| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2009 11:05:23 PM · #1 |
| I changed mine. I hope there's no doubting now. |
|
|
|
03/17/2009 10:52:01 PM · #2 |
| Anyone willing to look at two pics of mine for this challenge? One I like, but not sure it "meets" the challenge - the other...well, it meets the challenge but not sure how I feel about it. Nothing like last min deadlines. =P |
|
|
|
03/17/2009 08:52:27 PM · #3 |
Am I the only one rethinking my image??? LOL... I gotta feeling this one is going to get interesting...
Message edited by author 2009-03-17 20:55:02. |
|
|
|
03/17/2009 05:37:14 PM · #4 |
| My first two ideas were chemiluminescent lightning bugs or real lightning at night in cumulus clouds. Alas, neither were available within a thousand miles. My third idea was fireworks, but currently banned on the front range as a fire danger. Also, a wildfire at night would have worked, but no such "luck". So, I came up with an idea which meets the challenge. The main subject is the light source. The secondary subjects are illuminated by the main subject. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. |
|
|
|
03/17/2009 01:44:35 PM · #5 |
Create a photo in which your main light source is also your main subject. The challenge here is that your main subject should not be the sun.
Okay pull it apart. Main light source. Does this not mean that if you have a dark sky and the moon is lighing up a silhouette that the main light source is the moon? Without it there would be no silhouette. Likewise, a pinpoint star is the same idea. I don't know. I think that it will all be interpretation as previously stated. I know the purists will dnmc anything that is related to sky because they will feel that the light would not exist without the sun, even if the sun is not appearing at the moment, unless of course the object is a UFO or jet lights. Just thought I would create a nice murky interpretation to add more doubt and to also cut out some terrific images that might otherwise appear because people are thinking of the purist idea. I did enter though it will not score well with purists. However it is a beautiful image.
Message edited by author 2009-03-17 13:53:18. |
|
|
|
03/17/2009 01:40:07 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by JunieMoon:
However if something is illuminated due to the existance of the sun, I don't see why it would be considered not meeting the challenge? |
Because the subject of your photo is also supposed to be the primary light source for the image -- your subject should provide the illumination for the image, not be lit by an external light source.... |
|
|
|
03/17/2009 01:30:19 PM · #7 |
As to the wording, illuminative could mean anything illuminated by another object. So to say you shouldn't use the sun means you shouldn't use the sun directly in your image. However if something is illuminated due to the existance of the sun, I don't see why it would be considered not meeting the challenge?
illuminative-adj. of, relating to, or producing illumination (Merriam Webster)
illuminate-to provide or brighten with light (as in moon, stars, etc.)
Then there is the more abstract, which probably won't do well, which is illumination due to clarification or finally getting something you didn't get before. A teacher of mine illuminated the subject of algebra for me, which no other teacher could do.
Message edited by author 2009-03-17 13:42:56. |
|
|
|
03/16/2009 11:54:37 PM · #8 |
My first submission is to the challenge that has everyone confused? Boy, did I pick wisely. :o)
Not expecting to score high, and after reading the other posts I have a feeling that my picture will appear to be off the mark. Oh, well... |
|
|
|
03/16/2009 09:31:22 PM · #9 |
| Well, I don't expect to score well on this one, but I'm hoping everyone gets a good laugh out of it. Lately, I have not really cared about trying to score well (which is good cause I haven't...LOL...) but I've focused more on trying to have fun with the challenges and trying to learn as much as I can (especially post-processing)... I have found it much more rewarding :) |
|
|
|
03/16/2009 12:56:04 AM · #10 |
| Yes, it was a big mistake to bring wiki here, even checking the dictionaries would be a mistake, so that's the lesson I've learned. But, the main point still holds: if subject is not the same as theme, shouldn't the title have the word object instead of subject? This is not a question about dnmc or dpc, it's just how people use language. To me, the title "illuminative subject" doesn't make any sense, if one is considering things, as in stuff. Or else, a photo of Denis Diderot should be just fine. |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 11:55:46 PM · #11 |
| I was tempted to do glow sticks--I might still try it just for fun. |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 11:52:53 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
I'm already curious as to how many DNMC comments I will get, anyone up for a side bet??? |
I might be up for a side bet that I get more than you do, or a lower score ... ;-)
I don't think clouds will count as a light *source* unless they are illuminated from within by lightning. |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 10:46:02 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Well, I'm in... I think this could be interesting. I'm curious to see what everyone came up with. I think there are going to be some DNMC voters in this one big time. I'm already curious as to how many DNMC comments I will get, anyone up for a side bet??? |
Only if it gets me a ribbon :-)
I predict a LOT of light bulbs and clouds...
