| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2013 07:55:33 PM · #1 |
| At the request of the OP, this thread is being locked. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 06:59:36 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...If Robert told you before you entered that it could be sketchy, then first......why go with it?
And second.......when the voters obviously came to the same conclusion, why are you upset? |
After I sent Bear the original I did dodge the face a good 40% more and then the knot was burned too. Yes, I knew the image would probably tank as it did but I'm more annoyed that, in a challenge where you're supposed to be looking for a person who is supposed to be hidden, that most simply couldn't be bothered to look for more than a couple of seconds. |
Ah but you see...some of us did spend a great deal of time looking for the hidden person and did not find same.
This person was so well hidden that I would strongly recommend that you consider making camouflage outfits for the military... I'm sure they would be quite safe, and considering what defence contractors get paid, you might make a small fortune. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 06:50:58 PM · #3 |
| The photos I keep seeing look female. Never heard of a female named Waldo. May be one this day in time. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 05:43:04 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:
Originally posted by Ann:
I still don't see the face in the log. |
I hope Susan won't mind but I (tried) to draw her face into the log.
Tried - forgive my drawing skills (or more lack of it)
 
Now, from what I can see these are 2 different images, correct Susan?
At first I thought that the monochrome was a mirror image of the colour version you've used to show the face.
But comparing both here one next to the other, the eye is on a different place compared to the knot.
Ah whatever... there IS a person in this photo :p |
LOL you are so right Nadine...the one you lovingly outlined is an outtake, which I rejected as being too obvious. But, if you take essentially that same shot, make the angle of the face more acute *and hiddden by hair*, flip it and make it b/w...eh wala
But I am so sick of this topic now it's more like *Eh, whatever*.
ETA  yourinnerpinup....uhm actually yeah I do know how to take constructive criticism. (Had you actually looked at my profile, you would also see that I am a member of this site's Critique Club, though admittedly I have been dormant.)
I have already acknowledged that it's a meh image. So you're not telling me anything new.
And for the last time -NikonJeb, if you're still here - I am NOT *angry* or *upset*, like you two keep accusing me of being. I was, however, and still am annoyed that this thread has like so many others unravelled and become a whole new ball of yarn. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 04:33:51 PM · #5 |
I can see it better from this angle:
 |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 02:20:22 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 01:35:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...If Robert told you before you entered that it could be sketchy, then first......why go with it?
And second.......when the voters obviously came to the same conclusion, why are you upset? |
After I sent Bear the original I did dodge the face a good 40% more and then the knot was burned too. Yes, I knew the image would probably tank as it did but I'm more annoyed that, in a challenge where you're supposed to be looking for a person who is supposed to be hidden, that most simply couldn't be bothered to look for more than a couple of seconds. |
I looked a LOT longer than "a couple of seconds" and I still say the face is barely discernible even AFTER seeing it mapped out. It's just too subtle. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 11:27:45 AM · #8 |
| Seems like you need to learn to take constructive criticism a bit better. Its a learned skill integral to growth and development as an artist. The truth is, whether or not you can see the face, its just not an interesting or dynamic photo. You have to consider, its not just about meeting the challenge of hiding a person (or whatever the current challenge theme is). Its about having dynamic composition, interesting and well developed highlights and shadows, and interesting/ thought provoking/ meaningful subject matter. IMHO, its flat, lacking good contrast, and does not have a good, well thought out composition. I give you credit for creativity and thinking outside the box, and think if you put more thought into the rest of the elements of design, you could've had something good here. Its just not a great photo as is. Learn from it and move on. We all have some photos that fall flat and some that succeed. Nothing to be gained from being angry that it wasn't well received. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 08:22:02 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...If Robert told you before you entered that it could be sketchy, then first......why go with it?
And second.......when the voters obviously came to the same conclusion, why are you upset? |
Originally posted by snaffles:
After I sent Bear the original I did dodge the face a good 40% more and then the knot was burned too. Yes, I knew the image would probably tank as it did but I'm more annoyed that, in a challenge where you're supposed to be looking for a person who is supposed to be hidden, that most simply couldn't be bothered to look for more than a couple of seconds. |
After I looked at it for the umpteenth time, I *finally* saw it. I actually gave it a six for the same reason someone else mentioned.......I took it on faith that "Waldo" was there.
