If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is it legal to submit two images for the SI challenge?
People have done it in the past, but have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Which in this case is nothing more than a soft poke in the ribs when you are asleep. It's in far better taste if you submit one photo and then post a link to your alternate. Less rib poking and you can sleep in. Good idea. Here's my two alternates for the blurry topic. http://marklauter.com/gallery/MiscBW/oof_2 and http://marklauter.com/gallery/MiscBW/towel My interpretation of OOF isn't DoF, but really OOF. When I used to post on photosig.com I noticed many comments (to myself and others) about images being not sharp enough. But I'm more of an impressionist. Thanks be to the gods I don't have to burn money on a "tack sharp lens". Not long ago someone suggested I use some tool or other to remove noise from my photo. Hell no! The noise *MADE* the image. I'm the type who prefers to shoot ISO 1600 film and create soft, but edgey images (I'm just not very good at it.) -- Mark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
ian lincoln wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message Of course there is one contributor to the SI who almost always supplies a shot from his increasingly dull archive of incompetent snapshots. However, the rules ("rulz") were never supposed to apply to Alan Browne, only to everyone else. replonk. again! take the hint. Er, neither Tony nor Alan are big on hints; nor are you IIRC. It'd be nice if they stopped with the pot/slap shots at each other, and if public plonkers went private. [hint, hint.] Cheerily posted with the bets placed on the status quo, however. -- John McWilliams |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Woodchuck Bill wrote:
Mart van de Wege wrote in : Woodchuck Bill writes: The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is... drum roll please Creative OOF Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in the photo should be creatively-blurred. Does a portrait with OOF background count? Sure, but the idea is to go out and shoot for the challenge if possible...but if you can't, archive shots are allowed. Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria? s -- John McWilliams |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"John McWilliams" wrote in message news:QJednUKnA-2dl5zeRVn- Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria? No, that wouldn't count....If, for example you think you are taking a picture of some WMD's, with OOF nudes in the background, and you end up with the nudes in focus, and the WMD's out of focus, then that picture would not count...... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
William Graham wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message news:QJednUKnA-2dl5zeRVn- Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria? No, that wouldn't count....If, for example you think you are taking a picture of some WMD's, with OOF nudes in the background, and you end up with the nudes in focus, and the WMD's out of focus, then that picture would not count...... Damn! And that was exactly what happened over the weekend... How about DoF and OoF for consistency?? -- John McWilliams |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"John McWilliams" wrote in message ... ian lincoln wrote: "Tony Polson" wrote in message Of course there is one contributor to the SI who almost always supplies a shot from his increasingly dull archive of incompetent snapshots. However, the rules ("rulz") were never supposed to apply to Alan Browne, only to everyone else. replonk. again! take the hint. Er, neither Tony nor Alan are big on hints; nor are you IIRC. Perhaps the hinters are in my killfile. It'd be nice if they stopped with the pot/slap shots at each other, and if public plonkers went private. [hint, hint.] Most residents of my killfile don't know they are there. However polson regularly changes his address cos he knows he's in most killfiles. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
John McWilliams wrote:
Woodchuck Bill wrote: Sure, but the idea is to go out and shoot for the challenge if possible...but if you can't, archive shots are allowed. Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria? Hey I just came up with one shot three days before the mandate but it was in the spirit of thinking I really wanted to get something into one of these shootins again so I think that oughta count even if it's not in full compliance, the rulz are just guidelines, the idea is to get out there & get some practice & motivation. -- Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Shoot in photography challenge - New mandate - try it out! | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | June 5th 05 07:26 AM |
[SI] Shoot-in your photos. Current mandate: "Parents" | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 0 | April 25th 05 08:25 PM |
[SI] Shoot-in your photos. Current mandate: "Parents" | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | April 25th 05 08:25 PM |
Adobe Set to Update Its Creative Suite | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 29th 05 03:21 PM |
Adobe Set to Update Its Creative Suite | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 29th 05 03:21 PM |