| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2004 02:04:08 PM · #1 |
Post your comments, questions, and reviews for...
How'd They Do That
'X-Rays (Accidentally Discovered in 1895)' by labuda
View this tutorial here. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 02:18:20 PM · #2 |
| I have a question for "Bar Fight." How many bottles of Honey Brown did you have to drink before you got the glass to break just right, and was it enough? |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 02:40:51 PM · #3 |
Thanks Labuda, great idea and great tutorial.
You had my hopes up since you originally listed that you had taken it with the Sony F717, so I hoped to discover a feature of my F707 which I had not know before. Unfortunately , it's your Nikon...
Would it be possible to take it in one shot if you don't have double exposure on the camera, but then taking a long exposure instead ?
All lights out in the room, shutter open, switch on the computer screen, switch it off again, change over the piece of cardboard (in the dark), put the hand in place, switch on a light on the hand, close the shutter. Needs a lot of practice I guess, but should be possible I think.
Thanks again and congrats on your ribbon.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 02:49:10 PM · #4 |
| You are so creative and have a great imagination. Thanks for the tutorial, and keep up the awesome job. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 05:13:41 PM · #5 |
| Great job with both the photo and the tutorial, although I'm not sure but perhaps the story of Roentgen's discovery might have undergone a bit of "post-processing" over the years. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 05:59:28 PM · #6 |
Thanks for sharing your technique with us! I really like your inventiveness. When I first saw your serendipity entry, I knew that it had to have been done entirely in camera. Then I tried to figure out just how you did it.
I came up with several methods, but none of them were the same as the method you used. All the methods I thought of presumed that the camera did not have double exposure capability.
Congrats on a fine entry and finish!
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 06:02:52 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Dyslexic:
I have a question for "Bar Fight." How many bottles of Honey Brown did you have to drink before you got the glass to break just right, and was it enough? |
Actually, I had a birthday party and was left with 150 beer bottles, not to mention wine and vodka bottles. A good 50 were Sleeman, a lot of which I drank, so we had quite a high limit for breaking bottles. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 08:36:51 PM · #8 |
The photo is very cool, and the tutorial is pretty good too. However, it’s still not perfectly clear to me how the final exposure was handled. In the tutorial you state, “With the hand displayed on the LCD with 50% transparency, I aligned it with the X-ray hand which was on my screen.” Do you mean that the hand was displayed on the LCD of the camera, and the x-ray hand was displayed on a computer screen? IOW, the first half of the photo (your real hand) was already in the camera, and then you overlaid the image of the x-ray hand by taking an exposure of your computer screen?
BTW, I really love this kind of stuff. I wish my 10D would do double exposures. I don’t know why the idiots at Canon didn’t include this capability.
--Mick
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 09:00:44 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
BTW, I really love this kind of stuff. I wish my 10D would do double exposures. I don’t know why the idiots at Canon didn’t include this capability.
--Mick |
That's because you can do a much better job by using Photoshop. You can however overcome this in-camera by using a long exposure in a dark room, you light up each subject in sequence. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 09:24:19 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
That's because you can do a much better job by using Photoshop. |
Sure, but not for challenge photos. :)
|
|
|
|
05/02/2004 12:33:15 AM · #11 |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:09:11 AM · #12 |
| this is totally useful and of course a great job.. but totally out of basic editing.... if i shot a pc screen with a really really edited shot in it, can i say is it just basic editing?? |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:27:36 AM · #13 |
if you were to take picture of JUST your screen and the image on it, you would probably fall foul of the "literal representation of art" rule but if you the screen images as PART of the picture you are OK.
At least thats how I understand it
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:33:22 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
if you were to take picture of JUST your screen and the image on it, you would probably fall foul of the "literal representation of art" rule but if you the screen images as PART of the picture you are OK.
At least thats how I understand it |
that's nice to know how the rules have to be understand... i will check with next contest |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:48:50 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
if you were to take picture of JUST your screen and the image on it, you would probably fall foul of the "literal representation of art" rule but if you the screen images as PART of the picture you are OK.
At least thats how I understand it |
That is how I understood it too. Where it's blurry for me is the photos of statues, figurines, public art, garden sculptures etc. Many seem to be treading a very fine line. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 05:14:10 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by cbonsall:
if you were to take picture of JUST your screen and the image on it, you would probably fall foul of the "literal representation of art" rule but if you the screen images as PART of the picture you are OK.
At least thats how I understand it |
That is how I understood it too. Where it's blurry for me is the photos of statues, figurines, public art, garden sculptures etc. Many seem to be treading a very fine line. |
If this pic  was NOT DQ'd for violating the art rule, then i think none will be (I did not make the DQ request but him that did told me about it)
The explanation I got from an SC member interpreted the rule as such : " Hi there. I wanted to get a message out to you before you request 2/3 of the photos for DQ. lol. A photo of a statue is not illegal if it contains other elements or is only part of the statue. 99% of statue photos are legal, as you can see background elements in them. I don't really think we've seen any statue photos that have been illegal. Sky is considered background, and trees, walls, etc. Hope this helps clear that up for you. A photo of an entire statue is ok, as long as it's not JUST the entire statue. Creative interp. includes things such as background elements, lighting, and other objects. This rules was put into place to prevent copyright infringements, not to prevent photos of statues or monuments.... It really is a subjective matter, not really black and white. But like I said the purpose is to prevent copyright infringements and head on photos of magazines or paintings. Don't get me wrong, photos OF magazines and paintings are generally ok, but not if it's JUST the magazine or painting. It's really hard to put into words, but statues are generally alright."
That was in response to a DQ request for a Rust entry. One of myother requests was KIA before the entrant got a validation request.
This is a non-rule rule me thinks.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2005 06:08:09 PM · #17 |
|
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: 08/03/2025 04:33:59 PM EDT.
