| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2006 09:26:57 PM · #226 |
1st entry in 4 months. Hoping for my yearly top 5 entry (fingers crossed).
|
|
|
|
03/17/2006 10:04:51 PM · #227 |
Man this was one I wanted to call Rikki out on...too late I guess...or you could still have a side wager...and you only beat me in the afterlife by two places so you better watch your back Jack.
Clint
|
|
|
|
03/17/2006 10:39:46 PM · #228 |
| Might as well warn everyone that I've got some good stuff for this one. Certainly won't be less than six, just hope to be top 10%. |
|
|
|
03/17/2006 11:47:50 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Filters are a handy tool also in slowing things down allowing for smaller apertures and greater DOF. |
??? At a fixed shutter speed (2 seconds in this case) a ND filter (which I presume you are referencing) would require a larger aperture and hence offer less DOF. Of course, if you're at your slowest ISO and smallest aperture and still overexposing at 2 seconds, then the ND filters will reduce or eliminate the overexposure, but it's still a small aperure and a deep DOF shot, relatively.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:17:21 AM · #230 |
Originally posted by TomFoolery:
Man this was one I wanted to call Rikki out on...too late I guess...or you could still have a side wager...and you only beat me in the afterlife by two places so you better watch your back Jack.
Clint |
Ahhhhh you again????
;P |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 03:54:01 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm not taking on GIS boy, Rikki, or kiwiness for that matter. And I'm rooting for manic35 to take all of you down!
But I'll be in. Anyone want to fight it out in the high 4 - mid 5 range?? :-) |
Thanks, Deb! We sisters have to stick together. All this testosterone.....tut tut |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 04:57:31 AM · #232 |
Originally posted by manic35:
[quote=Melethia] But I'll be in. Anyone want to fight it out in the high 4 - mid 5 range?? :-) |
Count me in on the mid 4 to mid 5 range. Remember if a score is 5.001 or better, it means imediate DQ :)
Jokes aside, I am happy with my submission on this one. Hoping for reasonable score.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 05:46:02 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
it doesn't do well, it's not the voters... you just didn't pull off the deception well enough. |
Originally posted by Rikki:
If you can pull it off right, the voters will ultimately render your placement in the groupings. The trick is to show and convince voters that there is indeed a 2 second shutter speed used in the image ;) |
In other words, you promote cheating. That means that you also think it's ok to do Advanced editing in a Basic challenge - as long as you can pull off the deception. I guess it's also ok to cheat in tests at college - as long as the deception is complete.
Interesting way to view the world
Message edited by author 2006-03-18 05:48:55. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 06:43:08 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by kari1:
In other words, you promote cheating. |
If an image doesn't follow the challenge description but doesn't get DQ'd, is it cheating?
(sung to the tune of "if a tree falls in the forest...") |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 09:02:52 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by kari1:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
it doesn't do well, it's not the voters... you just didn't pull off the deception well enough. |
Originally posted by Rikki:
If you can pull it off right, the voters will ultimately render your placement in the groupings. The trick is to show and convince voters that there is indeed a 2 second shutter speed used in the image ;) |
In other words, you promote cheating. That means that you also think it's ok to do Advanced editing in a Basic challenge - as long as you can pull off the deception. I guess it's also ok to cheat in tests at college - as long as the deception is complete.
Interesting way to view the world |
Not complying with the challenge description is NOT considered cheating and is NOT grounds for DQ, much to the chagrin of some DNMC Nazis.
Message edited by author 2006-03-18 09:03:23.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 09:26:14 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by kari1:
In other words, you promote cheating. |
If an image doesn't follow the challenge description but doesn't get DQ'd, is it cheating?
(sung to the tune of "if a tree falls in the forest...") |
If the photog has the equipment to be able to comply with the challenge description but chooses not to they are really only cheating themselves in regards to trying something with the camera.
However, if the intention is to learn a PP technique to imply that the challenge description was complied with then they haven't really cheated themselves just maybe those who expect all entries to be camera technical rather than PP technical.
