| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2002 12:53:51 AM · #1 |
Greetings to everyone and thanks for the votes on This Photo.
An overwhelming number of comments that I got did not like the blown out window in this image... I knew that would be the case when I posted this, so it's not a problem :) I intentionally over exposed that window for the particular message I had in mind for the image :)
Thanks :)
John Setzler
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 01:00:26 AM · #2 |
I liked the blown out window and even put that in my comment. I'm so happy that I got that one right. LOL. Thanks for the explaination that you did it on purpose. Nice shot.
Message edited by author 2002-12-16 01:00:40.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 01:04:01 AM · #3 |
this is why i think descriptions should be visible to voters.
i like the blown-out-ness.
the only thing that bothers me is the slight curvature of the pews in the very front (somethign about the lens). but it doesn't spoil it enough that i wouldn't easily have given this photo 9 or a 10.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 01:05:34 AM · #4 |
| Yeah, I figured you'd get hit for that, but I loved it. I ALMOST made a smart-alec, "hi setzler" remark in my comment, cause this photo had all the hallmarks of your shots. Very nicely done. |
|
|
|
12/16/2002 01:43:04 AM · #5 |
that would have been funny.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 09:34:57 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Arachnophilia:
this is why i think descriptions should be visible to voters. |
Respectfully, I am not sure that this is the case.
I didn't like the blown out window light - and knowing that the photographer had done it intentionally or not would have made no difference to how much I liked it.
I would worry that people would become so caught up in whether something was done intentionally or not (if the descriptions were visible) that they would not comment on the photo according to their own reaction to it.
I don't know if that makes much sense.
Perhaps my response to it is related to my religious beliefs, or rather my lack of them, which meant I was generally looking at the image as an image and not for emotional content. Although I could understand the content to an extent, I couldnt necessarily empathise with it.
Don't know. Just thinking aloud really.
Message edited by author 2002-12-16 09:35:32.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 10:29:25 AM · #7 |
Was there even a way to get the tonal values and shadows WITHOUT! blowing out the light source?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 10:56:01 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by aelith:
Was there even a way to get the tonal values and shadows WITHOUT! blowing out the light source? |
Yes... I shot a few that way too... smaller aperture and same length exposure kept the tones fairly even throughout the image...
|
|
|
|
12/16/2002 11:00:06 AM · #9 |
AH, thank you. I so much to learn. *sheepish grin*
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:17:20 PM EDT.