I'm sorry you're upset, but that image is truly a difficult one to grasp.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2013 08:20:09 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
How 'bout them Patriots? |
Damn Patriots. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 08:17:04 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You kinda canceled yourself out here with this one. If you had to look at the meta-data to tell for sure, then you have acknowledged the usefulness of a top notch editing system.
I often wonder why it is that someone has to denounce someone else's prowess at their craft.......is it because of a lack of same?
|
Originally posted by schlake:
No one considers counterfeit money to be as good as real money; I don't consider counterfeit photographs to be as good as real photographs. This is Digital Photography Challenge, not Digital Photoshop Challenge. |
Well.....the Treasury service must.......they keep changing & updating their processes to stymie counterfeiters. I know here at work we have a counterfeit detector pen at all the cash registers. Maybe that wasn't your best example.
And back to......just because you don't like, use, or accept the process doesn't make it counterfeit, just different. And again.......if you're looking at the meta-data, the rendered image must not be so hateful.
I dunno.......I never can understand the whole concept whereby someone who doesn't like a particular style wants to invalidate said style simply because of a personal issue.
I mean, if you were truly the purist you claim to be, why aren't you shooting film in medium format?
Surely your dinking around with a computer controlled camera isn't *real* photography?
We all know that digital can't possibly ever be as good as film, right?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2013 08:03:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...If Robert told you before you entered that it could be sketchy, then first......why go with it?
And second.......when the voters obviously came to the same conclusion, why are you upset? |
After I sent Bear the original I did dodge the face a good 40% more and then the knot was burned too. Yes, I knew the image would probably tank as it did but I'm more annoyed that, in a challenge where you're supposed to be looking for a person who is supposed to be hidden, that most simply couldn't be bothered to look for more than a couple of seconds. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 07:59:38 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Oh  GeneralE, you really crack me up sometimes. |
:-) |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 07:58:09 AM · #14 |
| Oh GeneralE, you really crack me up sometimes. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 07:37:10 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by schlake:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You kinda canceled yourself out here with this one. If you had to look at the meta-data to tell for sure, then you have acknowledged the usefulness of a top notch editing system.
I often wonder why it is that someone has to denounce someone else's prowess at their craft.......is it because of a lack of same?
|
No one considers counterfeit money to be as good as real money; I don't consider counterfeit photographs to be as good as real photographs. This is Digital Photography Challenge, not Digital Photoshop Challenge. |
A digital photograph which has not been processed through some kind of editing software looks something like this ... not all that attractive for being "real" ...
Originally posted by Canon S3 IS:
ÿØÿá#þExif II* z € ¨ ( 2 ° i Ä "
Canon Canon PowerShot S3 IS ´ ´ 2013:12:02 12:20:10 - > F 0220 N b v
~
Ž
ž | & ¦ Ì 0100
@ Ô
¢
¢
¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ } (
2013:12:02 12:20:10 2013:12:02 12:20:10 ß € t @ è . ´ " d p ¼w ¨
` È H
Z r z z - - E " Ð $ \ ÿÿ È@ ÿÿÿ X d t À ÿÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿ æ D À « € ß € ~ à ú IMG:PowerShot S3 IS JPEG Firmware Version 1.00 PMarcus©POB4653Berkeley,CA94704 äÿÿÿ
z ¨ Äÿÿÿ àÿÿÿ û à ž d ( Ð # % Ð ôÁÿ Ò 0 < $ Ð ^ ° Û ´ ° ¾ c [ Äÿÿÿ÷ÿÿÿ ° ²
8i »
4cZ[
@ € ý 0 & € à € II* ¦ R98 0100
@ ø* á : ©
p
x
( ô O
´ ´ ÿØÿÛ
! #"! -$)4,$'1'---=-167:::"*?D>8B3796
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOÿÀ x ! ÿÄ ¢
} !1A Qa"q 2¡ #B±Á RÑð$3br
%&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚáâãäåæçèéêñòóôõö÷øùú w !1 AQaq "2 B¡±Á #3Rð brÑ
$4á%ñ &'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿÚ
? À sÇò©ãÉaJì< r(û?z ÊÈåµ
F # BaÂòGåQT p3L R½ BB ìh ^ éaQ¿ ? b#`3Î(UPzS ŽÞ¢xÅ Fc éQ2 ØP DgµXe
ž½©
ê àõëH nÆÜ jC& ÂÓ½Là®( tʸÏÒªI €¤* ììXäwíQ=¾Ñ æ É éP¤Y.@9^9 Ø
Ò `y_ΨC
ò(ÛŽ
S=M0v¦ ? ÅÍ
¼Å
Ô¦$ °õ ¥rÿ
u1À[-5N°áO 4 n(²£+V
½ ;P"1n¹$þµ- cô¤ r>èüª¤±žÔÐ V€ü¤þ MvEtÈëÃå-´
l¯
ó éaÉõöÍ1 ²óÒ@í@h=©
@rh Y8À¨Ù}@¦1¯ dÜAô&¢å d]YQÍ :¥,*ÄhÍÉc ]$c'ò©
n úP!¥ QÁÏAÅ5c¡4€kÂ:Ç¥@S;¿ A.Õ É ~µp½³m êGéC ÙUQ Èô¨ çÆ
h²{Ôl¤-Ä -´àªW !
