[anneb]

I would say LED’s are right out.
They are not Gas discharge lights at all.

Now if we were saying “anything BUT incandescent”
Technically a Camera flash is a Gas dishcharge light. I think Argon, but i could be mistaken.

Read up on how a flash works… Its actually kinda cool how they get that massive voltage/current spike from a simple AA battery

I get the LED thing in terms of my camping headlamp, that is SO not in theme- but these new ‘bar lights’ showing up in places like Lowe’s, that are really LED’s- I’m dubious I could actually tell from a distance, at night, etc. (yes, I have the chemistry grades to prove it 😉 ). Strikes me that if an LED is really pretending to be neon, it should be ok to use.

As for flashes- I’ve heard of people disassembling disposables to grab the flashes — after waiting an appropriate day or two for the power discharge– and using them for funky costumes. Messing with one’s been on my “Copious Free Time To Do List” for a couple years now.

[anneb]

Well, better late than never-

The problem with orange as a theme is that there’s so much of it around here- it’s not a limiting factor, I could do just about anything!

That, and a last minute change-of-third-shot scramble tonight…

I gotta admit, I totally LOVE all the orange up there tonight! I think I’m in heaven!

[anneb]

Both the old and new rules state that cropping is allowed, so have no fear there.

Cool- my concern stemmed from the simplification, “just don’t allow removing…” without the full rules context, I was worried that was taking something currently quite clear, and muddying up it a bit.

The old rules allowed for brightness/contrast adjustments, and the new rules will also allow the gradient correction you mention, so in that regard, you’ll have more freedom. Spot corrections will be allowed, but not more grandiose removals/additions. The only ambiguity in the new rules I see is where to draw the line between spot “corrections” and spot “additions/removals”, though that’s why the inclusion of examples like removing utility poles or lines. Hopefully that demonstrates the spirit and overall direction of the guidelines.

The line I find helpful is “if I had just taken my camera out of the box, and it was perfectly clean, would that smudge be there?” For me, that’d cover sensor dandruff, but not lens flare (which is mostly a bonus, IMO, not something to remove)

The “lone hair across the nose of a model” example really falls into gray. (1). Me, I would be more inclined to leave it, unless we were specifically doing a portraiture theme. Still, it’s not always easy to control for, and I can see why people would want that allowed. While I don’t think it’s worth splitting hairs on that specific example, it does tangle things up a bit, and finding the break point between ok and not ok a bit hairier.

Yay about gradients being clearly ok, now- that will cover many instances where you’d want to be doing selective dodging.

[1]Except gray hairs. I have no gray hairs. Not a one. They’re just really, really light brown.

[anneb]

Folks, thanks for putting all the time and effort into bashing this out. I can appreciate the headaches of getting a consensus with a large group, especially when everyone’s personal style comes in to play.

I’m for the spirit of the changes, wholeheartedly. I think they do clear up a lot of ambiguity. I’ve voted yes, because I think on the whole, that they’re an improvement on what we have now- but I agree with the folks asking for some clarifications, and I’d love to have them addressed.

Maybe we can just say “Compositional changes that involve adding or removing elements of the photo are bad.” Doesn’t change the meaning, just is more clear. Don’t think we’d need to resubmit the whole thing all over again for that reason.

Yeah, that seems a clearer to me.

Not entirely to me- cropping is removing elements of a photo that are “bad” or at least, just don’t belong there, too!

I’m not overly wedded to the 8×12 form factor of my CCD, but even if I stuck with 8×12, may I crop? Or may I only post full-frames or full-frames corrected for off-kilter shooting angles?

Also, while this is at the top of people’s thoughts-
Gradients across the whole photo on layers such as brightness/color. Ok or not?

Like with white balance correction, it’s going to apply to every pixel in the image, just obviously some pixels are more affected than others.
(Since I’m starting to play with that a little bit for light correction, I’d love to know whether or not to have that to work with… hoping the answer to this clears rather than muddies the waters)

Thanks!

[anneb]

Wow- checking over the archive, the last ‘blue’ theme, there were a lot of shots of sky– I can see the argument for not using sky as the dominant blue in the photo, especially on the heels of all these flying things today in… well… sky.

OTOH, I’m glad I already submitted this one for a diff. contest-
I’d be frustrated I couldn’t use it, even though the sky has more non-blue than the rest of the photo! 😉

Well, off to play with blue things this week!

(flickr TOS link back to shot’s page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/annebphoto/318951485/in/set-72157594335527744)

[anneb]

Back in town now- but I had a TERRIBLE time with fireworks this year- I’ve never felt quite so frustrated with the experience! We had thunderstorms plow through a couple hours before the fireworks, but it was incredibly humid- my glasses fogged just by me being outside, and I spent enough time over the course of the evening just wiping them off. By the time the fireworks started, it looked like we were getting a bit of ground fog, too. Another point to consider- this wasn’t the National Mall display downtown, where I’d be taking them from far off– this was the local neighborhood one, so everything was smaller scale, from the fireworks to the altitude to my distance from them.

