| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2006 08:35:45 PM · #1 |
I know what refraction is, but I wondered if in this challenge, one has to show the 'original' object getting refracted or would just showing the result of that refraction be sufficient.
Don't want to enter the wrong photo here.
Don't mind my grammar, I'm Dutch.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2006 09:07:51 PM · #2 |
Mmmmm....23 views and no answer yet. I'm sure I will make the wrong choice and therefor entering the wrong photo LOL, I always do you know. Never mind, it's my bedtime anyway.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2006 09:10:49 PM · #3 |
That's very much up to you. In some cases, like a rainbow, the source won't be needed (the sun) for people to accept that it is a refraction. In other cases, it could be helpful.
Go with your feelings. |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 09:11:03 PM · #4 |
| Don't really understand what you mean by 'original' object? Do you mean that you want to show an object being refracted through a medium? Like a spoon appearing to bend in a glass of water? I think that would be ok. As long as the effect of refraction is visible. |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 09:11:09 PM · #5 |
| if youdo have the original object shown and part of it being refracted then I would say that your idea will come off easily. However if you just have the refraction without basis then it would be a bit tough depending on what object you might have. As an example, if you were to take an image of someone in a pool swimming, the refractions are evident without showing a part of the body sticking out so to speak. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
04/04/2006 09:26:29 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
if youdo have the original object shown and part of it being refracted then I would say that your idea will come off easily. However if you just have the refraction without basis then it would be a bit tough depending on what object you might have. As an example, if you were to take an image of someone in a pool swimming, the refractions are evident without showing a part of the body sticking out so to speak. Does that make sense? |
I also was hesitant on just showing the refraction. I actually got some interesting patterns but I figured since it was one dimenisonal I didn't want to risk a DQ for "literal representation" since one might argue it's no different than a shooting a painting. I wouldn't argue that but I can see how some might.
Message edited by author 2006-04-04 21:26:51.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2006 08:13:45 AM · #7 |
Ok, thanks for all the answers, but your answers came in too late for me and I probably entered the wrong choice looking at the score of 'round 4.00 I'm getting till now. Or the voters just don't recognize beauty when they see it LOL I don't really care.
Message edited by author 2006-04-05 08:14:56.
|
|
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: 08/29/2025 03:05:14 AM EDT.