My personal view is: Try the camera route first since being able to handle the camera better will produce better results in the end.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 11:36:42 AM · #237 |
Well, I'm in, with great trepidation. It may be too "artsy" for some, but I'm mad for it and that's what matters. Now bring on the Sunday night rollover!!!!
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 12:05:10 PM · #238 |
Im very new to photography (couple weeks now) but i love to experiment so i went out and took a picture and entered in the challenge.
Let me just say that trying to take a picture in daylight with a 2 second shutter speed and a very limited knowledge of PS and photography just about drove me insane.
But i got my picture and i did some adjustments in PS and it has now been submitted. Im going out to get very very drunk now. |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 12:18:52 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by kari1:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
it doesn't do well, it's not the voters... you just didn't pull off the deception well enough. |
Originally posted by Rikki:
If you can pull it off right, the voters will ultimately render your placement in the groupings. The trick is to show and convince voters that there is indeed a 2 second shutter speed used in the image ;) |
In other words, you promote cheating. That means that you also think it's ok to do Advanced editing in a Basic challenge - as long as you can pull off the deception. I guess it's also ok to cheat in tests at college - as long as the deception is complete.
|
No,advanced editting in basic chaalenges in NOT OK. Rikki and myself were merely stating that those that could not participate because of camera limitations should research what "makes a 2-second exposure" and try to mimick it in PS.
BTW, there will be validation that mine is "EXACTLY 2 SECONDS."
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 12:37:50 PM · #240 |
| I'm off to try to reshoot mine, since due to the idiocracy of the camera operator, the settings were inadvertantly changed from the exact two second exposure desired. Bah. I hate when the camera operator does that! |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 12:43:08 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by CraigF:
Im very new to photography (couple weeks now) but i love to experiment so i went out and took a picture and entered in the challenge.
Let me just say that trying to take a picture in daylight with a 2 second shutter speed and a very limited knowledge of PS and photography just about drove me insane.
But i got my picture and i did some adjustments in PS and it has now been submitted. Im going out to get very very drunk now. |
Sounds like a superior plan :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 12:50:42 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by kari1:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
it doesn't do well, it's not the voters... you just didn't pull off the deception well enough. |
Originally posted by Rikki:
If you can pull it off right, the voters will ultimately render your placement in the groupings. The trick is to show and convince voters that there is indeed a 2 second shutter speed used in the image ;) |
In other words, you promote cheating. That means that you also think it's ok to do Advanced editing in a Basic challenge - as long as you can pull off the deception. I guess it's also ok to cheat in tests at college - as long as the deception is complete.
Interesting way to view the world |
That's not quite fair. Challenge descriptions are not "rules", as has been repeated many times in many threads. There's an ongoing debate in this thread re: those who actually cannot DO 2-second exposures being forced out of this challenge, and a great number of people have opined that it's "OK" to emulate a 2-second exposure. There was debate at the admin level of putting a "rider" in, a special rule, requiring EXIF validation of exposure time (i.e. making 2 seconds a "rule" for this challenge) and they decided NOT to do it.
I'm not privy to why they made that decision (I was in favor of it) but one can assume it's because some cameras can't do 2 seconds. Also, how would you deal with exposures that came out at 1.8 seconds? 2.1 seconds?
In any case, to advocate fudging on the description (a ribbon-winner in "4-5 AM" challenge was shot in broad daylight and PS'd to look like a night shot) is a whole different category of thing than breaking the editing rules.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:15:13 PM · #243 |
I'm not happy with trick photos from people whom cameras cannot do 2s exposures.
But you loose all my respect when you use a trick photo when your camera is perfectly capable of 2s exposures. Even worse when you win a ribbon with it.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:36:27 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I'm not happy with trick photos from people whom cameras cannot do 2s exposures.
But you loose all my respect when you use a trick photo when your camera is perfectly capable of 2s exposures. Even worse when you win a ribbon with it. |
I don't particularly call that tricks. I mean, there are all kinds of ways to add/delete from a photo and to me that isn't cheating. But to me, the artful finishing of an image is as important is it's beginning. Now, having said that, if you didn't have your shutter open for 2 seconds, I'm not going to know, but I guess if you don't follow that aspect of it, it is cheating. OH well... |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 01:52:05 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
[quote=Azrifel] Now, having said that, if you didn't have your shutter open for 2 seconds, I'm not going to know, but I guess if you don't follow that aspect of it, it is cheating. OH well... |
Of course we wouldn't know. But the challenge is "2 sec exposure" if your picture isn't taken with an (exactly) 2 sec exposure, this might as well be a free study.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:05:02 PM · #246 |
I thought I had already posted this comment from Langdon in this thread, but I can't find it now.
