Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[SI] Current Challenge - Creative OOF

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 7:33:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...

<drum roll please>

Creative OOF

Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
the photo should be creatively-blurred.

Due: August 28, 2005

The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html


--

Bill
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Oooh I like this one.


Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>
> <drum roll please>
>
> Creative OOF
>
> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
> the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>
> Due: August 28, 2005
>
> The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net
Triteleia Natives
http://www.triteleia.com
(415) 722-6037
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:01:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...

Hey, we still have 2 days on local geography! :) 

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/localgeo

> <drum roll please>
>
> Creative OOF

OOF? Did someone punch you in the tummy? :) 

> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
> the photo should be creatively-blurred.

Oh, blurred as if you just got punched in the tummy.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Related resources
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:23:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 12 Aug 2005 03:33:44 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>
><drum roll please>
>
>Creative OOF
>
>Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
>the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>
>Due: August 28, 2005
>
>The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html

Do you mean DOF?

of course he does!

oh OK...

wot a doofus!
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:37:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Robbie <RoboFork@spamnomore.com> wrote in
news:bpbqf11euhh9m287itj0pcv08orp5q57s3@4ax.com:

> On 12 Aug 2005 03:33:44 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>
>><drum roll please>
>>
>>Creative OOF
>>
>>Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements
>>in the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>
>>Due: August 28, 2005
>>
>>The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
>
> Do you mean DOF?

No...OOF (Out Of Focus)

> of course he does!
>
> oh OK...
>
> wot a doofus!

That you are. ;-)





--

Bill
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96AFD669277AAWoodchuckBill@66.250.146.159:

> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>
> <drum roll please>
>
> Creative OOF
>
> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
> the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>
> Due: August 28, 2005
>
> The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html

It is now official...

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/oof

(Nice test image, Al)

--

Bill
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 2:28:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Robbie wrote:


>
> Do you mean DOF?
>
> of course he does!
>
> oh OK...
>
> wot a doofus!

DOF is DOF and does not imply necessarilly that there is an OOF
background (or foreground element for that matter) contributing to the
composition. DOF can be from a few feet from the lens to the horizon
and nothing OOF in the image.

Even if the DOF is shallow, there are a variety of situations where
there is no background "information" of the sort associated with OOF:
A blue sky,
unlit background of a studio shot,
shot of a "plane" subject such as a painting.

and many more.

Don't label people as doofi before you think things through...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:44:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 13 Aug 2005 02:37:49 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Robbie <RoboFork@spamnomore.com> wrote in
>news:bpbqf11euhh9m287itj0pcv08orp5q57s3@4ax.com:
>
>> On 12 Aug 2005 03:33:44 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>>
>>><drum roll please>
>>>
>>>Creative OOF
>>>
>>>Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements
>>>in the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>>
>>>Due: August 28, 2005
>>>
>>>The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
>>
>> Do you mean DOF?
>
>No...OOF (Out Of Focus)
>
>> of course he does!
>>
>> oh OK...
>>
>> wot a doofus!
>
>That you are. ;-)

Surely I am, I am... :) 

Time to say DOH!!!! *

Of course, using DOF gives you areas OOF, n'est ce pas?

mais qui, mais qui!

quel blag!!



* Depths of Humility
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 11:46:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:28:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Robbie wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Do you mean DOF?
>>
>> of course he does!
>>
>> oh OK...
>>
>> wot a doofus!
>
>DOF is DOF and does not imply necessarilly that there is an OOF
>background (or foreground element for that matter) contributing to the
>composition. DOF can be from a few feet from the lens to the horizon
>and nothing OOF in the image.
>
>Even if the DOF is shallow, there are a variety of situations where
>there is no background "information" of the sort associated with OOF:
> A blue sky,
> unlit background of a studio shot,
> shot of a "plane" subject such as a painting.
>
> and many more.
>
>Don't label people as doofi before you think things through...
>

I was referring to myself... :) 

not me...

the other me...
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 7:30:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Robbie <RoboFork@spamnomore.com> wrote in
news:e51tf1lajld7ad1sh3r97gvfn7j5tcpfcr@4ax.com:

