| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2009 11:39:28 PM · #51 |
Does background bokeh fit the challenge? For example if I find an interesting image, composed of very blurred light spots on the background...
|
|
|
|
09/15/2009 12:55:33 AM · #52 |
Hmm, well, maybe the editing isn't legal.... ;-) |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 08:15:46 AM · #53 |
How many not in focus comments do you think our images will average? lol
Don't laugh, it'll happen, this is DohPC. ;\ |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 08:26:03 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Jac:
How many not in focus comments do you think our images will average? lol
Don't laugh, it'll happen, this is DohPC. ;\ |
Those types of comments will bother me much less than all the "sharp subjects with OOF foreground/background" photos that will score higher than my blurry OOF submission. I think I'll go wild on this challenge, which is probably a good thing for my photography and a bad thing for my scoring average. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 08:39:36 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Jac:
How many not in focus comments do you think our images will average? lol
Don't laugh, it'll happen, this is DohPC. ;\ |
Don't forget, you will also get comments that the OOF stuff is "distracting". That word is slowly driving me nuts! lol |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:05:11 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by Jac:
How many not in focus comments do you think our images will average? lol
Don't laugh, it'll happen, this is DohPC. ;\ |
Don't forget, you will also get comments that the OOF stuff is "distracting". That word is slowly driving me nuts! lol |
Same here, so much so that I have made it a point to never use it in a comment even when something obviously is distracting from the main subject. I find other words to describe how I feel. Although lately I don't comment much in fear of being gunned down by the photographer. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:06:55 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
Originally posted by Jac:
How many not in focus comments do you think our images will average? lol
Don't laugh, it'll happen, this is DohPC. ;\ |
Those types of comments will bother me much less than all the "sharp subjects with OOF foreground/background" photos that will score higher than my blurry OOF submission. I think I'll go wild on this challenge, which is probably a good thing for my photography and a bad thing for my scoring average. |
It'll be interesting to view the images and their comments. It should be good fun. :) |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 03:18:47 PM · #58 |
Seeing that this is under the Advanced Editing ruleset, we can use filters. We could probably use filters to blur (make out of focus), yes? The ruleset says we can't "distort", but that's another, separate tool within Photoshop. I'm referring to strictly applying a subtle amount of blur.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 03:26:18 PM · #59 |
| I can see 90% of the photos being sharp images that have been blurred by gaussian or motion blur. So where's the challenge? |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 03:38:44 PM · #60 |
Challenge Details: *** ** *** *** **** ******* in a compelling way.
I'd hope people take the last part of the description most seriously. There will be blurs a plenty but otherwise without reason.
  
the last one probably doesn't have enough blur or it's too subtle but it's certainly compelling.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 15:49:55. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 03:55:51 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Challenge Details: *** ** *** *** **** ******* in a compelling way.
I'd hope people take the last part of the description most seriously. There will be blurs a plenty but otherwise without reason. |
I would venture to say that many voters don't read the description--all they read is the challenge topic.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 04:15:10 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Challenge Details: *** ** *** *** **** ******* in a compelling way.
I'd hope people take the last part of the description most seriously. There will be blurs a plenty but otherwise without reason. |
I would venture to say that many voters don't read the description--all they read is the challenge topic. |
I think they probably read them but don't bother to think about them too deeply...or don't understand them. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 05:59:06 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Challenge Details: *** ** *** *** **** ******* in a compelling way.
I'd hope people take the last part of the description most seriously. There will be blurs a plenty but otherwise without reason. |
I would venture to say that many voters don't read the description--all they read is the challenge topic. |
I think they probably read them but don't bother to think about them too deeply...or don't understand them. |
Translation: Steve thinks many voters are photographic morons. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 07:58:29 AM · #64 |
reading the description doesn't help. My husband says motion blur isn't a focusing issue, it's an exposure issue and wouldn't work in this case. Personally, I think he's an idiot, in this case (a sweet idiot, but none the less...)
someone else was wondering about this as well. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 08:20:27 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
reading the description doesn't help. My husband says motion blur isn't a focusing issue, it's an exposure issue and wouldn't work in this case. Personally, I think he's an idiot, in this case (a sweet idiot, but none the less...)
