[sleeping]

Contest linky:
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=556182

Here, you dropped this: 1

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5561821

[sleeping]

Nice! And if you paste the code into a bookmark instead of the address bar it’s re-usable.

[sleeping]

Anyone in the Northeast want to meet up for this? http://www.westfieldairshow.net/ it’s excellent timing…..

[sleeping]

I’ve found the new setup vastly more convenient than the old one, myself.

All you need to do is Share this > Grab the HTML > Select Medium 640 > Copy > Paste into Fark

Or, you can get the Image URL from Actions > View All Sizes – in that case you just need to chop off the _d at the end of the URL (which makes it download instead of loading in a browser).

[sleeping]

But the Flickr TOS, for example, do require you to link the image back to the original photo page.

[sleeping]

Also, I can’t help but notice the last couple of contests haven’t brought in a lot of votes in general, not just for my lame efforts.

Last couple months. Like 12. Don’t know why.

No cat or baby themes.

[sleeping]

Yeah, it’s all about the shutter speed, basically.

With a speed in the hundredths of seconds, you freeze most of the motion. This is 1/100:

At about 1/30, it looks fairly natural:

And as you get below 1/10 or so, it becomes much smoother (this is 1/6):

And as you get into multi-second exposures, you can start to lose all sense of movement, and it can look almost like glass, or mist if there’s more white foam etc. (I think this was 8 sec):

[sleeping]

One random thought I’ve had recently is that I think (unfortunately, as the case may be) we need to pay more attention to our theme titles and consider ways to make them as indicative of the theme description as possible.

Maybe instead we should make them so incomprehensible that people need to read the description to know what to post 😯

[sleeping]

Maybe a different name if we do it again? People sometimes react to them without reading the description I think….

[sleeping]

The photo has a crazy bend to it without any real blur. What’s up?

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

[sleeping]

I think the easiest way to get submissions would probably be by Farktographer rather than by contest – something along the lines of “you can submit any of your top 5 images that you’d want to see included plus any two images from your personal top 10 vote getters”. That would ensure that people would have some flexibility about what of theirs they wanted to see included, and would mean that people who hadn’t ever had something with a ton of votes could still get something included, but it would still give some weight to the general voting preferences…

[sleeping]

I think the basic problem with the first two is there’s too much stuff in them. If* the subject in the 1st photo is the ripples in the pool, then you should think about filling the frame with them, or very nearly.

If* the subject in the second photo is the rain coming down in the doorway, then the entire background is basically a distraction. If you have enough aperture, you could open it up and blur out the background, or if that’s not possible, get a lot closer to a smaller portion of the curtain of water (say the upper left corner with the sky in the background).

If you’re not consciously using negative space, the subject should be a much bigger portion of what’s in the photo, basically.

*)This shouldn’t need to be a question, btw.

[sleeping]

cool, thanks!

I wish there was something like that which would take topo information into account for where I live. There’s a whole big difference between ‘moonrise’ and the moon making it over a 2000′ ridge.

I believe you can do that with this, but it’s not a simple process from the look of it: http://stephentrainor.com/2009/08/11/using-tpe-part-3-geodesy

[sleeping]

I’d be ok for allowing it, but as it’s currently worded, that kind of thing wouldn’t count.

Are you sure?

[sleeping]

Ah, yes, this one I think: http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19940186000

[Author]

Posts