| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2002 11:35:21 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by erin_m02:
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. =-)[/i]
Hey, that's pretty good, considering I'm at 114 votes and ZERO comments... :)
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:49:51 AM · #77 |
| I have 125 votes and 3 comments. 2 of which suggest I should not have done what I did that makes the photo what it is. I just want to grab these voters and shake them while I scream "Look at it before you vote!" But that would be child abuse.... |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:57:16 AM · #78 |
I have only a single comment; and that marks me down saying I should have used a tripod and adjusted the white balance -- both of which I did!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 06:05:11 AM · #79 |
| This cracks me up. Why is there a complete break down per syllableof the challenge wording every week? I read it as a lighting challenge: to take one light that wasn't a natural lighting source and use ITto light your picture. Not hard to understand, not much point in Einsteining it really, it was a lighting challenge pure and simple. I am all about creative interpretation in subjective challenges, but I kinda thought a lighting challenge was purely technical and straightforward. I haven't voted yet, so I am not sure how people actually took the challenge, but it is a voter's market, if they didn't think you met the challenge, oh well. But I sure have learned alot this thread! Now I can go read the Tao of Physics again and maybe even understand it this time, hehe! :) |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 06:24:51 AM · #80 |
| plus the light is supposed to bring a dramatic effect right ? |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 06:37:12 AM · #81 |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 07:48:43 AM · #82 |
ignore this comment.. editted it out for sounding far too big headed..
:-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 7:48:25 AM. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 07:55:00 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
This cracks me up. Why is there a complete break down per [i]syllableof the challenge wording every week? I read it as a lighting challenge: to take one light that wasn't a natural lighting source and use ITto light your picture. Not hard to understand, not much point in Einsteining it really, it was a lighting challenge pure and simple. I am all about creative interpretation in subjective challenges, but I kinda thought a lighting challenge was purely technical and straightforward. I haven't voted yet, so I am not sure how people actually took the challenge, but it is a voter's market, if they didn't think you met the challenge, oh well. But I sure have learned alot this thread! Now I can go read the Tao of Physics again and maybe even understand it this time, hehe! :) [/i]
Surely though, you wouldn't vote tens on anything that hit the challenge n the head.. For example.. Say I took a cup, placed it under a single artificial light and took a photo.. Wold you mark that as a ten?? It fits the challenge exactly but would it inspire you? I wouldn't.. Now, if someone took an object, took a single light source but went that little bit further to make it stand out and the viewer say "WOW" then that deserves a high mark.. I like people to stick to the challenges, butI like to see they have used a bit of creativity and commn sense to shoot an extraordinary photo...
Another example is the garbage challenge. Plenty of pictures of garbage there, the majority of entries fit the challenge exactly so why didn't they score equally?? My entry was a cigarette packet, pretty mundane on its own but when I placed it in a certain situation (a graveyard) then it said a lot more to the viewer than "Garbage", it carried a message, granted I took my time over the technical aspects of the photo, but I think the message(s) were there if the viewer/critic chose to look for them (it was pretty obvious). For that extra bit of effort I got a 9th placing which I was overwhelmed by.