Originally posted by langdon:
I knew that a very small, if not tiny portion of the user base would not be able to participate. Every point and shoot I've used within the last few years had a manual mode that had an adjustable shutter.
That said, we've never disqualified anyone for DNMC, so if you can take a long exposure, then you can particpate. |
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the official word is that exposures other than exactly 2 seconds are legal; they are part of the description but not a "rule" and they won't be DQd. I suggest voting on the quality of the photo ... |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:14:41 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kari1:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
it doesn't do well, it's not the voters... you just didn't pull off the deception well enough. |
Originally posted by Rikki:
If you can pull it off right, the voters will ultimately render your placement in the groupings. The trick is to show and convince voters that there is indeed a 2 second shutter speed used in the image ;) |
In other words, you promote cheating. That means that you also think it's ok to do Advanced editing in a Basic challenge - as long as you can pull off the deception. I guess it's also ok to cheat in tests at college - as long as the deception is complete.
Interesting way to view the world |
That's not quite fair. Challenge descriptions are not "rules", as has been repeated many times in many threads. There's an ongoing debate in this thread re: those who actually cannot DO 2-second exposures being forced out of this challenge, and a great number of people have opined that it's "OK" to emulate a 2-second exposure. There was debate at the admin level of putting a "rider" in, a special rule, requiring EXIF validation of exposure time (i.e. making 2 seconds a "rule" for this challenge) and they decided NOT to do it.
I'm not privy to why they made that decision (I was in favor of it) but one can assume it's because some cameras can't do 2 seconds. Also, how would you deal with exposures that came out at 1.8 seconds? 2.1 seconds?
In any case, to advocate fudging on the description (a ribbon-winner in "4-5 AM" challenge was shot in broad daylight and PS'd to look like a night shot) is a whole different category of thing than breaking the editing rules.
Robt. |
I agree Bear. Plus what Kari seemed to have forgotten to quote was in what context my statement was made in. I was addressing those of us who doesn`t have dSLRs. I made that broad statement to include the P&S users as I do know some of them do not have manual exposures that can set the shutter to `exactly` two seconds.
In addition, breaking editing rules is not the same as `tricking` someone to think that a challenge description has been met.
Would I `lose` redpect for someone who `tricked` me to think they shot it in exactly 2 seconds? I doubt it. Kudos to them. The thing is when we start voting, think of what can really happen within a two second exposure. If you see an image and you say `wow` that water seems so eerily smooth and the exposure is just perfect, chances are, that wasn`t done in two seconds.
Just my two cents of course :) |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:16:48 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the official word is that exposures other than exactly 2 seconds are legal; they are part of the description but not a "rule" and they won't be DQd. |
But that doesn't make it ok to use say a 30s exposure. I can submit nearly the same but much more cleaner 30s exposure, instead of my ISO800 2s one. The 2s one has some interesting effects, but I am quite sure that the 30s version would do better at dpc. But it is against the spirit of the challenge. That's my point.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:18:19 PM · #249 |
|
|
|
03/18/2006 02:43:24 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the official word is that exposures other than exactly 2 seconds are legal; they are part of the description but not a "rule" and they won't be DQd. |
But that doesn't make it ok to use say a 30s exposure. I can submit nearly the same but much more cleaner 30s exposure, instead of my ISO800 2s one. The 2s one has some interesting effects, but I am quite sure that the 30s version would do better at dpc. But it is against the spirit of the challenge. That's my point. |
I (personally) think that people with cameras capable of a 2-second exposure should use that. My concern was solely for those with cameras lacking this capability, for example mine (longest exposure possible is 1/2 second). |
|
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: 08/30/2025 10:28:30 AM EDT.
