| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2010 06:35:32 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
Is this where the dummies hang out? :p |
As your presence suggests this, yes. :)
Welcome to dummiedom, where rules are meant to be ignored, or manipulated into something so generalized that you can take a photo of anything and win!
Challenge titles mean nothing to us. Their descriptions even less. :) |
It isn't such a big deal, everyone interprets the description in their own way. We are never going to have a consensus on any challenge description, and why should we? just vote how you feel.
These threads are generally for people who want to influence others into voting how they see the challenge description, shame really !!! just vote how you see it....be an individual. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:58:45 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Challenge titles mean nothing to us. Their descriptions even less. :) |
What? You say that there is a description? I though we were suppose to just read the challenge title and go from there. I find the descriptions too confusing, so anything that doesn't jibe with my take on the challenge title is DNMC.
How many people will vote down urban settings in the landscape challenge? 30%? more? If Saint Ansel didn't take that sort of shot, it isn't really a landscape.
If in double exposure some one has two things in one "exposure" and a third thing over those two, that three things, right? Do we give those 1s? Or I just may let my cat vote for me again. He never gets confused. |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 06:59:10 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
You know if the SC started sending the dang descriptions to me (or someone else) for proofing, I think I could easily reduce the amount of ambiguity.. Not that it's possible to COMPLETELY box in any DPC'er, I do think we could be a bit better about our descriptions...
And for the record.. I am one of the "follow the damned description" sticklers... However, to be fair, I do think that triple/etc probably does meet the challenge, but only because of the word effect... I'm pretty close to being on the other side of the fence here...
As for those arguing the reflection argument.. Yeah, effect.. Definately fine to reflect, etc. to get this, hell, I wouldn't care if someone used a projector to "expose" a wall, then "exposed" the wall and something else together in a frame... Any way you get there is good I figure, since a real double exposure is absolutely not possible in Basic Editing..
Cheers,
Cory |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 07:06:57 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
You know if the SC started sending the dang descriptions to me (or someone else) for proofing, I think I could easily reduce the amount of ambiguity.. Not that it's possible to COMPLETELY box in any DPC'er, I do think we could be a bit better about our descriptions...
And for the record.. I am one of the "follow the damned description" sticklers... |
I've been starting to wonder if it's folks like you (not you specifically) who are the cause behind that famous "inefficiency" of government, with 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 07:53:37 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Except the challenge says to apply a 'double exposure effect'. The keyword is effect so does imply the possibility of more than two. |
Yep, DNMC votes if I see what looks like more than two exposures (even though I know there is only one actual exposure). |
Oh you are a meanie...you have just 'poofed' my idea....now take that and stick it......ummm...but then again...maybe not...lmao! |
Maybe I don't mean what I say and I'm playing a psychological game to reduce the number of entries...but then again...maybe not ;) |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 08:36:19 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. Well, I encourage others to try to write a clearly delineated definition in a dozen words or less. |
You know if the SC started sending the dang descriptions to me (or someone else) for proofing, I think I could easily reduce the amount of ambiguity.. Not that it's possible to COMPLETELY box in any DPC'er, I do think we could be a bit better about our descriptions...
And for the record.. I am one of the "follow the damned description" sticklers... |
I've been starting to wonder if it's folks like you (not you specifically) who are the cause behind that famous "inefficiency" of government, with 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
Oh that's easy....get some dough and stick a politicians head through it....!
|
|
|
|
04/25/2010 09:19:51 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
Oh that's easy....get some dough and stick a politicians head through it....! |
Proving my point, eh? ;-) |
|
|
|
04/25/2010 09:35:37 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... 38 pages of regulations describing how to make a doughnut ...
Originally posted by H.D. Thoreau:
It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. |
|
Oh that's easy....get some dough and stick a politicians head through it....! |
Proving my point, eh? ;-) |
YUP...but what would you expect from pollies??? LOL!
|
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:47:20 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Agreed. Any legal method to get a double exposure effect is valid. But if you create a triple exposure effect, then it's DNMC. Clearly. |
?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was the one that suggested the challenge and in my mind I really had "multiple exposure" in mind, but the technique is more often called "double exposure" so I naturally went with that.
Personally I would not vote down shots which have more than two "exposures". |
|
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures. |
Probably because this being a photography web site he mistakenly thought that the photographers people on this site would apply the definition used in the photography industry (i.e. double = multiple) and not the literal meaning used in every day language.
Message edited by author 2010-04-27 15:49:17.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2010 08:32:57 PM · #110 |
| I just started getting into photography and just signed up for this website. I found it and was like "so cool!" lol. Anyways I have a Canon xsi 40D and no external flashes. Is there a way to manually use my flash twice in a shot if I don't have an external flash? I really like the idea of double exposures but I am kind of broke at the moment haha. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:25:22 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Agreed. Any legal method to get a double exposure effect is valid. But if you create a triple exposure effect, then it's DNMC. Clearly. |
?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was the one that suggested the challenge and in my mind I really had "multiple exposure" in mind, but the technique is more often called "double exposure" so I naturally went with that.
Personally I would not vote down shots which have more than two "exposures". |
|
We're not mind readers and the challenge says "double exposure" effect. Not triple, quadruple or multiple. He should have suggested multiple exposures. |
Probably because this being a photography web site he mistakenly thought that the photographers people on this site would apply the definition used in the photography industry (i.e. double = multiple) and not the literal meaning used in every day language. |
Maybe he mistakenly thought the definition given on Wikipedia, Photography.com and other top hits on Google for "photography double exposure" was the appropriate one. I mean, if all of us non professionally trained photographers can't decipher the usage of the word "double", obviously that is our fault. Is it also our fault for not being able to find the "photographers" definition by doing a simple google search. It is really confusing after all since the Wikipedia entry actually defines "double exposure" as a subcategory of the page "multiple exposure", and yes, it is defined such that two exposures are involved. You may also want to email the people at photography.com about their incorrect definition. |
|
|
|
04/28/2010 11:36:58 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by rcollier:
It is really confusing after all since the Wikipedia entry actually defines "double exposure" as a subcategory of the page "multiple exposure", and yes, it is defined such that two exposures are involved. You may also want to email the people at photography.com about their incorrect definition. |
A double exposure as defined by either of those sources would be disqualified because only a single exposure is allowed in Basic editing. Furthermore, both of them specify one image superimposed on top of another, which would eliminate some of the examples posted in this thread by  klkitchens and graphicfunk. Since the challenge calls for various techniques, a little leeway is in order. |
|
|
|
04/29/2010 11:01:27 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... A double exposure as defined by either of those sources would be disqualified because only a single exposure is allowed in Basic editing. ... |
Is a single capture a single exposure? |
|
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: 06/24/2025 10:18:52 PM EDT.
