Light Source Voting - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/21/2002 01:38:12 PM · #29

Originally posted by Marsha:
Originally posted by emorgan49:
[i]This collection of pictures is going to be particularly influenced by viewers monitor settings. Is there a tutorial on calibrating you monitor yet? Who remembers where those greyscales went to?

Yes, Please. I need this. Real bad.
[/i]

marsha, I got your email, but haven't had time to respond. If you go to the main forums page, and do a search for calibration, you will find more than enough "stuff" to help you out. :-)

KarenB

Canon EOS-70D

10/21/2002 01:43:20 PM · #30

Sorry.. I have to agree with Azrifel on this one.. I did not read an attitude in the post, just a comment talking about quality. Azrifel is right about the voters/commenters not knowing which camera is used.. Low end cams have made excellent photos for past entries, so I think it is useful for photog's to know what could help their photo no matter what, and so that the info is stored in the back of their heads to draw on in the future. I started with a camera that didn't have too much versatility.. I took what I could from the comments. BTW: one of the photos from that cam placed 8th in the "On the Road" challenge.
Just 2Â¢.

Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by lisae:
[i]Azrifel - your attitude is exactly why I didn't submit. My camera is fully automatic, and has a huge problem with graininess in low light photos. I don't own any powerful lights, and I didn't want to go out and buy anything expensive just for the challenge. So, no submission. But if I'd wanted to submit just for fun anyway, people like you would have rated me down simply for having a low end camera and not a lot of equipment.

Well, I cannot see what camera one uses.
Someone with a EOS-D30/D60 ,Fuji 602, D7i, S40, etc can also really make a mess of his/her shot and I, like many others, will vote accordingly.
I don't think that it is too much to ask to have a good focus? If the camera is not up to it, too bad, make another setup.
Overproccesing on a uncalibrated monitor looks even worse on a calibrated one, that's not my fault is it?
Submitting a 34kb file with horrible jpeg artifacts just is not necessary. Even 150k is easy for a telephone connection (I'm only 4 months on cable, but was 5 years on a 36k6 connection).

I am sorry that you did not submit, but I don't understand how my attitude relates to that. You are a very creative person (wish I could draw like you (sigh) and I really look forward to your future challenge entries.[/i]

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

10/21/2002 02:02:38 PM · #31

I don't mean any offense but I here quite a bit of complaining about lower end comeras not being good enough. I agree that there are things that these cameras aren't capable of but they are probably more capable then you think. Instead of focussing on what your camera can't do focus on what it can do well. Before I bought my F707 I used my Canon Elph for everything and I was able to get all kinds of good shots by being creative with it. These challenges really do allow for a wide range of shots from all types of cameras. You just need to have an open mind about it.

T

smshats

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/21/2002 02:44:42 PM · #32

My comment was more to encourage people.. There are so many CREATIVE shots this week!!! I do see a few that could have a few things improved upon but the creativity is still at 110 percent! I maintain my GREAT JOB EVERYONE statement. I also wanted to bring in words of encouragement to the forums instead of negativity.

Originally posted by lionelm:
Originally posted by smshats:
[i]I just wanted to say that this challenge is going to be very hard to vote on... I just scrolled through the pictures and I see nothing but 10's!!!!!! GREAT JOB EVERYONE!!!!!

Just one question .. do you say that just to cheer people ? If yes ... I feel better ... if not ... I question that quick judgment .. no offense ;-)

[/i]

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/21/2002 02:55:54 PM · #33

Just for my 2 cents worth.....

LIke most of you, the thumbs looked quite good but after taking the time to look at each one.... the range of quality ranges dramatically. Only a few original ones but lots with great use of light. I'm voting more on the "original" or creative side this time. One light source shining on the face of a person has been done a million times even though it can be a grat shot! :o)

ppritche

Canon EOS-30D

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF for Canon

10/21/2002 03:27:41 PM · #34

Some of the shots have been done on a long exposure with the light source being moved around during the exposure.

Originally posted by indigo997:
I don't consider the sun an artificial light source. I also saw a LOT of entries with more than one light. Many seem to think that it is one "source" even if it has multiple bulbs, but I don't happen to agree. I just subtract 1 from the score and move on.
Did finish the initial voting finally, and there are a lot of good shots this week.

indigo997

Nikon D70

10/21/2002 04:02:58 PM · #35

I'm not penalizing anyone if I don't KNOW that there is more than one light. I do consider a laser one light. The problem is when you can SEE more than one light. I'm not talking about guessing.

