Hi folks, i have a question for you!!
With the site name of 1x or "one exposure" i was under the impression that the site only accepted images taken with "one exposure" rather than a stitch or fusion of more than one image. I understand that this is not nescessarily true for some sections like the "creative edit" section or for what is obviously supposed to be a multiple exposure or a panoramic stitch, but i would have thought that for the other cattegories such as nature, landscape, etc, a single exposure with the usual pp work is what is required! If this is not the case, then surely a photographer could manufacture any image they like from numerous exposures and massage the image until it fits the bill!!
Where this can make the difference between being published or not, is it not cheating somewhat to try to pass off what is a fusion of two images or more as a single exposure by not mentioning that fact in the picture details?
Most important of all, is this acceptable to the site founders? If the answer is YES, then perhaps i should get cracking with manufacturing my images too, after all, it's bound to increase my chances of being published if i'm allowed to cheat a little :-) !!!! Well, ok, i don't cheat and i don't like cheats either so i'll just stick to my usual one exposure with pp work!!!
So, my question is, does an image uploaded to 1x have to be a single exposure, or, are we allowed to manufactured our images from several exposures? I ask this after having noticed a very obvious example of this in the nature section.

nX if you want. But avoid xxx if you don't want to be censored.

Ehm Vic,

As far as I know the name of the site is On Exposure... not One Exposure
And as fas as I know fusions of images should be posted as creative edits

And I have difficulties enough trying to get unfused images past screening.... let alone fused ones ;-)

Best of luck

Willem

Hi Willem,
Hmmm, 1x = on exposure? That dose not really make sense!! Why the 1 then? Confusing if you consider the sites photo book is called "onexposure" which could be construed as the e being used twice as an overlap of the two words!!
Dos anyon know th answr, thr sms to b an e missing

It doesn't need to be one exposure. However, it's much appreciated if you tell in the image description if you've used multiple exposures if it's not obvious. Creative edit is the right category for composites.

About the name, "Onexposure" can be read as either "On Exposure" or "One Exposure". "One Exposure" doesn't mean it has to be just one exposure it's rather a standpoint of quality over quantity.

Many thanks Ralf, that clears up both questions i think!! :-)

Vic.

Perfectly clear now...composite images are only "right" in Creative Edit. So glad we cleared that up!! And that thing about people telling us when the image is a composite, that's really great too!!

The name thing, well who really cares, because now it's clearly 1x.com?

Not sure it is quite clear...What about a multiple exposure done at shooting i.e. a single original file with multiple exposure ?

...of which I have many in my portfolio--shot on film before Photoshop came on the scene. They are not creative edits. Most are single images created on transparency film through carefully planned and executed multiple exposure (most 4"x5" film).

This was carefully designed:


This was an accidental double exposure shot on b/w negative film:

I don't think it matters much if you do a double exposure in camera or in an enlarger. "Creative edit" is not just for photoshop, it's also for analogue darkroom work, that's why it's not called "digital art". However, in the borderline cases you mention creative edit or another category is ok. I would probably have chosen creative edit for the shots above but it's not a big deal. I appreciate a lot that you told in the descriptions how they were made, as long as you tell that, the category is less important.

That makes sense indeed.

That is why I personally don't like the 'creative edit' standing as a category in itself because what is referring here as 'edit' can be applied to any genre. So I guess it is frustrating for those who are doing such 'edits' that they feel compelled to put it in that section. An indicator instead of a category (such as the one for nude/non-nude content) will be more relevant IMO. But yes the best could be to just put it in the category you like and leave an insightful comment.

Thanks, Ralf, for clarifying your position on this.


But, to me, it is a big deal because the entire image existed as a whole, in its latent form, before the film was processed. When the "magic trick" image was created, it was distinctive and unusual because of the sheer difficulty a retouch artist would have had to recreate it from separate images--and was a great selling tool in my portfolio. Today, it is simply representative of what can be done in camera without recourse to Photoshop.


