The 1x Reject Club - DPChallenge Forums

09/07/2009 11:17:04 PM · #1252

Originally posted by ursula:

Define commoting, please :) From commotion, as in upheaval (which is weird, because it would seem to be movement with and upheaval seems movement against)?...

â�¢ Shaking up the clichee by intrinsic questioning and sincere involvement with whatever evolves, attention to both process and utility; pretty much what I've seen you do when you take pictures: explore, git down and dirty, crawl, if that's what it takes to see/breathe a thing in a new way (new as in fresh, not as in novelty).

â�¢ Steve can respond to your second point.

â�¢ For practical purposes, three (or more, three only as a reasonable number) of any images by the same author. If the images relate to one another (as in a series, say), all the better.
While a given number of images may not always cohere, I believe, the odds should be much better for any critic to catch something he can all too easily (dis-)miss, when handed a single flash-in-a-pan, particularly if he's unfamiliar with the phenomenon.

It's equally easy to dismiss a flash in the sky as an incidental reflection. When you see two or three similar strikes, you know it's an electric storm, yes?

Message edited by author 2009-09-07 23:18:21.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/07/2009 11:20:07 PM · #1253

Originally posted by ursula:

... it is a bit insulting to hear that I am just middle of the road compositionally (which may be true, but it hurts anyway).

I'm not sure who said that but I hope it wasn't me...

I agree some left field stuff is just left field and nothing more but I was referring to what I guess is generally at the top of that pile. My main point was I would like to see things published that not everyone agrees on. For example, if there was something that 3 screeners thought was brilliant and 5 others couldn't figure out at all...publish it anyway. That's not to say the 5 that didn't like or get it are wrong but there could be something of deep value making it worth raising up the flagpole.

Zeus, sorry if I paraphrased incorrectly or without clarity but what I tapped into or what stuck with me from that post was...

"...a subtle aesthetic or a quirky composition can easily go unrecognized, which, IMO, is a shame when the overall (site-) ambition is to assemble excellence."

Which brings me to "left field", something I can hardly define myself and won't venture to define for others. More relevant is probably making my point properly, which I didn't do very well and that's more about things being tangible or intangible. This isn't a complaint or in any way making any excuses and it's not about my work but my desire to be challenged. I get everything that's published at 1x...I understand what they put up but I'd prefer if I didn't get it and that's where the word tangible comes into play. From my very limited experience there, I find there is almost always something tangible or strong even in their quirkier published works that make the images easier to drink in. It could be an incredible tone or a pronounced line cutting through the frame...but without being specific something powerful that anchors the images is usually present. It's not a bad thing but I'd rather swim without a life preserver...if that makes sense? And I mean that as a viewer. I don't care so much what I get posted or rejected, I just want to be stimulated.

Today I was reading Looking at Photographs by John Szarkowski and what he extracts from seemingly simple images made my head crackle.lolol In short, one Winogrand image he writes about he starts off by saying "simplicity is a virtue" and that's one thing that stands out to me about Zeus's work. Unlike me, you don't see his fingerprints all over his work and I find that uncommon and admirable.

Anyway, I'd love to see more images at 1x that I don't get...if that makes any sense. I seem to be slow on the uptake as a viewer. Most of the greatest photographers (IMO) I didn't understand for beans when I first saw their work...HCB, Eggleston, Arbus etc. but the leaps I made after they were explained, I can't explain. Again, I get everything at 1x and I think it would be far cooler if I didn't. Nothing personal in anyone's direction.

Message edited by author 2009-09-08 00:11:49.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

09/08/2009 12:22:46 AM · #1254

Originally posted by zeuszen:

â�¢ For practical purposes, three (or more, three only as a reasonable number) of any images by the same author. If the images relate to one another (as in a series, say), all the better.
While a given number of images may not always cohere, I believe, the odds should be much better for any critic to catch something he can all too easily (dis-)miss, when handed a single flash-in-a-pan, particularly if he's unfamiliar with the phenomenon.

It's equally easy to dismiss a flash in the sky as an incidental reflection. When you see two or three similar strikes, you know it's an electric storm, yes?

Makes sense. Thank you.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/08/2009 12:23:36 AM · #1255

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by ursula:
... it is a bit insulting to hear that I am just middle of the road compositionally (which may be true, but it hurts anyway).

I'm not sure who said that but I hope it wasn't me...

It wasn't. I'm just very thin-skinned sometimes. Sorry :)

And what you say afterwards makes beautiful sense, and I want to think about it more.

