100 years--unable to enter this shot

lizzard_nyc

Hi all,
Please indulge me. I think I nailed this shot today, for the theme, I just can't use it because it's a polaroid and no way to verify when it was taken.

Still wanted to share. SOOC.

lizzard_nyc

Aaron Nelson wrote: »

and what's stopping you from going out and doing it all again with the right camera?

This was a freak accident of a shot, but you are right, I should try it again.
Central park was unusually not crowded, I hope I luck into that again.

Don't know why it didn't occur to me:)

Demian

I don't understand why they have that rule, as it's extraordinarily easy to fake exif info It's a great shot too.

I love polaroid, BTW I have a couple cameras, but my fav right now is the 600 with impossible film. What do you use?

billseye

Very cool!

lizzard_nyc

Demian wrote: »

I don't understand why they have that rule, as it's extraordinarily easy to fake exif info It's a great shot too.

I love polaroid, BTW I have a couple cameras, but my fav right now is the 600 with impossible film. What do you use?

Hey there Demian,
Not too many polaroid shots here yet, but little by little I am sneaking them in (Not the challenges, but in the other subforums)

I use both a 600 series polaroid also w/ impossible film. Currently loving the black frame black and whites and the px70 colorshade.

This one I shot w/ the my land camera the Polaroid 195. I'm out of Polaroid/impossible repackaged film and IP is down its last remains of the film and they have no plans on making any more for that camera, thankfully Fuji does still manufactures the fuji peel apart film and that's what I used here, the Fuji FP100B (it's a little finicky and the tabs tend to tear easily), I'm now on their FB3000! for low light shots.

Thanks for commenting.

lizzard_nyc

billseye wrote: »

Very cool!

Thanks Bill, not bad for wrong exposure and speed setting .

Demian

The fuji peel-apart stuff is cool (I love the negatives) but I think I prefer the unpredictable aberrations from the impossible film And I haven't tried the px70 stuff yet... I assume you're using that with your 600 body?

I really wanna get a SX-70 next

Sam

since there is no way to verify when a digital image was taken, why not take someones word for a Polaroid?

Sam

JAG

Sam wrote: »

since there is no way to verify when a digital image was taken, why not take someones word for a Polaroid?

Sam

This was discussed years ago... the final was that this forum is a DIGITAL photography forum. Not film. Thus why it is called Digital Grin.

Overfocused

JAG wrote: »

This was discussed years ago... the final was that this forum is a DIGITAL photography forum. Not film. Thus why it is called Digital Grin.

Blah blah... semantics.. Lol. It all gets converted into 1's and 0's anyway.

Set up even lighting, hang a print up, and just take a photo of the damn print and call it a day. Theres your digital photo

I took a shortcut in film class once by taking photos of my own digital prints... prof didn't know the difference. Its not hard to do. lol.

Sam

JAG wrote: »

This was discussed years ago... the final was that this forum is a DIGITAL photography forum. Not film. Thus why it is called Digital Grin.

I had no idea we have degenerated into digital snootery. cry:cry

Sam

Overfocused

Aaron Nelson wrote: »

Dis'n JAG, dismission of ethics, and omission of character.... all in one post! Wow!

Yowza!

Eh I'm not dissing JAG, I'm dissing the, as Sam says, "digital snootery." As much as I hate using film I don't hate film scans or film users.

As for the rest... for that one time, yep! lol. It was an experiment since I genuinely hated the assignment with a passion, and I decided to see if it'd work.

Worked!

JAG

sheesh guys! The point to my comment was for the challenges. If you want to shoot film then go ahead and shoot film and show it off by scanning or whatever and show it on the forum as the OP did. For the challenges you are required a actual time digital EXIF to the original image to enter. Which means the photo has to be taken with a digital camera. The challenges are called DSS which means DIGITAL Sharp Shooters. They purposely named it that way so not to confuse those who would like to shoot film. I am sure there are plenty of other competitions out there that will be more than happy to take those types of shots. This was determined quite some time ago after much discussions from some pretty smart people. So to come in here and say that we are being snooty is just plan rude and is not in the spirit of what these challenges are about.