> On 13 Aug 2005 02:37:49 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Robbie <RoboFork@spamnomore.com> wrote in
>>news:bpbqf11euhh9m287itj0pcv08orp5q57s3@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 12 Aug 2005 03:33:44 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>>>
>>>><drum roll please>
>>>>
>>>>Creative OOF
>>>>
>>>>Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more
>>>>elements in the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>>>
>>>>Due: August 28, 2005
>>>>
>>>>The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
>>>
>>> Do you mean DOF?
>>
>>No...OOF (Out Of Focus)
>>
>>> of course he does!
>>>
>>> oh OK...
>>>
>>> wot a doofus!
>>
>>That you are. ;-)
>
> Surely I am, I am... :) 
>
> Time to say DOH!!!! *
>
> Of course, using DOF gives you areas OOF, n'est ce pas?
>
> mais qui, mais qui!
>
> quel blag!!

Hehe. No big deal...just submit a shot and everyone's happy. ;-)

--

Bill
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 4:07:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:

> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>
> <drum roll please>
>
> Creative OOF
>
> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
> the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>
Does a portrait with OOF background count? I have a very nice shot of
my cat that would qualify in that case (although the blurred
background is of an even colour and texture).

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 7:11:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <87vf283k8g.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan>,
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>
>> <drum roll please>
>>
>> Creative OOF
>>
>> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
>> the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>
>Does a portrait with OOF background count? I have a very nice shot of
>my cat that would qualify in that case (although the blurred
>background is of an even colour and texture).

As do I -- but I think that the rules include it being shot
*during* the challenge period, and you lose points with pre-existing
photos. Otherwise, I might actually submit that shot. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:28:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>
>> <drum roll please>
>>
>> Creative OOF
>>
>> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
>> the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>
>Does a portrait with OOF background count? I have a very nice shot of
>my cat that would qualify in that case (although the blurred
>background is of an even colour and texture).


You should shoot something new that complies with the mandate. Merely
uploading an image that you have already made is against the spirit of
the SI, which is all about shooting to a specific brief within the
time allowed.

Of course there is one contributor to the SI who almost always
supplies a shot from his increasingly dull archive of incompetent
snapshots. However, the rules ("rulz") were never supposed to apply
to Alan Browne, only to everyone else.

;-)
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
news:87vf283k8g.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan:

> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>
>> <drum roll please>
>>
>> Creative OOF
>>
>> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements
>> in the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>
> Does a portrait with OOF background count?

Sure, but the idea is to go out and shoot for the challenge if
possible...but if you can't, archive shots are allowed.






--

Bill
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:42:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns96B28614345B8WoodchuckBill@66.250.146.159:

> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
> news:87vf283k8g.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan:
>
>> Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>>
>>> <drum roll please>
>>>
>>> Creative OOF
>>>
>>> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements
>>> in the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>>
>> Does a portrait with OOF background count?
>
> Sure, but the idea is to go out and shoot for the challenge if
> possible...but if you can't, archive shots are allowed.

I'll add...unless there has been a change in the original rules. Al?
Alan?


--

Bill
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 2:56:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.com> wrote in message > Of course there is one
contributor to the SI who almost always
> supplies a shot from his increasingly dull archive of incompetent
> snapshots. However, the rules ("rulz") were never supposed to apply
> to Alan Browne, only to everyone else.

replonk. again! take the hint.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:27:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.com> writes:

> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>>
>>> <drum roll please>
>>>
>>> Creative OOF
>>>
>>> Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements in
>>> the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>>
>>Does a portrait with OOF background count? I have a very nice shot of
>>my cat that would qualify in that case (although the blurred
>>background is of an even colour and texture).
>
>
> You should shoot something new that complies with the mandate. Merely
> uploading an image that you have already made is against the spirit of
> the SI, which is all about shooting to a specific brief within the
> time allowed.
>
I know that. The shot in question is very recent though, so I thought
it couldn't hurt to ask.

Well, I have two weeks, so I might see if a nice opportunity presents
itself for a better shot.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:30:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.com> wrote in message > Of course there is one
> contributor to the SI who almost always
>
>>supplies a shot from his increasingly dull archive of incompetent
>>snapshots. However, the rules ("rulz") were never supposed to apply
>>to Alan Browne, only to everyone else.
>
>
> replonk. again! take the hint.
>

Er, neither Tony nor Alan are big on hints; nor are you IIRC. It'd be
nice if they stopped with the pot/slap shots at each other, and if
public plonkers went private. [hint, hint.]

Cheerily posted with the bets placed on the status quo, however.

