| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2006 08:14:12 AM · #26 |
So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't....niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 08:15:15 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by raish:
If I can look like a terrorist and attempt to board a plane carrying things that look like explosives, weapons, etc. - then I'm busted. A photographer who brilliantly succeeds in fooling me into thinking that a picture was taken in a manner that does not respond to the the given task, is thereby hoisted on his/her own petard. |
Just for the hell of it, in case anyone is wondering, here's the origins of the phrase "Hoist by his own petard":
*****
Meaning
Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
Origin
A petard is or rather was, as they have long since fallen out of use, a small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls. They were originally metallic and bell-shaped but later cubical wooden boxes. Whatever the shape, the significant feature was that they were full of gunpowder - basically what we would now call a bomb.
The device was used by the military forces of all the major European fighting nations by the 16th century. In French and English - petar or petard, and in Spanish and Italian - petardo.
The dictionary maker John Florio defined them like this in 1598:
"Petardo - a squib or petard of gun powder vsed to burst vp gates or doores with."
The French have the word 'péter' - to fart, which it's hard to imagine is unrelated.
Petar was part of the everyday language around that time, as in this rather colourful line from Zackary Coke in his work Logick, 1654:
"The prayers of the Saints ascending with you, will Petarr your entrances through heavens Portcullis".
Once the word is known, 'hoist by your own petard' is easy to fathom. It's nice also to have a definitive source - no less than Shakespeare, who gives the line to Hamlet (1604):
"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
Note: engineers were originally constructors of military engines.
*****
Back to your regularly scheduled programming now :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 08:19:01 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the hell of it, in case anyone is wondering, here's the origins of the phrase "Hoist by his own petard":
|
You thread hijacker, you...you...you!!
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 09:22:44 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by raish:
If I can look like a terrorist and attempt to board a plane carrying things that look like explosives, weapons, etc. - then I'm busted. A photographer who brilliantly succeeds in fooling me into thinking that a picture was taken in a manner that does not respond to the the given task, is thereby hoisted on his/her own petard. |
Just for the hell of it, in case anyone is wondering, here's the origins of the phrase "Hoist by his own petard":
*****
Meaning
Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
Origin
A petard is or rather was, as they have long since fallen out of use, a small engine of war used to blow breaches in gates or walls. They were originally metallic and bell-shaped but later cubical wooden boxes. Whatever the shape, the significant feature was that they were full of gunpowder - basically what we would now call a bomb.
The device was used by the military forces of all the major European fighting nations by the 16th century. In French and English - petar or petard, and in Spanish and Italian - petardo.
The dictionary maker John Florio defined them like this in 1598:
"Petardo - a squib or petard of gun powder vsed to burst vp gates or doores with."
The French have the word 'péter' - to fart, which it's hard to imagine is unrelated.
Petar was part of the everyday language around that time, as in this rather colourful line from Zackary Coke in his work Logick, 1654:
"The prayers of the Saints ascending with you, will Petarr your entrances through heavens Portcullis".
Once the word is known, 'hoist by your own petard' is easy to fathom. It's nice also to have a definitive source - no less than Shakespeare, who gives the line to Hamlet (1604):
"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
Note: engineers were originally constructors of military engines.
*****
Back to your regularly scheduled programming now :-)
Robt. |
Bear...We use the word Pétard for firecracker. Also, as you mentionned, péter is farting, but also explode. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 09:28:03 AM · #30 |
I didn't use a mirror.. mine's a reflection.. well was 'til i got dq'd.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 09:48:22 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Photos that to me just looked like a photo of a person and no visible camera in the shot I just left unvoted for. I didn't want to vote someone lower on accident when I just didn't see the camera in the shot. I think there were 5 shots like that.
I tend to do that on photos I don't think meet challenges at all. The photos aren't bad.. they just aren't what the challenge was. |
Is your monitor calibrated? If you are set too dark you might be missing some details. There is one that seems not to understand the challenge but there are cameras in the rest of em.
As I was... second pass and couple more popped out...
Message edited by author 2006-08-20 09:51:17. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 09:51:47 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
Mine was done with a mirror then flipped maybe that explains the 5.2? |
I did the same, and think my scores are suffering for the same reason. Oh well. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 10:28:51 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Originally posted by aliqui:
Photos that to me just looked like a photo of a person and no visible camera in the shot I just left unvoted for. I didn't want to vote someone lower on accident when I just didn't see the camera in the shot. I think there were 5 shots like that.
I tend to do that on photos I don't think meet challenges at all. The photos aren't bad.. they just aren't what the challenge was. |
Is your monitor calibrated? If you are set too dark you might be missing some details. There is one that seems not to understand the challenge but there are cameras in the rest of em.
As I was... second pass and couple more popped out... |
Do you know any decent, preferably free programs that are available to calibrate your monitor? My monitor is okay, but I have friends who have been looking for something to help out. Anyone know anything decent? |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 11:01:44 AM · #34 |
You can use two mirrors to get a side view with the text in the right direction.:) I used 3, and I saw some that used mirror boxes.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 11:14:33 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Majanka:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Guess I just don't care heheh. Toss some 1's at the fools who entered people portraits and chill. |
Well that's very kind of you... Even the people holding a camera? That explanes...
|
No. That's just an ignorant assumption on your part and has nothing to do with what I said.
