| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2002 07:19:54 PM · #51 |
and I thought this was about photography.
T
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 07:21:19 PM · #52 |
That's fine :) but it still doesn't negate the fact that you can create the spot light affect by using differnet light sources and it'll LOOK as if it came from teh same source.
I am just trying to tell people NOT to be so judgemental on their voting. I mean, every week we have people wondering what exactly is the strict criteria for submission. I'd consider a softbox on a subject WITH a spot light (however many sources :-)) as the "distinct" light totally valid for this submission. isn't the point of the challenge is to have a photograph that appears to use a single light source? I mean, would anyone be able to tell the difference if someone were to merge two lights into one? If not, then we should vote on the effectiveness of the photograph and not trying to nitpick whether it has one source or not.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
it negates nothing, because you're approach this from a completely legalistic perspective : ) ...
if you use a broad illuminator plus a spotlight, then you are taking an unfair advantage.
someone with ONE LIGHT ONLY is going to have to make a decision - should I use the spotlight and emphasize that, or the broad light and emphasize that. they will be FORCED to make a critical decision about which to favor. and they will live or DIE by that decision :).
the point is to do all you can with ONLY one light. it's supposed to make you WORK to take a good picture using MINIMAL RESOURCES.
when you go and add multiple lights, you are completely MISSING that POINT. : )
which is fine, do whatever you want, but don't come in here and argue that, just because you found some argument that doesn't even make scientific sense, lol, that you can basically do the equivalent of enter a mountain climbing contest and use a helicopter, or enter a foot race and drive.
If you opt to not take advantage of what working within constraints teaches you, than that is your business. But don't encourage others to miss out on an opportunity. : )
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 07:54:16 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by digitallywet:
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
Relax Giles, they do not disqualify for not following the rules. You will just get shot down by the nitpickers because that is the easiest way to judge a photograph.
I've got a low score because it doesn't show feelings. Funny I thought the challenge was to show how well you can illuminate something with just one artificial i. e. manipulatable light sourse.
Doesn't dramatic lighting mean showing a full range of tones and contrast?
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 08:01:00 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by digitallywet:
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
I find it amazing that when someone has a question that actually relates to the challenge, they are completly ignored. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 08:09:47 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by timj351:
and I thought this was about photography.
T
It is. I just don't want people to have their photos voted down because someone is propagating misinformation about what a "single source of artificial light" is.
I am dropping out of this discussion - it's not worth my time discusing subjects with someone with a closed mind.
I am here to learn about photography, and I am learning. Both by example and by constructive criticism, which I accept.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 8:08:28 PM. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 08:14:05 PM · #56 |
Did you even read my post?
I was defending people with single light source, OR NOT. People are trying to put a very narrow definition on single light source, so my point was if you're gonig to do that then the only valid light sources are lasers which is not what i am supporting.
Originally posted by jimmsp:
Originally posted by timj351:
[i]and I thought this was about photography.
T
It is. I just don't want people to have their photos voted down because someone is propagating misinformation about what a "single source of artificial light" is.
I am dropping out of this discussion - it's not worth my time discusing subjects with someone with a closed mind.
I am here to learn about photography, and I am learning. Both by example and by constructive criticism, which I accept[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 08:14:08 PM · #57 |
Well I have always strictly marked people on my opinion and technically too, so if i like it, it gets a good mark, I know my mind is less artistic than most so I allow huge interpretation for the challenge. I also know that linking things can be hard like the Kevin bacon game. So I literally vote how i like it.
As for my mistake I guess a low mark would be fitting for having not taken in hte challenge wording! stupid stupid stupid, but i like my photo soo much that i am hoping other people get carried away and forget about the challenge and just give me a good mark! let me sneak it through! |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 08:28:13 PM · #58 |
Now I know why my entry is doing so badly this week: I have History and English degrees, and know nothing about physics or electrical engineering!
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:14:02 PM · #59 |
Since this is a "Light Source Voting" thread, I thought I would just comment on the voting so far:
At the moment, my photo has been voted on 111 times. I receive 5 COMMENTS? I'm aware that there are 258 photos to vote on, but come on, I wanted to get some kind of feedback...Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. =-) |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:25:52 PM · #60 |
This is what I did this week. I spent time taking picture of everything and moving one light around till I got what I liked. I didn't have the shadow showing, so I am sure that they are voting my picture down because they think I have more then one light. I wish people in here would do more studing and practicing before they vote and submit.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
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.[/i
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 9:25:03 PM. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:31:43 PM · #61 |
I'm not complaining about the amount of comments Ihave mainly cause I don't comment much myself.
Just wanted to let folks know FYI I have 97 votes and 1 comment..hehe.....My shot sure is inspiring this week...NOT!
Actually...if we are going to have 250 or more photos we need to go to an open vote so at least we can see who voted our photos what score to at least compare their vote and their typical vote to learn something that way :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 9:30:02 PM. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:33:05 PM · #62 |
you keep missing the point, man.
the point is to have to work within a constraint.
not be able to fake it with whatever means you think fulfills the purpose.
get it ? : )
Originally posted by paganini:
Did you even read my post?
I was defending people with single light source, OR NOT. People are trying to put a very narrow definition on single light source, so my point was if you're gonig to do that then the only valid light sources are lasers which is not what i am supporting.
