[sleeping]

What you’re going to need to do for starters is to turn on rear curtain flash (hold down the flash release button and turn the rear command dial I think), which fires the flash at the very end of the exposure. Then put it in S mode and set the shutter speed to a few seconds. I’m not sure how well this will work with the puny build in flash, though, but if it doesn’t work at first, try getting closer and turning up your ISO.

[sleeping]

What are all of the colored dots?

Sensor noise

How do I avoid them? What settings have you guys used?

Look for a long exposure noise reduction setting for your camera, but note that this generally doubles the exposure time (it involves the camera generating a second exposure with the shutter closed to map the noise).

Or you can shoot film, which doesn’t have this problem (but you have to deal with reciprocity failure instead…)

[sleeping]

Would IR be acceptable for this? It looks pretty strange if you don’t know what it is:

[sleeping]

Well, f/1.8 is what, 2/3 of a stop faster than f/2.8

No, 1 1/3 stops – 2.8 to 2 is one stop. You’d probably get at least an extra stop of handholdability with a lens that wide, though, but that only works if motion blur is not a concern.

[sleeping]

I think “Terminal” in transportation terms tends to imply a major station or hub – a bus stop or a garage wouldn’t be a terminal, so a marina or small private dock probably wouldn’t be either? A ferry terminal obviously would be, though.

[sleeping]

I like the angle definition of >160 degrees.

That seems like kind of an odd definition to me. It would generally include fisheye shots of any aspect ratio, and exclude images shot with most (if not all) panoramic cameras, not to mention many stitched images shot with longer lenses (unless they contained dozens and dozens of images).

[sleeping]

Basically, if you shoot at a large aperture (small F number), you can blur out fencing/bars (or even make them disappear altogether):

Larger aperture:

Smaller aperture:

[sleeping]

You can do it, but you have to upload 2 versions of the photo – one that’s 640px wide, and the large one. Then edit the HTML flickr gives you so that the IMG tag is pointing to the 640 version and the link is pointing to the large version.

[sleeping]

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!

For sure, although the equation would be a bit different if we were using, say 11×14 prints instead of 640px wide web images.

In all seriousness, I think digital images do tend to do better in Farktography contest on average than film.

Really? I wouldn’t have thought most people could tell, or that they would care if they did. I shoot plenty of both and haven’t noticed that there’s any advantage one way or the other.

[sleeping]

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…..

[sleeping]

I like it!

[sleeping]

One quick question, would it be good to leave this in the rules:

NOTE:

While the above modifications are allowed for Farktography, you should
strive to keep your results in the realm of the realistic. For
example, the contrast and saturation tools can yield cartoonish
results when cranked up to their maximum strength. Such use of these
otherwise acceptable tools is discouraged and may subject your
photograph to disqualification.

? (with slight rewording to recognize that we’re not listing a bunch of acceptable modifications any longer)

Or do we care that much? I’d kinda like to see that (or some shorter statement to the effect) left in to keep us from getting people running amok with processsing…

I agree – it would be good to include something along these lines. It might also be worth specifically excluding things like “artistic” conversion filters (watercolor, etc.)

[sleeping]

It’s better to simply state what’s *not* allowed, without a huge list in the posted rules.

I agree with this – in Photoshop in particular there are often multiple ways of achieving similar results, and unless we really want to create a highly detailed list, there will always be questions of “why is that approved and not this”.

[sleeping]

I shoot film quite a bit, and never felt it was a particular disadvantage, but I’ve generally been posting scanned negatives/transparencies, not scanned prints. There’s not much you can do with a digital camera file that you can’t also do as part of the scanning/processing with a film scan. I can see where the rules would be a significant hinderance for someone doing proper darkroom printing, though.

[sleeping]

Yep, it’s back. FWIW, Flickr was acting kinda funny earlier, so it might have hiccuped. Couple other people have had issues, which is pretty unusual for Flickr.

Thanks muchly!

[Author]

Posts