Why should a challenge whose only guideline is the creative use of a magnifying glass preclude the use of the magnifying glass as an optic? These suffered because folks inferred their own challenge criteria and voted on them instead. (On second thought, they would have suffered anyway.) All nines from me:
Why should a challenge whose only guideline is the creative use of a magnifying glass preclude the use of the magnifying glass as an optic? These suffered because folks inferred their own challenge criteria and voted on them instead. (On second thought, they would have suffered anyway.) All nines from me:
And thank you, Ben, for the mention.
It doesn't, but if noone can tell that it was used, what do you expect. For the record, I could tell in coryboehne picture (the first one) and commented as such. Some of the others simply appeared to be blurry.
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation.
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation.
feel free to reproduce my picture by turning the focus ring, and then you'll have a point.
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation.
feel free to reproduce my picture by turning the focus ring, and then you'll have a point.
Actually, have a crack at all off them. Not possible. If you look closely you can see the fresnel lens in mine. I suspect the catchlight in Brian's self portrait was due to the added manipulation of light. The varied blurred effect in Don's image would be difficult to achieve by turning the focus ring.
If one can reproduce the picture without a magnifying glass simply by turning the focus ring, what do you expect people to vote. It's a bit much to assume people are inferring their own criteria simply because they don't agree with your interpretation.
feel free to reproduce my picture by turning the focus ring, and then you'll have a point.
Actually, have a crack at all off them. Not possible. If you look closely you can see the fresnel lens in mine. I suspect the catchlight in Brian's self portrait was due to the added manipulation of light. The varied blurred effect in Don's image would be difficult to achieve by turning the focus ring.
With all due respect to all parties involved, this is not the thread for this conversation, imho.
With all due respect to all parties involved, this is not the thread for this conversation, imho.
Oh I don't know about that. Occasionally this thread takes a little detour through photography-related philosophy and is usually the better for it. It's a thread about under-appreciated images, and the relentless literalism of the DNMC police is the site's main impediment to appreciation (as well as development), isn't it? As the voter can't possibly know what is in the mind of the photographer, the first step in appreciating an image should surely be to assume that it does meet the challenge and then consider it from aesthetic and visceral points of view. Using DNMC as one's default position leads only to artistic inbreeding and a paucity of intellectual diversity, and inevitably breeds genetic weaknesses and infirmity. As the DPC home page usually demonstrates only too well.
Oh, yes, this is EXACTLY the thread. If we are to celebrate what the numbers do not we must not be afraid of such intimacies as creative uses of thises and thatses, however mysterious they may be.
It reminds me of one of my first steps into the "adult" world: sitting for the SATs we were all warned "to avoid the appearance of cheating." All of a sudden I felt dizzy and not a little furtive. I suppose the strain of avoiding certain appearances and creating certain others makes it difficult to entertain any kind of innocence much less enjoy the genuine.
Oh, yes, this is EXACTLY the thread. If we are to celebrate what the numbers do not we must not be afraid of such intimacies as creative uses of thises and thatses, however mysterious they may be.
It reminds me of one of my first steps into the "adult" world: sitting for the SATs we were all warned "to avoid the appearance of cheating." All of a sudden I felt dizzy and not a little furtive. I suppose the strain of avoiding certain appearances and creating certain others makes it difficult to entertain any kind of innocence much less enjoy the genuine.
well i will respectfully disagree, seems to me the original intent of this thread was for people to point out shots they enjoyed, not to defend why they enjoyed them or whether or not they met the challenge. there are other forum areas for that
Now I'm running late, thank you very for the bling Christian and thanks Don for the 7 and no it's not a TV it really is a kid with a toy, I put a note on it.
Out of Balance My top three picks ...
by Carlo21 for astonishing anthropomorphography.
by daisydavid for re-drawing itself with every viewing.
by npasel for its quiet tension.
Some that I thought were very nice from Out of Balance;
Definitely liked this one the best, by far. Very good.
I also liked this quite a bit, as well. The next closest batch of photos was rather large, with about 6 coming in equally in my view, so I'll just point out these two.
to 
to 
