| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2005 01:20:40 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
If you take a picture of a pile of wheat, what is going to be your "message"? "We had a good harvest this year"?? |
What if it's a grainy picture of a pile of wheat? What's the message there?
"We had a good harvest and I wanted to show people so I took a pic of it but forgot to reset back to ISO 100"
Do ya think D&L sit around laughin their ass off at these posts about challenge interpretations.
Message edited by author 2005-10-17 13:23:26.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:07:51 PM · #77 |
I've got this all sewn up. I get grain in full daylight!
:-D
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:15:27 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Do ya think D&L sit around laughin their ass off at these posts about challenge interpretations. |
I have a friend in the CIA, and he bugged Langdon's phone for me a couple months ago. He says when Langdon called Drew to discuss the router problem, they digressed into "challenge interpretations" and the laughter got so loud it blew the bug...
R.
Message edited by author 2005-10-17 14:16:28.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:19:41 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
... all sewn up. |
Fabric grain = the lengthwise direction of the weave
Use a scarf on a log that looks like a person and add noise to the picture. If the log looks like a baby you get bonus points.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:33:07 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
... all sewn up. |
Fabric grain = the lengthwise direction of the weave
Use a scarf on a log that looks like a person and add noise to the picture. If the log looks like a baby you get bonus points. |
and first place if the log next to it looks like the baby's mother who is naked |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:33:26 PM · #81 |
Something like this, maybe? Drats, was taken a day before the challenge!
GT40atSebring |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:36:20 PM · #82 |
| There are a lot of opinions in this thread, the one that made sense the most is the one posted by EddyG, since dpChallenge stands for Digital Photography Challenge, the word grain as in film grain is nonsense in my opinion, the noise in digital photos is not equivalent to film grain at all. Also, as far as I recall, digital noise caused by low light or high ISO was never a desirable effect. I am no pro by any means, but I ain't voting high for a noisy photograph .. |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:37:01 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...when Langdon called Drew to discuss the router problem... |
:-D
:-P
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:52:51 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
...the word grain as in film grain is nonsense in my opinion, the noise in digital photos is not equivalent to film grain at all. Also, as far as I recall, digital noise caused by low light or high ISO was never a desirable effect. I am no pro by any means, but I ain't voting high for a noisy photograph .. |
YOUR LOGIC:
1. Digital cameras do not use film.
2. Grain is an artifact of film processing.
3. Therefore, digital cameras can not produce grain.
Conclusion, any digital image entered in the current challenge which attempt to reproduce the effects of film grain will get a low vote.
Your Logic on steroids:
1. Digital cameras do not use film.
2. ISO is a standard measure of the light capabilities of film.
3. Therefore, digital cameras can not be set to an ISO rating.
Conclusion: Anyone submitting a digital image and claiming any ISO rating should be DQ'd since it is impossible to achieve with a digital camera.
Now that is logic at its most nonsensical!
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:54:27 PM · #85 |
Thanks Robert. It's funny, I didn't notice any grain in this image before, and I'm pressed now to see it. The main subject appears to be sharp without grain. The background (layered I'm assuming) is grainy - but to me is similar to what you would get with a slight blur. IMO this image wouldn't work in the 'Grain' challenge.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I have another question...sorry, but has anyone seen a grainy image do well (top ten) in any recent challenges?
I've looked for an example but with this dial-up connection it takes forever to browse the past challenges... |
Here's a blue ribbon by Laurie that's pretty grainy: according toher notes she added it...
Robt. |
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:56:56 PM · #86 |
so you're saying you are putting in a bowl of rice...and the people who are voting and submitting rice.. are only giving rice pictures a good vote whether its not the best photo or not... and that maybe the submitters who are submitting photos with granular noise in it should then vote your photo down even if its technically the best photo and they should use your poor judgement in voting???
Originally posted by samanwar:
There are a lot of opinions in this thread, the one that made sense the most is the one posted by EddyG, since dpChallenge stands for Digital Photography Challenge, the word grain as in film grain is nonsense in my opinion, the noise in digital photos is not equivalent to film grain at all. Also, as far as I recall, digital noise caused by low light or high ISO was never a desirable effect. I am no pro by any means, but I ain't voting high for a noisy photograph .. |
Message edited by author 2005-10-17 14:59:00. |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 02:57:40 PM · #87 |
Have they ever added to the challenge description to clarify meaning before? There are definately two camps on this topic. I have no desire to try and produce a photo that is grainy. That to me, is not a step forward for me. (although, it would certainly give neat image a break!) I had all the items ready to set up a shot, using actual "grain" (ie. oats, wheat, corn etc) but I am not sure if I should go ahead and shoot it because by the sounds of it, half of this thread would vote it down.
