Forums › Forums › Farktography General Chat › This week’s contest › 01-09-08 – Utility Poles
- This topic has 79 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
FutherMucker.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2008 at 1:06 am #14481
sleeping
ParticipantI would have called the one on the right a tower. .. But thats just my opinion… Feel free to disagree
[quote:b5cacfb04a=”
Mr.BobDobalita”]SLEEPING: In my opinion, they’re all power POLES… not towers.Hmm, one for, one against. Any more thoughts, or is my vote going to decide the matter? 😉
January 10, 2008 at 1:08 am #14482schnee
ParticipantThanks for the wording on the headline.
/I have no musical reference to give
January 10, 2008 at 1:17 am #14483Elsinore
KeymasterHmm, one for, one against. Any more thoughts, or is my vote going to decide the matter? 😉
The rightmost one is towing the pylon line, but I think it’s ok. The field of them look wooden and thinner like poles and less like hulking towers/pylons.
It might be worth explicitly pointing out in the first post of the thread that bridge abutments, pilings, interstate sign poles, etc, are excluded.
Well, the headline and description both mention life on the grid, so I think it’s already pretty explicitly stated.
And honestly not to pick details, but would a pole with a light such as above where the light was non-functional or otherwise turned off be accepted? Or a cropped version of the above pole where the light was out of frame?
If it’s an obvious streetlight in the frame, I really don’t think it qualifies, sorry. Now if you took a shot of a wooden pole that happened to have a streetlight on top and you only photographed the pole itself without the streetlight in the frame, I think you’re ok. It’s not like anyone could prove it was a telephone pole and not a streetlight pole if the streetlight isn’t visible.
January 10, 2008 at 1:37 am #14484Choc-Ful-A
ParticipantMy assumption was that any streetlights had to be cropped out. One of the photos I’m planning to submit included a streetlight as well as utility (power) poles. But I was able to crop it down to meet the contest criteria.
Also, my assumption was that combo poles, ones with power/cable and lights, were out even in they were not illuminated. That was a challenge in this area since in most cases here one pole does anything and everything. But searching is half the fun, eh? 🙂
January 10, 2008 at 2:24 am #14485soosh
ParticipantHmm, one for, one against. Any more thoughts, or is my vote going to decide the matter? 😉
The rightmost one is towing the pylon line, but I think it’s ok. The field of them look wooden and thinner like poles and less like hulking towers/pylons.
It might be worth explicitly pointing out in the first post of the thread that bridge abutments, pilings, interstate sign poles, etc, are excluded.
Well, the headline and description both mention life on the grid, so I think it’s already pretty explicitly stated.
And honestly not to pick details, but would a pole with a light such as above where the light was non-functional or otherwise turned off be accepted? Or a cropped version of the above pole where the light was out of frame?
If it’s an obvious streetlight in the frame, I really don’t think it qualifies, sorry. Now if you took a shot of a wooden pole that happened to have a streetlight on top and you only photographed the pole itself without the streetlight in the frame, I think you’re ok. It’s not like anyone could prove it was a telephone pole and not a streetlight pole if the streetlight isn’t visible.
No need to say sorry. I was asking so that I could weed through my photos and pick ones that did qualify. All week I had been thinking of the contest in terms of just poles that weren’t only streetlights, until I read it a little closer today. I’m just glad I thought about it before I started posting my photos.
January 10, 2008 at 2:29 am #14486KeymasterI like what you’ve posted 🙂
January 10, 2008 at 2:35 am #14487swampa
ParticipantSorry to be a picky person, but aren’t soosh’s first and third entry invalid as they have a greater then 2 pixel border around them?
January 10, 2008 at 2:37 am #14488ParticipantThanks, Elsinore!
January 10, 2008 at 2:38 am #14489KeymasterThat’s a direct scan from film. That’s part of the film frame.
January 10, 2008 at 2:38 am #14490ParticipantThe border is the straight scan of the medium-format film. It’s not a photoshop-added effect.
January 10, 2008 at 2:45 am #14491jpatten
ParticipantMan I have spent the entire week with my camera trying to watch the road, AND utility poles for anything interesting. I got what I think are some of my best.. One I really liked, I looked again and oops, it has a light so I had to drop it
January 10, 2008 at 2:51 am #14492ParticipantI know it was the film frame, but as it isn’t the focus of the photo, it seems like a way to create border that would otherwise be invalid (and also unfair to those of us that shoot digital as we can’t do anything similar)
January 10, 2008 at 2:52 am #14493ParticipantMy questions could all be summed up as differentiating between *utilitarian* poles and *utility* poles.
I should think less.
January 10, 2008 at 2:57 am #14494ParticipantI know it was the film frame, but as it isn’t the focus of the photo, it seems like a way to create border that would otherwise be invalid (and also unfair to those of us that shoot digital as we can’t do anything similar)
Well, if you use a Holga, for instance, you’re going to get a blurry vignetted effect that can’t be duplicated by a digital camera (outisde of using a lensbaby). If you’re using a digital and I’m using a fifty year-old medium format camera, I can’t capture an image that needs a shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second. Someone using film can make a double-exposure and that would be allowed, but I don’t believe that combining two digital images would be.
People with dSLRs can get more selective depth of field than people with digicams. A f/1.4 lens can take a photo in light that a f/4.5 can’t. Unless we’re all going to be bound to using the same equipment, there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to whatever you use. I can’t run out and take a photo on Wednesday morning with my medium format camera for a contest that afternoon, because I have to mail out my film 900 miles away to get it developed.
When I have displayed and sold these types of medium-format photos, I have them mounted so that the frame of the film is visible. It is a deliberate choice to include it, but that’s the look I’m going for.
January 10, 2008 at 3:18 am #14495ParticipantWell, if you use a Holga, for instance, you’re going to get a blurry vignetted effect that can’t be duplicated by a digital camera (outisde of using a lensbaby). If you’re using a digital and I’m using a fifty year-old medium format camera, I can’t capture an image that needs a shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second. Someone using film can make a double-exposure and that would be allowed, but I don’t believe that combining two digital images would be.
People with dSLRs can get more selective depth of field than people with digicams. A f/1.4 lens can take a photo in light that a f/4.5 can’t. Unless we’re all going to be bound to using the same equipment, there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to whatever you use. I can’t run out and take a photo on Wednesday morning with my medium format camera for a contest that afternoon, because I have to mail out my film 900 miles away to get it developed.
Doh! I tried to pick my words so that it wouldn’t look like I comparing digital to film. Didn’t work!
I realise that there advantages/disadvantages of both but I thought Farktography was trying to be fair to all involved. For example, in the Holga contest, the digital users were permitted to use a plugin for that contest. I’m not advocating that we all have the same equipment, just that everyone has a fair chance (you don’t need a special camera to capture the themes that are coming up soon. In the case of The Funnay, I wouldn’t be surprised to see several mobile phone photos)
When I have displayed and sold these types of medium-format photos, I have them mounted so that the frame of the film is visible. It is a deliberate choice to include it, but that’s the look I’m going for.
I think it is a great look and it really adds to the photos. Thats the problem here though, it is providing an advantage. At some point you are converting it from film to a digital file and you are choosing to leave the border there instead of cropping it in to the photo only.
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘01-09-08 – Utility Poles’ is closed to new replies.