[Choc-Ful-A]

I know the difficulty states that shadows can’t be the main focus of the shot. I have a macro pic of an ant on the other side of a leaf backlit by the sun. It casts a nice silhoutte – but it’s a shadow. Acceptable or not?

Kinda like this one I used for Mmmm bokeh. http://photos.imageevent.com/ulle17/fark/Ant_2836a.jpg

I have others if this one is not OK.

I’m going to defer to the real experts here, but since the tradition is for the person who suggested the theme to chime in when issues of clarification come up I’ll go ahead and post my opinion. Here goes… 🙂

Given the way that shot works I’m not sure I’d call the image on the leaf a shadow. It seems to me that the leaf is acting as a filter to blur the image of the ant’s body instead. If you define a shadow as the lack of reflected light caused by an object between the light source and the field reflecting the light, then you can’t really have a shadow when taking a photo where there’s a transparent object between the camera and the subject of the photo (meaning the ant). For instance, if the picture was of an ant on the far side of a sheet of rice paper, with the light source behind that, would it be a shadow? I think this is the same thing, so I think it’s not a shadow and therefore OK for the contest. Without multiple light sources I can’t see how you could see the actual ant and some different “shadow” of the ant when a shot is setup that way.

Again, that just the opinion of a slightly OCD computer nerd, so experts on photography please chime in if I’m smokin’ crack here…

[Choc-Ful-A]

does this fit?
…image deleted…

I works for me, but if anyone else feels strongly please speak up. The stage framework at the top isn’t back lit but I think the performer and audience dominate the photo, so I don’t think it matters.

[Choc-Ful-A]

My “4th choice” this week was this silly bird. I like the shot enough that I wanted to post it here for your amusement, even though it didn’t make the cut. Maybe I can save it for the “show some critter that stood perfectly still for a handheld evening shot except for one bady part” theme? 🙂

[Choc-Ful-A]

I mined archived photos to find things that looked like they were manipulated digitally after the fact. That’s the best I could come up with this week. But since, as idle_hands noted, I think the ideal shots would be optical illusions not just odd photos. So if any don’t look close enough to the theme I’m ready to see them deleted. 🙂

[Choc-Ful-A]

I’m hoping for a last minute inspiration cause I’ve got nothing so far…

[Choc-Ful-A]

Then I think that probably was a bad call on my part.

I started to post this and deleted it 3 times but finally decided it needed to be said.

A moderator charged with interpreting fuzzy guidelines to approve or deny contest entries is guaranteed to make decisions that someone thinks is wrong almost every time. So it’s a no-win situation by definition and some amount of frustration is inevitable. The best someone in that role can hope for is to gain the respect of the community members so that when he/she makes a call people accept the decision and move on.

Elsinore has done a wonderful job as a moderator who is also a very active participant in the contests and the forums. I’m sure there’s also some secret ninja mods helping making the magic work silently in the background. I appreciate their efforts as well. But serving as the public face of the administrative bits of a community takes it to another level. So I appreciate the work, even with an occasional “bad call” to prove you’re human. Thanks. 🙂

[Choc-Ful-A]

Oh wow, Choc-Ful-A, I would have thought that fit the theme nicely.

Fark linky: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3786632

Thanks to you and SilverStag for confirming my brain is working normally, well at least in this context. 🙂 I had a bunch of photos to choose from this week so I didn’t mind going with their recommendation. They didn’t dislike that shot, they just thought others showed “flow” better.

As long as I’m posting, a couple of the images posted have that BAMM!! immediate impact that makes them leap off the screen. It’s pretty impressive already, even though it’s only open less than 30 minutes.

[Choc-Ful-A]

I think the anemone photo shows the effect of water movement very nicely, so yeah I like it for this contest.

On an unrelated note, the folks I bounce ideas off vetoed this surfer photo saying it didn’t represent the theme well enough. I have a replacement and will save it for another contest. But since I like the shot I thought I’d post it here in the meantime.

[Choc-Ful-A]

I’m having trouble deciding which ones I want to use this week:

I have 6 up in my photostream & would appreciate comments: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pjern/2732657701/in/photostream/

I like 2 and 4 quite a bit, I think due to the cool colors going on in them.

I like them all but from an immediate impact perspective I agree with corsec67 that #4 and #2 are standouts. I also like #3, but I’m a sucker for trails in low light shots. Someone else noted that we’ll probably see a number of that sort of shot this week, but yours is very well done.

I suspect a bigger version of the storm front photo would be even more impressive than the one you posted.

[Choc-Ful-A]

So I’m asking if there’s a way to clarify what changes are now allowed in more detail to reduce (not remove) the level of ambiguity. It would be interesting to see if we could all agree on a word to describe the level of change we’re trying to allow.

