June 06 Contest Discussion

[T Paul]

Add your comments, questions or general discussion about the June Contest entries here. This is also a great place to share your techniques or ask others about theirs.

Most members are eager to hear comments/suggestions about their entries, so please take the time to help each other out.

[Frank Lopes]

I just saw the image.... and I have one word to describe the challenge:
Ykes!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by T Paul

Add your comments, questions or general discussion about the June Contest entries here. This is also a great place to share your techniques or ask others about theirs.

Most members are eager to hear comments/suggestions about their entries, so please take the time to help each other out.

[aceman]

Nice image. Shame its so small though.

[NancyJ]

The tiff is 2Mb aceman.

Hmmm, the final entry has to be square (which the original isnt) and we're not allowed to crop it....

[Peth]

Glad there's a whole month to try this one... two would be better!

[Caitlin]

This one looks like fun!

Aceman is right though - the dimensions are fairly small. All part of the challenge I suppose.

[OnAir]

There is a link on top:
Retrieve uncompressed archival TIFF version (2 megabytes)
Something big enough to stay working on it for a while

[Frank Lopes]

The image is square... it is the board that is not....

Originally Posted by NancyJ

The tiff is 2Mb aceman.

Hmmm, the final entry has to be square (which the original isnt) and we're not allowed to crop it....

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lopes

The image is square... it is the board that is not....

I guess that comes down to interpretation of 'image' The total image is not sqaure, the photograph that forms part of the image may be (I havent measured it )
The rules say we're not allowed to crop the image. Now the two interpretations of that I can come up with, says either, make the canvas larger to fill the required dimensions and completely cover the card with made up stuff OR, crop the image to leave just the photo and the two curved top corners of the card and cover those up - I'll probably go with the latter, easier option :p

[PhotoB]

Oh goodness. We should have had the long month of May to work on this one!! Good luck all!!

[Frank Lopes]

The other potential point of confusion, is the statement regarding final size: Final image must be exactly 750 pixels square

Mathematically, if one says something is 4 inches (or 4 meters, or 4 miles...) square, it means that one side times the other equals 4. So it could be 1x4 or 2x2 etc

In this case, obviously, 750 pixels square, means a square with sides of 750 pixels each.

Originally Posted by NancyJ

I guess that comes down to interpretation of 'image' The total image is not sqaure, the photograph that forms part of the image may be (I havent measured it )
The rules say we're not allowed to crop the image. Now the two interpretations of that I can come up with, says either, make the canvas larger to fill the required dimensions and completely cover the card with made up stuff OR, crop the image to leave just the photo and the two curved top corners of the card and cover those up - I'll probably go with the latter, easier option :p

[NancyJ]

Originally Posted by PhotoB

Oh goodness. We should have had the long month of May to work on this one!! Good luck all!!

Honestly - I dont think 1 more day would make a difference on this one

[aceman]

Originally Posted by NancyJ

The tiff is 2Mb aceman.

Ok I meant dimensions. The original is 3 cm by 3 cm. Its very doable though.

[T Paul]

For clarification....

* Remove all traces of the card backing but do not crop out any of the actual image

* Final image must be exactly 750 pixels square (750 pixels wide by 750 pixels high)

[soleah]

Originally Posted by Swampy

I'll go ahead and jump in. Coloring is NOT my forte, but I wanna be able to vote.

Anybody notice that there aren't many "happy" people in this photo, except the mother of the bride over there on the left peek-a-booing everyone. LOL

Hi Swampy ,

I believe the mother of the bride you're referring to, whose clothes you colored blue, was actually a statue. It's base was behind the potted plant. At first, I also thought she was one of the entourage, but there was something odd about the positioning of her body.

Anyway, my hats off to you for being the first one to submit an entry. This is a difficult photo to color. Too many details.

[TwinbNJ]

I don't know Soleah - I have been looking at this woman all day as I work on the image and think she is real.
First off if this was a statue based on the angle she is leaning it would fall over.
Also when you look at the flow of her shaw it covers the other woman - see insert - I do not beleive the other woman would be wraped around a statue. Judging by how the others are dressed this woman does stand out as --- how do you say it ---- " that special relative" ! LOL
I think she is real.

