| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2006 04:50:02 PM · #101 |
Not sure if you're looking for more, but I'd like to join a team. Preferably one that won't mind a whole bunch of my sub-5 scores.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:48:03 PM · #102 |
We are completely full...i will add u to the waiting list but there are about 3 people in front of you.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:49:14 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Zoomdak:
Trial 1: New Text
|
Of the two I prefer this one. |
I actually like that a lot
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:06:30 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by jusdino4it:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Zoomdak:
Trial 1: New Text
|
Of the two I prefer this one. |
I actually like that a lot |
I'm not crazy about the text. The metal look doesn't fit the photo,IMO.
I can try something tomorrow if you want or I'm OK with this if everyone else is.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:41:44 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I can try something tomorrow if you want or I'm OK with this if everyone else is. |
I think that it is worth trying something - the more options the better I say. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:59:02 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I can try something tomorrow if you want or I'm OK with this if everyone else is. |
I think that it is worth trying something - the more options the better I say. |
deffenetly
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 11:36:54 AM · #107 |
here's my attempt - these are thumbnails, click through to see a slightly larger image
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 01:08:09 PM · #108 |
Heads up.
Changed my username from SherwinJames to Dr. Jeuss.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 05:08:40 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th. |
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: Zoomdak, Dr Jeuss, scarbrd and mad_brewer. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 05:58:12 AM · #110 |
The team name "Trigger Happy" is quite apt for my style, shoot now spend days editing later, I don't suppose there are any spare places left on the team as I now have alot more time for DPC after moving homes etc...
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 06:48:24 AM · #111 |
Nope, sorry its all full and you will be the fifth on the waiting list.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 06:51:36 AM · #112 |
No Probs - no harm in asking !!!
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:16:56 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th. |
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: Zoomdak, Dr Jeuss, scarbrd and mad_brewer. |
Which challenges are you basing this on? I hope it wasn't Magic/Mystery!! Mine blew chunks!
In the tournament, which challenges are considered, the members only ones?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 04:16:28 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by jusdino4it:
Nope, sorry its all full and you will be the fifth on the waiting list. |
Maybe the waiting list people should form their own team? There is almost enough people on the list now to make up a team. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 04:17:52 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th. |
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: Zoomdak, Dr Jeuss, scarbrd and mad_brewer. |
Which challenges are you basing this on? I hope it wasn't Magic/Mystery!! Mine blew chunks!
In the tournament, which challenges are considered, the members only ones? |
Yes it was a low scoring round. All challenges count as per the offical WPL site: WPL.
ETA: The teams score is worked out by taking the average of the top four photographers scores from all challenges in the round. That means if you have a poor score and a good score in one week then the poor score is not used.
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 16:40:42. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 01:21:00 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th.
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th.
|
Round 8: We would have scored 6.0653 which would have ranked us 2nd. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: mad_brewer, Dr Jeuss, Zoomdak and scarbd.
Message edited by author 2006-09-06 01:21:15. |
|
|
|
09/09/2006 01:38:09 AM · #117 |
| Hey - don't feel like I ignored everyone here and this thread. I didn't get the little yellow thing and thought nobody updated it. Now to get back and start reading... |
|
|
|
09/09/2006 01:43:18 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
here's my attempt - these are thumbnails, click through to see a slightly larger image
|
I really like this one. |
|
|
|
09/10/2006 05:51:45 AM · #119 |
| I'm being sent out of the country for the next 3 weeks for work so I may not be reading this for a while as I don't know what sort of internet access I will have. I'll be back though :) |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 06:22:04 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th.
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 8: We would have scored 6.0653 which would have ranked us 2nd. |
Round 9: We would have scored 6.2100 which would have ranked us 11th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: mad_brewer, Zoomdak, scarbd and Nuzzer. |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 06:55:02 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th.
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 8: We would have scored 6.0653 which would have ranked us 2nd. |
Round 9: We would have scored 6.2100 which would have ranked us 11th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: mad_brewer, Zoomdak, scarbd and Nuzzer. |
Thanks for keeping up on the stats. I don't have much going right now though... 5.1 and 5.7. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 03:12:46 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th.
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 8: We would have scored 6.0653 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 9: We would have scored 6.2100 which would have ranked us 11th.
|
Round 10: We would have scored 6.1720 which would have ranked us 6th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: Dr Jeuss, Nuzzer, scarbrd, and mad_brewer.
Message edited by author 2006-09-20 03:13:15. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 05:53:45 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th.
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 8: We would have scored 6.0653 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 9: We would have scored 6.2100 which would have ranked us 11th.
|
Round 10: We would have scored 6.1720 which would have ranked us 6th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: Dr Jeuss, Nuzzer, scarbrd, and mad_brewer. |
Is it just me or is this really tough competition? Hopefull we'll be better than average when it's for real. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 05:59:45 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Some stats based on the team if we had been in WPL2:
Round 1: We would have scored 6.2588 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 2: We would have scored 6.3468 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 3: We would have scored 6.2575 which would have ranked us 8th.
Round 4: We would have scored 6.2388 which would have ranked us 5th.
Round 5: We would have scored 6.2040 which would have ranked us 7th.
Round 6: We would have scored 5.8038 which would have ranked us 10th.
Round 7: We would have scored 6.1650 which would have ranked us 9th.
Round 8: We would have scored 6.0653 which would have ranked us 2nd.
Round 9: We would have scored 6.2100 which would have ranked us 11th.
|
Round 10: We would have scored 6.1720 which would have ranked us 6th. This weeks scores were made up by the scores of the following photographers: Dr Jeuss, Nuzzer, scarbrd, and mad_brewer. |
Is it just me or is this really tough competition? Hopefull we'll be better than average when it's for real. |
I'll try harder, I promise.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2006 04:46:51 AM · #125 |
Brand New Team: Team 30D is being created right now. Here is the thread.
 KevinG is our Team captain and he and I are soliciting 5 more members - we should have a team of 7 shortly.
Southern Gentleman posted in that thread that WPL3 is starting soon and that he would send us the rules and when WPL3 will be starting up.
Just wanted to post here too and let you know we are looking forward to joining the league with you all soon.
|
|
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: 08/08/2025 12:11:38 PM EDT.
