| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2009 10:23:04 AM · #26 |
| sorry doesnt meet the challenge. there will be plenty more challenges to enter. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 10:23:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
There were several images where I thought the light source competed with other elements for being the main subject, but I tended to give most of them the benefit of the doubt. My rule of thumb was something like: is the light source so integral to the image that if it were hidden it would completely change the picture? If I could answer yes then I ignored the dnmc part of me (I gave you an 8). |
I like this way of thinking.
For this specific image, there are a lot of lines pointing towards the moon, the people are watching it, there is nothing far-fetched in considering it the subject. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 10:35:34 AM · #28 |
Let me ask the collective this then.
The image I posted was something I've been playing with for a while - mainly it was redirected laser light through a prism. The bug, according to the challenge description, was that the sun could not provide the illuminative light. In this image, it was PART of the light source for the image, not entirely.
Would that have met the definition? |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:02:31 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Adamsw216:
Originally posted by dmadden:
BTW are the northern lights from the blue ribboners image from the sun? |
The Aurora is is produced by collisions of particles from solar wind with Earth's magnetosphere... so it is it's own light source. |
I gladly accept having competing subjects, the "sun" and the "viewers" as a problem determining which is the main subject. But the other argument, the moon reflecting the sunlight makes no sense to me. Especially if your not going to classify the blue ribboning image the same way.
So if there was no sun, would there still be an aurora???
|
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:08:52 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
Originally posted by Adamsw216:
Originally posted by dmadden:
BTW are the northern lights from the blue ribboners image from the sun? |
The Aurora is is produced by collisions of particles from solar wind with Earth's magnetosphere... so it is it's own light source. |
I gladly accept having competing subjects, the "sun" and the "viewers" as a problem determining which is the main subject. But the other argument, the moon reflecting the sunlight makes no sense to me. Especially if your not going to classify the blue ribboning image the same way.
So if there was no sun, would there still be an aurora??? |
For the record, I completely agree with you in the confines of this challenge, but just because I like to play devil's advocate...
Would holding up a mirror to a light bulb make the mirror an illuminative object? Or if I shined a flashlight on a ball, would that make the ball an illuminative object?
The Northern Lights are caused by a physical reaction of charged particles interacting in the Earths atmosphere, there are specific requirements that must be present in order for the illumination to occur... much the same as there are specific requirements that must be met for a light bulb to light or a lightning bug to glow. Sure you could say, "there can be no aurora without the sun" but you could take away any fundamental element of any illuminative object and there would be no illumination.
Message edited by author 2009-03-25 11:09:51. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:22:24 AM · #31 |
ok...does not meet the thread...
Message edited by author 2009-03-25 11:52:38. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:31:03 AM · #32 |
If anything the issue with the people being more the subject would be the DNMC IMHO. So when I look at the image I would be looking to see if the main subject provides the illumination, in this case I would consider the main subject to be the people and would not feel there is a strong tie to the challenge subject. With that being said I really like the image but would not vote it very high because of a strong lack of tie into the challenge.
As far as the sun issue goes the light may ultimately come from the sun but it is not the sun so I would not have had a problem giving a good moon shot high marks. For all the folks that like to over analyze how do you know the energy used to light the light bulbs was not produced by solar power, how far away from the energy source is far enough? |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:39:38 AM · #33 |
When I voted, I knew that this wasnt the sun, but also felt that the moon was not the main subject in the challenge. When I interpreted the challenge theme, I took it to mean that the main subject in the photo had to be the illuminative object.
That being said, I voted your image as if you had interpreted the challenge in your own way, and accepted it at face value. I gave it a 6, which in my way of voting, is an above average image. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:41:06 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
For all the folks that like to over analyze how do you know the energy used to light the light bulbs was not produced by solar power, how far away from the energy source is far enough? |
Once again, just to be clear, I agree with you based on this challenge and I didn't even vote in this one but...
I think an important way to see this argument is: is the object capable of converting energy into light?
The sun can do that, but you're not supposed to shoot the sun. A solar panel can convert light into energy, but not the other way around. It requires something else, like a light bulb which can do so with ease. The moon is technically not converting anything, it is merely reflecting. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:45:32 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Adamsw216:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
For all the folks that like to over analyze how do you know the energy used to light the light bulbs was not produced by solar power, how far away from the energy source is far enough? |
Once again, just to be clear, I agree with you based on this challenge and I didn't even vote in this one but...