Originally posted by Majanka:
BTW you can allways flip a mirrored image to make it look like it isn'nt made with a mirror |
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Though this too has nothing to do with what I said. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 01:05:29 PM · #36 |
Obviously, they don't care what you said.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 01:15:38 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
Mine was done with a mirror then flipped maybe that explains the 5.2? |
Mine was too and is at 6.5... |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 01:30:48 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Fromac:
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
Mine was done with a mirror then flipped maybe that explains the 5.2? |
I did the same, and think my scores are suffering for the same reason. Oh well. |
Has it occurred to anyone that their scores are suffering because pictures of cameras are BORING?? (don't worry, I'm not voting on this challenge)
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 01:30:59 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by raish:
If I can look like a terrorist and attempt to board a plane carrying things that look like explosives, weapons, etc. - then I'm busted. A photographer who brilliantly succeeds in fooling me into thinking that a picture was taken in a manner that does not respond to the the given task, is thereby hoisted on his/her own petard. |
Just for the hell of it, in case anyone is wondering, here's the origins of the phrase "Hoist by his own petard":
*****
|
And I always thought that phrase meant "Done in by the smell of your own fart." |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:03:48 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by syko_lana:
Do you know any decent, preferably free programs that are available to calibrate your monitor? My monitor is okay, but I have friends who have been looking for something to help out. Anyone know anything decent? |
Acceptable calibration requires a piece of hardware. You can download the Adobe calirbation tool, but you're back to judging color by eyeballing it.
The hardware tends to run $99-$250. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:09:12 PM · #41 |
| Correct me if I am wrong but if you do a self portrait of your camera , the brand name (and all the writing) of it should be reversed (ex: Canon should be nonaC on the picture). In this challenge. lots of picture are not reversed, so, I assume its not a "self-portrait", the picture was taken with another camera. Am I right? |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:11:18 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Balzaco:
Correct me if I am wrong but if you do a self portrait of your camera , the brand name (and all the writing) of it should be reversed (ex: Canon should be nonaC on the picture). In this challenge. lots of picture are not reversed, so, I assume its not a "self-portrait", the picture was taken with another camera. Am I right? |
Your wrong, well not right, sound better, you can reverse the picture during processing.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:16:38 PM · #43 |
| ok, but is it "legal" to reverse a picture. I mean, if you reverse it, its not,imho, a self-portrait anymore. The "spirit" of the picture has changed. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:21:41 PM · #44 |
The difficulty on some of the photos is that the photographer probably knew going in that this contest was going to have a massive amount of mirrors and if they really worked to find a creative way to shoot a photo without mirrors to set themselves apart (say a sillohette or what not) then they get punished for not meeting the challange. That's unfortunate. There is a fine line between being creative and losing your target audience (those who are a sticker for "does not meet challenge" dnmc votes). Personally, I'm a lot more of a stickler for the dnmc thing because I get frustrated when a fantastic photo makes it into a contest that has nothing whatsoever to do with the challenge. I used to give that person a 5 for having a good photo even if it didn't meet the challenge but the more I think about it, the challenge is the primary goal here...shoot pictures that are both visually appealing and meet the challenge. I'm more inclined these days to give a 1 to great photos if they don't meet the challenge because I'm offended they tried to sneak one by. But, if I can remotely see how they were trying to be creative I might give them higher and give them the benefit of the doubt...man this turned into a complete rant.
Message edited by author 2006-08-20 14:22:12. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:30:51 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Fromac:
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
Mine was done with a mirror then flipped maybe that explains the 5.2? |
I did the same, and think my scores are suffering for the same reason. Oh well. |
Has it occurred to anyone that their scores are suffering because pictures of cameras are BORING?? (don't worry, I'm not voting on this challenge) |
There is that possibility, but I'd be so bold as to suggest that mine is less so than some.
I decided against the straight-on centered image of the camera, and put a little humor and character into it.
Just like anything else, photography (or the consumption thereof) is a very subjective thing.
I find it fun to enter challenges, though, no matter what score I get. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:44:14 PM · #46 |
I was more in focus than the camera in my photo.. 90% of the comments say something about the challenge being Camera Self Portrait so they marked it down because of that. My camera sucks... I didnt want everyone to know how crappy it was..
I knew half the pictures would be just a camera in a mirror..
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 02:54:45 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by xblahx:
I was more in focus than the camera in my photo.. 90% of the comments say something about the challenge being Camera Self Portrait so they marked it down because of that. My camera sucks... I didnt want everyone to know how crappy it was..
I knew half the pictures would be just a camera in a mirror.. |
A camera like yours took this shot...
I bet most of the members here would say that the camera you use is less important, in the long run, than the effort and creativity you put into shooting the image. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 03:03:19 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Is your monitor calibrated? If you are set too dark you might be missing some details. There is one that seems not to understand the challenge but there are cameras in the rest of em.
As I was... second pass and couple more popped out... |
No I have not calibrated my monitor, but I doubt I'm missing whole cameras in photos because my monitor is set too dark, heh. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 03:07:38 PM · #49 |
| Is it proper to discuss challenge entries during voting period? If you feel it doesn't meet the challenge, you would vote accordingly....no? |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 03:44:06 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by syko_lana:
Do you know any decent, preferably free programs that are available to calibrate your monitor? My monitor is okay, but I have friends who have been looking for something to help out. Anyone know anything decent? |
Acceptable calibration requires a piece of hardware. You can download the Adobe calirbation tool, but you're back to judging color by eyeballing it.
The hardware tends to run $99-$250. |
Pantone makes in inexpensive monitoring device called Huey, which comes with software. It calibrates your monitor and then adjusts the monitor as ambient light changes. About USD90.
It's not the best device available, but it does a reasonable job and is brain-dead-simple to use. It's less expensive than the top of the line gear. Good enough for web targeted photos, probably not good enough for professional print targeted photos. |
|
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: 08/19/2025 01:08:40 PM EDT.