Originally posted by jimmsp:
[i]Originally posted by timj351:
[i]and I thought this was about photography.
T
It is. I just don't want people to have their photos voted down because someone is propagating misinformation about what a "single source of artificial light" is.
I am dropping out of this discussion - it's not worth my time discusing subjects with someone with a closed mind.
I am here to learn about photography, and I am learning. Both by example and by constructive criticism, which I accept[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:37:30 PM · #63 |
I agree with magnetic9999 on this point.
The challenge clearly stated a single, artificial light source. Why state "single artificial light source" if Drew and Langdon actually meant "sunlight/moonlight and/or multiple sources or whatever bangs your gong".
Jeesh :-/ |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:37:48 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I'm not complaining about the amount of comments Ihave mainly cause I don't comment much myself. ......................
Actually...if we are going to have 250 or more photos we need to go to an open vote so at least we can see who voted our photos what score to at least compare their vote and their typical vote to learn something that way :-
Good point. I have completed my "round one' of voting, and just working through round two. I'll fine tune later. I have given about 15 comments so far, and will be doing good to give 50-60 by week's end. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:38:34 PM · #65 |
heya
we dont dq for not meeting the challenge : )
votes are supposed to take care of that
: )
Originally posted by digitallywet:
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 09:38:45 PM · #66 |
| I agree with you, hokie. I like suggestions, they're just a bonus. =-p I would just like to hear why someone voted for a picture the way they did. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:40:15 PM · #67 |
erin,
this seems to be a low comment week.
i think it's cyclical. last week seemed pretty high in comments. maybe this week people are tired? lol
it's also still only monday ..
hopefully it will pick up : )
Originally posted by erin_m02:
Since this is a "Light Source Voting" thread, I thought I would just comment on the voting so far:
At the moment, my photo has been voted on 111 times. I receive 5 COMMENTS? I'm aware that there are 258 photos to vote on, but come on, I wanted to get some kind of feedback...Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. =-)
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:44:38 PM · #68 |
I think it is insane to expect dial-up folks to vote and to comment on 250 entries. I've seen this thing load on a dial-up ( I have cable) and frankly...I would would have quit a long time ago if Ihad to participate on dial-up.
I understand Drew & Langdon are going to offer some kind of solution to this..I hope so. Either that or make the challenges more challenging on a regular basis (Like the sins challenge) to keep the numbers down.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 9:42:31 PM. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:51:05 PM · #69 |
| It is only a Monday, but on Mondays there is usually about 30 votes by the end of the day, not 111 (I've only submitted two pictures though, perhaps I'm a little defensive over my pictures...) =-) |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:55:14 PM · #70 |
Good point, hokie
Originally posted by hokie:
I think it is insane to expect dial-up folks to vote and to comment on 250 entries. I've seen this thing load on a dial-up ( I have cable) and frankly...I would would have quit a long time ago if Ihad to participate on dial-up.
I understand Drew & Langdon are going to offer some kind of solution to this..I hope so. Either that or make the challenges more challenging on a regular basis (Like the sins challenge) to keep the numbers down.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 09:58:08 PM · #71 |
| I agree, 100+ on the first day is remarkable. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 10:15:49 PM · #72 |
everyone ive talked to has reported a low number of comments this week. . .
so be reassured - it's not just you : )
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 10:15:55 PM · #73 |
And you kept missing the point too :)
I was pointing out that one should not restrict it to JUST a single source, because technically a single light source can only be represented with a single wavelength (i.e. a laser), since you can duplicate any other light source with a series of lasers if you wanted to.
I think the challenge is about using a single light source to highlight the image, whether the image has OTHER light sources is irrelevant, as long as there is one light that stood out and make the image work, *i* will give it a high mark. That's just me.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
you keep missing the point, man.
the point is to have to work within a constraint.
not be able to fake it with whatever means you think fulfills the purpose.
get it ? : )
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Did you even read my post?
I was defending people with single light source, OR NOT. People are trying to put a very narrow definition on single light source, so my point was if you're gonig to do that then the only valid light sources are lasers which is not what i am supporting.
Originally posted by jimmsp:
[i]Originally posted by timj351:
[i]and I thought this was about photography.
T
It is. I just don't want people to have their photos voted down because someone is propagating misinformation about what a "single source of artificial light" is.
I am dropping out of this discussion - it's not worth my time discusing subjects with someone with a closed mind.
I am here to learn about photography, and I am learning. Both by example and by constructive criticism, which I accept[/i]
[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/21/2002 10:41:00 PM · #74 |
Paganini, I hope you didn't mean that I have a closed mind. I was just getting lost in all the techno-jargon. I think the point of this challenge is very clear and I do agree with what you have said, at least the stuff I could understand : )
T |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 11:07:54 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
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.
I know this was pretty early in this thread, but I've been busy :(. I just wanted to correct my mistake. I used the word "attitude" which has a much more negative connotation in the US than it does here. I should have said "approach" instead.
I understand Azrifel's approach, and I know it's the way most people vote here. I do the best I can to get good photos from my camera, but there are just some situations when I just can't push it that far. My entry for "City Life" is about the lowest light conditions it can handle and still get a passable photo, although most of the comments on that were about the graininess. The light in that phone booth was far stronger than a 100 watt light bulb.
|
|
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: 07/18/2025 01:56:22 AM EDT.