I will probably shoot it anyway and stew on it until the deadline...with hand hovering over the submit button. LOL
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:00:03 PM · #88 |
| i stills ay lets vote on this one differently.... VOTE FOR THE TECHNICALLY BEST PHOTO.... whether its a bowl of rice or a grainy picture |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:01:14 PM · #89 |
I think I'm excited about this challenge. I'm going to accept it as a real "post-processing" challenge, but why not? Post-processing has become just as important a part of photography as the darkroom was before. Do you think Ansel or any other stalwart of photography didn't know their way around a few darkroom tricks?
OTOH, the best post-processing techniques can't overcome a poor photograph. So here we are with a nice challenge with a different taste. The objectives:
A) Take a good photograph which has the proper subject and mood which is open to enhancement by grain.
B) Use your PS skill to add the right amount, texture, style and placement of the grain so that A becomes fulfilled.
I'm excited to take a whack at it. |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:25:18 PM · #90 |
How about everyone just posting the best photo you can, using your personal interpretion of the word "grain", ...and just let it up to the voters to understand your interpretation. If they don't get it, just PM them and rip 'em to shreds...
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:26:57 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think I'm excited about this challenge. I'm going to accept it as a real "post-processing" challenge, but why not? Post-processing has become just as important a part of photography as the darkroom was before. Do you think Ansel or any other stalwart of photography didn't know their way around a few darkroom tricks?
OTOH, the best post-processing techniques can't overcome a poor photograph. So here we are with a nice challenge with a different taste. The objectives:
A) Take a good photograph which has the proper subject and mood which is open to enhancement by grain.
B) Use your PS skill to add the right amount, texture, style and placement of the grain so that A becomes fulfilled.
I'm excited to take a whack at it. |
THAT, in my opinion, is the spirit!
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:29:28 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by rikki11:
it seems like this sounds like a free study with film grain in mind.... hmmm... am i off base here? |
Thats what i am thinking also Rikki.
As Bear said, we did "granular" meaning grains of sand/wheat/whatever a couple ofmonths back, so my own logic points to this "grain" meaning noise. If 'they' wanted the same of the last challenge, 'they'would have called it granular 2. |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:41:57 PM · #93 |
Here is a photo from last week that might have worked for this challenge.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:42:17 PM · #94 |
wait - i worked it out....
Drum roll please
This is a challenge in Not Using Neat Image!!!!
seriously though, here is a perfect example of "grain as an integral part of the message in a photo".
Note now the grain gives an emotive feel to the image. The grain is serving a purpose in the image. It is not there because you forgot to turn down the ISO, it is part of the story the image is telling. |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:43:44 PM · #95 |
I'm going to take a picture of a wheat field, at night, at low ISO. I'll make it a long exposure so I can run naked and really 'streak' through the field. Then I'll smear chocolate all over my face and eat a severed fish head while sticking my face in a fish tank. Then I'll offer a random draw for a free one year membership to anybody scoring my shot a ten.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:48:54 PM · #96 |
One example where grain looks typically pretty good is for live concert shots. Great example, and I know Sir Joey Lawrence will back me up on this one, is the dvd "Under Blackpool Lights" by the White Stripes.
No super high-tech digital, crystal clear images at all. They went for an old camera and recorded the concert with an ass-load of graininess and it looks fantastic and was an integral part of the message of their movie.
Maybe they do mean rice and wheat and barley, and if they do this sight has hit a new low for BOREDOM. But the argument that since this is a digital site, submitting pictures with grain makes no sense.....makes no sense!! Digital is just the medium. People here have submitted tons fo shots that look just like film grain, especially on B&W's. |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:49:12 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'm going to take a picture of a wheat field, at night, at low ISO. I'll make it a long exposure so I can run naked and really 'streak' through the field. Then I'll smear chocolate all over my face and eat a severed fish head while sticking my face in a fish tank. Then I'll offer a random draw for a free one year membership to anybody scoring my shot a ten. |
Man does the naked have to be grainy? I mean if your going to do it then I say do it!! I am ready w/my 10 just for you. ;) |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 03:53:01 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by rebelgirl:
Man does the naked have to be grainy? |
Believe me, the grainier, the better! :-O
|
|
|
|
10/17/2005 04:09:42 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
One example where grain looks typically pretty good is for live concert shots. Great example, and I know Sir Joey Lawrence will back me up on this one, is the dvd "Under Blackpool Lights" by the White Stripes.
No super high-tech digital, crystal clear images at all. They went for an old camera and recorded the concert with an ass-load of graininess and it looks fantastic and was an integral part of the message of their movie.
|
Damn straight, I put some grain texture on a pair of glasses when I saw them live for the same effect. ;-)
Nah, not really.
But yeah, this is a great challenge idea. I love grainy pictures :-) |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 04:38:28 PM · #100 |
Grain?
or Grain?
I think I'm going with grain....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 02:22:29 AM EDT.
