| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2003 10:15:45 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by rgordon:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I'm talking about all the indoor shots that have an obvious yellow/orange tint. You can tell when this is deliberate, and when this is accidental. |
disclosure: I'm a total newbie to photography, digital or otherwise.
This problem with indoor white balance... correct me if I'm wrong... it can be corrected by using a white sheet of paper placed where the shot will be taken... let the camera measure the "temperature" of that white sheet in the lighting conditions... the camera can then use that measurement as a yardstick for picking up accurate colour for photographs in the same lighting conditions? |
That is basically correct for the cameras that have 'custom white balance' options. On the simpler ones its just a case of picking 'indoor' white balance which is set to compensate for the warmer light from most filament bulbs, or tungsten for the cooler tungsten lighting.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2003 10:24:41 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
..my 1 MP, 6 year old digicam has white balance settings for indoor light. My palm pilot camera deals with white balance. |
Fair enough, I take it back. I didn't know all cameras had WB settings. even checked my Fuji, hoping to prove u wrong, but alas, WB settings on that too ;)
Originally posted by Gordon:
As for the 'dont have access to photoshop' thing haven't we beaten this one to death yet ? There are tons of free tools out there - check my profile for links. |
Access to a computer? lol
|
|
|
|
10/15/2003 10:36:30 AM · #28 |
I think the WB problem is maybe a little bit harsh, not everyone has access to
photoshop et al, or a decent camera with WB settings. >>>
Then don't enter an indoor shot if the camera can't compensate. Simple solution. |
|
|
|
10/15/2003 10:50:49 AM · #29 |
My pet peeve in the exposure challenge is the cleaniness of the video heads, CD drives and computer guts! Come on, we all know that dust bunny colonies have set up a inside these devices! No? ONLY MINE? EEEEKKK!
Seriously though, it's interesting to read this thread and to get some other great tools to help with the shots. Thanks guys and gals!
Deannda |
|
|
|
10/15/2003 11:04:50 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Then don't enter an indoor shot if the camera can't compensate. Simple solution. |
How very constructive of you..... |
|
|
|
10/15/2003 01:29:08 PM · #31 |
I've found I'm pretty tolerant of most shots, but the ones I find hard to vote on are the x-ray, sonogram, words on a page ones. It becomes more dynamic when there are props of any sort as well though, so that changes my perception.
I just feel that there has been little photographer influence on a shot of something someone else did. Lighting perhaps, but I feel as if I should be voting on whether the x-ray tech. did a good job.
I've left a couple comments to that nature, hopefully not hurting anyones feelings - I do give kudos to proper light usage (if applicable) since that is an aspect of the photo.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
10/15/2003 03:45:11 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by LucidLotus:
I've found I'm pretty tolerant of most shots, but the ones I find hard to vote on are the x-ray, sonogram, words on a page ones. It becomes more dynamic when there are props of any sort as well though, so that changes my perception.
I just feel that there has been little photographer influence on a shot of something someone else did. Lighting perhaps, but I feel as if I should be voting on whether the x-ray tech. did a good job.
I've left a couple comments to that nature, hopefully not hurting anyones feelings - I do give kudos to proper light usage (if applicable) since that is an aspect of the photo.
Thoughts? |
This is another of my pet peeves... using existing artwork. As it says in the rules, it can be artwork by the photographer, this is still not allowed. |
|
|
|
10/15/2003 03:56:06 PM · #33 |
I don't think I have too many problems with subject matters, though I have to say that pictures of motherboards in every challenge is starting to be get on my nerves.
I don't like to see horizons that are crooked. Like Kiwi, I also don't like photos that are so small that I can't see any detail.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2003 10:12:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
This is another of my pet peeves... using existing artwork. As it says in the rules, it can be artwork by the photographer, this is still not allowed. |
Rut roh, help me understand this please. IF the photographer does the artwork and then shoots it, it IS allowed but if they take shots of exisiting artwork (like the Mona Lisa or such) it is NOT allowed?
Deannda
Need to know |
|
|
|
10/15/2003 10:16:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
This is another of my pet peeves... using existing artwork. As it says in the rules, it can be artwork by the photographer, this is still not allowed. |
Rut roh, help me understand this please. IF the photographer does the artwork and then shoots it, it IS allowed but if they take shots of exisiting artwork (like the Mona Lisa or such) it is NOT allowed?
Deannda
Need to know |
Direct quote from the rules (emphasis added by me):
* Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork.
End quote.
To me this means that you could take a shot of Mona's smile but not the whole portrait. It also means you can use part of your own artwork but not a photo of the entire piece!
Council members, if I'm wrong, please correct me!
Message edited by author 2003-10-15 22:17:59.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2003 10:33:32 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by toocool:
Direct quote from the rules (emphasis added by me):
* Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork.
