Damn, a lot of these photos are amazing. Hard to choose a favourite, just great photos all around, especially 1, 5-9, 11, 13. I am jealous because I can't do these kind of photos, I am too shy, lol.
Would be an interesting camera for me, if not for the totally obnoxious "LUMIX" lettering on the front.
Those faux landscapes are so cool. I experimented myself in the past to do these fake landscapes, but arguably less successfully. I think these photos really are a good example of how photographers "make photos" rather than merely "take photos". It's something I've always thought about for my photos, or at least tried to.
Apparently size, weight, price and lack of autofocus are not compromises.
I like impressionist techniques in photography. I enjoy the vague, dreamlike quality of these photos. I have seen other photography of this type and I have tried to do something similar for my own photos in the past, using various techniques, without much success, tbh. I think motion blur in particular is a underutilized element in photography. It is something I will make an effort to experiment more with for my future photos.
These pictures remind me of my own parents, before they separated when I was a kid.
Interesting article, beautiful photos. Somehow I guessed just from reading the headline that the gearheads would be upset by this article and make negative comments and childish insults, and I was not wrong.
jorepuusa wrote: > It is possible that he has family, kids, wife, brother, sister etc.> What rights do we have to show his state to all the world.> As a photojournalist I call this -social pornography- at itÂ´s worst.> We live in a world where rags seem to be considered as photogenic.> Sad, cause someone is going to feel very bad about this picture and all the rest in this challenge.> Is that the meaning of photography? To use someone, who has lost everything?
I agree. Instead of photographing homeless people, it is better for photographers to ignore homeless people and pretend that they don't exist, just like rest of the population already do.
RickBuddy wrote: > > > 2RickBuddy:> > Get real. Do not slip into over-moralistic levels. Anyway, your opinion is your opinion, thanks. And your judgement driven by prejudice and anger does not insult me, really. I wish you a good luck.> >> > It is not over-moral to point out that an insensitive hack reveals a stereotypical stigma of the disease.> > Nor is it over-moral to point out that these stigmas make life immensely more difficult for those who suffer from bi-polar condition, and serve as a barrier to treatment.> > I lost a job because the stigma over my bi-polar condition. Your portrayal of the condition reflects a few of the nasty prejudices that people hold against manic-depressives. I know the consequences of your ignorance. No. No. No. I am not over-moralizing.> > I'm just pointing out a prejudiced, ignorant lout who doesn't care what people who suffer feel.> > I have a great job now in the creative arts, make really good money, have a great counselor, have a wonderful support network.> > Try sometime to see the beauty and majesty of the impact of those who not only suffer — but also harness the power of the bi-polar condition: John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Florence Nightingale, Ludwig van Beethoven, Alexander the Great, (Here's a link: http://www.mdf.contactbox.co.uk/info_packs/org/genius.htm).> > Will you ever match that greatness?> > And what do you do? You put them at the end of a rope and call it art.
Yes, admitting that you are manic-depressive and then simultaneously launching into a lengthy and hostile barrage of knee-jerk condemnations, insults and name-callings of some guy on the internet you don't even know will make people think of manic-depressives more kindly, and erase the damage done by this challenge entry to the image of mentally-ill people. Great strategy.
007peter wrote: > I see, voted yourself 5 times with 5 different account. Here we go again :-( So sad
Indeed, here we go again. If anything is sad, it is amount of ignorance of this thread and the amount of suspicion directed toward this entry, or any entry that garners high votes (or low votes for that matter).
Perhaps the low and high scores should be disabled altogether. Make it a range from 2.0 to 3.5 stars instead. And automatically ban any member who has an entry where the votes are not a perfect normal distribution. There should never be any diverging opinions about a photo, there should always be somewhat of a consensus.
scooper1 wrote: > Try using a saturation setting something a bit lower than +20 and see how much more natural the photo looks. Personally I'm tired of seeing grossly oversaturated images in these Challenges, and have difficultly understanding why so many people score them highly.
"Natural" is not always better.
At first glance, it looks like a world that suddenly ends, as if it is on flat disc instead of an oblate sphere...
Looks like a scene out of Lord of the Rings or something...
I thought the "mystic" entries were the best.
I like the atmosphere/mist. Trees look larger than life as well. Great photo.
DragosMN wrote: > this is done in a studio. the shadows fall all wrong even if flash is used. the ambient light is all off like a studio light.
The sun is on the left side. The woman is lit on the left side. The shadows fall to the right. It makes sense to me.
> obviously the water is a backdrop it does not look real but computer generated.
Ever heard of shutter speed? Or, more specifically, low shutter speed?
Why would someone use computer generated water anyways? Are beaches really that difficult to come by?
>but then again there were no rules against this in the contest
Exactly. There is no point to your post.
Figsbury wrote: > Agree it's a nice shot - but looks like original image was probably taken with a relatively long lens, consequently it doesn't have that polaroid SX70 snapshot camera "look".> > Rules also explicitely specified that shot should be of "one" person, so may have been marked down for that reason.> > I'd wait for a suitable opportunity and enter the pre-polaroid version in another challenge, I'm sure it will do better.>
Yeah it definitely looks and feels too distant to be polaroid and esp with the couple facing away. Bottom line it didn't convince me as Polaroid so I didn't give it a high score.
ponderosabob wrote: > Nice Photoshop work.....> > Pretty easy to spot though...
Basically you say it is obvious hack job.
A cowardly (and unwarranted) bashing of a photo.
This was my personal 2nd favorite also.