Message edited by author 2009-09-08 00:25:29.

09/08/2009 09:52:31 AM · #1256

reject

Message edited by author 2009-09-12 15:58:45.

09/21/2009 10:23:51 AM · #1257

Wow what a cool site. Anyone have any ideas on the lighting for this:

Black Boxer

There is defnitely one light to camera right, and at a relatively tall height, angled down on the guy (actually I think it might be slightly behind him as well, as it doesn't cast any light on this face, just the top of head and the side of his arm). Wondering about the fill.

**NEVERMIND - says it was "painted with light", so im assuming its not staight up hot lights or strobes, but something cooler.

Message edited by author 2009-09-21 10:36:04.

09/21/2009 10:40:15 AM · #1258

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

Study the shadows. Looks like a light on one side and a reflector on the other. It's a lot hotter on his left side, that's why I think maybe one light. The wicked high contrast makes it tough to determine. Could be two lights at different power settings each set off to the sides, slightly back.

09/21/2009 10:45:14 AM · #1259

Yeah, based off the title of the image...it says "PAINTED WITH LIGHT" which makes me think he may of just used a flashlight and a longexposure to highlight certain parts and get the look he wanted. Probably had a main light source though and then just filled in the rest "manually"

09/21/2009 10:48:53 AM · #1260

Then again, there is definitely a light from a higher source, shooting down, because thats whats catching the top right of his head, right shoulder, top of the glove, and top of his right fore arm. Then there is a secondary light on camera left that is much softer and diffused but strong enough to cast that shadow on the right side of his face.

I think we just solved the puzzle. 1 hard light, maybe even barebulb, on camera right, angled high (can't be behind cause its hitting the top of the glove and the forearm) and one softbox on camera left, lined up directly with the profile of the boxer.

09/21/2009 11:18:31 AM · #1261

There's actually a shadow on the very top of his head. So, if he's standing up, head pointing to 12:00 the light looks like it's at 1:30-2:00 and pointed to his shoulder. It's not catching the top of his head UNLESS it's been burned or PS'd out in someway. The left side of his face has certainly been burned down as are other parts of his body.

Message edited by author 2009-09-21 11:22:19.

09/21/2009 11:32:25 AM · #1262

I say you and I try to recreate this...first one to become jacked and black is the model, the other is the photog.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

10/03/2009 01:43:59 AM · #1263

.

Message edited by author 2009-10-05 08:38:23.

silverscreen

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Sony SAL16-80Z DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA

10/12/2009 03:33:54 AM · #1264

My latest rejection was mu FS entry for September:

AVP

Sony Alpha a77

10/12/2009 06:04:25 AM · #1265

Also tried a few times, however I never saw or see any comment, just rejected. Am I missing something or do they not always give a reason, and if they do where should these appear?

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

10/12/2009 06:13:11 AM · #1266

Originally posted by AVP:

Also tried a few times, however I never saw or see any comment, just rejected. Am I missing something or do they not always give a reason, and if they do where should these appear?

If there are any comments, you will see them by going to your account, to "uploaded photos", then clicking on the photo itself. Scroll down. If you have any comments, they will be beneath the photo. Some of my rejects have comments, some do not.

Paul

Leica SL

10/12/2009 08:26:30 AM · #1267

Originally posted by AVP:

Also tried a few times, however I never saw or see any comment, just rejected. Am I missing something or do they not always give a reason, and if they do where should these appear?

You only get comments if your image got through to member screening - often an image is knocked back by the screening 'staff' team and then you'll see no comments at all.

Covert_Oddity

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/12/2009 11:58:59 PM · #1268

Just had this one rejected:

I've yet to have a single shot accepted over there, I should be up for a lifetime rejectee award :)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0L IS USM Lens

10/13/2009 09:03:50 AM · #1269

Rejected

This guy lives in my neighborhood but I never noticed him before I saw him outside a local Laundromat while on a portrait tear. Now, every time he spots me he tries to put the touch on me for a "dollah". What a nightmare...

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/13/2009 09:20:27 AM · #1270

Rejected. This is the HDR version for the prior challenge. I submitted the "regular" version which looked nearly the same just a bit more photographic in my opinion.

Germaine

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

10/13/2009 10:12:14 AM · #1271

Look what I found over at Facebook!

Giorgio

Canon EOS-70D

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro EX DG OS for Canon EF

10/13/2009 10:14:53 AM · #1272

So far I managed to publish 5 out of 8 uploaded photos. :D

gaurawa

Canon EOS-5D Mark II