| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/02/2007 04:45:33 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Greetmir:
blah blah blah ... shoot yer shot and take yer chances ... sheesh ... |
Sounds about right to me! :D |
LOL! Me too... I'm thinking of having DNMC tattooed on my stomache like tupac. |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 04:47:47 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Lonz:
LOL! Me too... I'm thinking of having DNMC tattooed on my stomache like tupac. |
You do remember what happened to Tupac, right? :-P
Message edited by author 2007-04-02 17:05:14.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 04:52:40 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by tase:
...
i will dnmc-vote with 1 each and every photo that isn't taken with a camera pointed against the sun. don't say i didn't warn you! |
Please tell me this is an early April Fool's joke. |
Why'd you even dredge that up? It's 5 days old, and besides one vote isn't going to make any (much) difference. It's like a troll that's gone public for attention and now has obtained it as desired. |
You are right, I'm an idiot for bringing it up. Each individual's opinion is as valid as the next. I just feel DNMC bickering has little to do with photography and find the amount of energy directed toward it as misguided and counterproductive... and that is MY opinion.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:19:53 PM · #104 |
I always thought that the correct definition of contre-jour involves the light source being behind the main subject. With sun, this happens automatically, like in this photo
I guess this is as contre-jour as you can get :)
...but what about shots when the light source is above or on the side from the subject, but still in front of the camera, like in this photo:
I would think it is not contre-jour, but it fits the description of the challenge perfectly: the camera is directed toward the light source. Opinions?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:26:38 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by LevT:
...but what about shots when the light source is above or on the side from the subject, but still in front of the camera, like in this photo:
I would think it is not contre-jour, but it fits the description of the challenge perfectly: the camera is directed toward the light source. Opinions? |
I think you need to go against the light. At least most voters will see it that way, I assume.
May I offer up the Contre-Fro...for your dining pleasure?
 |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:26:51 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by LevT:
I always thought that the correct definition of contre-jour involves the light source being behind the main subject. With sun, this happens automatically, like in this photo
I guess this is as contre-jour as you can get :)
...but what about shots when the light source is above or on the side from the subject, but still in front of the camera, like in this photo:
I would think it is not contre-jour, but it fits the description of the challenge perfectly: the camera is directed toward the light source. Opinions? |
From what I've found, neither of these are contre-jour. The examples I've seen have the subject blocking the light source while the light source produces a halo effect around the subject.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:26:53 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by LevT:
I would think it is not contre-jour, but it fits the description of the challenge perfectly: the camera is directed toward the light source. Opinions? |
While, I don't think that the light source must necessarily be in the photograph, I don't think the photo of the chair fits the spirit of contr-jour, although it does fit the description.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:28:22 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by LevT:
...but what about shots when the light source is above or on the side from the subject, but still in front of the camera, like in this photo:
I would think it is not contre-jour, but it fits the description of the challenge perfectly: the camera is directed toward the light source. Opinions? |
I think you need to go against the light. At least most voters will see it that way, I assume.
May I offer up the Contre-Fro...for your dining pleasure?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 08:52:23 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
May I offer up the Contre-Fro...for your dining pleasure?
|
Steve, even though your -Fro is not -Jour (if I understand the term correctly), it's a fun photo, thanks!
|
|
|
|
04/03/2007 08:49:09 AM · #110 |
Okey dokey my image is in. I predict a split voting opinion throughout the challenge. Those who want to see the halo effect and the light directly behind the subject, and those who accept that the light source does not have to be in the image.... we are going to have to just live with whatever comments are made to re. light sources.
Mine does not have the light source in the image, but I have obviously placed the subject between me and the direction of light.
I accept the comments about the lack of halo from the outset. I just worked on an image I think is lovely and for me fits the challenge. I'm not going to give preference either way...if the subject is silhouetted to a degree it will work for me. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 08:50:05 AM · #111 |
| BTW - have you noticed how many out takes for Contre-jour are in the Free Study...lots to practice critical thinking on in there :-P |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 10:20:48 AM · #112 |
Contre-jour is a photographic term that means 'against the light' and refers to pictures taken when the camera is pointing towards (or roughly towards) the main light source. Capture a photo using this technique.
Whether or not people read the brief remains to be seen - my instinct tells me people will assess according to their own personal definitions of the style....
Message edited by author 2007-04-03 10:22:45. |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 10:29:16 AM · #113 |
You're pretty fired up about this one - eh? :P
Originally posted by faery:
04/03/2007 10:20:48 AM
04/03/2007 08:50:05 AM
04/03/2007 08:49:09 AM |
Originally posted by faery:
BTW - have you noticed how many out takes for Contre-jour are in the Free Study...lots to practice critical thinking on in there :-P |
There's a handful in 'Anachronism' also - hmmmm, could be a photographic technique - or maybe they're all outtakes? :D |
|
|
|
04/03/2007 10:59:52 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by charliebaker:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
A little birdie told me that's where the challenge description came from ;-) |
Actually, the quote for the challenge description came directly from About:photography
|
I'm positive the text did not come from about.com. I suggested the topic using text from wikipedia (a site I visit often). Sooo, you can end that argument :-P
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 07:00:29 AM · #115 |
Is it just me or does anyone else think quite a few entries in Contre-jour aren't really meeting the challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-04-04 07:00:45. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 07:36:27 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by hipychik:
Is it just me or does anyone else think quite a few entries in Contre-jour aren't really meeting the challenge. |
Loads of them...in fact very few meet the challenge actually |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 08:17:06 AM · #117 |
| Thats why I didn't enter. I did, but decided it wasn't contre jour in the purest sense, then when I tried to shoot new ones, there was no sun to be had, and the studio didn't supply the right kind of background. So I am glad I passed. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 09:15:21 AM · #118 |
... and there's something wrong with that? I was also excited about the Grain and Street Photography Challenges (you kind of see what my personal tastes are for...) neither of which I did very well in.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
You're pretty fired up about this one - eh? :P
Originally posted by faery:
04/03/2007 10:20:48 AM
04/03/2007 08:50:05 AM
04/03/2007 08:49:09 AM |
Originally posted by faery:
BTW - have you noticed how many out takes for Contre-jour are in the Free Study...lots to practice critical thinking on in there :-P |
There's a handful in 'Anachronism' also - hmmmm, could be a photographic technique - or maybe they're all outtakes? :D |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2007 10:18:18 AM · #119 |
| Darn it all I went out last night taking a bunch of pics for this challenge, but fell asleep when I put my daughter down for bed. Oh well, at least I have some for the 30 day side challenge. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 11:47:59 AM · #120 |
I have a theory - or an opinion - or maybe an idea - that the contre-jour term comes from the early days of photography when lens flare was a significant problem at the best of times and film was, erm...
OK so I just got out of my depth there.
Thing is that the advice was always to have the sun behind you when taking photographs ( with your Brownie 127). So contre-jour is really not a lot more than ignoring that advice. As usual though, if you break the rules you need to do an extra good job of it :) |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 01:38:12 PM · #121 |
I agree with raish.
As the challenge definition says, "Contre-jour is a photographic term that means 'against the light' and refers to pictures taken when the camera is pointing towards (or roughly towards) the main light source".
It doesn't mean that the light source should be visible. It means that the effect (backlighting, halo or silhouette) should be visible. My mother tongue is French, and contre-jour is a French term that often refers to any image with backlighting.
So any image taken against the light should do, whether the effect is a halo, a silhouette or a backlighting. |
|
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: 07/23/2025 03:35:56 PM EDT.
