Thanks. My first challenge win, after entering many, and with a compact! Butler Gulch, Colorado.
Smoking marijuana is now legal in Colorado, where I live and shoot pictures. Just sayin' ;-)
wolfytom: I don't get it? Why deform a pretty girl's face?Surely the use of any 'extra' should add to the pic, not diminish it?
This is basically s photo of a pretty little girl, what does the fish eye add?
Sir, is there no whimsical bone in your body?
That's so sad; you're utterly trapped in your rectilinear box!
OMG! This is adorable! Great shot!
or flies that are eating butter?
Ich bin ein Berliner!
Wow! Fabulous shot!
Lovely subject, lovely image, my favorite!
DotCom Editor: "The most unique new feature of the GX7 is its flip-up electronic viewfinder."
Something can't be more unique than something else. Unique is an absolute. Either something is unique, or it is not. There is no such thing as degrees of uniqueness.
In light of other recent Adobe news, this sounds ominous: 'what Adobe has in store for photographers.'
Really nice photo of Winston Hendrickson, above. Cool, calm, collected. "We've carefully thought this through. We knew a lot of people would be pi$$ed. Frankly, my dear, we don't give a damn."
I hear ya, Winston!
Not my photo, an edit of one posted in a thread by someone else.
Good photo with great perspective, and amazing model, complete with realistic grime and paint chips. It looks like it's seen a lot of flight hours! Just curious how long that model plane is, and if it's the photographer's work.
I love my Note 2. I don't use the camera all that much, but it strikes me as decent for a cell phone (I don't have huge expectations), and it's always with me.
The Note 2 will accept a 64GB micro SD card. It's easy to load photos taken with a better camera, and the big screen provides a great way to show them to family and friends.
Fun article to read, and an intriguing insight into the world of the pro photographers responsible for the great images we are so accustomed to seeing. Thanks to Dean, John, and DPR for this!
ConanFuji: If you want pics of Sleeping Dogs, then you should title it Sleeping Dogs.Sleepy means it's on the verge of sleeping.
Whoa! ConanFuji (a/k/a Mr. "I'll run my challenges by my own wacky rules and if you express any negative comments, I'll just delete them") posts a super-picky comment about another host's challenge. Actually CF, this host is pretty clear as to what this challenge is about. And although not all sleepy dogs are sleeping, it's probably true that all sleeping dogs are sleepy.
brentbrent: You know, there are many challenge hosts who get negative comments of one sort or the other about the challenge. Most of them don't just delete them.
Both positive and negative comments can contribute to a discussion, as this discussion illustrates, once you stopped deleting my comments. The mindset that one is entitled to simply delete comments that one finds negative or sarcastic is one with which I disagree. Perhaps it is a cultural difference.
I do agree with you on one point. I find challenges with greater than 100 entries to be bigger than I generally care to look through, and if I'm going to vote on entries, I prefer the limit to be 50 or 75.
But we just disagree on the merits of limiting a challenge to past challenge winners. As I said, the results of this one speak for themselves.
To me, to limit a challenge to previous challenge winners, and to limit it to 10 entries, is elitist to the extreme. It suggests that the challenge host is more interested in an aura of exclusivity, a sense that THIS challenge is REALLY SPECIAL, as opposed to hosting a challenge for fun, and to see what kinds of creative and excellent photos the many talented members of this site can produce.
I think my point is proven by the fact that there are only two entries in this challenge. Without those two rules, I'll bet we'd have a lot more entries, there would be a good chance that some would be even better than these two very good entries, and the entire challenge would be a lot more interesting.
Now, you are entitled to your opinion, and if you want to run challenges like this for two entries, that's up to you. But deleting comments that express a different view than yours? Really?
Sure, here are two rules which I don't like:
"Only entrants who have won at least one photo challenge in Dpreview.com can enter."
""The total entry limit is now set at 10 [wasn't this originally 15?], but only 8 final entrants will be accepted after culling unacceptable or late ones."
There are hundreds and hundreds of challenges on this site, and generally the winners are very good photos. And you know what? MANY, probably the vast majority, of those very good photos were taken by people who had not previously won a challenge. If they were ineligible to enter those challenges because of rules like yours, we would not have been able to see and appreciate their work.
There you go! That's an exchange of differing viewpoints, instead of just erasing what you don't agree with. Good for you! It really does work. I hope you remember that the next time someone writes a critical comment that you happen to disagree with.
And, by the way, I have no problem with the two participants. My original comment was about YOUR challenge rules. So, please, don't duck the substance of my comment by a straw man accusation that my comments reflect upon the participants.