I am choosing to let her stand out a bit more as the "special relative" I think she is

congrats Swampy for the first entry - this is a very difficult color to say the least. I am struggeling with my colors - well except for the floosy with a smile!

[Frank Lopes]

When I first looked at the photo I thought the woman on the far left (dark dress), was carrying the torso of a manequin...

Then I realized the she is holding the "special relative"... or a statue...

Originally Posted by TwinbNJ

I don't know Soleah - I have been looking at this woman all day as I work on the image and think she is real.
First off if this was a statue based on the angle she is leaning it would fall over.
Also when you look at the flow of her shaw it covers the other woman - see insert - I do not beleive the other woman would be wraped around a statue. Judging by how the others are dressed this woman does stand out as --- how do you say it ---- " that special relative" ! LOL
I think she is real.

I am choosing to let her stand out a bit more as the "special relative" I think she is

congrats Swampy for the first entry - this is a very difficult color to say the least. I am struggeling with my colors - well except for the floosy with a smile!

[Doug Colwell]

Based on the base, her odd and very dark colouring, her missing arms and legs, immodest dress, and the fact she looks drunk compared to the rest of the party I'm guessing statue.

[TwinbNJ]

Originally Posted by Doug Colwell

Based on the base, her odd and very dark colouring, her missing arms and legs, immodest dress, and the fact she looks drunk compared to the rest of the party I'm guessing statue.

OK call me crazy --- but who would have a half dressed drunk as a statue at a wedding???? lol

so let's take this one step further the person at Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division is bored and has photoshop and says " hey! I think it would be funny to put this "madem" in this wedding picture- maybe it will go on retouchPro and those guys will go nuts trying to figure out how the half dressed woman got in the picture!"

I say DRESSER her up and have fun with it!

Still can't get past the flow of the shaw next to the other woman.

[aceman]

Yeah its definately a statue. If you look closely you can see the base.

[Doug Colwell]

Jill, she/it does look off-balanced either way. If she is real I'm a little surprised the photo made it into the wedding album let alone the Library of Congress.

[TwinbNJ]

would love to go with the statue but!!!!! look at the line it does not add up in my book - base vs. floosy.

My husband gusses some type of ash tray or cigar tray is the base item we are seeing.

Sticking with my gut --- she jumped out as the photo was taken ----
Aunt MADEM just look at the brides face "who invieted HER !!!

[cazubi]

I opted for the "not so proper family member" rather than a statue. I can't see a statue of that nature at a wedding unless it was a joke on the "happy" couple.

Cathy

[TwinbNJ]

Also notice hair tie --- I do not think her hair is showing but tied in a wrap around the hair with the bow at top and hat over it ...... ??????

very 50's

[Northernshadow]

OMGosh! this is going to be tough!!!

I think she is a statue...

[Kraellin]

the only way i can interpret the rules here is as my attached shows. since the upper edge is arched and since we have to remove all of the card backing and since we cant drop out any of the actual photograph, i dont see how it could be any other way. (it's sloppy, but it shows what i mean)

and, with that in mind, as of right this minute, to me, the first two entries are invalid... but then, i'm probably reading something wrong in the rules again

craig

edit: actually, i just took a closer look at cazubi's and it seems fine. nice job, cathy and very clever

[NancyJ]

whether or not she is a statue (I'm undecided, its strange for either) thats defiantely not her base
I'm tempted to say she wasnt in the original photograph and has been added later, she just doesnt match anything in the picture, her skin is too dark, her dress is inappropriate and no-one is loking disdainfully at her as she ruins that wedding photo.

[NancyJ]

After further investigation, I reckon she's a statue or someone messing about with the photos.

http://memory.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph...0/3b25319u.tif

clearly a different wedding, probably the same location - if you look carefully you might see miss special relative on this one too

[aceman]

Well Im going to have to agree to disagree with some of you on this one. I am convinced that its a statue with a base. She doesn't form out of the top of the base in the middle is all.

[makeovermagic]

here she is yet again LOL!!!