Yes, I think that's important; not only to be transparent but in order to share with others how something might be done in case they are inspired (in the best case) to do something similar. I was president of the Dallas chapter of ASMP (the "American Society of Media Professionals"...which was earlier named "American Society of Magazine Photographers"). I never had trade secrets and was always happy to share with my colleagues and competitors how something was done. If they were good at their work, they could duplicate and perhaps improve upon my work without my help. If I shared my "secrets" and they succeeded, only good will resulted and I could share to a small extent in their success.

Yes, this is crucial point IMO. You can't confound what can be done with the camera with what can be done on the computer afterwards. Or if you choose to make no difference then you should open submissions to any kind of CGI.

Bravo KD, i think it's important to share knowledge on photography technique, you can only learn so much from books and photographers often develop their own unique methods so without the willingness to share, those methods may die out with the photographer and what a loss that would be!!



The multiple exposure on analogue is as you say, a single image in it's own right and is therefor not so much a "creative edit" but simply "creative" and far more difficult to accomplish IMO than with digital lightroom work. (It's a shame that Dslr manufacturers don't incorporate a multiple exposure fascility in their cameras!!) For me the distinction is "out of camera" or "out of photoshop", personaly. i prefer the first but that's not to say that the second isn't equaly valid :-)

Oh but some of them do Vic, my D300 has this very feature of which I have had enormous fun doing experimental things with, non any good yet but I'm trying......

I can do time lapse or interval shooting with it as well, in fact a bewildering amount of things that my wee brain has a hard time to understand sometimes, I haven't even learnt to take a shot with the flash yet.....

;-))

JP

Hi John.
I have to confess that as a Canon user, i'm a bit dissapointed that my 7D dosen't have a multiple exposure feature :-( (i haven't found any mention of it in their distructions) Still, all the other features are great so i guess i can live without it.......for now ;-)
Anyway, i still have my trusty old analog EOS 3, which is admittedly gathering rather too much dust! Must treat it and myself to roll or two of Velvia :-)

I don't think Canons have it Vic but you can replicate a similar thing in PS by taking separate shots then blending selected parts to form a single image with parts from the individual shots, or would that be "cheating".......hey,hey,

:-))

Actually, in this sense, I have cheated in a number of my images where I couldn't fit the whole exposure dynamic range into my sensor even with 5 stops of ND grad and had to take two separate images and manually blend them in PS to get the sky and foreground something like how I experienced it. When will they invent a 20 stop dynamic range sensor?????

JP

They did. It's called film.

LOL

Smart ass!

Everybody likes a little ass. Nobody likes a little smart ass. Story of my life.

Stop pulling the wool over my eyes, you chaps of photographic linearage, I believe you not......

:-)

Well, sadly it very difficult to show you. Frankly impossible on this medium. Go to Texas he will show you on his wall!!

I have heard that film has a wider latitude in DR than digital, somewhere in the region of 7 to 11 stops range??. I think what is as important for DR is the transition towards the edges of the range where the details fade into over exposure or underexposure. I have noticed a significant difference in my D300 over my D200 in this respect and have also heard that film is particularly good for this as well.

Not scientifically tested but I have a feeling my D300 has a recordable detail dynamic range of around 6 stops, considering that I usually have to use around 5 stops of ND graduated filter to bring a scene within the sensor's range, maybe they only need to develope a digital sensor with a 12 stop range. I wonder what the technical reasons are for the manufacturers not to have developed one yet?

Fuji did, it is the "super CCD" technology, on board of Fuji S1/S3/S5 DSLR. It consists on photosites that are doubled (i.e. 2 photosites resulting in a single pixel, e.g. my Fuji S5 is a 12M photosites sensor but with 6M pixels outcome). One of the photosite is very little sensitive to light so that it is able to catch more details in highlights and otherwise burnt out area. In the RAW you get two files (one of each pixel type) that you can mix the way you want, in a similar way to HDR (except that they are of the same image i.e. a single click). I don't use the RAW though and shoot jpeg. But the jpeg are incredibly flexible for that matter as well - compared to regular sensors.

I do think it was a very promising technology and would dream of such a sensor with higher resolution and full frame. But seems that Fuji has given it up...