--

John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:32:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill wrote:
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
> news:87vf283k8g.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan:
>
>
>>Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>The current Shoot-In mandate challenge is...
>>>
>>><drum roll please>
>>>
>>>Creative OOF
>>>
>>>Part of your photo should be in sharp-focus; one or more elements
>>>in the photo should be creatively-blurred.
>>>
>>
>>Does a portrait with OOF background count?
>
>
> Sure, but the idea is to go out and shoot for the challenge if
> possible...but if you can't, archive shots are allowed.
>
Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is
unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria?

<s>

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 6:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QJednUKnA-2dl5zeRVn->

Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is
> unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria?

No, that wouldn't count....If, for example you think you are taking a
picture of some WMD's, with OOF nudes in the background, and you end up with
the nudes in focus, and the WMD's out of focus, then that picture would not
count......
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 9:58:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:33:00 GMT, "Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com>
wrote:

>> The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
>
>Is it legal to submit two images for the SI challenge?

People have done it in the past, but have been prosecuted to the full
extent of the law. Which in this case is nothing more than a soft poke
in the ribs when you are asleep.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 10:36:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:QJednUKnA-2dl5zeRVn->
>
> Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is
>
>>unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria?
>
>
> No, that wouldn't count....If, for example you think you are taking a
> picture of some WMD's, with OOF nudes in the background, and you end up with
> the nudes in focus, and the WMD's out of focus, then that picture would not
> count......
>

Damn! And that was exactly what happened over the weekend...

How about DoF and OoF for consistency??


--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:13:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <g6m1g1tick97b9p6kco6siipb121li4mp7@4ax.com>, owamanga-not-
this-bit@hotmail.com says...
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:33:00 GMT, "Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> The rulz can be found at http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
> >
> >Is it legal to submit two images for the SI challenge?
>
> People have done it in the past, but have been prosecuted to the full
> extent of the law. Which in this case is nothing more than a soft poke
> in the ribs when you are asleep.

It's in far better taste if you submit one photo and then post a link to
your alternate. Less rib poking and you can sleep in.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:04:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > >Is it legal to submit two images for the SI challenge?
> >
> > People have done it in the past, but have been prosecuted to the full
> > extent of the law. Which in this case is nothing more than a soft poke
> > in the ribs when you are asleep.
>
> It's in far better taste if you submit one photo and then post a link to
> your alternate. Less rib poking and you can sleep in.

Good idea.

Here's my two alternates for the blurry topic.

http://marklauter.com/gallery/MiscBW/oof_2

and

http://marklauter.com/gallery/MiscBW/towel

My interpretation of OOF isn't DoF, but really OOF. When I used to post on
photosig.com I noticed many comments (to myself and others) about images
being not sharp enough. But I'm more of an impressionist. Thanks be to the
gods I don't have to burn money on a "tack sharp lens". Not long ago
someone suggested I use some tool or other to remove noise from my photo.
Hell no! The noise *MADE* the image. I'm the type who prefers to shoot ISO
1600 film and create soft, but edgey images (I'm just not very good at it.)
:) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 2:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QJednUOnA-3qlJzeRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> ian lincoln wrote:
>> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.com> wrote in message > Of course there is one
>> contributor to the SI who almost always
>>
>>>supplies a shot from his increasingly dull archive of incompetent
>>>snapshots. However, the rules ("rulz") were never supposed to apply
>>>to Alan Browne, only to everyone else.
>>
>>
>> replonk. again! take the hint.
>>
>
> Er, neither Tony nor Alan are big on hints; nor are you IIRC.

Perhaps the hinters are in my killfile.

It'd be
> nice if they stopped with the pot/slap shots at each other, and if public
> plonkers went private. [hint, hint.]

Most residents of my killfile don't know they are there. However polson
regularly changes his address cos he knows he's in most killfiles.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 9:57:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:

> Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
>> Sure, but the idea is to go out and shoot for the challenge if
>> possible...but if you can't, archive shots are allowed.
>>
> Does it count if one captures an image after the announce period, but is
> unaware of the mandate, and the photo accidentally meets the criteria?


Hey I just came up with one shot three days before the mandate but it
was in the spirit of thinking I really wanted to get something into one
of these shootins again so I think that oughta count even if it's not in
full compliance, the rulz are just guidelines, the idea is to get out
there & get some practice & motivation.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
!