(The other problem with the humidity is that my D70s gets cranky when it gets humid out. I wasn’t willing to do anything to change that, however.)

End result, my first shots ended up looking more like glowing balls of plasma than fireworks. I started messing around with aperture and shutter speed, to see if I could do anything to salvage the situation. d: If I shortened the exposure, I didn’t get the glowing plasma clouds, but ended up with something that makes you think “Hedgehog” more than “firework” — small, prickly orbs. I did get some, just never more than one or two together.

A couple of my most frustrating examples are here:

http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/anneb/Local/BadFireworks-0764.jpg.html
http://www.ooblick.com/gallery/v/anneb/Local/BadFireworks-0699.jpg.html

Now, this is the DC area, and I can expect it to be muggy on July 4th, but it’s never been that bad, and I’ve not had this sort of trouble before. I figure tho I can well expect it’ll eventually do this to me again. Anybody got any good ideas besides “move away from the swampland. Maybe try the desert?”

[anneb]

But at the end of it all, when we see what everyone else has done, and we’re curious if we guessed the mystery phrase right- how will we KNOW?

[anneb]

If we are going to talk about levels I think I would be about a level 2 photographer I think. Maybe lower.I am not sure I have this bokeh thing right but I am getting votes so I must not be that far off.The one pic I thought would get the votes is yet again the lowest vote getter. And the highest is the one I didn’t take on purpose.Go figure. 🙂

/metoo just about every time.

JUST when you think you got it, the universe, in all its fickle-tude, changes the rules.

[anneb]

Ok, posted! Not sure where on the line I am standing, either- I wasn’t able to make anything else work that I liked as a photograph this week, though. Nothing I’d like to put up in public with my name on, at any rate. (-;

Will not be crushed if it’s pulled, or disappointed if it’s left in, either.

[anneb]

(sorry to ruin the fun, ‘mofo)

LOOK AT WHAT YOU SCORNED! LOOK AT IT!

You’re monsters! All of you, MONSTERS!

*runs off crying*

(note: this is a joke, and I’m deeply appreciative that rules exist and are enforced. I just wanted to post it somewhere)

ZOMG, I totally love it!

[SO not worthy]

[anneb]

The next question is, do I have to set up a display, when a perfectly good display in situ was already provided by someone else?

Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/annebphoto/2338500148/

Granted, I, the finder, was not the curator who exhibited the item in such a prominent, accessible way. Presumably, the curator did not so much ‘find’ the object, per se, unlike myself. I’m just not sure that if I had brought this home, I could do nearly the justice in display as the curator has done.

Meanwhile, off to clear some exhibition space in the house!

[anneb]

I think you’re fine; they’re both different compositions. And his last one wasn’t vote enabled, just showing he has a shot from nearly the same position.

Oh! Lookit that~~~ – I hadn’t seen his last post, and was scratching my head (but wait, when I re-scrolled…. it WAS enabled… OH!!!)

Cool- Glad it’s ok- it certainly barely is a road any more!

Funny sig line, btw 😉

The ‘f’ key is not your friend, she types, as she hits the followup key…. 😉 Thanks

[anneb]

Argh- Looks like Killerclaw got a shot of Baltimore Blvd up before I did- mods: if you think my first one (eroaded) should come down, please pull it, or disable voting.

Between me rushing to put pix up ’cause I got home late, and there being soo many tonight, I didn’t notice it until my pix were up.

[anneb]

How about make them legal for both digital and film? That way, Farktography gets a little polish.

yeah, yeah, I hear the concerns about recreating the 35mm-threaded-in-Holga effect digitally, but… we could try it until we get a bunch of drop-shadow, torn-edge entries and then re-address.

I tend to see the outside of a negative as part of the picture more than a border, just a rather extreme choice when it comes to cropping the photo. Thus I reveal my throwback, cave-photgrapher nature! It probably comes from being exposed to too many photochemical fumes while staring at negatives or something.

For the most part, though, I’d rather that people not do too much in the way of borders- couple reasons.

*) I’d rather people spend the time they would spend “scrapbooking” their photos actually on the photos (cropping, white balancing, selecting, whatever). ie. if it’s there, it’s there, if it’s not, we get to see a slightly larger inline of your photo.

*) If borders are similar, the competition presents more nicely, even on the web. It’s neat, with some of the contests, that you can get a bit of an exhibit-like feel, something that works better or worse, depending on the week’s theme. The less variety there is in borders and size etc., the more polish I see to the exhibit as a whole, to be honest, but… therein madness lies, and all that.

*) The first person to post a photo “torn paper” border that’s really subliminal bouncing boobies around the outside WILL be posted the week I have that career-apex life-best photo submission, that other one will win, and I will be mad.

[anneb]

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.

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Not. Photoshop. In. TeenyTiny. Stopsign. At. Intersection!!!

I like that shot, too, FutherMucker, it’s a fun shot on its own!

[Author]

Posts