End quote.
To me this means that you could take a shot of Mona's smile but not the whole portrait. It also means you can use part of your own artwork but not a photo of the entire piece!
Council members, if I'm wrong, please correct me! |
Thank you for that, I must have missed that. I just sent in a DQ on her shot asking for a either a removal or a verification that it's legal. Dang, I hope it's legal, she's doing better than I did on my first challenge. Oh well, if not, she'll live and can enter the next open challenge.
Deannda
I gotta go re-read those rules |
|
|
|
10/16/2003 12:35:59 AM · #37 |
Hi-Jacking of forums ;)lol
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 01:30:10 AM · #38 |
Subjects being lit by blue light.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 07:00:33 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Subjects being lit by blue light. |
Even if it is for the Halloween challenge?? Wouldn't that be an exception?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 08:20:47 AM · #40 |
I used to have a real pet peave for all the flower macros. Then I started taking them. I agree with Kiwiness' reference to very small photos. Some of them would be pretty good if they were "normal" size photos. I don't like pet photos that are snapshotty. It doesn't take a whole lot to make them be a little more polished, especially when you are posing them already.
I've seen a lot of shots in the past month or so that are trying to capture a shot that cameras are not well suited to take where there is a dark foreground and very bright background, like a dark room with large windows and its very sunny out. I stay away from these personally just because I cannot expose them properly. I feel that there is a delicate balance there, and that conditions do exist to make the shot succeed. There are also times when the shot just simply can't be pulled off without extraneous measures.
Bob
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 09:11:08 AM · #41 |
| peeve: people who put the title of the challenge in their photos. I KNOW WHICH CHALLENGE I'M VOTING ON, NOW TITLE YOUR PHOTO SOMETHING ELSE! *grrr* ;) |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 09:33:52 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
peeve: people who put the title of the challenge in their photos. I KNOW WHICH CHALLENGE I'M VOTING ON, NOW TITLE YOUR PHOTO SOMETHING ELSE! *grrr* ;) |
agreed ;{
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 04:19:51 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by timmi:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Subjects being lit by blue light. |
Even if it is for the Halloween challenge?? Wouldn't that be an exception? |
If it's a good shot I'm not going to vote against the blue lit background, but just tired of seeing it sooooooo much. Let's see some orange,red, green, yellow lit subjects.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 04:27:32 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
peeve: people who put the title of the challenge in their photos. I KNOW WHICH CHALLENGE I'M VOTING ON, NOW TITLE YOUR PHOTO SOMETHING ELSE! *grrr* ;) |
People titling photos "untitled" in a themed challenge where the challenge topic is automatically the title of the photo unless superceded by something else. |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 05:08:12 PM · #45 |
Cats ;)
Natator
Personal skills include: Stating the bleeding obvious ;)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2003 06:05:14 PM · #46 |
What BUGS me are all those self portraits, like this one I did of myself |
|
|
|
11/06/2003 06:48:19 PM · #47 |
| My pet photo peeve is when people assume that if a photo contains a subject that Setzler has either done in the past, present, or future that the previously mentioned photo is either his or a very bad copy. And no, this does not stem from jealously, it is a fact. Thankfully I do not have my head in the clouds where Setz's butt is the sun. This also doesnt mean that I have a current photo that uses a technique or subject he has done and being attacked for it. It's just something that happens as frequently as cat photos! |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 11:24:31 PM · #48 |
POLARIZE!!!!!
I have seen so many photos that a $15 polarizer would have made it a million dollar shot.
If a camera cannot take filters,use sunglasses :)
Filters are not evil.
Message edited by author 2003-11-10 23:58:33. |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 11:46:56 PM · #49 |
Since it's the Rant forum, we act with impunity.
Originally posted by jaimeegrl:
POLORIZE!!!!!
I have seem so many photo's that a $15 polorizer would have made it a million dollar shot. |
If your filter says "polorizer" on it, you might want to spring for a slightly better-quality brand. Look for one that says "polarizer."
Pet peeve: Bad spelling and grammar in titles. Lazy typos any child could have caught before pressing the "submit" button. Posts misspelling words the author presumably sees in print every day (that polarizer filter has the word spelled right, and it's three inches from your face when you use it). I vote photos down when the photographer hasn't even taken the time to read the title to make sure it's not gibberish.
There is no "a" in "definitely." There is no apostrophe in "their." And there is only one "a" in "challenge." When I see "this is definately they're best challange entry yet," it makes me weep for the future.
Seriously, how anyone can type "challange" on a webpage that contains the word "challenge" in at least three places in the top inch and a half is a mystery for the ages.
-grammar police
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 11:50:26 PM · #50 |
|
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: 03/12/2025 05:43:05 PM EDT.
