| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2006 01:16:59 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I entered an orange photo for yellow. I figured it was close enough, and the challenge info left me room for interpretation... |
NO wonder you got it in so fast, you just shot the orange in your fridge, didn't you?
Deannda
Dang professionals, always bending the rules and keeping fresh fruit around |
I redid that cheese photo with me on the couch...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:17:42 AM · #27 |
Oh and mine was 2 seconds and it sank faster than Judi's did, that's sad :(
Deannda
And my water didn't look near as beautiful, I'm sad now :(
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:18:14 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I redid that cheese photo with me on the couch... |
Now THAT I would pay money for, I've met you, I would love to see that shot!
Deannda
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:18:55 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
Ok I see some ppl are not happy, well this was by far the hardest shot I have taken, the waterfall was so strong that the mist got everything wet, and at the same time I had to balance myself (w/ a tripod) on slippery rocks (yes dangerous). I tried 2 second shots and they came out way way to bright, little by little I lowered the shutter until 1/2 second, then it came out. The sun is very strong (even on this cloudy day) up in the andes mnts., even with an ND4 filter I couldn't get it to come out at 2 seconds. I submited only because of the amount of effort I put into the shot. Sorry to those who do not like my choice to submit. |
In that case, wow, you have a gorgeous print to hang up on your wall, or enter in some other contest where I'm sure it would do well, or post in your portfolio under 'gorgeous shots that didn't meet the challenge', and you should have gone and taken an actual two-second shot for the two-second challenge. What you did was disingenuous and totally against the spirit of the challenge, in my opinion, and the fact that you won by doing that really sucks.
I definitely think it's time for non-subjective technical challenges to have special DQ rules, and this is a perfect example as to why. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:20:29 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I had the same problems.....slippery snow, wind, mist, and bright sun. I hada ND4 filter too. I eneded up waiting 4 hours for the sun to start setting to get my shot in the 2 seconds as before then they were too bright. Patience is a virtue.
edited for typos |
I would have done the same if I could have, but I wasn't by myself, had my family with me, and I couldn't stay alone in this part of town...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:20:57 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I redid that cheese photo with me on the couch... |
Uh... that might be quite funny! LOL.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:22:19 AM · #32 |
All the effort that other people who met the challenge and description took is yet again undermined by someone who does not take this into account.
Shutterpugs four hours (congrats on that I can't sit for that long ever) ... and others efforts because
Originally posted by elapso:
"The sun is very strong (even on this cloudy day) up in the andes mnts., even with an ND4 filter I couldn't get it to come out at 2 seconds. I submited only because of the amount of effort I put into the shot. Sorry to those who do not like my choice to submit." |
Wéll the choice was NOT to enter .. put the thing in your portfolio and ask for comments .. one minute that is what OTHER people do!
I did not enter ... that was my choice .. but yet again those who meet the challenge and doing the boting are sucked into something that was not EVEN CLOSE to meeting the challenge in any way means or form.
{rant off}
Kari
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:22:22 AM · #33 |
Wow....some of you guys are being mean.
Just chill out dudes, no need for the hostility around here.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:22:33 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I had the same problems.....slippery snow, wind, mist, and bright sun. I hada ND4 filter too. I eneded up waiting 4 hours for the sun to start setting to get my shot in the 2 seconds as before then they were too bright. Patience is a virtue.
edited for typos |
I would have done the same if I could have, but I wasn't by myself, had my family with me, and I couldn't stay alone in this part of town... |
I understand .... I've had a migraine for 3 weeks - had to take a nap in the truck while waiting for the sun to go down. Thank goodness my family wasnt with me.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:23:49 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by stare_at_the_sun:
Wow....some of you guys are being mean.
Just chill out dudes, no need for the hostility around here. |
Yeah but IMHO, if you have a dSLR and can take a 2 second exposure, there's no excuse. It's a great image but kudos to all that struggled to get a shot within 2 seconds.
My two cents of course. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:23:59 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I had the same problems.....slippery snow, wind, mist, and bright sun. I hada ND4 filter too. I eneded up waiting 4 hours for the sun to start setting to get my shot in the 2 seconds as before then they were too bright. Patience is a virtue.
edited for typos |
I would have done the same if I could have, but I wasn't by myself, had my family with me, and I couldn't stay alone in this part of town... |
That's all good and well but the point is the challenge was to take a 2 second exposure and no matter how much you went through, you threw that out the window when you entered your picture. It's a beautiful shot, all your stuff is very beautiful, creative and exciting to look at. But you are young and maybe you didn't really think this through when you entered the shot. But now you have had time to think about it and possibly do the right thing and earn a lot more respect in the process. But whatever you do, please don't leave over this in the end and feel that everyone is picking on you. You have so much to offer about photography and so much to learn about life in the process.
