U-Man

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 1,602 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 12-15-10 – Blur #35539
    U-Man
    Participant

    If you’re blurring something for a purpose, it counts. I’d say that T/S falls nicely in that category. It’s sort of like far-away shallow depth of field. Actually, not even sort of. It is. 🙂

    in reply to: 12-15-10 – Blur #35537
    U-Man
    Participant

    what if the shot has a questionable lack of blur, but my vision is way blurry due to alcohol?

    I don’t think so. Maybe you could ask everybody to look at it all squinty-like.

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35469
    U-Man
    Participant

    Okay. That’s a damn good story. I especially liked the Vader “Try it in German” bit. LOL’ed at that.

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35456
    U-Man
    Participant

    Of all the themes to generate this much discussion on what’s allowable or not allowable within the description wording, I would never have pegged this one to be that theme. The only thing I could reasonably disqualify at this point would be a zoom-during-exposure. Smoke ’em if ya got ’em.

    I agree with the first part and give a rueful little grin to the second part. We’re a bunch of dorks (myself included). 🙂

    I still don’t know exactly what I’m going to post. In the spirit of fair play, I’ll lean heavily toward un-cropped entries.

    That said (here comes more dorkiness) I contend that a minor crop to exclude something that should have been excluded by moving closer to the subject is more off-theme than a crop based on composition. Hardly anything I post is at a 2:3 ratio. I like square crops and I like skinny (like 1:2) crops. I don’t have a square sensor. If I do decide on a funky crop I’ll at least keep one entire dimension of the original.

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35419
    U-Man
    Participant

    I understand the purpose of the theme

    You mean gratuitous Transformers references? 😀

    I don’t get it. Does that make me a dork? (or as my girls might say – dorkier?)

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35418
    U-Man
    Participant

    Damn. I coulda just been quiet. 🙄

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35416
    U-Man
    Participant

    Els, I respectfully disagree that cropping completely defeats the purpose. The description states, “Go shooting with a single prime lens.” In my opinion, minor cropping doesn’t negate the fact that I used a prime.

    Again, I’m not talking about only using 25% of the initial frame. I’m talking about a square crop or skinny crop. Perhaps something like this –>

    Original – http://photos.imageevent.com/ulle17/farkphotoshop/a_2397.jpg

    Skinny – http://photos.imageevent.com/ulle17/farkphotoshop/a_2397-skinny.jpg

    I consider a no-crop rule a pretty late change in the description/difficulty.

    But really, that’s just my opinion. I’m not married to it and won’t even be miffed (Miffed! I say!) if we elect to not crop. 🙂

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35409
    U-Man
    Participant

    It was discussed but I didn’t see a firm ruling. My $0.02 is to use restraint with the crop tool but not outlaw it. I might want to do a square crop or an elongated portrait or landscape type crop.

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35406
    U-Man
    Participant

    I’ve been shooting with my 50 mm yesterday and today. I really don’t like being restricted with my lens choices. I understand the purpose of the theme – I just don’t like it. 🙁

    in reply to: 12-08-10 – Optimus Prime #35405
    U-Man
    Participant

    Hey Mopsy, obviously, the macro is good for macro pics. But I like using mine for portraits, too. It has a nice narrow depth of field which make the background nice and fuzzy. Maybe you can get Popsy out on the deck and take some portraits.

    (yes, people, that really is his nickname. 🙂 )

    in reply to: 12-01-10 – The Song Remains the Same #34331
    U-Man
    Participant

    Thanks for the nice comments. I was happy with all three of my pics this week but didn’t expect to do that well. Of mine, 1984 was by far my fav. If you have ever tried to photograph a 3 or 4 year old in a ‘set-up’ shot you will understand. 🙂

    The burning monk pic was originally done for the ‘Iconic’ theme.

    in reply to: 12-15-10 – Blur #35533
    U-Man
    Participant

    Does ‘racking’ your zoom lens during a long exposure count?

    Sure.

    in reply to: 12-15-10 – Blur #35531
    U-Man
    Participant

    Would blur caused by a longish exposure upon the surface of water at night count?

    My guess would be yes that counts. long exposures are even mentioned in the description.

    This^

    Yeah. What they said.

    Actually, that sort of thinking is exactly what I’m after. Blur with a purpose. (and if you’re really lucky shooting that water, with a porpoise)

    bada zing!

    in reply to: 12-01-10 – The Song Remains the Same #34271
    U-Man
    Participant

    Curious wrote: btw i tried curves on an image but couldn’t get the results i liked and used another one that just need a slight crop.

    I was so busy with all my failures that I did not have time to experiment with curves. 🙁 I did find it though.

    Mopsy, I stink at using curves. In large part, that is due to my red-green color ‘blindness’. I’m always afraid that I will make the image look really goofy and I won’t even notice. 🙂

    in reply to: 12-01-10 – The Song Remains the Same #34246
    U-Man
    Participant

    I knew you would chime in, rav. 🙂

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 1,602 total)