April 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm #1294
Subject can only appear in the reflection, whether it be in glass, water, mirrors or the cat’s eyeballs. Difficulty: No people.
Theme suggestion thanks to XenPixApril 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm #16270kmmontandonParticipant
Should this be labeled as “Reflections II,” since we’ve already done it before?April 11, 2008 at 7:52 pm #16271
We may want to title it slightly differently to prevent confusion with the other Reflections theme, however, it’s not just a repeat since this one requires the subject is only shown in reflection and people aren’t allowed. Any suggestions on revising the name just a bit, XenPix?April 12, 2008 at 5:15 am #16272corsec67Participant
Does the difficulty mean that the subject, even if only seen in a reflection, can’t be a person?April 12, 2008 at 6:57 am #16273
Does the difficulty mean that the subject, even if only seen in a reflection, can’t be a person?
Difficulty: No people
I’d say yes 😉April 29, 2008 at 9:01 am #16274XenPixParticipant
No people! No people at all! 😀
How about a new title of “A moment of reflection” to differentiate from the original, or is that still to close to what we had before? I can’t think of any good synonyms for reflect right now. 🙁April 30, 2008 at 2:38 am #16275lokisbongParticipant
whoa. this is gonna be a tough one. 🙂April 30, 2008 at 2:51 am #16276
How about a new title of “A moment of reflection” to differentiate from the original, or is that still to close to what we had before? I can’t think of any good synonyms for reflect right now. 🙁
That works. Unless you think of anything different that you’d prefer in the next day or so, I’ll change it.May 16, 2008 at 3:08 am #16277
Just how strict is the “No people” difficulty going to be called. I have a reflection of a city skyline that is nice. However, there are some tiny people in it. The buildings are clearly the subject. Yet, there are those pesky pedestrians in there. If it is a strict no people = no people I’d be cool with that.
/Probably too late in the game to flex the rules, but I thought that I’d throw it out there.May 16, 2008 at 7:23 am #16278XenPixParticipant
No people = no people.
Can you crop them out and still retain the essence of the image?May 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm #16279
No people = no people.
Can you crop them out and still retain the essence of the image?
I can crop out the recognizable people under the Chicago Bean. But there are some tiny folks watching the skating rink bhind me.
As I said before, if this doesn’t work just say the word and I won’t use it. No problem. In order to decrease controversy, maybe you should law down the law and stick to no people = no people.
btw – that photo was taken without a tripod. The camera was on top of a concrete post. 🙂May 16, 2008 at 4:48 pm #16280
I think I’d say at first glance with the way you’ve cropped it, I really have to search for the people to the point that they’re absolutely inconsequential to my eye and the composition. I wouldn’t be inclined to call for disqualification, but I do see the argument that sometimes it’s easier to blanket say “no people”. I guess in this case, when people are so tiny that they aren’t even noticeable, it’s something I might even miss that there are people in there in the first place. It’s a cool shot either way, and not quite like every other bean pic I’ve seen 😉
Not sure how much that clears or muddies the waters 😆 I guess I’d defer to XenPix, but my immediate reaction is that the people are pretty insubstantial.May 16, 2008 at 8:57 pm #16281
Beans, beans they’re good for your heart……May 17, 2008 at 8:31 am #16282sooshParticipant
damn. one of my favorite photographs would be great for this theme, but I used it for Streetlights, and sadly, it didn’t do that great there.May 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm #16283simdan42Participant
Can we start a betting pool of how may Bean shots there will be?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.