Well, I don't know what to say... I didn't think it would be understood, but Damn...
This actually took a lot of time and I was pretty sure no one else would do it. I think if my processing skills were better it would have done...well, better...
I took a fake sunflower apart, cut out the center, and glued it back together. I then spray painted it the "negative" of all of its colors (yellow petals were painted blue, green stem was painted purple. Then I put up a cardboard box (tan's neg is blueish) with a hole in it (and a blue gel over it). Lined up the sun, with the hole in the box, the hole in the flower and my camera and "let her rip". In Post processing I inverted the hole image, cleaned it up and got this.
The black dot in the center of the flower is actually the sun..
If you could have put that whole description in the 'title' field, you might have done better. Unfortunately when voting people don't always know the pain you went to to get the shot, they vote on what they see.
I've had one of my own that I put a lot of effort into only to reap a sub-5 as a reward. What really hurt about it is the comment that said it was clear I put no effort into it. Then I've had lazy shots that ribboned. Effort does not always correspond to a high score. All that matters is results.
I've had one of my own that I put a lot of effort into only to reap a sub-5 as a reward. What really hurt about it is the comment that said it was clear I put no effort into it. Then I've had lazy shots that ribboned. Effort does not always correspond to a high score. All that matters is results.
+1
And I will add that putting tags in the title to try to convey the effort usually are not well received. If you start to get the feeling that you have to explain yourself in the title, that should be a big red flag.
If you could have put that whole description in the 'title' field, you might have done better. Unfortunately when voting people don't always know the pain you went to to get the shot, they vote on what they see.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I've had one of my own that I put a lot of effort into only to reap a sub-5 as a reward. What really hurt about it is the comment that said it was clear I put no effort into it. Then I've had lazy shots that ribboned. Effort does not always correspond to a high score. All that matters is results.
+1
And I will add that putting tags in the title to try to convey the effort usually are not well received. If you start to get the feeling that you have to explain yourself in the title, that should be a big red flag.
Well, I don't know what to say... I didn't think it would be understood, but Damn...
This actually took a lot of time and I was pretty sure no one else would do it. I think if my processing skills were better it would have done...well, better...
I took a fake sunflower apart, cut out the center, and glued it back together. I then spray painted it the "negative" of all of its colors (yellow petals were painted blue, green stem was painted purple. Then I put up a cardboard box (tan's neg is blueish) with a hole in it (and a blue gel over it). Lined up the sun, with the hole in the box, the hole in the flower and my camera and "let her rip". In Post processing I inverted the hole image, cleaned it up and got this.
The black dot in the center of the flower is actually the sun..
Kind of like solarizing. When I saw it, I approved. Thought it would hit dead last.
Agreed with Bohemka - "...Unfortunately it was lost on voters in a simple photography competition, but that's to be expected when the greater context is unknown..."
Thedruid, sorry, I don't understand your reply. I understand solarizing, but not the approval part.
I also "approve" of (appreciate?) what you did, and especially your detailed description of how you did it. Someday "someone" somewhere will remember that you can build a set-up in "negative" colors to create an image with a black sun, and make some new art.
However, if asked, I would have also predicted a low score in a DPC challenge, partly because of the degree of posterization (akin to solarization) and blur detracting from the photo-realistic quality, partly because people don't know and can't appreciate how it was done, and partly because I tried for a somewhat similar effect (but using a vastly different technique) in a recent challenge, and it was not that well-received.
Thedruid, sorry, I don't understand your reply. I understand solarizing, but not the approval part.
I also "approve" of (appreciate?) what you did, and especially your detailed description of how you did it. Someday "someone" somewhere will remember that you can build a set-up in "negative" colors to create an image with a black sun, and make some new art.
However, if asked, I would have also predicted a low score in a DPC challenge, partly because of the degree of posterization (akin to solarization) and blur detracting from the photo-realistic quality, partly because people don't know and can't appreciate how it was done, and partly because I tried for a somewhat similar effect (but using a vastly different technique) in a recent challenge, and it was not that well-received.
I commented on your image and voted and 8. I guess it is my style.