Deannda
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:27:23 AM · #37 |
oh well - it's over now
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 01:27:51.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:27:36 AM · #38 |
First congratulations to the winners. I would never question the members but I would the s/c. Not as a form of complaint but merely to define what liberties we can take in future challenges. Many complained about not being able to enter because their equipment could not negotiate a two sec exposure. When they realize that they were never really required to adhere to the challenge description they just wasted their breath complaining.
Now, the s.c. member above has stated that it this is acceptable, that is that the exposure time was not really the determining factor, this is fine but just how do we members interpret challenges which state a technical condition. Just a question whose answer will benefit all competing members. How much loosenes will be allowed with technical challenges such as aperture and exposure time. And if you state black can one use white?
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 01:30:06. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:29:25 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
First congratulations to the winners. I would never question the members but I would the s/c. Not as a form of complaint but merely to define what liberties we can take in future challenges. Many complaint about not being able to enter because their equipment could not negotiate a two sec exposure. When they realize that they were never really required to adhere to the challenge description they just wasted their breath complaining.
Now, the s.c. member above has stated that it this is acceptable, that is that the exposure time was not really the determining factor, this is fine but just how do we members interpret challenges which state a technical condition. Just a question whose answer will benefit all competing members. How much loosenes will be allowed with technical challenges such as aperture and exposure time. And if you state black can one use white? |
Not meeting the challenge has never been grounds for disqualification (unless specially mentioned as in the ducky challenge). |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:32:15 AM · #40 |
I don't remember seeing a complaint thread when a cut out won the "your shadow II" blue ribbon(maybe there was one). I think the effort and creativity justly won the day.
El sapo made a great effort and the photo is beautiful.
Kudos to el sapo for facing the angry mob. He could easily ignore this thread or could have wrote in 2 seconds on shutter speed and only the council would have been the wiser.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:33:20 AM · #41 |
| I am looking for the hostility here, cos in my country this is just polite chatter :) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:33:56 AM · #42 |
This sucks. :(
Next time we have a challenge like this I better regard it as a free study.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:35:33 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by KingWampum:
I don't remember seeing a complaint thread when a cut out won the "your shadow II" blue ribbon(maybe there was one). I think the effort and creativity justly won the day.
El sapo made a great effort and the photo is beautiful.
Kudos to el sapo for facing the angry mob. He could easily ignore this thread or could have wrote in 2 seconds on shutter speed and only the council would have been the wiser. |
But if your equipment can handle 2 seconds, there is still NO excuse. Matt's shadow was creative and artistic. Creativity and technical skills are a bit different IMHO. With technical challenges such as this one, and finding the winner has a dSLR, it's quite a shame. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:36:24 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by mk:
Not meeting the challenge has never been grounds for disqualification (unless specially mentioned as in the ducky challenge). |
Then maybe there should be no more challenges that specify specific technical aspects such as exposure time and such. EIther that or as mentioned earlier when a specific techincal aspect is part of the challenge title or description yellow flag it with the note that ignoring this aspect will be grounds for a DQ
As for the cut out winning the shadow ribbon, his shadow will still inside the cutout, tiny bit of difference there.
Deannda
And yes, he could have lied but then he would have had to live with that as well, it's his decision on what he wants to do and deal with later
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:36:38 AM · #45 |
also NOT taken at 4-5am 
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 01:36:51.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:37:28 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by stare_at_the_sun:
Wow....some of you guys are being mean.
Just chill out dudes, no need for the hostility around here. |
Let me guess that yours wasn't 2 seconds either...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:37:29 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
also NOT taken at 4-5am |
hence the "outrage" after the fact ;) |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:38:17 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by elsapo:
also NOT taken at 4-5am |
Not happy with that either.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:38:57 AM · #49 |
| Yes that was taken to bits at the time ... and they chose praise over deception ... that again is a choice and you guys live with it ... see choice - such a wonderful thing that brings guilt and all that stuff with it ... amazing that we feel the need to once again go back to others to cover our own feelings. |
|
|
|
03/27/2006 01:39:41 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by KingWampum:
I don't remember seeing a complaint thread when a cut out won the "your shadow II" blue ribbon(maybe there was one). I think the effort and creativity justly won the day.
El sapo made a great effort and the photo is beautiful.
Kudos to el sapo for facing the angry mob. He could easily ignore this thread or could have wrote in 2 seconds on shutter speed and only the council would have been the wiser. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is not a complaint against the talented Elsapo. This has more to do with the gist of a technical challenge which uses aperture or exposure time as its basis. Just how do all members interpret it. Some can forego a better images because it did not meet the technical spec. What do we say to these people? believe me, this has more to do with the question: can technical descriptions be ignored by one and all without consequence. Whatever, the answer is alright, but at least we know how to read a future challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-03-27 01:40:15. |
|
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: 04/19/2024 08:33:29 PM EDT.
