| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2013 07:20:44 PM · #26 |
Okay, now I see it, when looking at it on my ipad about 8" from my face. On a 20" monitor at normal viewing distance, not so much.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2013 07:25:52 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
And some observations....most of the entries were shot wide angle, I doubt anyone else went with as short a focal length as I did, which was 50mm. |
Mine filled the frame at 55.8mm and was bright and shiny and I told people exactly where to look and they still couldn't see it ... subtlety is for side-challenges ...
 accentuated contrast:  |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 08:13:05 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by pamb:
And, if anything, this is a reason I would stop participating here. Why the fuck should I bother trying to be creative and entering stuff I like, because it's obviously over processed mainstream crap that only "votards" and "failtographers" would vote highly??!! Comments like this insult virtually the entire DPC family and very nearly every winning image. |
I'm guessing you've never looked at any winning images, have you? I joined because I'd been told this was a photography website. But they seldom post anything that isn't a photoshop competition (e.g., advanced editor, expert editing). |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 08:19:47 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by schlake:
I'm guessing you've never looked at any winning images, have you? |
This is just a sarcastic piece of bs. No, obviously I've never looked at any winning images on this site or in any other competition anywhere. Obviously I'm not entitled to my preferences in imagery. |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 08:22:33 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by pamb:
And, if anything, this is a reason I would stop participating here. Why the fuck should I bother trying to be creative and entering stuff I like, because it's obviously over processed mainstream crap that only "votards" and "failtographers" would vote highly??!! Comments like this insult virtually the entire DPC family and very nearly every winning image. |
I'm guessing you've never looked at any winning images, have you? I joined because I'd been told this was a photography website. But they seldom post anything that isn't a photoshop competition (e.g., advanced editor, expert editing). |
Most of the time the winning images ARE Pam's! |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 08:31:31 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by pamb:
And, if anything, this is a reason I would stop participating here. Why the fuck should I bother trying to be creative and entering stuff I like, because it's obviously over processed mainstream crap that only "votards" and "failtographers" would vote highly??!! Comments like this insult virtually the entire DPC family and very nearly every winning image. |
I'm guessing you've never looked at any winning images, have you? I joined because I'd been told this was a photography website. But they seldom post anything that isn't a photoshop competition (e.g., advanced editor, expert editing). |
I don't get it. The images on the front page haven't exactly changed much since you joined 3 years ago. Did you join because you thought you were going to enlighten the heathen masses and change the critical mass of the site over to something that's more to your liking? Or did you join because you just enjoy calling people names? I enjoy a good internet argument as much as the next person, but name calling isn't an argument, it's just someone having a tantrum and pissing everyone else off. |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 08:42:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by pamb:
And, if anything, this is a reason I would stop participating here. Why the fuck should I bother trying to be creative and entering stuff I like, because it's obviously over processed mainstream crap that only "votards" and "failtographers" would vote highly??!! Comments like this insult virtually the entire DPC family and very nearly every winning image. |
I'm guessing you've never looked at any winning images, have you? I joined because I'd been told this was a photography website. But they seldom post anything that isn't a photoshop competition (e.g., advanced editor, expert editing). |
I don't get it. The images on the front page haven't exactly changed much since you joined 3 years ago. Did you join because you thought you were going to enlighten the heathen masses and change the critical mass of the site over to something that's more to your liking? Or did you join because you just enjoy calling people names? I enjoy a good internet argument as much as the next person, but name calling isn't an argument, it's just someone having a tantrum and pissing everyone else off. |
Pam & Ann,
Take a look at Schlake's profile pic (unless he quickly changes it). Couple that with his ludicrous and insulating comments and ask yourself one question: "why are you even dignifying him with a response"?
Just keep contributing the top notch images that both you ladies are known for because it's folks like you, (& many like you), that make this a quality site and one in which 99.9% of us would be proud to receive a ribbon.
Message edited by author 2013-12-12 21:34:45. |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 08:52:26 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by schlake:
There is a reason DPCers are called votards and failtographers. You should have known better and just posted some over-processed crap that doesn't even look like a photograph anymore. Those things get high ratings here. |
Gotta love these generalizations...
Just because it's "shiny and bright" [quoting from elsewhere in the thread] doesn't make it a POS. And just because it's obtuse doesn't make it "art". Almost half of the current front page falls more in the "alternative" than "shiny and bright" category: two brilliant b/w portraits (one of them SOOC); two highly non-traditional feast images, and a really dark b/w landscape. What is wrong here is how narrowly you define "art", and how disrespectful you are of other people's versions of it.
Susan, I applaud your taking risks - sometimes they pay off, most of the time they don't, not just on DPC but out there, in life. I'd like to encourage that, but clearly, you're not willing to accept the fallout. I don't think this is a particularly good image, no matter how you explain it. |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 09:48:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Or did you join because you just enjoy calling people names? |
THat's exactly right. He's even said as much, back when he joined. |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 10:54:30 PM · #35 |
Snaffles, if you look at your B&W image in the original (first) post where you have pointed out eyes/nose etc with red arrows, you have yourself failed to locate the eye! Here is the eye pointed out by yellow arrow: 
So when you yourself can't make out the features of the face" in your own image; how do you expect others to recognize it? People can verify this location of eye from the color version you posted as well.
Message edited by author 2013-12-12 22:59:25. |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 10:57:10 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
... his ludicrous and insulating comments ... |
exactly. insulating. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:21:41 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Snaffles, if you look at your B&W image in the original (first) post where you have pointed out eyes/nose etc with red arrows, you have yourself failed to locate the eye! Here is the eye pointed out by yellow arrow:
So when you yourself can't make out the features of the face" in your own image; how do you expect others to recognize it? People can verify this location of eye from the color version you posted as well. |
Sorry, you're wrong. At the level of your yellow arrow is here forehead. But where your arrow is, is wood.