Its all down to artistic interpretation, as long as a picture fits in the rules of the challenge, I will mark it according to the message and/or the WOW factor I get from it.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 7:58:53 AM. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 08:25:45 AM · #84 |
| Mark, your garbage pic was great! But I think you misunderstood me, sorry for not making it clearer. I was only reacting to the eternal nitpicking of the very essence of the challenge wording. I haven't voted yet, but I definitely vote higher on the ones that say wow. You said it here -- Now, if someone took an object, took a single light source but went that little bit further to make it stand out and the viewer say "WOW" then that deserves a high mark.. Ditto. Hitting the challenge on the head really has nothing to do with what I was talking about, sorry if it came across like that. I may vote down for not really meeting a challenge, but never up just because they did! ;) I was just talking about the people who disregard the challenge topic or try and rationalize their way into a loophole. Some challenges beg for that, but I thought this was a rather cut and dry technical challenge.........oh no....I just realized that this is another potential subjective argument. Jeez. Forget it, I quit! |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 08:58:14 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
Mark, your garbage pic was great! But I think you misunderstood me, sorry for not making it clearer. I was only reacting to the eternal nitpicking of the very essence of the challenge wording. I haven't voted yet, but I definitely vote higher on the ones that say wow. You said it here -- [i]Now, if someone took an object, took a single light source but went that little bit further to make it stand out and the viewer say "WOW" then that deserves a high mark.. Ditto. Hitting the challenge on the head really has nothing to do with what I was talking about, sorry if it came across like that. I may vote down for not really meeting a challenge, but never up just because they did! ;) I was just talking about the people who disregard the challenge topic or try and rationalize their way into a loophole. Some challenges beg for that, but I thought this was a rather cut and dry technical challenge.........oh no....I just realized that this is another potential subjective argument. Jeez. Forget it, I quit! [/i]
Thanks for the compliment.. My current rule of thumb is if it meets the challenge verbatim then I give it a 5, then add or subtract points based on artistic interpretation, technical aspects and so on and so forth.. I dont list these points seperately, just do them on the fly in my head so I ca vote on as many pics as I can...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 8:59:54 AM. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 09:48:30 AM · #86 |
The requirements state "a single light source," not a single light frequency. An incandescent bulb is NOT multiple light sources, only multiple frequencies of light. Multiple bulbs are multiple sources. Why is this so difficult to understand? Source and content are totally different. The challenge doesn't say to use a single light frequency, only a single light source! A bulb is a source!
The sun is not an artificial light source. If man made it it's artificial. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 11:52:57 AM · #87 |
Sorry if this has been said. The challenge said to use a single artificial light source to light your subject. It did NOT say that you had to exclude natural light. It did not say "use single artificial light source, and nothing else." It requires one single art. light source, and what you do beyond that is up to you.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 11:58:12 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Sorry if this has been said. The challenge said to use a single artificial light source to light your subject. It did NOT say that you had to exclude natural light. It did not say "use single artificial light source, and nothing else." It requires one single art. light source, and what you do beyond that is up to you.
~Heather~
*I* believe that "single, artificial light source" excludes any other light source. Single means 'one'. :)
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:12:25 PM · #89 |
First of all, it wasn't my intention to discuss the physics of it :) But since people are going to NITPICK every little detail, then i figure, hey, why not nitpick on the exact nature of light? If you're going to diss someone's score because they had another light source, or that you THINK they're using NATURAL light, i am here to tell you that:
1. It is possible to create effects that look like natural light using a single artificial light bulb. In fact, studio photographers do it all the time.
2. The challenge says to use ONE source, but did not exclude other sources. That to me says that as long as the photo is interesting and a DOMINANT light source is used, that's ok for me. I don't care if there are background light sources that may have gotten into the photograph. And unless you lock yourselfs ina totally dark room except for the light bulb you're using, you will always get some other light coming in to the photo, no matter how little the light is. SO this is a moot point -- as long as one dominant light source is shown to enhance the subject, it meets the challenge.
People on here likes to nitpick and lower scores on others simply because they think they ahve violated challenge rules. The truth is, if you're good with lighting, you can create an effect that looks like natural light and people will give you a low score for "violating" the rules, or you can create a single light source effect by using MULTIPLE light sources and people will STILL give you a good score. I am not going to downgrade someone's score simply because i thought there were natural light used, because it may not be natural light.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:17:11 PM · #90 |
I just received a comment that I used multiple light sources due to several reflection in the subjects eyes. The light source was a single strobe (hand held) on a person with a long shutter speed. So if the light moved, or the subject moved, you would get a reflection at a different point in the eyes.
This may explain the low scores I'm getting. Perhaps we are a wee-bit nitpicky here! |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:22:06 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
[i]Sorry if this has been said. The challenge said to use a single artificial light source to light your subject. It did NOT say that you had to exclude natural light. It did not say "use single artificial light source, and nothing else." It requires one single art. light source, and what you do beyond that is up to you.
~Heather~
*I* believe that "single, artificial light source" excludes any other light source. Single means 'one'. :)
[/i]
Oh, I was just saying that the photos in question DO have a single artificial light source in their photos, however also include a natural light source. There was discussion about this before, that the discription did not exclude natural light.
You could take it as single light source, or single artificial light source.
