FB already has the controversial terms in their policy for IP content. Their IP policy says: "You grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This is almost the exact same verbiage that got Instagram into trouble with users.
I love the sense of contrast between the ornately hand painted egg and the cheap candy wrappers.
Correction to the info: the bounce flash was on-camera in TTL mode.
Nice photo,good work on the composite which, I must say, goes way beyond the "Basic PP" rule. ;-)
Why mention a camera like this as a replacement for a FF dslr, much less any dslr? Why do some people not seem to get it that not every mirrorless camera is supposed to be a dslr replacement? To me it's an amusing (and sometimes annoying) aspect of the dslr/mirrorless "debate" that people keep saying "mirrorless can't do what my dslr can do..."
There are those of us who appreciate the "old school", 35mm rangefinder approach to photography. I would suggest people don't look a the X-Pro1 as a replacement for a dslr any more than people looked at the Leica M4 as a 35mm slr replacement during the film era.
The same goes for zooms. I'm sure they will come, but it's obvious Fuji is not trying to beat the competition "mano a mano" but rather is using the success of the X100 as a indicator of the niche they are wanting to fill.
You 2 must be the only people who missed this:
You must have missed this:
I'm bemused by the continual posts all over this site "Make ____ Olympus product more like __________ brand. Heck, just go ahead and buy the other brand, folks. If you don't understand that Olympus is wanting to blaze its own path in the m4/3 market, then you should indeed switch brands. It will save you the frustration of constantly griping when Olympus does something their own way instead of copying others.
BTW, news flash on build in EVF-right now, more people have "grown up" using cameras with no EVF than have used one, so the marketing numbers are against those who say "we want an EVF". That we is an ever decreasing market segment, like it or not.
As I host, I was disappointed by the low number of entries. Also, so many were simply shots of transvestites, which is not really directly related to RHPS. However, if I had disqualified all the photos which I felt didn't really match the theme, there would have been only about 3 or 4 photos left. So I reinstated them.
I think this indicates a few things. First, not a lot of people persuing the challenge section were aware of or understand the subculture surrounding RHPS and related events. (Maybe I should have told people to rent a copy of the movie "Fame" so they could see what goes on at an RHPS showing LOL). Second, I get the feeling some entrants may have done a minimal of research, or even just asked a friend what the movie was about, and figured that since the lead character is a transvestite, pics of transvestites were suitable. I'll allow for that...
But on a deeper level I think it reflects that people will often impose a very personal interpretation of a theme or rule. Sometimes I find this personal interpretion to be a surprise in a good way. The photographer saw an angle on the theme I wasn't considering. Other times though, it really is a matter of a photographer simply entering a photo in the hopes of getting votes, likely knowing full well it doesn't really match the theme or rules.
For this challenge, I was expecting a lot more photos of lucious red lips, women (and men) in boustiers, body builders in Speedos and "Cosplay" style photos in general. Yes, I guess the RHPS fans were on vacation...
You definitely got the theme! Maybe add a squirtgun? ;-)
This challenge involves a difficult subject. It's not meant to be one where people can say "Hey kids, look at these nice shots". Having been treated for depression myself, I find this photo portrays a very real aspect of the illness.
I can go back and find many photos in other challenges that are far more disturbing. One I well remember is of a 30 something prostitute, taken on her birthday-she looks 60 something because drugs and her lifestyle have had a terrible effect on her physically.
Photography is meant to capture and display a given person's perspective of the world. --Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.
Really as nice as this photo is to an extent, it's pretty obvious that the consensus of low votes is more indicative of it's quality than the huge spike of 5 star ratings.
Looks like someone had a lot of friends. LOL
The lighting is excellent. But what really pulls it all together is the dancer looking to her right, adn the expression on her face.
The tonality of the mist keeps the "dead space" from being wasted. There are two levels to this photo too. First the overall composition in which the space draws attention to the house and trees. But then the boat in the lower left in turn is a composition within a composition. Great work!
David,It's a common problem with the challenges to have people loosely interpret or completely misinterpret the theme, in both entries and voting. As a host, I can relate to Alex missing an entry that should have been disqualified. I certainly have. I can also relate to people giving high ratings to entries that don't really express the intent of the challenge. Most seem to vote simply for those images which are the most eye-catching whether they offer a narrative appropriate to the challenge or not.
As hosts, we can try to make the theme and rules as clear as possible, and someone will always disregard them.
Simple theme description/rule: "Shot from behind, tell something about people with no faces showing."
This shot should have been disqualified, yet people vote it into 6th place? No wonder some people mock the challenges. :-(
Since there is no rule in this challenge against PP, then why fault people for how they voted. Perhaps many people recognized the obviousness of the PP and ranked it highly because of the simple reason they liked the picture.
Now the fact that the photographer said there was "very minimal post processing" would lead me, personally, to give him .5 star for lack of credibility. But I wouldn't fault the photo just for being PP.
FNG303 thought it was IR. Those more familiar with IR photography would recognize this is not the case. Just as those more familiar with how light actually works can see that the highlights and shadows of the image are completely reversed. About the only way to create the effect seen without converting it to negative would be to illuminate the image from inside the rope, or possibly with bright enough light from behind to transilluminate it.
It can be fairly easy for some images to slip through the cracks for a host. We fit reviewing photos into our existing schedules.
This is why as a host, I've mentioned on several threads that the results of challenges cannot be equated with juried competition evaluation of an image. There is such a wide variety of experience among the voters, that it really does boil down to popularity of an image rather than "pure" technical and aesthetic merit.
It's also a bit of an indictment of the voters that this image placed so highly. Shows the tendency of people to not examine images closely enough before voting.