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 03:23:15. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:42:58 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
... his ludicrous and insulating comments ... |
exactly. insulating. |
It's so insulating it makes me completely fiberglasted. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 03:51:02 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
Sorry, you're wrong. At the level of your yellow arrow is here forehead. But where your arrow is, is wood. |
Well there's wood everywhere :) but i suggest you study the color image and see where the eye is relative to that circular mark in the wood:
 |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 05:35:25 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
Sorry, you're wrong. At the level of your yellow arrow is here forehead. But where your arrow is, is wood. |
Well there's wood everywhere :) but i suggest you study the color image and see where the eye is relative to that circular mark in the wood:
|
I suggest you take a look again and you'll see that the eye is just underneath the small snow spot. This is clearly visible in the original coloured version which is not mirrored.
Where you placed your arrow, would be just in front of her forehead.
So the spot Susan defined as the place of her eye, is indeed where her eye is.
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 06:13:27. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 05:53:49 AM · #41 |
Susan I know the feeling of I put a lot of effort for doing something original and no one got it, but we have to admit that this effort lacks of photography interest.
And even with you helping us to find the face I still have a lot of problems finding it in the photo. But the problem is not the face, but the image in itself.
I can understand your feelings but go on to the next challenge :) |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 06:00:42 AM · #42 |
| Should have put it in a plastic box! |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 08:08:15 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
...Susan, I applaud your taking risks - sometimes they pay off, most of the time they don't, not just on DPC but out there, in life. I'd like to encourage that, but clearly, you're not willing to accept the fallout.... |
Really? Says who? Johanna, I'm the one had the balls to start working as a freelance copywriter straight out of college, which is unheard-of; you're expected to go and slave away at an ad agency for a few years first. But I did it. And despite the fact that my parents told me there was no way I could make a living working with horses, I did so, for several years. I'm the one who packed up and moved across the country with a couple of friends and helped them buy and start up a very successful business before I returned to Ontario.
And that, my dear,is just the tip of the iceberg. I've done nothing but take risks my entire life. Could go on but have to go work now. Feel free to PM me. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 08:12:27 AM · #44 |
| Is there any way we could re-open the voting for this challenge? Or maybe just for this one photo? |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 08:17:53 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Is there any way we could re-open the voting for this challenge? Or maybe just for this one photo? |
Is there any way we could put this thread in a plastic box? |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 08:24:52 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by tanguera:
...Susan, I applaud your taking risks - sometimes they pay off, most of the time they don't, not just on DPC but out there, in life. I'd like to encourage that, but clearly, you're not willing to accept the fallout.... |
Really? Says who? Johanna, I'm the one had the balls to start working as a freelance copywriter straight out of college, which is unheard-of; you're expected to go and slave away at an ad agency for a few years first. But I did it. And despite the fact that my parents told me there was no way I could make a living working with horses, I did so, for several years. I'm the one who packed up and moved across the country with a couple of friends and helped them buy and start up a very successful business before I returned to Ontario.
And that, my dear,is just the tip of the iceberg. I've done nothing but take risks my entire life. Could go on but have to go work now. Feel free to PM me. |
It seems that your past risk have all paid off. The same can not be said for everyone. Or this image.
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 08:25:05. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 11:16:27 AM · #47 |
I remembered to come back to this thread!
I find it very telling that no one has talked about photographs winning here. You are all calling them images.
I think a photograph is a capture of reality. The only contests here that actual feature photographs are the basic challenges. Everything else seems to be voted based on how fake the image is. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 11:27:56 AM · #48 |
Susan, I meant photographic risks.
Schlake.... nevermind
Message edited by author 2013-12-13 12:10:21. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 11:33:39 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by schlake:
I remembered to come back to this thread!
I find it very telling that no one has talked about photographs winning here. You are all calling them images.
I think a photograph is a capture of reality. The only contests here that actual feature photographs are the basic challenges. Everything else seems to be voted based on how fake the image is. |
exactly what is "fake" about any of the ribbon winners? none of them are over-processed in any way. |
|
|
|
12/13/2013 12:07:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by schlake:
I remembered to come back to this thread!
I find it very telling that no one has talked about photographs winning here. You are all calling them images.
I think a photograph is a capture of reality. The only contests here that actual feature photographs are the basic challenges. Everything else seems to be voted based on how fake the image is. |
exactly what is "fake" about any of the ribbon winners? none of them are over-processed in any way. |
Waldo at the Hilton has bizarrely oversaturated lights coming through the windows, and possibly someone erased a few floors down from the person.
Forgotten has a surpisingly low-entropy box with a person in it. I'm not sure what they did to that box, but they did something.
Almost Empty doesn't look real at all. The lighting is surreal, the colors are surreal.
The Traditional Bird looks like a real picture taken in a parallel absurdly high-contrast universe, possibly a universe with an over saturation problem.
The Spread has some obvious editing, but otherwise actually looks a lot like a photograph to me.
Not the same feast for everyone looks like a photograph that could be taken, and I suspected it was a photograph, but then I saw the meta-data and I'm not so sure anymore.
INDIA looks like a real picture from a parallel high-constrast high-accutence universe. (My favorite kind of editing when faking a photograph, by the way.)
Early Snowfall looks like an oversaturated picture.
Entwination has a surprising amount of contrast and accutence, but mostly looks like a real photograph. |
|
