01-09-08 – Utility Poles – Page 5 – Its not photography, its Farktography

This topic has 79 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by FutherMucker.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 80 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →

Author

Posts
January 10, 2008 at 3:32 am #14496

soosh
Participant

I get what you’re saying, but I disagree that it’s an unfair advantage to leave the frame in. I have both digital and film cameras. I have something like 30 cameras all told of various types, from a dSLR to very very early box cameras to toy things with plastic lenses. I use specific ones to achieve a specific look. I use different types of film, use outdated film on purpose when it gives me the sloppy unpredictable results that I’m after. I think of it more like if someone thought it was unfair that one person had a very long telephoto lens that allowed a compressed effect that they couldn’t get with the 18-55 lens that came with their camera from Costco. If what you have doesn’t allow you to get the image you want, then you have to get something different. If somebody had a Hasselblad and came in here and was putting in photos taken with it, I might think they have an advantage because they have a camera I can only lust after at this point. Doesn’t mean they can’t enter their photos.

January 10, 2008 at 3:40 am #14497

soosh
Participant

Here’s an example of something that you can’t do with a digital camera, yet I believe should be allowed to be entered if the content of the photo was in line with the parameters of the contest.

You can take a Holga and spool 35mm film in it and get an image like this (not mine, found with a google image search

Now this is a unique photographic image that isn’t a photoshop, and can’t be done with a digital camera. But it’s a very pure photograph.

January 10, 2008 at 3:50 am #14498

jpatten
Participant

that is a cool picture… and you’re right, Cant Do it with the digital, except in post-processing

January 10, 2008 at 3:52 am #14499

swampa
Participant

But it isn’t the look of the photo that is the issue. It is the border around the outside that isn’t in the originally composed photo that is (if it was created with an insert into a filter holder then I wouldn’t mind as much as it would be part of the original composition).

The photo you just posted, the effect was planned from the beginning and not added when converting from film to digital.

Also, I could possibly do that with my digital camera as it does allow me to combine photos similar to photoshop but I would consider it cheating to use that as it would be unfair to most other people. Or going old-school and just put an insert into a filter holder with the black dots on it (could probably put fake burns on it too)

/If someone was using one of the latest Hasselblad camera to enter then I would laugh my butt off. Using a >22mp camera to create a 640px wide photo – talk about overkill!

January 10, 2008 at 3:56 am #14500

Elsinore
Keymaster

Since scanning slide film and negative frames is completely legal for Farktography, I don’t think I’ve ever considered that the frame edges showing would be an issue since it’s a different medium. I guess I can see that it allows the film photographer to present their images in a very different way than the digital folks, but as has already been discussed, there are going to be inherent advantages and disadvantages to both digital and film. Maybe we should open up a separate discussion of this in the Pub and Grill forum? My understanding of the rules as currently written is that the photos in question are legal. That doesn’t mean they are written in stone, but I think further discussion in this thread is a little out of place.

January 10, 2008 at 3:59 am #14501

kmmontandon
Participant

Sorry 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?

I’m more wondering if the “totem pole” entry isn’t invalid because the subject matter isn’t actually a functioning utility pole, but only formerly one. My first post was deleted by the mods for that reason, don’t see why others should get cut any slack.

January 10, 2008 at 4:04 am #14502

soosh
Participant

The photo you just posted, the effect was planned from the beginning and not added when converting from film to digital.

It’s the same thing, though. when I loaded my Ricoh up with film, I knew I was going to end up with an image that included the film border. That was part of the point of using medium-format rather than my digital.

If I had a Hasselblad 500c, you can be damn sure I’d enter photos taken with it. I’ve got a $1500 Canon L telephoto lens that I’ve entered farktography contests with, and I’ve entered contests with photos taken on my dSLR through a modified Holga lens.

January 10, 2008 at 4:09 am #14503

Elsinore
Keymaster

I’m more wondering if the “totem pole” entry isn’t invalid because the subject matter isn’t actually a functioning utility pole, but only formerly one. My first post was deleted by the mods for that reason, don’t see why others should get cut any slack.

The totem pole pictures includes other utility poles and electrical or telephone lines. Be that as it may, your photo is back.

January 10, 2008 at 4:11 am #14504

soosh
Participant

Sorry 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?

I’m more wondering if the “totem pole” entry isn’t invalid because the subject matter isn’t actually a functioning utility pole, but only formerly one. My first post was deleted by the mods for that reason, don’t see why others should get cut any slack.

I honestly went back and forth on that one myself, but there is, in the photo, a functioning power line and pole. I really wanted to use this image

But chose not to since it doesn’t have a functioning pole in it.

Also, there are other photos which show a downed utility pole in the weeds in the contest.

I’ve definitely stretched the interpretations of farktography contests in the past when I felt they were more open to creativity under the wording. I think that’s part of the fun of these contests. This contest, however, was narrowly defined and I did my best to stay within those definitions.

January 10, 2008 at 4:55 am #14505

FutherMucker
Participant

revealing limitless variation and a stark reminder of life on the grid. Difficulty: no streetlights, pylons, or towers .

When I am to enter my photo soon, I can hope this words are true. My image is reminder on this. Utilize now in different way. If variation really is “limitless”, I will hope that it’s OK.

January 10, 2008 at 5:08 am #14506

Elsinore
Keymaster

kmmontandon‘s recycled poles count, so no reason yours shouldn’t, FutherMucker

January 10, 2008 at 5:32 am #14507

FutherMucker
Participant

Good ! I am glad not to fail two times in just one month of contest !

Here is different angle to show is really utility pole. The zoom and low angle make entry image seem as much smaller pole.

January 10, 2008 at 9:26 am #14508

FutherMucker
Participant

Schnee, Super image. You have vote from me. Of course many other have vote from me, but your image make a special impact on me. Well done !!. SUPER !! I am really hope that you do well on this contest ! It really is great image !

January 10, 2008 at 1:05 pm #14509

Mr.BobDobalita
Participant

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.

Did you all see the one photo where someone cropped out the light, but there was still a shadow on the side of the house? I LoLed at that one.

January 10, 2008 at 2:16 pm #14510

jpatten
Participant

I did notice that one, wonder if its going to get knocked out.
I am doing bettter this contest than previous ones, but …. not as well as I thought I would
Author

Posts