10/21/2002 05:48:38 PM · #36

Well, if you want to get TECHNICAL, a VISIBLE light source, no matter where it is generated, is simply electromagnetic radiation that happens to have a wavelength between 380 to 700 nanometers (give or take a few, some people can see beyond that), travelling at speed of, well, light :-) (299,792,458 meters per second) James Maxwell has proven this back in the 1800's, Newton showed the color property of it by shining a "white" light which is consists of all wavelengths within the visible spectrum through a prism, and out comes the colors (i.e. splits it into individual wavelengths)

Anyway, the only light source that is as close to a single wavelength, is a laser (coherent light). Any other light sources have components, no matter what, so technically speaking everyone is using more than one light source if you assume that a pure light source has only one wavelength and there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/21/2002 06:00:19 PM · #37

Originally posted by paganini:

if you assume that a pure light source has only one wavelength and there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

Bad assumption. One substance, e.g. heated tungsten, can give off light (photons) of multiple wavelengths. It won't be coherent, but it doesn't matter. Thus, we can worry about more than one light source, or not, for this challenge.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

10/21/2002 06:18:55 PM · #38

actually, you're wrong :)

different light sources have different distributions of wavelengths. ie an incandescent lamp has more red, a flouro has more green and yellow, sodium and mercury vapor have even narrower frequency bands.

but that's all beside the point ...

the point of the challenge as it relates to photography is to get people to get 'back to basics', to get minimal, to grab one light and in a very controlled environment, move it around, point it different ways, and explore the effects possible when one is just limited to the essential elements - a single light.

not to mention having to deal with, eliminate, or even incorporate color casts, using their white balance controls, etc. etc. :)

why is this worth doing?

because so many people have done nothing but rely on either natural light, the light in their living room, or the camera's flash, and have never really looked at the implication of changing a light's attributes, ie. directionality, distance, brightness, etc.

so using multiple light sources, or the sun, would be like running a race - with your car ; ) ....

Originally posted by paganini:
...there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 6:21:03 PM.

10/21/2002 06:22:33 PM · #39

There is no "single light source" other than coherent light, and thus, if you really want to be technical, unless you use a laser you're not following hte challenge rules :-) My point is not to worry about it so much whether a person uses more than one light source or not as long as at least one of them is used predominantly to show the subject.

Originally posted by jimmsp:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]

if you assume that a pure light source has only one wavelength and there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

Bad assumption. One substance, e.g. heated tungsten, can give off light (photons) of multiple wavelengths. It won't be coherent, but it doesn't matter. Thus, we can worry about more than one light source, or not, for this challenge.[/i]

10/21/2002 06:24:32 PM · #40

A true "light source" would only have one wavelength if you want to be technical about it. Thus, everything else is not a true SINGLE light source :)

The point is, if the subject looks good even if the person used some soft light for the other areas but a nice spot light to show something of interest, that to me would still meet the challenge.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
actually, you're wrong :)

different light sources have different distributions of wavelengths. ie an incandescent lamp has more red, a flouro has more green and yellow, sodium and mercury vapor have even narrower frequency bands.

but that's all beside the point ...

the point of the challenge [i]as it relates to photography is to get people to get 'back to basics', to get minimal, to grab one light and in a very controlled environment, move it around, point it different ways, and explore the effects possible when one is just limited to the essential elements - a single light.

why is this worth doing?

because so many people have done nothing but rely on either natural light, the light in their living room, or the camera's flash, and have never really looked at the implication of changing a light's attributes, ie. directionality, distance, brightness, etc.

so using multiple light sources, or the sun, would be like running a race - with your car ; ) ....

Originally posted by paganini:
...there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

[/i]

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

10/21/2002 06:25:09 PM · #41

This is the way I see it. Natural means without interference from man, like the sun, lightning, a fire created by lightning, a fire fly, and stuff like that. Just about everything else is considered unnatural or man made such as a lit match, flash light, and lasers. In regards to the light source, if there is more then one point of light but they are connected and illuminating in the same direction then I would consider that one source. Examples of this would be car headlights, flashlights with the new multiple LED arrays, a chandelier, and even multiple flames from a fire.

T

10/21/2002 06:31:47 PM · #42

You are very incorrect. You would not pass in my Physics class. Take one atom, stimulate it by heat ( or something else), and over time you will get multiple wavelengths of light being emmitted. This is a single source with multiple colors. Don't be confused with lasers and coherence.

Originally posted by paganini:
There is no "single light source" other than coherent light, and thus, if you really want to be technical, unless you use a laser you're not following hte challenge rules :-) My point is not to worry about it so much whether a person uses more than one light source or not as long as at least one of them is used predominantly to show the subject.

