August 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm #1683ElsinoreKeymaster
Pictures taken from an elevated location, looking down on the subject.
Thanks to bucky_bacon for the theme suggestion!September 4, 2009 at 9:01 pm #24097
Okay, looks like I get Nitpicky Question Number 1: How elevated are we talking? To clarify the meaning of my question, I have a picture I took straight down on a couple of baby sheep, but my elevation was about 4.5 feet. I figure the angle is true to the contest, but the elevation maybe not so much. I have a number of pix where the elevation is obviously not in question and you know you’re looking down even if it isn’t straight down, and I figure they’ll count, right? But I was not so sure of my lamb pic.September 5, 2009 at 12:53 pm #24098
I was getting around to mentioning this, kat, so thanks for asking! Now, for what I had in mind for the contest it’s anything that’s visually obvious as being shot at a downward angle. Regardless of how high up you are, or how narrow that angle is, if it looks as though you were at some elevation above the subject (not necessarily directly over) then it’s good with me. So you could use your example of being slightly over the sheep or (for example) someone that’s 300 ft above a city looking down over miles of buildings.
Now, as as soon as I read back the theme description I figured that most would interpret that as directly above. So it does not have to be by my standards, but it’s in the eyes and hands of the voters so ymmv.September 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm #24099ElsinoreKeymaster
We could add verbiage that height and angle don’t matter as long as the camera’s POV is obviously above the subject?September 5, 2009 at 3:57 pm #24100
Definitely. That’s my fault for being a fan of the brevity. If you’re a bit more of the wordsmith, well then by all means. Hopefully the general idea makes more sense now (?).September 5, 2009 at 7:02 pm #24101
Thanks, bucky, that opens it up somewhat for me. I have some pix snapped from an airplane (small airplane, so reasonably cool pix) but other than that it’s difficult around here to get much elevation. Flood plain and all that, donchaknow. 😉
/besides, i have recently mused on the fact that most of my “odd perspective” shots are just “from below” shots =P … so this is good for me; forces me to work on that.September 5, 2009 at 9:47 pm #24102
*rubs hands menacingly* TLA is almost complete. Turns out building a model rocket capable of lifting a digital camera is quite an engineering challenge. 2.6 inches in diameter and over six feet tall, but just about ready for fins and paint. Now I just need to find a photogenic field that’s large enough to support launch.
/TLA means “Three-Letter Agency”September 6, 2009 at 2:57 am #24103
you could get epic pix, you could get pix of tree branches, you could get arrested… this plan has everything!September 6, 2009 at 3:22 am #24104
I’m hoping for all of those.September 8, 2009 at 1:19 am #24105
I saw this a few days ago and instantly thought of you. Hope you have as much luck.September 8, 2009 at 2:26 am #24106
I saw this a few days ago and instantly thought of you. Hope you have as much luck.
By far the coolest thing I’ve seen this week. Maybe even longer. I must find out how he sealed the camera/box combo and tracked it…..September 11, 2009 at 9:04 pm #24107
*rubs hands menacingly* TLA is almost complete.
So, it looks like I pulled a NASA. Or a Lockheed-Martin depending which parts of the space program you follow. After I finished building the engine mount/tail fin assembly, I was a little concerned about the weight. So, I wieghed all the pieces before final assembly, sat down, did some rocket-science math, and determined that with my power-plant of choice, TLA would be able to reach a maximum altitude of zero. So much for my planned debut launch this weekend. I do have a few other tricks up my sleeve, yet (and I’ve already ordered the parts I need to setup the rocket with four times the thrust and a max altitude of 750 feet).September 11, 2009 at 11:33 pm #24108wrayvynnParticipant
So, I have this funky lens…
It requires a circular crop to get rid of the halo around the image. Does that fly in farktography rules?September 12, 2009 at 2:25 am #24109sooshParticipant
why not just leave it as is? I think it looks kind of nifty. or make it a square shot around the halo. If you crop it so that only the image is viewable, it’ll likely lose some of the effect.
what lens is it, by the way?September 12, 2009 at 5:49 am #24110lokisbongParticipant
I’m no expert but I agree with soosh. square crop at most.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.