[swampa]

if by effective you mean blind for 30 seconds after each swig, then yes 😛

[swampa]

/me shudders at the thought of Stroh rum.

That stuff is evil.

[swampa]

Did you notice he appears to be wearing a wedding band? That always makes me chuckle.

Maybe the wife enjoys lending a hand (or fist :P)

DON”T GIS ‘tubgirl’.

Might as well go for the trilogy and look up lemonparty 😛

[swampa]

It is a vanity plate and they picked it, so I’m assuming that they did know. I remember doing a double take when I saw it in a carpark as it was the last thing I expected to see on a numberplate .

[swampa]

Can you pleeeeeease post that here? I wanna copy of it (pretty please)! 😆

I’m scared that someone would actually put that on their car!

[swampa]

does the goatse one not meet fark’s non-goatse requirements?

I couldn’t see anywhere in the FArQ that spoke about the non-goatse requirement.

[swampa]

Not if the text is goatse! Thats gold Jerry! Gold!!

[swampa]

This is why I love Farktography. What started as a discussion on one topic got me thinking about how to do things I wouldn’t have thought of previously.

This photo was posted by soosh as an example in the other thread:

It got me thinking if I could do it with my dSLR. Here are some quick and dirty attempts (combined with the recent theme :P):

Done by taking the frame from above and printing it on a transparent sheet and holding it out in front of the camera (if I was trying to do it properly I would need a holder to keep it still, it was flapping around a bit in the wind today – you can see some artifacts from that around the top right insulator)

Done by combining two photos in the camera. I shot the frame picture on a white sheet and that made combining them harder, I should have shot it against the sky instead so I could have made the frame photo more dominate without making the focus picture too light.

Anyway, thanks for the fun 😀

[swampa]

Well, that raises other issues. My digital camera produces images in a 3:2 ratio. If I crop an image to create a more panoramic final product, is that allowed?

Thats fine, you aren’t changing the image itself, just what portion of it you wish to show everyone. Plus in this case you are probably hurting yourself as it would end up being 640×250 on Fark and hard to see.

Consider these two images:
…
My position is that the image on the left should be acceptable as non-digitally altered and eligible for a farktography contest while the one on the right should not be, in the same way that using a clone stamp isn’t allowed.

I agree (the vote is looking like film frames are fine so I’m happy to accept that)

Dodging and burning are considered unacceptable, and I would agree with that. What about this image, in which I used a Tokina 12-24 lens designed for a cropped frame dSLR on a full-frame film body, because I wanted the black vignetting in the final product?

It is fine. The vignetting is applied at the time you took the image, it isn’t someone getting into and using the tools to add the idea of vignetting.

Although this brings up another thought, I know that in PS2 and 3 when you open a RAW file, one of the options will allow you to add extra vignetting to a photo. Would that be legal to use?

Does that mean I can’t use the film scan because the lens wasn’t designed for that wide of usage on full-frame?

Again I don’t see a problem. It was a choice you made while taking the photo so the image is created as you expected, not modified afterwards to give it that look.

If my dSLR takes a 3:2 ratio photo, can I submit a photo with a 16:9 ratio, so long as it’s one cropped image and not multiple images stitched?

Yes

Can I submit a 6×6 image taken with a 4/3rds ratio digicam?

Yes

Is this image, where the film was purposely not wound completely and then the camera panned for a second exposure, eligible as a single image?

No, it still looks like two distinct photos, just side by side.

[swampa]

so I’m glad you moved it over here 🙂

You told us too! 😛

/Was quite happy stuffing up the other thread 😛
//Not really

[swampa]

Thanks. I also respect your view on the matter (and the knowledge you have in this field – made me feel very n00bish again!), its just something I have noticed for a while now and wanted to bring up but as I was usually in the comp at the time, I thought it would be bad form.

[swampa]

But it isn’t the look of the photo that is the issue. It is the border around the outside that isn’t in the originally composed photo that is (if it was created with an insert into a filter holder then I wouldn’t mind as much as it would be part of the original composition).

The photo you just posted, the effect was planned from the beginning and not added when converting from film to digital.

Also, I could possibly do that with my digital camera as it does allow me to combine photos similar to photoshop but I would consider it cheating to use that as it would be unfair to most other people. Or going old-school and just put an insert into a filter holder with the black dots on it (could probably put fake burns on it too)

/If someone was using one of the latest Hasselblad camera to enter then I would laugh my butt off. Using a >22mp camera to create a 640px wide photo – talk about overkill!

[swampa]

The camera doesn’t have IS but the lens might. If it is an IS lens then grab it, it would be about 1/4 the normal price. It seems about right the right price for the 75 – 300 USM lens.

[swampa]

Well, if you use a Holga, for instance, you’re going to get a blurry vignetted effect that can’t be duplicated by a digital camera (outisde of using a lensbaby). If you’re using a digital and I’m using a fifty year-old medium format camera, I can’t capture an image that needs a shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second. Someone using film can make a double-exposure and that would be allowed, but I don’t believe that combining two digital images would be.

People with dSLRs can get more selective depth of field than people with digicams. A f/1.4 lens can take a photo in light that a f/4.5 can’t. Unless we’re all going to be bound to using the same equipment, there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to whatever you use. I can’t run out and take a photo on Wednesday morning with my medium format camera for a contest that afternoon, because I have to mail out my film 900 miles away to get it developed.

Doh! I tried to pick my words so that it wouldn’t look like I comparing digital to film. Didn’t work!

I realise that there advantages/disadvantages of both but I thought Farktography was trying to be fair to all involved. For example, in the Holga contest, the digital users were permitted to use a plugin for that contest. I’m not advocating that we all have the same equipment, just that everyone has a fair chance (you don’t need a special camera to capture the themes that are coming up soon. In the case of The Funnay, I wouldn’t be surprised to see several mobile phone photos)

When I have displayed and sold these types of medium-format photos, I have them mounted so that the frame of the film is visible. It is a deliberate choice to include it, but that’s the look I’m going for.

I think it is a great look and it really adds to the photos. Thats the problem here though, it is providing an advantage. At some point you are converting it from film to a digital file and you are choosing to leave the border there instead of cropping it in to the photo only.

[swampa]

I know it was the film frame, but as it isn’t the focus of the photo, it seems like a way to create border that would otherwise be invalid (and also unfair to those of us that shoot digital as we can’t do anything similar)

[Author]

Posts