[soosh]

here are some of the fish pictures I was wondering about

this one I’d love to use, but am fairly certain would be disallowed:

[soosh]

oh yeah, definitely.

I got $250 for a one-time use by Discover magazine of the same photo.

[soosh]

just an easy way to save a few bucks

An easier way is to buy the things they sell from someone else. Goddamn, do they mark their shit up.

[soosh]

One thing I would like to say is if we ever let partially desaturated photos such as

http://www.flickr.com/photos/special/732517/

be allowed, I’m out of here*.

*with the exception of a contest dedicated to such abortions. then I can simply skip that week.

[soosh]

I just always fall back to checking my farktography profile, thanks to the handy work of the FSM.

[soosh]

I totally agree with caradoc with regard to filters. I don’t use them for protection at all.

Get some microfiber cloths, some lens paper, and some Eclipse cleaning fluid. Eventually you’re going to need to give your lenses a good cleaning.

My other suggestion is to get neoprene lens pouches for each of your lenses. They pad them nicely and keep them protected when not in use. There’s a brand called Zing that makes good ones, as does OpTech.

And don’t stress too much over the surface of your lenses. Use the hell out of them. If you ever have to replace a front element, you’ll feel much better about doing so if you’ve gotten a lot of use out of the lens than if you’ve kept it hidden and pristine.

[soosh]

That just seems like a *lot* of post processing

agreed. But I don’t think it should disqualify the image. I’ve never done that much processing to my images. I haven’t yet figured out how to use layer masks for adjusting exposure, ever converted anything to LAB, or corrected for lens distortion. But I don’t have any problem competing with somebody going to all that trouble. I go to a lot of trouble setting up some of my shots. I’ve waited over a year for the right light in some cases. I think we should be competing on the basis of the finished product, not how we got there.

And quite frankly, looking at Silver Stag’s finished photo, I would have had no idea he’d done all that work. He’s done it so well that it looks to me like the photo came out of the camera that way. We’re all on our honor here, but I think that so long as we’re not adding or removing elements to the photo that weren’t there, the photo should be allowed.

[soosh]

or money

gimp is free and will do most anything that photoshop will do. If someone is really interested in learning the steps needed to post-process, the internet is full of tutorials, and I think most people here would be willing to tell how they’ve accomplished something. I’m completely self-taught when it comes to photography, and some of my favorite photos were done with Holgas or $125 tlr cameras I bought on ebay. Yes, I’ve spent a lot of money on lenses as well, but I don’t use some of my most expensive glass for many of these contests.

Post-processing is a fact of life for digital photography, and for me, as I scan slides or negatives, it’s part of film photography as well. Point & shoot cameras do a lot of post-processing in the camera and the user has little control over what level of sharpness, saturation, & exposure compensation is done in the camera. a dSLR strips all that away, if you want it to, and lets you control the process more exactly in post. Trying to minimize the level of post-processing, to me, is like telling me that to keep the playing field level, I can’t shoot in Manual mode or use a wide-open aperture or a remote release cable because someone with a digicam can’t do those things. Trying to level the playing field isn’t going to work until we send out official Farktography Cameras and don’t let anybody shoot with anything else.

All of that said, no post-processing or expensive camera is the key to winning. The best photos are going to be taken by the best photographers, regardless of what gear they use. I think creativity, composition, and a well-thought-out plan of execution will win out time and time again, and that can be done with any level of camera.

[soosh]

cross processing color negatives ….infrared film

These are allowed.

[soosh]

I totally agree with the image editing v image correcting sentiment. When I am making a print, out come the image correction tools. With Farktography in mind, IIRC, we also wanted to keep it simple and allow for people who don’t have the digital skills to correct an under-exposed compositional element. This is, after all, Fark, not a prestigious, judged Photographic site.

That said, composition / humor will probably always beat every other image. So allowing for what you are suggesting may not be all that beneficial for an individual, but it would raise the level of what Farktography presents, and I support that.

I agree with this. No clone stamp tools or healing tools to remove power lines, distracting elements, etc, but as far as exposure, I don’t see a problem with how it’s adjusted. Where it gets trickier, I think, is what if something like Diffuse Glow is only used on a part of an image? Where’s the limit with masking and overlay and whatnot?

I don’t personally use dodge and burning in photoshop because I’ve never been able to make them look convincing, but I’m not opposed to their use.

Looking through my entries, I’ve had just as many film entries do well as digital, so I’m utterly unconvinced that either has an advantage that needs to be worried about.

[soosh]

Did I mention bears? Because, yeah, bears. Brown & Black bears. 10,000 live in the immediate area.

[soosh]

Eh, it’s only money. Besides, what could be more fun than being out in the creepy woods in the middle of the night around sketchy mining ruins, rusty metal, broken glass, & mine shafts with some combustibles, camera gear, and a few bottles of Duvel?

[soosh]

awesome, I’m in.

I might be willing to do the same with a less-than-stellar but fully functional Diacord, if those involved were willing to donate $10 in an escrow fund against the possibility of it not returning to me. Everyone would get their money back when the camera was returned.

Or we could all chip in on a Holga and send one around.

[soosh]

Q: what’s the policy on TF for dead animals? I’ve got some shots of spawned-out salmon (former salmon, as it were) that I suspect are out of bounds for this. And since I’ve just been given a 24 hour timeout on fark for a TFD thread about sibling incest, I should probably be on good behavior.

But what’s the limit? I’ve had a shot removed that showed an eagle eating a piece of salmon. Is my dog gnawing on a bone out of line? A tiger at the zoo eating a piece of steak? A bird with a bug in its mouth? What if it’s not obvious if the salmon in a stream of water in question is alive or not? Is a pelican or a heron with a fish OK only if the fish is still flopping?

[soosh]

yeah, that’s why i didn’t use it this week.

[Author]

Posts