>×q P o
ÑÔUr'ô hë .=}±Vá
Ù uô
m ÈÏzËe\ävÅ
ï-X¸Ã
:Hcy `ñî*'ÈÏCN3L
ì Êló¡¨&dU'
9 ¤ I î*&û P! 8Æ)0zàJb b < õ¦ ã¦h Å®
ÿØÿá#þExif II* z € ¨ ( 2 ° i Ä "
Canon Canon PowerShot S3 IS ´ ´ 2013:12:02 12:20:10 - > F 0220 N b v
~
Ž
ž | & ¦ Ì 0100
@ Ô
¢
¢
¢ ¢ £ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ } (
2013:12:02 12:20:10 2013:12:02 12:20:10 ß € t @ è . ´ " d p ¼w ¨
` È H
Z r z z - - E " Ð $ \ ÿÿ È@ ÿÿÿ X d t À ÿÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿ æ D À « € ß € ~ à ú IMG:PowerShot S3 IS JPEG Firmware Version 1.00 PMarcus©POB4653Berkeley,CA94704 äÿÿÿ
z ¨ Äÿÿÿ àÿÿÿ û à ž d ( Ð # % Ð ôÁÿ Ò 0 < $ Ð ^ ° Û ´ ° ¾ c [ Äÿÿÿ÷ÿÿÿ ° ²
8i »
4cZ[
@ € ý 0 & € à € II* ¦ R98 0100
@ ø* á : ©
p
x
( ô O
´ ´ ÿØÿÛ
! #"! -$)4,$'1'---=-167:::"*?D>8B3796
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOÿÀ x ! ÿÄ ¢
} !1A Qa"q 2¡ #B±Á RÑð$3br
%&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚáâãäåæçèéêñòóôõö÷øùú w !1 AQaq "2 B¡±Á #3Rð brÑ
$4á%ñ &'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿÚ
? À sÇò©ãÉaJì< r(û?z ÊÈåµ
F # BaÂòGåQT p3L R½ BB ìh ^ éaQ¿ ? b#`3Î(UPzS ŽÞ¢xÅ Fc éQ2 ØP DgµXe
ž½©
ê àõëH nÆÜ jC& ÂÓ½Là®( tʸÏÒªI €¤* ììXäwíQ=¾Ñ æ É éP¤Y.@9^9 Ø
Ò `y_ΨC
ò(ÛŽ
S=M0v¦ ? ÅÍ
¼Å
Ô¦$ °õ ¥rÿ
u1À[-5N°áO 4 n(²£+V
½ ;P"1n¹$þµ- cô¤ r>èüª¤±žÔÐ V€ü¤þ MvEtÈëÃå-´
l¯
ó éaÉõöÍ1 ²óÒ@í@h=©
@rh Y8À¨Ù}@¦1¯ dÜAô&¢å d]YQÍ :¥,*ÄhÍÉc ]$c'ò©
n úP!¥ QÁÏAÅ5c¡4€kÂ:Ç¥@S;¿ A.Õ É ~µp½³m êGéC ÙUQ Èô¨ çÆ
h²{Ôl¤-Ä -´àªW !
