John Ball John: 30% of the pictures to not represent CORN !
They do. Your definition of corn is just exclusivly US-American.In Great Britain corn stands for wheat.
chrime55: Hi, Zuph,my pic of Rye was disqualified because it is no corn? In my opinion corn is a general term for every mode of grain, not only sweet corn. Perhaps I've got a wrong dictionary. Next time I'll be more careful, so you might be more exactly in your description. Greetings
Well, my copy of "Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English" Oxford University Press, Nineteenth Impression 1985 (which was a official textbook at school) has the following to say:"corn: (..) 1 [U] (collective) (seed of) any of various grain plants, chiefly wheat, oats, rye and (esp. US) maize (...)"
So, while one can argue that the meaning of non-english words like the german "Korn" doesn't count, the meaning in british english is more or less wheat, calling maize corn is one of the great transatlantic differences.(And trying to make beer out of the stuff is going too far...)
As dpreview was, up to last year afaik, a british website, one could argue that the photos depicting maize are wrong :-)
John Ball John: Nice picture but this is not a corn field
If you are british, it is (or european, but only then most of us speak another language).Corn is always the main crop, it is just in the USA (and perhaps Canada) that corn == maize.
A Fujifilm X100 qualifies as a lensbaby?
Looks more like postprocessing -- one round sharp region, and the rest uniformly unsharp.With a lensbaby, there should be a more gradual loss of sharpness, that gets stronger.
Nice idea!But I would suggest an additional rule that the entry shouldn't have finished in the top 10 in any challenge; otherwise you might get entries that took part in more than one challenge, won one, but finished worse in another, and so are qualified by the rules (but I guess not by your intention) for this challenge. The entrants then can give you a hard time if you want to dq them.
And, if you have similar challenges for the future in mind, maybe you could make the, uh, qualifying rank relative?As in "not in the top ten percent" or "in the lower 50 percent".There is imho a little difference between a 11th place in a challenge with only 12 entrants, or a challenge with 500.
anzacspirit: This challenge has entry set to 0 so you cannot enter
Seems the host has taken a break:http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1044&message=41601105
Too bad, and I suffered an hay fever attack shooting my intended entry for this challenge...
LDunn1: This made me look twice & then smile.
The only constructive comment I'd make, it is a pity that you did not turn of fthe liveview 'info' first - I find teh histogram peak a bit distracting from the similicity of the shot.
I was not aware of the work of art for your inspiration until I visited your link - thank you.
Thank you! Introducing someone to Magritte (or at least one of his great pictures) should give me at least some good kharma ;-)As far as I can remember I left the liveview as it is to show that it is really liveview, not playback. Perhaps I should have shut off the live histogram.
summicron: several nice entries.some dismaying sandbagging.
Yes, interesting voting pattern...The last challenge with the same winner ( http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=612740) has a similar pattern.
Five Piece: However you got this, spectacular final image! Could you please tell us a bit about your lighting setup, that is always a challenge working with glass.
Yeah, the lighting... before I always had the light-source (then some neon tubes) under the glass, lighting it from below. But with the wine, this ends up getting too dark (for the wine, or else the rest is overexposed).
That time I especially wanted to make photos with red wine, after getting an idea for a rather easy lighting setup.It's really just a softbox (well, a light tent used as a softbox...) shining against a white plastic sheet in the background, so it is a very soft and uniform light. The plastic sheet was leaning against a dark background, which emphasizes the borders of the glasses (it makes them darker)And with glass I always use a cpl, so I can control (if not always eliminate) the reflections, and how the glass-borders look (hard to describe, it just has to be tried)
jojosardez: I would be surprise if this will not win this challenge. Great shot!
I really appreciate your comment, and the comments below, so please don't take this in a bad way, but I think in the spirit of the challenges entries shouldn't be commented on while the voting hasn't finished, because that may influence the scores given (in both ways, good or bad)
Again, thank you very much for your comment, but please only comment after voting has finished.
And, wow, a score of nearly 4? Seems I really found and eliminated all the fingerprints on the glasses ;-)
Thank you all!I used a 7 inch monitor and liveview to help arranging the glasses (great help, because I didn't need to run back and forth...), and then didn't noticed that the first glass was a little out of line (I was too occupied with getting the upper part right).
So the "half" of the title also indicates you are seeing only half of the glasses -- I cut the photo in half and mirrored the left side.
And it makes me a feel a little guilty reading about the great composition, while knowing of my blunder shooting it... (and I even used rulers and a string to get the alignment right, just to be my usual bumbling self at the end...)But, after all, with my means, I would never have got the symmetry that perfect, so perhaps I would have done the mirroring thing in pp anyway.
still no last place... depressing ;-)
I only see reflections, but no refraction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
Reflection != refractionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
Mirrors reflect, but don't refract.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
Isn't that a reflection, and not a refraction?
Well, it's neither a visible refraction, nor was it taken after the announcement date...
christian jacob: "Digital JPEG photos only" -- does that mean the photo must be shot as jpeg (not raw), or only that it wasn't shot on film? Or, in other words, are photos shot as raw and later developed okay or not?As one cannot upload any other format than jpeg here, no film or only shot as jpeg are the only 2 possibilties I can see.
Thank you for the clarification -- as I mostly shoot jpeg+raw (and dispose of the jpegs later) I wanted to know if could enter.