Originally posted by jimmsp:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]

if you assume that a pure light source has only one wavelength and there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

Bad assumption. One substance, e.g. heated tungsten, can give off light (photons) of multiple wavelengths. It won't be coherent, but it doesn't matter. Thus, we can worry about more than one light source, or not, for this challenge.[/i]

[/i]

10/21/2002 06:40:23 PM · #43

I still wouldn't count that as one "source" :) i don't think there could be one source of light in terms of a single wavelength, except with lasers. My point is, there is no "single source" as whatever light source you use will have multiple wave lengths. Based on your argument, i can also say that if i project two lasers with different wavelength on a spot, that's just a single "source". Why? Because it has two wavelength components and you could simulate what you get with tungsten if you have enough laser sources projecting at the same location that mirrors the spectrum and intensities for each wavelength of tungstun light. The viewer would only see "one source" even though it came from multiple sources.

Artistically speaking, i think as long as there is one distinct "source" (of multiple wave lengths) :) of light on the subject then it meets the challenge, even if there is a soft light in the background. People are being very nitpicky on here and i am trying to tell them that they shouldn't be.

Originally posted by jimmsp:
You are very incorrect. You would not pass in my Physics class. Take one atom, stimulate it by heat ( or something else), and over time you will get multiple wavelengths of light being emmitted. This is a single source with multiple colors. Don't be confused with lasers and coherence.

Originally posted by paganini:
[i]There is no "single light source" other than coherent light, and thus, if you really want to be technical, unless you use a laser you're not following hte challenge rules :-) My point is not to worry about it so much whether a person uses more than one light source or not as long as at least one of them is used predominantly to show the subject.

Originally posted by jimmsp:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]

if you assume that a pure light source has only one wavelength and there really is no difference scientifically between artificial or natural.

So the point is, don't get too caught up on the natural or non natural or more than one light source.

Bad assumption. One substance, e.g. heated tungsten, can give off light (photons) of multiple wavelengths. It won't be coherent, but it doesn't matter. Thus, we can worry about more than one light source, or not, for this challenge.[/i]

[/i]

[/i]

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/21/2002 06:55:38 PM · #44

Originally posted by paganini:
I still wouldn't count that as one "source" :) i don't think there could be one source of light in terms of a single wavelength, except with lasers. My point is, there is no "single source" as whatever light source you use will have multiple wave lengths.

After you read and understand something like this lesson,we can continue this discussion.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 6:53:39 PM.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

10/21/2002 07:02:28 PM · #45

lol

that rocks : )

Originally posted by jimmsp:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I still wouldn't count that as one "source" :) i don't think there could be one source of light in terms of a single wavelength, except with lasers. My point is, there is no "single source" as whatever light source you use will have multiple wave lengths.

After you read and understand something like this lesson,we can continue this discussion.

[/i]

digitallywet

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/21/2002 07:03:54 PM · #46

I have a feeling that I am about to ask to get my own photo disqualified.

My photo is an underwater Photo (which has the sun as a light source. Which is not artificial. The only thing I can think of to save myself is the fact that the light is defracted refracted through the water so there for having an artificial blue colour to it which the sun does not have?

I know I have already been told not to discuss the challenge, but i can't tell anyone about this any other way.
Giles

10/21/2002 07:05:36 PM · #47

Gee thanks, i have an EE degree. :)

your definition of a light "source" and mine are different. you're saying that a light source can contain multiple frequencies, such as tungsten light, that's fine, but i am saying, technically speaking, unless the light only has ONE wavelength, then it can be produced with multiple light sources, each with one wavelength and thus negating the "challenge"'s requirement of only using one light source. THe viewer would only see the image as if it was projected with one "source", but it could be from different light "sources".

Originally posted by jimmsp:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I still wouldn't count that as one "source" :) i don't think there could be one source of light in terms of a single wavelength, except with lasers. My point is, there is no "single source" as whatever light source you use will have multiple wave lengths.

After you read and understand something like this lesson,we can continue this discussion.

[/i]

10/21/2002 07:08:38 PM · #48

That explains it.
BTW, I have mine in Physics.
I would still rcommend that lesson and the following ones.

Originally posted by paganini:
Gee thanks, i have an EE degree. :)

your definition of a light "source" and mine are different. you're saying that a light source can contain multiple frequencies, such as tungsten light, that's fine, but i am saying, technically speaking, unless the light only has ONE wavelength, then it can be produced with multiple light sources, each with one wavelength and thus negating the "challenge"'s requirement of only using one light source. THe viewer would only see the image as if it was projected with one "source", but it could be from different light "sources".

Originally posted by jimmsp:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I still wouldn't count that as one "source" :) i don't think there could be one source of light in terms of a single wavelength, except with lasers. My point is, there is no "single source" as whatever light source you use will have multiple wave lengths.

After you read and understand something like this lesson,we can continue this discussion.

[/i]

[/i]