| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2004 06:37:33 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Sometimes I just can't believe that so many people on this site have nothing better to do than to over read and anaylize the challenge definitions. No one can ever just take the general explination for these challenges and be happy. They must break it down into the most minuet detail. It is like the image has .005mm to much out of focus and therefore does not meet the challenge. Same goes for all of the challenges lately. There is always some thread on every challenge with people saying that none of the images meet the perfect definition of the challenge. Man, sorry to rant, but it is just getting old. Can't we be more positive towards other peoples views and interpritations of what the challenges mean or are about? Sure the site gives us guidelines to follow, but even if the image is within the sites guidlines, someone always has their own guidlines and feels the need to mark people down for it. I just don't understand it. |
I agree with you on some level, but I have to admit. I am glad that everyone here is picky. I am glad because now I know the true meaning of Deep DOF, and us being photographers, be it Amaetur or Pro, we should atleast take a love for our art, and atleast know our poison (IE. Terms/Tricks/etc) Thats what the site is here for, to learn.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2004 07:14:35 PM · #27 |
| I'm glad that someone confirmed my interpretation of DOF, as I started going through the beautiful photos, and saw many (very well done)landscape shots... with no "close by" object at all. I began to think that I had the idea of this challenge all wrong. I am learning a lot with this dpchallenge, and I thank everyone for helping me learn! |
|
|
|
06/07/2004 07:43:45 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My two entries in the current challenges are now 199 votes and 0.0049 "points" apart. |
Hey, Paul, how'd you get the cute little icon that looks like you're in jail?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:03:01 PM · #29 |
It's Ben's fault ... it's supposed to be a skeleton with shades (think Grateful Dead logo). All the Site Council members now have personal icons.
Maybe jail would be a good idea ... keep me away from the "Update" button ...
Message edited by author 2004-06-07 20:04:17. |
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:11:38 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It's Ben's fault ... it's supposed to be a skeleton with shades (think Grateful Dead logo). All the Site Council members now have personal icons.
Maybe jail would be a good idea ... keep me away from the "Update" button ... |
I think I just decided I want to be on the site council, so I can get my own icon. Those little personalized icons are so cool!
You know, at some jails they might have internet access (who knows...) and then you wouldn't have anything else to do :)))
Ursuola
|
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:18:25 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I guess you haven't gotten to mine yet :( |
LOL Paul... nor mine, I am getting hammered. |
... or mine, I'm getting killed too probably by mistaking whatever deep DOF means to everything being in focus for a few miles... |
I am actually doing pretty good but I also think that deep DOF means everything in focus from the foreground to infinity. I'm not clear if wkoffel is saying that this isn't what deep DOF is, or that some people think setting the focus to infinity is all it takes to make an interesting shot. At any rate, I'm sticking by my understanding of it. |
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:21:14 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
This is one challenge where purpose will prevail over technique. If someone has bothered to convey a particular reason for best using deep DOF then they'll get extra marks from me. |
Agreed. |
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:32:37 PM · #33 |
| Question: Do you NEED something in the foreground to show deep DOF? |
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:35:52 PM · #34 |
[quote]I agree with you on some level, but I have to admit. I am glad that everyone here is picky. I am glad because now I know the true meaning of Deep DOF, and us being photographers, be it Amaetur or Pro, we should atleast take a love for our art, and atleast know our poison (IE. Terms/Tricks/etc) Thats what the site is here for, to learn. [/quote]
I guess what I mean is that being picky and being ridiculous are two different things. Like the macro topic. It dosen't matter if your deep depth of field only stretches 2 inches. If you are in that close and every thing is in focus, it takes deep depth of field to accomplish this. But people are even tearing those appart that are using a great depth of field just because it is a macro shot.
Message edited by author 2004-06-07 20:36:22. |
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:39:24 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ionyou:
Question: Do you NEED something in the foreground to show deep DOF? |
Sort of. Some people voting seem to insist that some major thing must be in the foreground. I disagree. There has to be something in the foreground showing that it's in focus, but it doesn't need to stick out like a sore thumb. As long as focus is clear throughout shot, from "front" to "back", you're doing fine by me.
I must have done something right with mine since I'm scoring 6.3871 with 93 votes. Only 5 comments though.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2004 08:53:27 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ionyou:
Question: Do you NEED something in the foreground to show deep DOF? |
This is sort of a "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound" question. If you have deep DOF, but nothing at all in the foreground, then there's really no way for anyone to know how deep the focus is, which seems to be the point of this challenge. As BB said, you don't have to insert some huge prop in the foreground, but I think you do need to show some obejcts at varying depths in clear focus. My favorites from this challenge were the more subtle shots containing objects of varying distance from the lens.
Just my opinion. :-)
|
|
|
|
06/08/2004 11:03:23 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
Originally posted by ionyou:
Question: Do you NEED something in the foreground to show deep DOF? |
This is sort of a "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound" question. If you have deep DOF, but nothing at all in the foreground, then there's really no way for anyone to know how deep the focus is, which seems to be the point of this challenge. As BB said, you don't have to insert some huge prop in the foreground, but I think you do need to show some obejcts at varying depths in clear focus. My favorites from this challenge were the more subtle shots containing objects of varying distance from the lens.
Just my opinion. :-) |
That's a good point. What I'm thinking of for example is like the pic of the moon, where nothing is in the foreground. However the farthest point of the moon and nearest are all in focus, that's a pretty deep DOF is it not? ;-) |
|
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 06:18:43 PM EDT.
