Forums › Forums › Farktography General Chat › This week’s contest › 11-04-09 – Roy G. Biv
- This topic has 109 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by thepostess.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2009 at 4:10 am #24865lokisbongParticipant
I would suggest there’s an argument to be made that “rainbows,” would include rainbow colored items as long as it’s all the colors and not just red or blue or whatever alone.
Well that open it up just a bit. Not that I have any rainbow colored stuff here but that seems to be a common kite coloring theme.
November 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm #24866thepostessParticipantWould something like this be acceptable?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thepostess/3916533941/in/set-72157621224758307/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thepostess/3937702240/in/set-72157621224758307/
Just tossing around ideas in my head.
November 3, 2009 at 5:08 pm #24867cameraflageParticipantOf course, it figures that I’ve used my best rainbow shots in other contests.
November 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm #24868U-ManParticipantRanger Joe. Ditto. I have one corn-field rainbow left.
thepostess – I’m not the boss but the second one works for me. I know it doesn’t really show diffraction, but it squeezes between the rules. What say you oriodid?
November 3, 2009 at 6:34 pm #24869nobigdealParticipantRanger Joe. Ditto. I have one corn-field rainbow left.
thepostess – I’m not the boss but the second one works for me. I know it doesn’t really show diffraction, but it squeezes between the rules. What say you oriodid?
I think they both work too.
Elsinore will have to make the call though. I think orionid is gonna be away for a bit.
I got nothin for this week either so I am hoping for a bit of latitude on the the description.
November 3, 2009 at 9:06 pm #24870ElsinoreKeymasterI’m of the mindset that a non-refractive/non-diffractive rainbow would be in keeping with the description, so the colored water is fine with me since it shows all (or most) of the rainbow colors. If it were just to depict a single color, that wouldn’t be ok. That said, I’m not sure how to rule on the single-colored-light-through-a-prism question. It’s only a single color and doesn’t really depict the whole ROYGBIV thing, but I guess that would depict diffraction/refraction (whichever it is).
November 3, 2009 at 9:14 pm #24871nobigdealParticipantFrom orionids original post:
Prisms, CD’s, opals, some road signs when they catch the sun just right, “homemade” rainbows with the lawn sprinkler, those rediculous shiny stickers in the $.25 machine at the supermarket, spectrographs…. Basically anything that separates white light into some or all of it’s parts.November 3, 2009 at 9:27 pm #24872U-ManParticipantI don’t think the single color refraction pic I described fits. Some sort of rainbow is needed. My 2 cents.
November 3, 2009 at 10:56 pm #24873sleepingParticipantI guess that would depict diffraction/refraction (whichever it is).
Isn’t that kind of a problem for the theme description? A lot of rainbow effects (including the actual ones in the sky) are refraction, not diffraction.
November 3, 2009 at 11:16 pm #24874KestranaParticipantMy 2 entries this week will come from scans of old school photos I took with a 1972 Kodak Instamatic unless we agree that rainbow colored objects are ok :/ which we can totally do by all means, I just wish I knew how to clean the photos up more because naturally they aren’t the best clarity. But, they are really cool.
November 4, 2009 at 12:28 am #24875linguineParticipantMy 2 entries this week will come from scans of old school photos I took with a 1972 Kodak Instamatic unless we agree that rainbow colored objects are ok :/ which we can totally do by all means, I just wish I knew how to clean the photos up more because naturally they aren’t the best clarity. But, they are really cool.
If the photo is focusing on the rainbow colors on the object I’d think that would be ok since it would be along the lines of the postesses color drop in water.
November 4, 2009 at 12:37 am #24876ElsinoreKeymasterWell, from the original theme discussion, a picture/painting/non-refractive rainbow wouldn’t necessarily fit either. However, I’m still inclined to include non-refractive depictions of rainbows, since the way the actual theme description is worded could be argued to include it, and allowing it would open things up more for people.
Any objections to that plan?
In other news, I miss orionid 🙁
November 4, 2009 at 12:56 am #24877nobigdealParticipantWell, from the original theme discussion, a picture/painting/non-refractive rainbow wouldn’t necessarily fit either. However, I’m still inclined to include non-refractive depictions of rainbows, since the way the actual theme description is worded could be argued to include it, and allowing it would open things up more for people.
Any objections to that plan?
Sounds good to me, you’ll probably get alot of those shots anyway.
I think this is going to be contest with some spectacular shots.
In other news, I miss orionid 🙁
Me too. But I think he’s where he needs to be right now.
November 4, 2009 at 1:22 am #24878ElsinoreKeymasterSounds good to me, you’ll probably get alot of those shots anyway.
That’s kind of what I’m thinking. And there’s a bit of wiggle room depending on how the comma separated parts of the description are interpreted. On a related note, maybe we should reword the description to include refraction? According to Wikipedia, a rainbow effect could be caused by either, depending on the circumstances (and I don’t pretend to remotely understand that level of physics).
In other news, I miss orionid 🙁
Me too. But I think he’s where he needs to be right now.
Oh, I absolutely agree.
November 4, 2009 at 1:24 am #24879U-ManParticipantI agree with opening it up as much as possible.
/I missed something here. Where did our submariner go? Can you direct me to a thread?
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘11-04-09 – Roy G. Biv’ is closed to new replies.