| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
 Posted: 03.05.2011 20:37
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28.04.2006 Posts: 6098
|
|
Impressionism, abstraction, bokeh, etc.... Take an artsy-fartsy picture.
Theme suggestion courtesy of orionid--thanks! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 03.31.2011 23:56
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 29.09.2006 Posts: 1625
|
|
To be clear, all of the usual Farktography rules apply with this theme. Correct? Or can we use post-processing effects?
I will like this theme either way.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.01.2011 02:27
|
|
Joined: 27.02.2011 Posts: 671
Location: Manchester, UK
|
|
| I'm figuring based off the description it's strictly pre-processing. Orionid would have to clarify it, though. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.01.2011 07:15
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 04.09.2008 Posts: 2855
|
|
Farktographer wrote: I'm figuring based off the description it's strictly pre-processing. Orionid would have to clarify it, though.
Correct. The usual post-processing rules apply, get artsy with your camera, not photoshop. |
_________________
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.
~Leonardo Da Vinci
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.01.2011 11:32
|
|
Joined: 27.02.2011 Posts: 671
Location: Manchester, UK
|
|
This theme seems pretty broad - am I right in assuming that? What's artsy-fartsy to one person might not be so artsy to another. I'm just wondering whether the composition of a photo that I consider to be "artsy" is enough to warrant submission to this contest. It's always hard to tell when you throw abstract into the mix  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.01.2011 12:06
|
|
Joined: 08.11.2010 Posts: 87
|
|
| i presume a (tweaked) preset in Nik eFex or Lightroom would be too much? I really like the "parched paper" in Nik.......... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.01.2011 13:43
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28.04.2006 Posts: 6098
|
|
Farktography: Yes, it's pretty open ended. And consequently, you never know what will appeal to the fickle Fark voters.
EdenLiesObscured: Yes, those kinds of tweaks would be too much. Adding textures and the like goes beyond the usual rules. |
_________________
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.01.2011 17:52
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 13.07.2006 Posts: 1022
|
|
Farktographer wrote: This theme seems pretty broad - am I right in assuming that? What's artsy-fartsy to one person might not be so artsy to another. I'm just wondering whether the composition of a photo that I consider to be "artsy" is enough to warrant submission to this contest. It's always hard to tell when you throw abstract into the mix
They let me get away with a picture of stuffed animal dogs playing poker for the artistic bent contest so I have trouble seeing anything that doesn't break the regular rules being disqualified. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.05.2011 00:56
|
|
Joined: 12.02.2011 Posts: 1
|
|
linguine wrote: Farktographer wrote: This theme seems pretty broad - am I right in assuming that? What's artsy-fartsy to one person might not be so artsy to another. I'm just wondering whether the composition of a photo that I consider to be "artsy" is enough to warrant submission to this contest. It's always hard to tell when you throw abstract into the mix
They let me get away with a picture of stuffed animal dogs playing poker for the artistic bent contest so I have trouble seeing anything that doesn't break the regular rules being disqualified.
I am half drunk - after dark, fark, etc... - so excuse me if I miss your point. I have a couple off the top of my head that I would think meet the theme. Basically it is light being bent through things, one of which is a very clear icicle bending all of the rocks behind it through as a reflection.
The other is a straight picture of my wife. I am pretty sure Picasso used her ancestors as models. Eyes, tits, noses all over the place. But she is the most awesome person in the world!  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: 04-06-11 - Artsy-Fartsy
Posted: 04.05.2011 03:41
|
|
Joined: 27.02.2011 Posts: 671
Location: Manchester, UK
|
|
mn_steveO wrote: linguine wrote: Farktographer wrote: This theme seems pretty broad - am I right in assuming that? What's artsy-fartsy to one person might not be so artsy to another. I'm just wondering whether the composition of a photo that I consider to be "artsy" is enough to warrant submission to this contest. It's always hard to tell when you throw abstract into the mix
They let me get away with a picture of stuffed animal dogs playing poker for the artistic bent contest so I have trouble seeing anything that doesn't break the regular rules being disqualified.
I am half drunk - after dark, fark, etc... - so excuse me if I miss your point. I have a couple off the top of my head that I would think meet the theme. Basically it is light being bent through things, one of which is a very clear icicle bending all of the rocks behind it through as a reflection.
The other is a straight picture of my wife. I am pretty sure Picasso used her ancestors as models. Eyes, tits, noses all over the place. But she is the most awesome person in the world!
I'm interpreting this as each photographer deciding for themselves what's artsy-fartsy, and then letting the voters decide. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 04.05.2011 04:40
|
|
Joined: 29.11.2007 Posts: 458
|
|
| My camera has malfunctioned and created randomly distorted images a few times since I've owned it. Usually it means the raw format files are corrupt and are unusable. But twice I've gotten images that while messed up, still were formatted in such a way that they made sense. One example is in this gallery along with normal photo from the same session for comparison. The other batch I have essentially included rectangular sections from previous photos with whacked colors superimposed on what I was photographing. I find some of those really interesting. The question is whether or not they are acceptable for this contest? Meaning, if my camera lost it's marbles and scrambled the photo in ways that were outside of my control, can I use them? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 04.05.2011 06:47
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28.04.2006 Posts: 6098
|
|
mn_steveO: As long as your wife is not naked or partly naked, you should be fine
Choc-Ful-A: Believe it or not, we've had similar camera malfunction shots submitted before, and we've allowed them on the basis that they actually did come out of the camera that way. Just note in your post what the situation was. |
_________________
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 04.05.2011 12:16
|
|
Joined: 14.02.2010 Posts: 2804
|
|
I'd like not to ask, but I'm in a quandary about one of my photos. The session was 'bees', literally, and there were lots of good images. I've narrowed down to two, both bokeh examples. One is more 'serious', the other I'd want to caption with 'Came for the burgers; got franks instead. Left dissappointed,' Though I think it's a good picture on it's own, and a different take on the typical bee image we see, such as my first one. Or if I'm totally off base altogether, that, too.
Thoughts? Because there can bee only one...
http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/apr/06/artsy02sml.jpg
http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/apr/06/artsy05sml.jpg |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 04.05.2011 12:21
|
|
Joined: 26.04.2010 Posts: 246
|
|
| Rav - I like the first one better. The detail on the bee is nice and the color in the background is lovely. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 04.05.2011 13:38
|
|
Joined: 10.01.2009 Posts: 298
|
|
zincprincess wrote: Rav - I like the first one better. The detail on the bee is nice and the color in the background is lovely.
Yep, what she said. |
_________________
70574
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