So, you asked the question, it got answered to the why and it will not be changing anytime soon. If you do not like it, then do not participate.

SeascapeS

Wow. I've been here for a long time and have never seen a Moderator have to keep defending the rules all the time. This is supposed to be fun. The Challenge is to create an entry, not to see who can challenge the Moderator to the point of utter frustration. This Forum has gone a very long time with no drama and it was a peaceful place. What happened?

As you have all probably noticed, I'm pretty quiet most of the time. I'm just a sit-back-and-observe-others type of person, but I've had enough of the complaining. I have not, ever, found any of the rules to be a problem in any way, shape or form. They are what they are - take them or leave them.

Sorry, Joyce.

SeascapeS

Sorry to Liz also!

dnie

SeascapeS wrote: »

Wow. I've been here for a long time and have never seen a Moderator have to keep defending the rules all the time. This is supposed to be fun. The Challenge is to create an entry, not to see who can challenge the Moderator to the point of utter frustration. This Forum has gone a very long time with no drama and it was a peaceful place. What happened?

As you have all probably noticed, I'm pretty quiet most of the time. I'm just a sit-back-and-observe-others type of person, but I've had enough of the complaining. I have not, ever, found any of the rules to be a problem in any way, shape or form. They are what they are - take them or leave them.

Sorry, Joyce.

The rules are what they are and what they have been for a long time. Joyce shouldn't have to repeat them every single challenge and anyone not in agreement with them is not required to participate. She didn't make the rules, they have worked well for a long time.
Now lets get on to what we are here for, the fun of the challenge, sharing and learned from each other.

Sam

I apologize for any perception of ruddiness, and voicing an opinion contrary to acceptable thought, and thank you for pointing out that some pretty smart people have already worked all this out for me.

Sam

angevin1

SeascapeS wrote: »

What happened?
.

What happens is as you create more rules there is more resistance.

my 2¢

angevin1

Sam wrote: »

since there is no way to verify when a digital image was taken, why not take someones word for a Polaroid?

Sam

Good point Sam! In fact, you could say the Polaroid is the ultimate in digital photography because it even has a printer inside!

No Offense OP or Mod!

sherstone

Let's get back on topic
Please let's get off the topic of rules or digital vs. analog in this thread.
The OP (Liz) just wanted to share the shot. I'm sure it was never her intention to question why she could not enter it.

If anyone still wishes to discuss rules or digital vs. analog please do so in the general discussion thread located here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=93414

Thank you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled "challenges"

lkbart

Liz - I have a question about your shot: Is the focus intentionally off? You mentioned the exposure & speed being off - is it a movement blur? The composition is awesome, the subject matter looks neat, the lighting might be a smidge bright but just makes the shot high key, the b/w toning is really good, the lines are great. But I keep searching for one little bit of sharper focus. I personally struggle with focus, have worn glasses or contacts since 4th grade & maybe because of that, I want to see an area - however small - of sharp focus. It looks like the world without glasses for me (a very nice world in your shot!!). Of course, I found myself "hunting for eyelashes" this evening when I was shooting some portraits! Obsessing?!? Seriously though, I know there are worlds of different styles & I'm just curious if this is a style or if I'm overfocussing on the focus (duplicity intended - decided it wasn't really a pun!).

Whether the photograph was taken 100 years ago or yesterday, with whatever camera, one of the criteria some people use for judging a photo is whether they would hang it on their wall. Although some out of focus photographs have other artistic qualities that merit a place on the wall, most out of focus photographs are ones that end up in the bottom of a drawer and not on the wall, especially since there were cameras 100 years ago that took crisp photos, per the links in the entry thread.

My question is more on the line of whether it was your intent to have it out of focus, or if that was a result of the settings being off.

lizzard_nyc

Boy this thread took a turn.

I do wish I could enter film shots, however I do see how you can't prove the date taken and EXIF is the best way. I'm good with that, it's a rule.