I think an important way to see this argument is: is the object capable of converting energy into light?
The sun can do that, but you're not supposed to shoot the sun. A solar panel can convert light into energy, but not the other way around. It requires something else, like a light bulb which can do so with ease. The moon is technically not converting anything, it is merely reflecting. |
When you walk out at night when the moon is full and take a walk in the moonlight do you say oh look at the sun reflecting or do you take a moonlight stroll? I understand the moon reflects and that is where the energy or light comes from but this is a half full half empty argument. I enjoy walks in the moonlight. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 11:55:04 AM · #36 |
The way I decided whether this meets the challenge was to desscribe the image to myself.
I said, "This is an image of two people on lounge chairs watching the water and the moon."
So... my opinion is that the subject is the people.
Not the light source (whether the moon is a light source or not).
But, as I said, this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:06:47 PM · #37 |
People need to stop being so technical with these challenges. If I wanted to I could categorize just about anything as an Illumative Subject via these "technical" definitions. For instance: every object radiates energy on its own. This energy is radiated as...get this...light! The bottom line is we have to use common sense. When we look at a mirror reflecting the sun, nobody says "look at that beautiful mirror light". We recognize right away that it is sunlight. When you look at a Full Moon on a clear night do you normally say, "Wow, what a beautiful reflection of the sun!" No. It is moonlight.
Oh well...just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:12:56 PM · #38 |
I found this creation/ reflection amusing because it only seemed to effect moon shots. There are several shots of lampshades or lightbulbs where the element (that is the glowing thing inside the lightbulbs) were not visible or the main subject, yet scored well. Is a match head or a log which is on fire the subject, or is the fire that results from it's combustion? If you are going to parse the language of the challenge through a fine semantic strainer, then try to hold all the images in a challenge to that same standard.
Some of the better scoring images did not shine in the DNMC department, I for one score in the two part; 1-6 points for how beautiful is it, and 1-4 in the how well did it meet the challenge. Giving ones to shots that are artistically and technically sound because you don't agree with how well it met a challenge, as long as some attempt was made (see brown ribbon winner), seems to miss the point of a voter determined challenge. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:13:51 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by mshimer5:
For instance: every object radiates energy on its own. This energy is radiated as...get this...light! |
But not all of the energy that any given object radiates is within the visible spectrum (which is the generally accepted wavelength spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that is considered "light"). Haha, I do love to play devil's advocate...
And to argue against this argument, I believe that within this challenge that I certainly wouldn't consider the moon to be DNMC. It is the dominant light source of the image and without the moon, the entire photograph wouldn't have been possible. While the moon may not be producing it's own light, it is certainly a viable light source and I probably never would have thought about it as a DNMC that way (the whole moon just a mirror thing). But those people seem to be the main subject to me. Still a great shot, though. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:14:03 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
The way I decided whether this meets the challenge was to desscribe the image to myself.
I said, "This is an image of two people on lounge chairs watching the water and the moon."
So... my opinion is that the subject is the people.
Not the light source (whether the moon is a light source or not).
But, as I said, this is just my opinion. |
Sounds about right to me. Well said. :-) |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:19:20 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I found this creation/ reflection amusing because it only seemed to effect moon shots. There are several shots of lampshades or lightbulbs where the element (that is the glowing thing inside the lightbulbs) were not visible or the main subject, yet scored well. Is a match head or a log which is on fire the subject, or is the fire that results from it's combustion? If you are going to parse the language of the challenge through a fine semantic strainer, then try to hold all the images in a challenge to that same standard. |
Good point. But a lampshade or fogged light bulbs are an example of light refraction where they pass through an element and may change direction but the source remains the same. The case of the moon is reflection where it is merely bouncing light off from another subject entirely. But you are right, the source not being directly visible may be seen as a DNMC. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:20:33 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Adamsw216:
Originally posted by mshimer5:
For instance: every object radiates energy on its own. This energy is radiated as...get this...light! |
But not all of the energy that any given object radiates is within the visible spectrum (which is the generally accepted wavelength spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that is considered "light"). Haha, I do love to play devil's advocate... |
I wasn't exactly being serious :) I was only pointing out that we can stretch the technical definition any way we want. So why must we restrict our definition of light to something that is commonly accepted. What is wrong with infrared? The point is it will never stop. So we must draw the line on common sense. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:22:42 PM · #43 |
Is there any rule which states that the subject of a picture has to be in the foreground? Even if a lot of elements in the composition point towards the background?