I went into this thinking that sun/moon would not be allowed, however, seeing the photos that did use the sun or moon, most of them also have a subject, lit by a single articicial light source.
I was just trying to say that I feel it can be taken either way, as obviously some people DID take it "the other way".
Just trying to open people's eyes a bit. Although losely, I feel they meet the challenge.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:25:18 PM · #92 |
I think we should hire a lawyer each week to create a 10-page document describing the interpretation of the challenge topic.... :)
Any volunteers?
Jakob |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 12:39:39 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by chakkobbo:
I think we should hire a lawyer each week to create a 10-page document describing the interpretation of the challenge topic.... :)
Any volunteers?
Jakob
I don't think so... this site just wouldn't be the same without this recurring thread each week :)
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 01:16:44 PM · #94 |
it doesnt even have to be 10 pages.
however there is certainly no reason it can't be a little more fleshed out than it is.
Originally posted by chakkobbo:
I think we should hire a lawyer each week to create a 10-page document describing the interpretation of the challenge topic.... :)
Any volunteers?
Jakob
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 01:22:22 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
it doesnt even have to be 10 pages.
however there is certainly no reason it can't be a little more fleshed out than it is.
The more words you add, the more ambiguity you will introduce.
English is not a precise form of communication. That's what people
use mathematics for.
I work in an industry where we write multiple thousand page documents
to describe a single part of one product and we still have long running
debates or confusion over meaning.
It isn't something that will be fixed until people stop being so anal
about it and get on with the actual point, which in this case is taking
interesting pictures - oh wait nothing in the challenge says your
picture has to be interesting or creative - better add that bit in! |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 01:27:00 PM · #96 |
'Use a single, artificial light source to dramatically light the subject of your choice. Your photograph must be taken this week (10/14-10/20). Good luck!'
"single, artificial light source" means only one light source, which must be artificial. This can be contrasted with "single artificial light source" (no comma) which means only one light source can be artifical, but other light sources are allowed.
I'm commenting only from a grammatical standpoint.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 01:28:05 PM · #97 |
| My point exactly. Boring subject very well lit by one light. Bah, score just droped to 4.6 |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:04:41 PM · #98 |
Well said :) that means ONE source but does not exclude other sources.
And it doesn't have to creative either :)
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
'Use a single, artificial light source to dramatically light the subject of your choice. Your photograph must be taken this week (10/14-10/20). Good luck!'
"single, artificial light source" means only one light source, which must be artificial. This can be contrasted with "single artificial light source" (no comma) which means only one light source can be artifical, but other light sources are allowed.
I'm commenting only from a grammatical standpoint.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:18:13 PM · #99 |
or the converse, until people stop trying to jockey for unfair advantage by coming up with ways to cheat or beat everyone else, and just enjoy the exercise for what it obviously is : ) ..
if you can't be creative within a constraint, then you really arent that creative :).
if you have to pull in other means, then you might as well climb mt everest with a helicopter, or run a marathon in your beemer. where's the challenge?? how come you dont do a triathlon with a car, jetski and motorcycle?
the previous discussion about the so-called nature of light, in fact reminds me of this kid that i knew when i was 12, who insisted that he didnt care that the 'world' pronounced "chasm" as 'kazm', HE pronounced it 'chasm' like 'cheeto'. didnt matter if u showed him the dictionary, HE pronounces it CHASM. so... if one is going to do it any way they want to, using whatever means available, why even enter? you can take plenty of pics for your self using any means you want.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]it doesnt even have to be 10 pages.
however there is certainly no reason it can't be a little more fleshed out than it is.
...
It isn't something that will be fixed until people stop being so anal
about it and get on with the actual point, which in this case is taking
interesting pictures - oh wait nothing in the challenge says your
picture has to be interesting or creative - better add that bit in![/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 2:22:23 PM. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:21:28 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Well said :) that means ONE source but does not exclude other sources.
And it doesn't have to creative either :)
Actually, my point was quite the opposite. The wording of the challenge was "single, artifical light source" and NOT "single artificial light source." Grammatically, that means exactly one light source, and that source must be artificial. The challenge description does contain the comma.
-Terry
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 2:20:18 PM.
|
|
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 01:49:28 AM EDT.
