The Wishing Tree
by ursula

Comment:

Originally posted by ursula: Originally posted by yanko: Curious, have you been validated using this technique before? By that I mean the way you used the multiple exposures to help create the artistic effect. I was under the impression that the rule was very limited in that it could only be used as a means to correct an image or maintain image integrity. Basically, I thought it could only be used to include the full dynamic range of a scene, increase DOF for macros or improve the signal to noise ratio for long exposures. Then again I've been out of the loop for awhile so I probably didn't get the memo. :) Not sure, I haven't been asked for validation. I assumed it was a valid technique, to use bracketed exposures for the creation of an image, regardless of whether the intent was to achieve the traditional HDR look, or a different look. The technique is the same. I'd be interested in finding out :) Richard, why wouldn't it be a valid thing to do, in advanced? Are you saying that "intent" has something to do with using more than one image to create a final image? I mean, I could just phrase it that it was a bracketed set to increase the dynamic range (which it was), except that my "intent" wasn't to increase the dynamic range but to figure out if bracketed HDR-like compositions would work with shallow DOF. Interesting question. I wouldn't think that "intent" has much of anything to do with the rule about using sequential files of the same scene. Come to think of it, maybe it's best that the question doesn't even come up to SC :) After all, if this is disqualified for some reason like "the intent wasn't true HDR", it would make me very sad, and I rather not be sad. Anyway. I don't think it's against the rules. If it is, well, I'd have to say, "Wow, weird!" It just occurred to me, Richard. Are you thinking that the pictures in the bracketed set were not all the same? They were exactly the same except for the shutter time, focusing or other settings weren't changed.

What I thought you did was combine focus and OOF shots together. I agree with you that it should be legal since as you say it's advance editing. I just had it in my mind that the SC was strict with that one rule and you're the only one that I've seen use it in an artistic manner.

The Wishing Tree
by ursula

Comment:
Curious, have you been validated using this technique before? By that I mean the way you used the multiple exposures to help create the artistic effect. I was under the impression that the rule was very limited in that it could only be used as a means to correct an image or maintain image integrity. Basically, I thought it could only be used to include the full dynamic range of a scene, increase DOF for macros or improve the signal to noise ratio for long exposures. Then again I've been out of the loop for awhile so I probably didn't get the memo. :)

Message edited by author 2010-10-04 21:05:17.

untitled
by nixter

Comment:
I suspect, if your body of work were arranged as a montage it might reveal a singular coherent scene and we could zoom in on it like a fractal.

IMG_3235
by Marika

Comment:
Nice classic look. I like the presence of the curtain in the background. It's a strong compositional element that helps to convey a sense of duality between the light and the dark while also adding to the feminine motif. Despite all the elements the shot doesn't look too cluttered so you did a great job there. Overally very nice photo.

The only issue I really have with this is the control of the highlights. It looks like there was some problem there that you tried to fix but the results are looking odd to me. For example, on the table there's a streak of white running down the middle that is much brighter than the rest of the table, which doesn't look natural. A similar effect is going with the model's face, neck and arm. I'm not sure what happened but if it were me I would try to fix it so that it was more consistent tone-wise with the rest of the highlights. The selective color adjustment in photoshop is something that could probably fix it. Anyway, just an observation.

Afternoon Cowboys
by Melethia

Comment:
Wow this is so much better and more challenging than just grabbing some props lying around and arranging them in predictable ways in front of permanently fixed lighting setups. Pretty soon trained monkey robots will be able to do that but there will always be a need for a human to do what you do. Of course the monkeys will still collect all of the ribbons since they make up the voting population...

Blown Away
by h2

Comment:
The charliebaker version of this would be entitled "All blown away"...

IMG_8572
by JaimeVinas

Comment:
Cool. This would be pretty easy to use as a self promotion package. It already looks like a fancy brochure that opens up on both sides.

Overwhelming
by angkokweng

Comment:

Originally posted by theraindew: Probably many missed out on the grill that is holding the text and the logo! Nice shot. But a little more perspective on the height would have been great for the title.

I have to agree with this. I have no doubt that standing there the towers look overwhelming but in a flat 2d image it doesn't translate. Since there is nothing else in the shot it's missing that sense of scale. Nice shot otherwise.

me and Dr Maria Byrne
by roz

Comment:
Congratulations but the photographer of this photo got it all wrong. He or she should have captured this image as a reflection in a fly's eye. :P

Her Mother's Eyes
by scalvert

Comment:
"I was hoping the topic would prove more popular given the subject matter and no date restrictions."

I wonder if that's because people have been so turned off by the challenges of late that they are just being ignored. Well that's my excuse anyway. I first learned about the no date restriction when I read your notes. Maybe next time suggest putting a big red banner that says NO DATE RESTRICTION! Seriously though, I bet more would have entered as a result.

Message edited by author 2010-08-16 02:30:57.