Is the subject of a picture with 99 yellow flowers and 1 red flower yellow or red? Can we not let the photographer decide what's the subject? Where does the need to prove him wrong come from?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:23:26 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by mshimer5:
The point is it will never stop. So we must draw the line on common sense. |
Agreed. =) |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:25:41 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Is there any rule which states that the subject of a picture has to be in the foreground? Even if a lot of elements in the composition point towards the background?
Is the subject of a picture with 99 yellow flowers and 1 red flower yellow or red? Can we not let the photographer decide what's the subject? Where does the need to prove him wrong come from? |
It's a photo. People are going to see it differently. The OP asked for an opinion, and that's what he's getting. No big deal. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:32:27 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by mshimer5:
... So we must draw the line on common sense. |
No, we should draw the line with common sense. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 12:33:19 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Is there any rule which states that the subject of a picture has to be in the foreground? Even if a lot of elements in the composition point towards the background?
Is the subject of a picture with 99 yellow flowers and 1 red flower yellow or red? Can we not let the photographer decide what's the subject? Where does the need to prove him wrong come from? |
It's a photo. People are going to see it differently. The OP asked for an opinion, and that's what he's getting. No big deal. |
Of course it's not a big deal and I respect everybody's opinion. I was just wondering why the opinion of some people is different, that's why I asked a couple of questions. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 01:13:23 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Is there any rule which states that the subject of a picture has to be in the foreground? Even if a lot of elements in the composition point towards the background?
Is the subject of a picture with 99 yellow flowers and 1 red flower yellow or red? Can we not let the photographer decide what's the subject? Where does the need to prove him wrong come from? |
I think that is an interesting question, if done right and the challenge was red then one lone red flower might work nicely as a main subject because you would pick it out of the bunch but may not be as effective in a yellow challenge as the red flower could be a distraction. So the size of the subject is not necessarily a key to the images success but the prominence and the way you are drawn to the item might be. I think in this image most viewers would agree you notice the people relaxing on the chairs and unless you were specifically looking for a light source you would not figure the moon to be anything other than a supporting part of the image. My interpretation of the challenge was to make the light source a focal point which makes it a main feature or something that drew my attention, so for me the the size of the light source (in this case the Moon) or location of the light source whether it be in the foreground or background would not matter nearly as much whether I felt it was the main subject of the image. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 01:15:32 PM · #49 |
One thing is for sure, there are no hairs to fine to split here at DPC. The challenge said that the sun could not be the subject. The moon illuminated the scene. It did so by reflected sunlight. The sun is not the subject. No mention was made of not allowing any reflected sunlight into the image.
Perhaps, each challenge can come with a handbook describing in excruciating detail the exact wishes of Langdon, and the council.
Alternatively, we can read the challenge, seek inspiration, take the photo, prepare it for entry, and then hope that what we saw is communicated to the others in a convincing fashion. And if not, then we go back and try again. And then in the end, decide whether we want to shoot for score, or for personal experience. If it is the former, then read the comments carefully, follow the threads in the forums, do your best to copy and be just like the current winning photos. If it is the latter, take pleasure in those you reached, who could see your vision, and pity the other poor mindless souls who just don't get you. |
|
|
|
03/25/2009 01:42:38 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
One thing is for sure, there are no hairs to fine to split here at DPC. The challenge said that the sun could not be the subject. The moon illuminated the scene. It did so by reflected sunlight. The sun is not the subject. No mention was made of not allowing any reflected sunlight into the image.
Perhaps, each challenge can come with a handbook describing in excruciating detail the exact wishes of Langdon, and the council.
Alternatively, we can read the challenge, seek inspiration, take the photo, prepare it for entry, and then hope that what we saw is communicated to the others in a convincing fashion. And if not, then we go back and try again. And then in the end, decide whether we want to shoot for score, or for personal experience. If it is the former, then read the comments carefully, follow the threads in the forums, do your best to copy and be just like the current winning photos. If it is the latter, take pleasure in those you reached, who could see your vision, and pity the other poor mindless souls who just don't get you. |
It is unfortunate that words of wisdom such as this (which I see now and then), tend to get utterly ignored. |
|
