| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2012 12:56:44 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Analyzing my image is very easy to understand how I did it :) |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
How many of the voters do you really think have the same technical abilities you do?
I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how you edit your images.
Actually, the more skilled you are at it, the less likely someone else will be able to decipher the method(s) you used. |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
It's not a matter of editing in this case, but of how I have done it when I shot.
The point is: try to understand how I've done it instead of losing time contacting SC. |
That makes even less sense to me. Usually, validation requests are submitted because of a perceived violation of the editing rules.
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2012 01:13:06 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request. |
Happens all the time. Someone figures out how to SHOOT an effect that, if done in editing, would not be legal. The most obvious example would be double-exposure stuff like graphic funk used to do. But there's lots of things you can do that look like squirrely editing. |
|
|
|
09/06/2012 01:30:55 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Happens all the time. Someone figures out how to SHOOT an effect that, if done in editing, would not be legal. The most obvious example would be double-exposure stuff like graphic funk used to do. But there's lots of things you can do that look like squirrely editing. |
And once again, my ignorance and inexperience bite me in the ass!!! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
09/06/2012 09:43:00 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request. |
Happens all the time. Someone figures out how to SHOOT an effect that, if done in editing, would not be legal. The most obvious example would be double-exposure stuff like graphic funk used to do. But there's lots of things you can do that look like squirrely editing. |
Ah, graphicfunk. I learned a lot by studying his images, and some of my best work uses those techniques. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 07:08:29 AM · #105 |
| Last day and right at the edge, hope it stays on the higher side of it. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 05:20:23 PM · #106 |
Votes: 115
Views: 171
Avg Vote: 6.3304
Comments: 3
Favorites: 1
A nice upward trend, and the Fave is awesome. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 06:06:09 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request. |
Happens all the time. Someone figures out how to SHOOT an effect that, if done in editing, would not be legal. But there's lots of things you can do that look like squirrely editing. |
That's more or less what happened to me. My entry has been validated in just one day :)
To tell the truth I'm rather proud that people can think my entry is not doable with one shot - it makes me proud. SC has asked my originals several times. I don't mean those cases when I got a top 5 placement. |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 07:00:36 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request. |
Happens all the time. Someone figures out how to SHOOT an effect that, if done in editing, would not be legal. But there's lots of things you can do that look like squirrely editing. |
That's more or less what happened to me. My entry has been validated in just one day :)
To tell the truth I'm rather proud that people can think my entry is not doable with one shot - it makes me proud. SC has asked my originals several times. I don't mean those cases when I got a top 5 placement. |
That's the right attitude :-) |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 08:08:22 PM · #109 |
Finished voting (skipped the one I'd seen before):
You have rated 242 of 243 images (100%) in this challenge.
You have commented on 42 images (17%) in this challenge.
You have given an average score of 6.0826
Lots of enjoyable images.
My entry:
Votes: 126
Views: 224
Avg Vote: 7.3651
Comments: 13
Only the 3rd 7+ score I've ever gotten (if it holds ... please let it hold) and easily my highest scoring FS entry. Kind of excited about that :-) |
|
|
|
09/07/2012 08:34:46 PM · #110 |
Commented on a third. Did what I could...
You have rated 243 of 243 images (100%) in this challenge.
You have commented on 81 images (33%) in this challenge.
You have given an average score of 5.6790.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2012 10:00:59 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm unsure as to how someone could shoot an image that would be cause for a validation request. |
Happens all the time. Someone figures out how to SHOOT an effect that, if done in editing, would not be legal. But there's lots of things you can do that look like squirrely editing. |
That's more or less what happened to me. My entry has been validated in just one day :)
To tell the truth I'm rather proud that people can think my entry is not doable with one shot - it makes me proud. SC has asked my originals several times. I don't mean those cases when I got a top 5 placement. |
That's exactly the right approach!
I was right - I was the person who requested it. I'm delighted it was legit, and voted it an 8.
I just left a comment explaining why I requested validation:
 |
|
|
|
09/08/2012 10:06:47 AM · #112 |
That's my question as well; how the HECK were you able NOT to have a shadow of the figure on the ground?
Message edited by author 2012-09-08 10:07:05. |
|
|
|
09/08/2012 10:26:00 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's my question as well; how the HECK were you able NOT to have a shadow of the figure on the ground? |
jeffrey has incorrectly assumed that the image is lit from the left. actually, he has used two lights almost facing each other. each pretty much eats the others' shadow. even though there is a little shadow left (mainly in the cross shadows), most of it is absorbed into the rough terrain and ground cover. |
|
|
|
09/08/2012 11:14:25 AM · #114 |
Hmm. You might be right, Skip. I really did look at it and try to imagine the lighting, but with your thinking in mind, I'm looking at the leg on the right (his left leg, but to image-right) and the right side of his hoodie.
Well, Alessandro, does Skip have it right?
At any rate, I feel validated ;) that Bear also wondered.
I also feel this is a great example of why you vote as if it's legal: let the SC figure out questions and assume everything's legit. But there's no reason not to ask the question. |
|
|
|
09/08/2012 12:47:50 PM · #115 |
Skip is right. Two speedlights. The shadows were feeble and were from both sides - I cloned them out, but at the beginning I had left them because they were not distracting.
Sometimes rant starts where it is not necessary and DPC, I have to say, taught me great lessons! So, if I have been rude, well, it was not my intention :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2012 01:37:43 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Skip is right. Two speedlights. The shadows were feeble and were from both sides - I cloned them out, but at the beginning I had left them because they were not distracting.
Sometimes rant starts where it is not necessary and DPC, I have to say, taught me great lessons! So, if I have been rude, well, it was not my intention :) |
Cool - thanks for sharing the secret. And no worries - we got it all sorted out. :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2012 02:02:40 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
So, if I have been rude, well, it was not my intention :) |
Ditto :) |
|
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: 08/01/2025 07:04:51 PM EDT.