Oh, and glow sticks of course. |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 10:46:01 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by gjumi:
From Wikipedia: A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.
Or, are we supposed to take pictures of our shining selves? |
That just goes to further prove that reading something on the internet doesn't make it true :)
|
|
|
|
03/15/2009 10:39:50 PM · #15 |
| Well, I'm in... I think this could be interesting. I'm curious to see what everyone came up with. I think there are going to be some DNMC voters in this one big time. I'm already curious as to how many DNMC comments I will get, anyone up for a side bet??? |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 01:23:31 PM · #16 |
Lol, okay, you guys have convinced me that it's safer to enter "remember those?" .
(actually, I just couldn't get my light idea to work, but I like blaming the thread instead ;) ) |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 12:06:24 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
What are the thoughts regarding Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis in as far as they are creatred by ions from the sun so does that
mean that mean they should not be used in this challenge. |
I'd have thought that since ions aren't photons then the source of light is in fact the Aurora and not the sun which is 'only' supplying the ions. |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 12:05:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
What are the thoughts regarding Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis in as far as they are creatred by ions from the sun so does that
mean that mean they should not be used in this challenge. |
They should be banned from ALL challenges, so those without access to them will have a chance at doing well. :-)
Message edited by author 2009-03-15 12:05:31. |
|
|
|
03/15/2009 12:01:16 PM · #19 |
What are the thoughts regarding Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis in as far as they are creatred by ions from the sun so does that
mean that mean they should not be used in this challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2009 12:31:00 PM · #20 |
| Sorry. I was just quibbling with your hyperbole. (Sometimes I think I have an almost total absence of sense. Compared to none). |
|
|
|
03/14/2009 11:24:23 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Is it an "almost total absence" ONLY compared to the previous (to past) years? I am finding this difficult to compute. And while I am at it, I think the moon or a window COULD be a light source. In case Bear has nothing better to do, he could find my gem entry and comment on it. Big Giveaway Hint: not a sunset. |
Ummm... Ermmmm... What I *mean* to be saying is, "in the beginning" I had a reputation as a guy who'd pull a sunset out of his hat for virtually every challenge, and a guy who only scored high with sunsets and skiffs... So in 2008 basically no sunsets and no skiffs was my approach to that. Of course, I also scored really crappy all year long, so...
I'm *SO* one-dimensional, sigh... Jejeje™
R.
Message edited by author 2009-03-14 11:24:46.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2009 10:23:57 AM · #22 |
| Glow Sticks Glow Sticks Glow Sticks!!!! |
|
|
|
03/14/2009 03:16:57 AM · #23 |
|
|
|
03/14/2009 02:48:55 AM · #24 |
| I didn't want to chance it, so my light source will be a light source with no doubts possible :) |
|
|
|
03/14/2009 02:28:32 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Is it an "almost total absence" ONLY compared to the previous (to past) years? I am finding this difficult to compute. And while I am at it, I think the moon or a window COULD be a light source. In case Bear has nothing better to do, he could find my gem entry and comment on it. Big Giveaway Hint: not a sunset. |
as always, it will come down to the voters' interpretation, but ANY object that reflects light is not a source of light as in "creator" of light. outside of the creators of light any object that is visible is a reflector of light. so technically speaking if you want to consider objects reflecting light as light sources then anything visible in your picture would qualify as a light source. Artistically speaking though, within the scope of the image itself i think a reflection could be interpreted as a source of light especially if it reflects light onto other minor subjects.
Actually a window isn't a direct source of light or reflected light but a passage for the light. But still i think artistic interpretation would allow it to be considered a light source within the context of the image.
Message edited by author 2009-03-14 02:29:59. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 07:20:44 PM EDT.
