| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2006 05:45:53 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by gazdi:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by gazdi:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Maybe they should've called it the "The running water, neutral density filter on your 50mm F/1.8 challenge" |
A quick way to get a 4 from me. ok, maybe a 5 if it's good - if such a thing exists in that area. |
What, you don't like these type photos?
|
Let's say it's hard to present something new with longexpo'd falls and streams. |
I hear you. Same thing with spinning lights on a string, painting with light, or blurred car light trails. Yep. Going to be hard to find something "new" to shoot for this one.
It's rare to find anything in a challenge that hasn't been done before, any challenge, doesn't matter (same goes for forum threads too). Perhaps instead a photo that meets the challenge and is well put together technically and aesthetically should be well rewarded in voting. |
|
|
|
10/31/2006 06:03:43 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by gazdi:
Let's say it's hard to present something new with longexpo'd falls and streams. |
I hear you. Same thing with spinning lights on a string, painting with light, or blurred car light trails. Yep. Going to be hard to find something "new" to shoot for this one.
It's rare to find anything in a challenge that hasn't been done before, any challenge, doesn't matter (same goes for forum threads too). Perhaps instead a photo that meets the challenge and is well put together technically and aesthetically should be well rewarded in voting. |
Sure, it gets rewarded to get to the half of the crowd. Maybe higher if there's emphasis on 'well'. If up to me, a photo really needs to show something plus to break the barrier somewhere above 6, to get out of the masses. Don't take me wrong, I DO count myself to the mediocres. I just try to make difference via voting lower for everyday shots (where everyday means everyday for us, who do photography more or less seriously, not everyday for those who click at the smiling friends with the Iron Lady in the background) and voting higher for new themes and ideas. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:28:25 PM · #28 |
Okay, after some thought, here's what I've come up with:
"Long exposure" is not the same as "longer than normal". If you need a 1 second exposure to properly expose a scene, then 1 second becomes normal. However, if the scene needs 1/60 to be properly exposed, then 1 second becomes longer than normal. Therefore, if you use overexposure to create the dramatic impact the challenge description calls for, you have met the challenge.
A second interpretation is that if you, as a photographer, normally shoot outside at 1/125, then anything longer than 1/125 would, for you, be longer than normal. However, your case is significantly more difficult to argue. How am I supposed to know that 1/60 is longer than what you usually shoot? You meet the challenge, but I have trouble knowing that.
You'll disagree, but I figure that if it merely were supposed to be a long exposure, then the challenge description wouldn't say "longer than normal".
Not that all this sentence parsing matters at all. People are going to ignore the description and submit a whole lot of perfectly exposed long exposures, even though those long exposures will look rather normal since they were the right exposure for the scene.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:43:56 PM · #29 |
| So everything needs to be overexposed. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 09:51:34 PM · #30 |
It worked for the Pastel challenge, so why not? :P If it's what you would normally shoot for the scene, no matter how long, then how does it qualify as "longer than normal"?
But the perfectly exposed long shots will win anyway since the challenge description is too vague and confusing and therefore will be completely ignored. Everyone will focus on the only two words they actually understand out of those two sentences, "long" and "exposure", that's what will be shot, and that's what will win. I'll be extremely shocked if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 11:11:01 PM · #31 |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 11:24:34 PM · #32 |
no exif on that camera!
drake |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:03:41 AM · #33 |
Long Exposure could me something like this, yes?
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 07:30:38 PM · #34 |
| I'll have 4 shots up when this one starts, a 4ish, 5 (almost 4.98) & a 6ish, if this trends continues I'll have my 1st 7.....Lol...Good luck everyone. |
|
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: 08/25/2025 05:19:40 PM EDT.
