| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2006 12:28:37 AM · #1 |
Very suprised by the results of the Paiting with Light II challenge how did these shots (and many others) get passed over?
 |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 12:31:28 AM · #2 |
| 3 of these were in the top 20 out of 180+. How is that passed over? |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 12:35:15 AM · #3 |
| I'm one one these, I am tickle that my piont and shoot runs well with the pack. |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 12:35:50 AM · #4 |
| Uhm, it's not like these came in dead last or anything.... I agree they are great images... evidently the voters thought so too.... |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 12:37:00 AM · #5 |
| I really don't see any of these as being robbed.. I think the placements were about right.. |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:38:34 AM · #6 |
| I guess I thought they would all be contending for 1st! ... |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:43:19 AM · #7 |
I was kind of depressed at how mine did; 91 votes, nearly a thrid of the votes, 4 or less. WTF?
I understand people not liking the way the flaw in the pepper skin is emphasized by the light, but I couldn't get rid of that hot spot in any of my attempts, so I used it to highlight the imperfection, which in the end charmed me a little. I don't much like "perfect" things, as a rule. Other than that, even the most cursory examination of the pepper will reveal, by the shadows, that the light source was moving.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:45:55 AM · #8 |
| yeah i just saw your image bear as i was browsing through. my exact sentiment. WTF??? as a thumb it has a great deal of punch but it's easy to spot that indeed the source was moving. sometimes, i just don't understand the way the votes fall ;( |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:49:55 AM · #9 |
Was surprised yours didn't do better as well, bear - it's a great shot and yes, you can tell the light source was moving.
Mine, on the other hand, did as expected - average. It's been quite awhile since I really put some effort into a challenge. And yet I feel the compulsion to enter something no matter what. :-|
 |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:58:45 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
yeah i just saw your image bear as i was browsing through. my exact sentiment. WTF??? as a thumb it has a great deal of punch but it's easy to spot that indeed the source was moving. sometimes, i just don't understand the way the votes fall ;( |
It's pretty simple, really; to finish well you had to show motion of light graphically; a single concept dominated the high scores. You have to go to 20th place to dind a "stationary" image (although the 18th-place waterfall is straddling the motion concept), and most of the rest of the top scores after 20th used moving light trails in one way or another. I think it's too bad, personally; I think a LOT can be done with moving light sources to render objects in an other-worldly way.
But so it goes...
R.
Edit to add: Larus is on the first page with another waterfall shot, that one has no light trails either, though the water of course is moving, so it's a straddler also, albeit a beautiful one.
Message edited by author 2006-03-08 03:19:53.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 12:41:30 PM · #11 |
I don´t really know if this is the right thread to post this in because I don´t feel robbed at all, I mean, who can complain about a 6.8 score, 7 favorites and 6th place so please don´t take this post wrong and think I am ranting and upset, I am by no means :) I was maybe expecting a 6.5 at best before the voting started so I am quite happy with how my photo did.
However, I am a little perplexed about the scores curve, I don´t think I have ever seen such a distribution on one of my shots yet so what I am wondering is that did so many people think my shot didn´t meet the challenge? Only two of them commented on that so I am just curios what the rest of you think, did a lot of you think that I had misunderstood the challenge and meant that the northern lights was my "painting with light"?
Maybe I am just so used to looking at photos and "reading the light", the way they are done and forget that other people don´t maybe have as much experience as I do with that matter and don´t realize that if I hadn´t used a flashlight to light up the waterfall and cliffs, they would be pitch black and indistinguishable.
Here is a link to my image.
 |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 12:44:55 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spurs:
I'm one one these, I am tickle that my piont and shoot runs well with the pack. |
I wouldn't call it quite a point and shoot!
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 01:12:39 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Maybe I am just so used to looking at photos and "reading the light", the way they are done and forget that other people don´t maybe have as much experience as I do with that matter and don´t realize that if I hadn´t used a flashlight to light up the waterfall and cliffs, they would be pitch black and indistinguishable.
Here is a link to my image.
|
I gave you a 7... my personal thought was that this was a "statically lit" scene which might or might not fit my personal definition of "painting with light". That said, it is an extremely good image, so I didn't want to punish it excessively just in case I was missing the point. Turns out I was :)
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 01:16:15 PM · #14 |
I'm in the Bear camp on this one. I too tried to use a moving light source to light and give an old painting feeling to my image - this selective lighting would have been very difficult indeed with stationary lights, alas, it barely made 5.0.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 01:31:23 PM · #15 |
ahhh ha ... I knew there would be a few out there that felt a little robbed. I posted this thread mainly because of the wild scores that I had received for my shot (soo many below a 3) And upon checking out a few that I was sure would be up there within the top 5 and finding out that some of them placed below 20th place I began to wonder. It seems that there was a little misunderstanding on the challenge rules, just because it says to paint with a moving light source doesn't mean that it must be apparent that one was used ... as was the case I feel I received so many comments on my shot about not meeting the challenge requirements.
 |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:00:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I'm in the Bear camp on this one. I too tried to use a moving light source to light and give an old painting feeling to my image - this selective lighting would have been very difficult indeed with stationary lights, alas, it barely made 5.0.
|
Left you a comment anyway ;)
I thought there was some great stuff in the challenge and I didn't sit here wearing my DNMC hat trying to work out what people had done with their lights :) I just got on with voting one some very well lit pictures.
Roger |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 02:06:23 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Mustardhead:
Left you a comment anyway ;)
I thought there was some great stuff in the challenge and I didn't sit here wearing my DNMC hat trying to work out what people had done with their lights :) I just got on with voting one some very well lit pictures.
Roger |
Thanks very much, Roger and good for you voting with an open mind.
|
|
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: 10/18/2025 04:37:59 PM EDT.
