW CO is pretty dang good when it comes to seeing the milky way. I plan my trips there to avoid full moons so I can really see it. It probably can't stand up to out at sea when it comes to what small amount of light pollution it does have, but skipping the most dense 2.5 miles of atmosphere goes a long way.

 

[NJW]

I figured the astro shots wouldn't be kosher - though they're they most technical thing I've attempted photography wise. Even if they were permitted, enough people would probably cry that they're not "real" to were it wouldn't be advantageous for a peoples vote. I was mainly asking for clarity about processing RAW photos.

 

[NJW]

It looks realer because the foreground isn't so light - although yea, the wonderful starfield isn't something you'll often see except way out at sea.

The stars are crazy up here. Didn't know how much of a difference being out at sea on top of a mountain (Or volcano) would make:

 

[Zorba]

The stars are crazy up here. Didn't know how much of a difference being out at sea on top of a mountain (Or volcano) would make:

View attachment 361869

THAT is gorgeous! Saved to my rotating "wallpapers" directory.

 

[Chris]

Question regarding this^

I shoot all my photos in RAW, pretty standard practice to get the most detail out of an image. Those photos therefore require “post processing”. My background is commercial architectural photography.

RAW files are just that: the raw data that the sensor collects. All of it. There is too much data to show an acceptable image without further work being done – the only question is whether the camera or the photographer does the further work.

A RAW file will show a flat, low contrast, uninspiring image by default. A JPEG simply lets the camera, or phone, do the work for them. It boosts the saturation and contrast. It applies sharpening. It throws away all the information it doesn’t need and gives the photographer a ready-to-use, edited file.

All photos are processed. Whether it’s done by a human utilizing software, or in camera, based on auto settings.

Just asking for clarification on the rules here.

In the standard ROTM posts, we see that Photoshop is acceptable for cleaning up a photo, what I would assume “post processing” would fall under.

Or we talking about instagram filters or something like that?

Since there is no way to really stop this it is allowed in the contest starting the first of next year. Once the new year starts all photos will be allowed filter or no filter.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

The stars are crazy up here. Didn't know how much of a difference being out at sea on top of a mountain (Or volcano) would make:

View attachment 361869

For the sky photos, what software do you use to stack the multiple exposures? Does Photoshop do that or something else? I dabbled in astrophotography like 8 years ago but I didn't get good results in the amount of time I considered acceptable before moving on to another hobby.

 

[Zorba]

Since there is no way to really stop this it is allowed in the contest starting the first of next year. Once the new year starts all photos will be allowed filter or no filter.

Hopefully the "no portrait mode" will still be a thing...

 

[Chris]

Hopefully the "no portrait mode" will still be a thing...

That will always be a thing. I can’t stand ruined photos.

 

[Zorba]

That will always be a thing. I can’t stand ruined photos.

Thank you. Neither can I.

 

[SAWB]

I don't like ruined photos either , that's why I never put me in them.