[ennuipoet]

This is too easy ennuipoet.

I CAN TELL BY THE PIXELS

And from seeing quite a few in my time!

I went ahead and included in link to the EXIF data in my pre-posting just to demonstrate I’ve nothing to hide 🙂

[ennuipoet]

After thinking long and hard (heh heh) on this, I decided to go back to digital. My question is, other than honor, how can one tell if a shot is straight out of the camera? All three of mine are unedited RAW but I chose them because they look as though they were edited.

It’s more of an academic question than actually asking about enforcement. How do you spot a subtly edited digital still?

[ennuipoet]

And now we return to our favorite topic: How has the addition of Funny votes affected overall voting?

FWIW, the Photoshoppers are starting to grumble more and more about the new voting system. Plus, the voting in all the threads is just distracting, a complete mess. I suspect there will be a concerted movement growing to go back to the old way, whether or not it happens…

[ennuipoet]

I joked about this earlier, but now that I am on the edge of picking shots I have to ask: Film is OK for this correct?

I read that as pickling shots, immediately googled pickling film and spent a good 15 minutes trying to figure out if that was some hip alternative wash process in film developing, or if you were going to transfer the image while pickling sheet steel and have the shades of gray and such come from rust and various things other than how I could start reading better than a 2nd grader.

If you can develop with coffee, and you can, I can see thinking developing with Pickle Juice is plausible.

[ennuipoet]

Els, useless without pictures.

Well, it’s the difference between this (said to be vote whoring on the order to make someone “sick”) http://www.flickr.com/photos/lady_elsinore/6513443987/in/photostream

Someone sounds flat…chested that is! HEY OH!

[ennuipoet]

NoBigDeal It’s not the voting, or lack thereof that’s been getting to me, I think. More of the feeling that I’m posting into a virtual black hole…

You’ve got that too? I dunno, for the past few months I’ve kind of felt as though much of what I’ve posted for the threads was missed by the voters, as though I somehow failed to communicate with them. I don’t care about the votes, no, let me amend, I don’t care about WINNING, but the number of votes is a good way to track whether or not people are appreciating the work.

I’m kvetching, really, because trying comprehend what motivates the average Farker is an exercise in futility.

[ennuipoet]

I have a few tricks up my sleeve for this one.

I can imagine!

ennuipoet film is welcome, but the submissions should showcase composition + camera settings as opposed to darkroom techniques.

Check, the ones I’ve selected are clean of all post processing other than the reversing from negative to positive.

[ennuipoet]

I joked about this earlier, but now that I am on the edge of picking shots I have to ask: Film is OK for this correct?

I know that sounds silly, but if the spirit of the theme is untouched images, the very act of how I developed the roll and the scanner settings have a huge impact on the final image. A close interpretation of this theme could read that only digital images completely unchanged from the instant of shutter are the over reaching idea.

Now that I think about this, it’s fascinating, only with digital technology can we actually do this. In film there are dozens of different things one can do between the click and the wash to alter the image, all before the image is actually visible to the human eye.

Cool!

[ennuipoet]

Elsinores cheeseburger cupcakes look so good I wanted to try to reach through the monitor. lol

I knew I had lost all control when I started licking the monitor… 😯

[ennuipoet]

I got nuthin. I’m out.

I was going to skip this week, food photography is not really my thing and if I can’t do something halfway decent, I usually don’t do it. But then, Monday night, I bought bacon and thought to myself: “Fark it, I’m just going to cook, shoot it and eat it.” I ain’t gonna win, but damn I had a good meal and took photos of it all!

[ennuipoet]

^ if their film goes tits up I’m hoarding 120 and C-41 process b&w like there’s a zombie apocalypse coming.

/where possession of said film will allow me to properly document it?
//not that there’s not a zombie apocalypse coming

I’m quite fond of Ilford’s black and whites and Fuji makes some very nice color films…not as good a Porta, but close. (Fuji Provia and Velvia whips Ekta’s tuckus) so there are still options…not great options, but options.

[ennuipoet]

…didn’t FARK link to those IIRC?

Fark linked to an article which by proxy linked back to me.

Still, freaking cool to see that many hits.

[ennuipoet]

Farking bacon grease on the lens… 🙂

[ennuipoet]

Your top two examples were done with catch lights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_light

while they may have been enhanced in photoshop it was location lighting that made them pop. The first one is a natural catch light from what I can tell, the second is a strobe. If you zoom in on the eye and look at the shape of the light you can usually reverse engineer the lighting source.

FWIW there is nothing in photoshop that compares to good source lighting at the shoot for making eyes stand out.

[ennuipoet]

Here’s a theory (work in progress):

Bunnies aren’t just cute like everybody supposes,

They’ve got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses.

And what’s with all the carrots?

What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies!

…..or maybe midgets.

http://youtu.be/3gY8HilVZXQ

[Author]

Posts