| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2007 01:23:39 PM · #426 |
|
|
|
09/12/2007 01:25:17 PM · #427 |
|
|
|
09/12/2007 08:48:19 PM · #428 |
|
|
|
09/13/2007 12:23:45 AM · #429 |
Thanks glad2badad and KarenNfld!
My niece pointed out the fiery red sun to me and I raced out to get photos. The fire was approaching for days (evacuation occurred two days later). I was truly awestruck by the enormity of the forces of nature vs. man's efforts to tame it. I thought the helicopters and planes fighting the fire were just like little buzzing bugs in comparison.
- Betsy |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 12:28:07 AM · #430 |
Impressionism II:
 to  RKT for 
 to  dtremain for 
 to smyk for 
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 00:28:54. |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 01:14:04 AM · #431 |
 by colorcarnival
 by KarenNfld
 by zxaar
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 05:18:48 AM · #432 |
Well for the first time ever I am prompted to join this thread because two shots I loved finished so low in impressionism
1st for me was I certainly did not mark the challenge with an 'anti-filter' hat on (I used one myself) but the fact that this was created naturally just marked it out for me as a brilliant entry 5.0XXX? Not on your nelly
2nd would go to  . As I said during the challenge perhaps it was slightly over done on the blur but this had a real impressionism feel to it, from the subject matter to the colours. I would agree that there were better entries in the challenge but no way did this either deserve a sub 4 score or to finish 204th of 206 entries. Without a shadow of a doubt this was better than my effort which scored a full point higher |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 08:10:33 AM · #433 |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 08:20:50 AM · #434 |
I thought these 3 were all very good.
 rinac
 JEFFJSB
  vtruan |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 08:29:58 AM · #435 |
I'm really dissapointed with the most of the highest scoring images in this contest(all along with my own), most of them missed the goal of impressionism completely.
The main point is to depict the play of light by using as little iformation as possible. The simpler the better.
My favorites and my top votes at the same time:
1. 
2. 
3. 
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:19:31 AM · #436 |
Thanks yanko! I appreciate it! Who cares if you get a low score when someone wants to give you a posthumous ribbon?
And I did not use any filters to do my pic. : )
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 11:27:17 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by jonfrommk:
2nd would go to . As I said during the challenge perhaps it was slightly over done on the blur but this had a real impressionism feel to it, from the subject matter to the colours. I would agree that there were better entries in the challenge but no way did this either deserve a sub 4 score or to finish 204th of 206 entries. Without a shadow of a doubt this was better than my effort which scored a full point higher |
I'd agree about that one too - the light and subject matter as well as the general style are all very reminiscent of the impressionistic art I've been lucky enough to see up close and personal.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2007 08:35:17 PM · #438 |
Wow - I didn't realize this thread was still going.
I didn't vote on many in Impressionism as I was pretty put off by most of the over processed filter usage. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE photo editor but just didn't go wild over many but and  |
|
|
|
09/14/2007 08:50:51 PM · #439 |
Thanks jonfrommk and posthumous. This is a first for me, and a great encouragement. I was unhappy that I wasn't able to get more color in the shot, but it just wasn't there. It is nice to know others liked your work. Thanks for saying so.
Message edited by author 2007-09-14 21:04:24. |
|
|
|
09/15/2007 08:05:38 PM · #440 |
Hey Zigomar thanks for recongnizing my image. Thanks a bunch!
Angela
|
|
|
|
09/15/2007 08:28:49 PM · #441 |
Thanks KarenNfld and yanko for nominating my picture. I was thinking few days ago that I probably do not have anything to be nominated in this thread. And then I saw you posts.
In future I will try to shoot something good. (lately being guilty of shooting eye candies). |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 07:07:23 AM · #442 |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 08:18:20 AM · #443 |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:28:38 AM · #444 |
| Thanks, Tate! I really appreciate it. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:37:17 AM · #445 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Wow - I didn't realize this thread was still going.
I didn't vote on many in Impressionism as I was pretty put off by most of the over processed filter usage. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE photo editor but just didn't go wild over many but |
Very nice image. Only problem is that it isn't anywhere in the vicinity of being impressionistic. Not even close from my understanding of what impressionism is. More like...Photorealism but then, it's a photo.
Again...great image but...DNMC. ;) |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 10:59:20 AM · #446 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Wow - I didn't realize this thread was still going.
I didn't vote on many in Impressionism as I was pretty put off by most of the over processed filter usage. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE photo editor but just didn't go wild over many but |
Very nice image. Only problem is that it isn't anywhere in the vicinity of being impressionistic. Not even close from my understanding of what impressionism is. More like...Photorealism but then, it's a photo.
Again...great image but...DNMC. ;) |
Agreed. It would be a ribbon winner for a Still Life challenge, but not impressionism. Pity voters are so clueless on fine art. But then again, this is hardly an "arty" photo site either, so this is to be expected. Website suggestion: stay away from anything to do with fine art in future challenge titles. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:34:07 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by craigester:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
[quote=Jutilda] Wow - I didn't realize this thread was still going.
I didn't vote on many in Impressionism as I was pretty put off by most of the over processed filter usage. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE photo editor but just didn't go wild over many but |
Agreed. It would be a ribbon winner for a Still Life challenge, but not impressionism. Pity voters are so clueless on fine art. But then again, this is hardly an "arty" photo site either, so this is to be expected. Website suggestion: stay away from anything to do with fine art in future challenge titles. |
I actually wonder if people are viewing this image as if it were a painting and not a photograph. For a photograph it makes for a very impressive painting.
Message edited by author 2007-09-17 12:38:36. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:40:57 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I actually wonder if people are viewing this image as if it were a painting and not a photograph. For a photograph it makes for a very impressive painting. |
It's a fine piece of art for sure |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:43:48 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I actually wonder if people are viewing this image as if it were a painting and not a photograph. For a photograph it makes for a very impressive painting. |
Steve, if you don't stop hijacking my thread I'm getting on the next bus to New York and I'm going to kick your A$$!! ;P ;P |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 12:48:02 PM · #450 |
WOW I didn't realize that shot was being talked about .. Not thread jacking here just explaining.. Impressionism in photography has to be different than painting. I do not believe that by adding a filter to a photograph it becomes Impressionism no more than I believe this shot of mine is impressionism. I believe it to be up to the viewer to decide as it is an opinionated subject.
Apologies... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 11:54:06 AM EDT.
to 
to 
to 