someone else was wondering about this as well. |
I agree with the idiot. I think motion blur is not the same as missed focus, but if the motion blur were only part of an image that was also OOF, that would certainly work. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 08:25:02 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by vawendy:
reading the description doesn't help. My husband says motion blur isn't a focusing issue, it's an exposure issue and wouldn't work in this case. Personally, I think he's an idiot, in this case (a sweet idiot, but none the less...)
someone else was wondering about this as well. |
I agree with the idiot. I think motion blur is not the same as missed focus, but if the motion blur were only part of an image that was also OOF, that would certainly work. |
wait, you're confusing me--I would have thought you to say if motion blur weren't the only part that was oof. If it is the only part, then it was done well and effectively... |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 10:04:19 AM · #67 |
I agree with the idiot too.
Motion blur is an exposure related thing, not focus related.
I could see how motion blur could creep into peoples thinking because both (motion and focus) blur the subject. So, while they're looking for some blur the cause of the blur should stem from the focus.
Message edited by author 2009-09-17 10:06:33. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 10:08:26 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I agree with the idiot too.
Motion blur is an exposure related thing, not focus related.
I could see how motion blur could creep into peoples thinking because both (motion and focus) blur the subject. So, while they're looking for some blur the cause of the blur should stem from the focus. |
But it's still out of focus. Even though it's out of focus because of the exposure setting. Even thought the challenge title says missed focus, the description doesn't say anything about that -- it just says to use an oof shot effectively. if the picture is blurred, it is not in focus. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 10:16:38 AM · #69 |
I agree with Wendy. It says take a photo where your subject is out of focus -- period. It doesn't say it matters how you got your out of focused subject. A subject that is out of focus due to motion blur is still out of focus. If people vote down motion blur on that silly semantic, it will be infuriating indeed!
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 10:55:23 AM · #70 |
| I think that here on DPC we sometimes overthink things. : ) |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 10:58:27 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
I think that here on DPC we sometimes overthink things. : ) |
A lot of perfectionists in my opinion. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 10:59:35 AM · #72 |
I remembered about this image. But the prime object is focused, so...
 |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 11:24:25 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Continued from the suggestion thread:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't think blur is the same as missed focus. |
Not quite, but a shot could have both. I think a combination of OOF and motion blur could be an interesting combo. |
SC better clear that up asap of the entire voting will be f*&#ed-up. People will shoot believe one thing and vote in that direction and shred any other interpretation.
This one could possibly be fine as well, but would most likely get ripped to shizzle by the voters...
If motion blur isn't what they had in mind, they better make it very, very clear or I "pity the fools" who enter an image in that style and get beaten up for it.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Keep in mind I added one of my motion blur shots as a possible example BUT "focus" means focus or it can and probably will be voted on semantically. I usually view motion blur as a "blur" thing and not a sharpness or focus element. In short, I can see a semantic argument being made and I think people will almost certainly go there. I'm NOT rendering an opinion but pointing out that I believe this issue will fall into the mix of things and that the "motion blurers" might be in for a long ride...
Many voters never read these threads but the points or concerns being made are indicative of what's happening out there. If you find a few people view things a certain way and others in a completely different direction, there will be plenty of people falling into one line or the other. Be sure of that.
All for now...
Message edited by author 2009-09-17 11:26:30. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:22:48 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
if the picture is blurred, it is not in focus. |
It can be completely blurred by movement through the frame with the focus spot on. I think there is a problem here with the definition of focus. Focus is an optical quality. Motion blur is an exposure length thing. I use your own latest entry as an example. This has motion blur. It is also in focus.
 |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:35:37 PM · #75 |
| Why can't we just appreciate the many ways people will choose to interpret and depict the topic? Ouf of focus, blurred, motion blur -- what difference does it make, really ... this very thread proves that all of those are "valid" interpretations of the challenge topic. What remains is to decide whether the photographer effectively created an interesting, compelling, beautiful (or whatever characteristics you value) photo. |
|
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: 07/30/2025 05:00:43 AM EDT.