>×q P o
ÑÔUr'ô hë .=}±Vá
Ù uô
m ÈÏzËe\ävÅ
ï-X¸Ã
:Hcy `ñî*'ÈÏCN3L
ì Êló¡¨&dU'
9 ¤ I î*&û P! 8Æ)0zàJb b < õ¦ ã¦h Å®
etc. ... |
|
|
|
|
12/16/2013 02:01:10 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by schlake:
No one considers counterfeit money to be as good as real money; I don't consider counterfeit photographs to be as good as real photographs. This is Digital Photography Challenge, not Digital Photoshop Challenge. |
It's a Digital Photography Challenge, with specific rules what you can and cannot do. The rules are the same for everyone. You can always vote as you like: if it's altered in any way, just give it a 1.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2013 01:37:35 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You kinda canceled yourself out here with this one. If you had to look at the meta-data to tell for sure, then you have acknowledged the usefulness of a top notch editing system.
I often wonder why it is that someone has to denounce someone else's prowess at their craft.......is it because of a lack of same?
|
No one considers counterfeit money to be as good as real money; I don't consider counterfeit photographs to be as good as real photographs. This is Digital Photography Challenge, not Digital Photoshop Challenge. |
|
|
|
12/16/2013 12:47:46 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by pamb:
My entry into and continuation of this discussion has never been based on 'good', 'bad', 'spontaneous', 'ponderous' or any other fricking descriptor. My issue has been with the insults and intolerance of any but 'your' own opinion. |
What she said.....
And as to you....
Originally posted by schlake:
Not the same feast for everyone looks like a photograph that could be taken, and I suspected it was a photograph, but then I saw the meta-data and I'm not so sure anymore. |
You kinda canceled yourself out here with this one. If you had to look at the meta-data to tell for sure, then you have acknowledged the usefulness of a top notch editing system.
I often wonder why it is that someone has to denounce someone else's prowess at their craft.......is it because of a lack of same?
Susan.......I have looked back and forth between the two images time and time again. I'm sorry, but I truly cannot see the face in the image where you have it mapped out, or the challenge entry.
This should have been a tip-off, too......
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And I couldn't find it when you asked my opinion of the picture before submitting it, and told you so... |
If Robert told you before you entered that it could be sketchy, then first......why go with it?
And second.......when the voters obviously came to the same conclusion, why are you upset?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2013 10:25:35 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Cory:
FYI - just to set you lot right. |
FWIW a physician friend of mine kept a list (well over 100 entries, many years ago) of various euphemisms for "going number two" ... |
|
|
|
12/15/2013 10:04:27 PM · #20 |
FYI - just to set you lot right.
The non-euphemistic word is "Shitter", as in "Dude, that burrito gave me explosive diarrhea, I swear I've been to the shitter at least a dozen times today!".. |
|
|
|
12/15/2013 06:27:12 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Heh Heh - Art Roflmao, I think he said "accidental people" not "accidental pooping" |
It's in response to the "Lavatory" discussion. Very tough to keep up with the whirlpool of topics in this thread. ;-) |
Oh, heck, I knew that. but could not resist adding those 2 pennies. |
Well, good because I forgot - it's a Pay Toilet Lavatory. :P
Message edited by author 2013-12-15 18:28:04. |
|
|
|
12/15/2013 06:16:18 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Heh Heh - Art Roflmao, I think he said "accidental people" not "accidental pooping" |
It's in response to the "Lavatory" discussion. Very tough to keep up with the whirlpool of topics in this thread. ;-) |
Oh, heck, I knew that. but could not resist adding those 2 pennies.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2013 06:12:05 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Heh Heh - Art Roflmao, I think he said "accidental people" not "accidental pooping" |
It's in response to the "Lavatory" discussion. Very tough to keep up with the whirlpool of topics in this thread. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/15/2013 06:09:33 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
 |
Heh Heh - Art Roflmao, I think he said "accidental people" not "accidental pooping" |
|
|
|
12/15/2013 06:05:10 PM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:49:13 PM EDT.
