| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2011 02:51:56 AM · #1601 |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 03:26:53 AM · #1602 |
| Woohoo! Don, thank you so much! |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 03:47:47 AM · #1603 |
While I struggle against the night, may as well do the Contre Jour XPrizes. So many shots, so many needing love...
   jmritz
Woken from a sleep, our lover looms above us. Just for a second, we are unsure if she looks at us with love or loathing.
   Epsi
  zencow
Sorry about the comments, I'll come back to improve/do them, but I must sleep now!
More to come...
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 04:05:34 AM · #1604 |
| Thanks for the appreciation, Christian! |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 08:57:47 AM · #1605 |
I thought this was pretty creative in the Magnifying Glass challenge:
 |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 11:19:57 AM · #1606 |
Magnifying Glass
 Posthumous
 bvy
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:14:23 PM · #1607 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
 > 
|
Woohoo... thanks Dude :-)
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 07:46:43 PM · #1608 |
| Thanks Christian, Don I am honored. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 09:31:58 PM · #1609 |
Why should a challenge whose only guideline is the creative use of a magnifying glass preclude the use of the magnifying glass as an optic? These suffered because folks inferred their own challenge criteria and voted on them instead. (On second thought, they would have suffered anyway.) All nines from me:
 
And thank you, Ben, for the mention. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 09:44:56 PM · #1610 |
It doesn't, but if noone can tell that it was used, what do you expect. For the record, I could tell in coryboehne picture (the first one) and commented as such. Some of the others simply appeared to be blurry.
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 09:53:31 PM · #1611 |
Originally posted by rcollier:
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation. |
feel free to reproduce my picture by turning the focus ring, and then you'll have a point. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 10:17:57 PM · #1612 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by rcollier:
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation. |
feel free to reproduce my picture by turning the focus ring, and then you'll have a point. |
Actually, have a crack at all off them. Not possible. If you look closely you can see the fresnel lens in mine. I suspect the catchlight in Brian's self portrait was due to the added manipulation of light. The varied blurred effect in Don's image would be difficult to achieve by turning the focus ring.
Message edited by author 2011-01-12 22:34:35. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 12:48:33 AM · #1613 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by rcollier:
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation. |
feel free to reproduce my picture by turning the focus ring, and then you'll have a point. |
Actually, have a crack at all off them. Not possible. If you look closely you can see the fresnel lens in mine. I suspect the catchlight in Brian's self portrait was due to the added manipulation of light. The varied blurred effect in Don's image would be difficult to achieve by turning the focus ring. |
With all due respect to all parties involved, this is not the thread for this conversation, imho. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 02:16:35 AM · #1614 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
With all due respect to all parties involved, this is not the thread for this conversation, imho. |
Oh I don't know about that. Occasionally this thread takes a little detour through photography-related philosophy and is usually the better for it. It's a thread about under-appreciated images, and the relentless literalism of the DNMC police is the site's main impediment to appreciation (as well as development), isn't it? As the voter can't possibly know what is in the mind of the photographer, the first step in appreciating an image should surely be to assume that it does meet the challenge and then consider it from aesthetic and visceral points of view. Using DNMC as one's default position leads only to artistic inbreeding and a paucity of intellectual diversity, and inevitably breeds genetic weaknesses and infirmity. As the DPC home page usually demonstrates only too well. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 02:48:10 AM · #1615 |
Oh, yes, this is EXACTLY the thread. If we are to celebrate what the numbers do not we must not be afraid of such intimacies as creative uses of thises and thatses, however mysterious they may be.
It reminds me of one of my first steps into the "adult" world: sitting for the SATs we were all warned "to avoid the appearance of cheating." All of a sudden I felt dizzy and not a little furtive. I suppose the strain of avoiding certain appearances and creating certain others makes it difficult to entertain any kind of innocence much less enjoy the genuine. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 02:54:24 AM · #1616 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Oh, yes, this is EXACTLY the thread. If we are to celebrate what the numbers do not we must not be afraid of such intimacies as creative uses of thises and thatses, however mysterious they may be.
It reminds me of one of my first steps into the "adult" world: sitting for the SATs we were all warned "to avoid the appearance of cheating." All of a sudden I felt dizzy and not a little furtive. I suppose the strain of avoiding certain appearances and creating certain others makes it difficult to entertain any kind of innocence much less enjoy the genuine. |
well i will respectfully disagree, seems to me the original intent of this thread was for people to point out shots they enjoyed, not to defend why they enjoyed them or whether or not they met the challenge. there are other forum areas for that |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 03:02:00 AM · #1617 |
Now I'm running late, thank you very for the bling Christian and thanks Don for the 7 and no it's not a TV it really is a kid with a toy, I put a note on it.
  Wildcard
Fascinating, confusing, angelic. A hoola hooping angel in an eyeball. I wish I understood this, but am happy just to watch...
|
|
|
|
01/16/2011 09:21:48 AM · #1618 |
Contre-jour III
 >
> 
 > 
Gallery
 > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Magnifying Glass
> 
> 
> 
Gallery
> 
>  |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 02:13:24 AM · #1619 |
Out of Balance
My top three picks ...
 by Carlo21 for astonishing anthropomorphography.
 by daisydavid for re-drawing itself with every viewing.
 by  npasel for its quiet tension.
... and if I had a Gallery I'd also be hanging the wonderful entries of pointandshoot jmritz 4trtone 2mccs clive_patric_nolan mariuca and zencow |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 02:33:02 AM · #1620 |
[quote=ubique] Out of Balance
My top three picks ...
by Carlo21 for astonishing anthropomorphography.
Very Nice...thanks
Message edited by author 2011-01-17 15:17:09. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 03:53:55 AM · #1621 |
Some that I thought were very nice from Out of Balance;
 Definitely liked this one the best, by far. Very good.
 I also liked this quite a bit, as well. The next closest batch of photos was rather large, with about 6 coming in equally in my view, so I'll just point out these two. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 12:02:35 PM · #1622 |
Appreciate the lid!
|
|
|
|
01/17/2011 12:15:05 PM · #1623 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Magnifying Glass
Gallery
> |
Oh my goodness, what a surprise. I just found this today. Thank you Leo. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 02:08:39 PM · #1624 |
out of balance
 to  by ubique
to by npasel
to  by 2mccs
 to  by bspurgeon
to  by clive_patric_nolan
to by  kprasad9375
to by gsal
 by jmritz
 by binarysmart
 by cutout
 by tnun
 by mariuca
 by pointandshoot
 by paulbtlw
 by gyaban
Message edited by author 2011-01-17 14:09:20. |
|
|
|
01/17/2011 02:37:11 PM · #1625 |
for Thanks Don, much appreciated!!
|
|
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: 06/08/2025 04:44:11 PM EDT.
to 
to 