Elsinore suggest a wording change in the voting thread that tackles the biggest concern I raised. It clarifies the intention of the rule change, which should help people interpret what is allowed. It’s a nice improvement IMO.

[Choc-Ful-A]

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.

That’s definitely an big improvement IMO. It clarifies the intention, which is the biggest challenge.

[Choc-Ful-A]

So a long way of saying I’m not in favor of the changes as written due to the vagueness of the do/don’t line and concerns about where this slippery slope leads.

Politely conveyed…Please elaborate on what is vague about the proposed changes, and why they seem slippery.

/Curious….that’s all.
//Despite what you’ve mentioned in the voting thread.
///Give me more, please.
////Put it in trailer park terminology, if you must.
8)

Something like: “I just think……..

My grandmother lived in a trailer until a few years ago when the roof started to look too dodgy, so I can relate to that slashy comment, but I’ll stay on topic.

First let me first admit openly (drum roll…) that I’m not a particularly technical photographer, which you can tell from my photos. I tend to focus (ha, I funny!) on composition and visual impact first and maybe other tricky details after that if I can manage it. So that probably has something to do with the way I see this rule change. Having said that…

In the interest of time I’ll offer one example of what I mean by a “clean definition” and then will clarify or add more over the weekend if requested. I’m still at work and really, really want to leave at this point, heh!

When I’m cleaning up an image scanned from a negative I generally work pretty zoomed in to find dust and scratches. Sometimes I see something I want to remove from an artistic perspective but it’s not obvious (from a zoomed perspective) if it’s on the negative or a scanning artifact. So I zoom out and check before removing. The point I’m making is that the rule governing what is and isn’t allowed is very clear and easy to understand. If the offending mark/spot/blotch is part of the negative I leave it, even though it’s annoying. But if it was introduced in the process of digitizing the negative, I remove it.

The goal of the rule changes being discussed here seems to be to redefine the boundary of what non-global changes are allowed in a Farktography contest. The point being to allow corrections that don’t represent a significant change to the image. I think the tricky part is giving people a clear set of guidelines for deciding what can be changed without crossing that line. As written there’s almost no specifics so it will be left to each person (and each moderator) to decide.

Consider the rules around what’s NSFW in a posting, which is admittedly more applicable in the PS contests then Farktography. There are guidelines available to help people decide when they need to put up a placeholder image and link to the real one. But it’s still highly subjective model and people routinely guess wrong, various moderators interpret things differently, and most people wind up asking for a ruling in advance of the contest going live. I don’t think much of that will happen with this change, since I doubt people will get banned for excessive spot correction of a Farktography image. 🙂 But it’s similar in many ways, if the rules are vague and open to interpretation, then there will be some amount of confusion amount the participants and more work for the moderators.

So I’m asking if there’s a way to clarify what changes are now allowed in more detail to reduce (not remove) the level of ambiguity. It would be interesting to see if we could all agree on a word to describe the level of change we’re trying to allow.

[Choc-Ful-A]

I voted no and explained why in the voting thread. Should I cut-n-paste here too?

[Choc-Ful-A]

I think the changes described in the “Image corrections allowed” are a bad idea at least as written The line between what can be removed and what can’t is too ambiguous. I think the change will inevitably result in the line pushing father and farther until removing significant elements from the image and even creating something to fill in the missing area become common. Without a clear definition of what can and can’t be done on a selected area of the image (as opposed to global changes) that drift will happen even with people who are trying to follow the rules.

So a long way of saying I’m not in favor of the changes as written due to the vagueness of the do/don’t line and concerns about where this slippery slope leads.

[Choc-Ful-A]

Ok, this clearly proves that thousands of dollars of camera equipment, not to mention years of experience, mean absolutely nothing in Farktography!!!! My highest total vote getting image is seven years old, and it came from the first set of shots I downloaded from the first camera I ever bought, back in 2001…..

If you don’t take compliments well, then stop reading now… IMO you’re just a talented photographer and that’s going to come out to some degree no matter what tech is in your hands.

If spending money of gear was all it took to win contests I don’t think it would be worth participating. It’s like being a NY Yankee fan or something. KIDDING!

In all seriousness, I think digital images do tend to do better in Farktography contest on average than film. And I suspect better equipment boosts votes a even more (again in general). But I’m very happy when I see a photo that’s creative, well composed but has technical weaknesses get votes. It confirms that at least some of the core values rewarded by the readers are still artists in nature.

Yes, cute kids boost votes too so it’s not just “art”. But at least you can’t by kids at the local Ritz Camera shop to make sure you win a contest. At least not in northern California.

[Author]

Posts