I usually would not share a polaroid on this thread except that it fit the theme so perfectly!
I have been posting them on people or street since there is no "film" subforum and it would likely not have much traffic.

I did almost enter this one into a Mega for "emerge" a while back but I didn't think it was good enough. I remember posting it after the fact and I got high compliments:)

lizzard_nyc

lkbart wrote: »

Liz - I have a question about your shot: Is the focus intentionally off? You mentioned the exposure & speed being off - is it a movement blur? The composition is awesome, the subject matter looks neat, the lighting might be a smidge bright but just makes the shot high key, the b/w toning is really good, the lines are great. But I keep searching for one little bit of sharper focus. I personally struggle with focus, have worn glasses or contacts since 4th grade & maybe because of that, I want to see an area - however small - of sharp focus. It looks like the world without glasses for me (a very nice world in your shot!!). Of course, I found myself "hunting for eyelashes" this evening when I was shooting some portraits! Obsessing?!? Seriously though, I know there are worlds of different styles & I'm just curious if this is a style or if I'm overfocussing on the focus (duplicity intended - decided it wasn't really a pun!).

Whether the photograph was taken 100 years ago or yesterday, with whatever camera, one of the criteria some people use for judging a photo is whether they would hang it on their wall. Although some out of focus photographs have other artistic qualities that merit a place on the wall, most out of focus photographs are ones that end up in the bottom of a drawer and not on the wall, especially since there were cameras 100 years ago that took crisp photos, per the links in the entry thread.

My question is more on the line of whether it was your intent to have it out of focus, or if that was a result of the settings being off.

Hi Lillian,
It was a total screw up.

The rangefinder Polaroid is a smidge tricky for me. You have two viewfinders, one you compose in and the other you focus on by moving your fingers back and forth on two levers until the image aligns with the image (i know clear as mud). Also I had just shot in a different enviornment and my exposure and shutter were off hence the image.
After waiting for it to develop and peeling it apart etc. I tried again and got a "better" result, seen here:



It's better I suppose, but I'm more drawn to the completely imperfect botched version, it has a dreamy quality to it that I don't think I could have gotten on purpose.

The newer version is also not perfect, it has the light leaks and I chopped off the hooves. I'm still learning to master my awesome Polaroid rangefinder.

THanks for wanting more info--I was glad to provide it. I am also shooting on a "regular" polaroid camera and I continue to learn w/ that one and now I picked up the toy fisheye w/ 35mm film and I am having too much fun.

sherstone

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

It's better I suppose, but I'm more drawn to the completely imperfect botched version, it has a dreamy quality to it that I don't think I could have gotten on purpose.

That is why I like it so much myself. It has a quality that feels right. Sometimes accidents in photography are awesome!

richtersl

I like the botched version a lot too. It has a quirky quality to it that I find appealing. It's an "accident" that will get you a lot of compliments if you get it framed and hang it on your wall.

billseye

richtersl wrote: »

I like the botched version a lot too. It has a quirky quality to it that I find appealing. It's an "accident" that will get you a lot of compliments if you get it framed and hang it on your wall.

rainbow

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

It's better I suppose, but I'm more drawn to the completely imperfect botched version, it has a dreamy quality to it that I don't think I could have gotten on purpose.

It's probably the grey tones and lack of contrast that you like...

lkbart

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

Hi Lillian,
It was a total screw up.

It's better I suppose, but I'm more drawn to the completely imperfect botched version, it has a dreamy quality to it that I don't think I could have gotten on purpose.

The newer version is also not perfect, it has the light leaks and I chopped off the hooves. I'm still learning to master my awesome Polaroid rangefinder.

THanks for wanting more info--I was glad to provide it. I am also shooting on a "regular" polaroid camera and I continue to learn w/ that one and now I picked up the toy fisheye w/ 35mm film and I am having too much fun.

Thanks Liz - I do agree I like the dreamy quality & actually think surprises like this is one of the great things about photography - sometimes you can plan & prepare & yet your best shot ends up coming from the unexpected when you're playing around!