We know we're way overdue for the results of the Engadget photo contest, but we wanted to make sure it was done right. We had a good seven hundred entrants (including all of you who submitted nature photos -- huh?) but we finally have a
massive gallery set up with our top 120 picks. You should really check it out, Engadget readers took some really phenomenal photography -- which is exactly why we had such a difficult time deciding who should take home the prize.
We did narrow it down to our top 10 favorites, though, and we're expecting you to vote for the one you think is best (we'll leave it open
until the end of the day for a couple of days). As you know, the D80 is the grand prize, but because we appreciate your kind patience in getting this contest together (well, that and your fine photography), we're offering up four prizes to the runners up, listed with the voting form after the break. Big thanks to everyone who submitted, even if you weren't in the top 120! Now go get lost in all the pretty pictures.
Poll closed! Grand prize
Runner-up prizes
- JVC noise canceling headphones
- Samsung YP-UJ2 MP3 player
- Xbox 360 wireless headset
- Samsung Trace
posted February 1st 2007 12:59PM
I also like the photo by Brad Saksons of the young guy playing what seems to be a white Sony PSP.
I'm not sure why exactly I like that photo. Probably because once again it seems to speak about how prevalent technology is. And the photo seems totally natural, no posing or planned props. Good composition, too... draws you right in and focuses your eyes on what's in the young man's hands and what he's doing.
Do photo's of lightbulbs, plants, and toy soldiers count as technology? I don't really care, since I didn't make the top 120 but I'm curious to know what other may think.
By the way I still believe this was a great contest... kudos!!!
This actually turned out to be really cool and quite entertaining despite the long wait. Good luck to everyone. Some very cool pics were posted. I'm very stoked to be part of this and even make it into the final running. BTW, Juan Carlos, any interest in a chess or boxing match to determine the winner instead of this silly democracy voting stuff? I just can't seem to catch up ya. The public's adoring eyes seem to dig your shot..... good stuff.
Good luck guys. May the best geek win.
James ... a tad bitter because no one liked your submission? Play nice with the other kids or we will take your computer privileges away and send you to bed without any dinner.
I'd be happy to see Mast or Browning win. I guess Weaver would be okay. JCL is fine with me if it's not a photoshop job.
Fletcher: I'm sorry I don't like your picture and think it breaks the rules of the contest. I looked at your page and saw much better pictures than the photoshop chop-job you submitted, so don't take it personal. Call me old-school, I guess.
I’ve been watching the voting on the photo contest with interest since it started and I notice that the two finalists currently leading (David Browning and Juan Carlos Lopez) have had a massive influxes of votes over the past 12 hours (i.e. hundreds). Basically what has happened is that almost every new vote that comes in goes to one of them with the other candidates moving at, what could be considered, a more realistic pace.
I acknowledge the fact that those two finalists could be tapping their social networks for votes and that those networks could be quite large however, my question is, can the polling software you use to total the votes detect IP masking / invisible browsing techniques that can be used to possibly vote multiple times?
Thanks.
Hi James, photoshop was only used for color correction and make screen brighter :) in fact i used Gimp...
Really liked Carl Yings photo
First of all, I would just like to say thank-you to everyone who has voted for my photograph. I really appreciate the support.
What I want to comment on though is the “photograph vs. digital art” debate that is occurring. I will limit my analysis to my own submission, “Contemporary Vitruvian Man.”
As stated in the original contest post, “Slightly photoshopped images are ok, but the source image(s) must be yours, but judging will be about the merit of the photo, and not of your ability to manipulate it." I believe that both the letter and the spirit of this rule was not to ban any use of Photoshop, but to prevent people from submitting images that can not exist in reality. With digital images, there is no “wet” darkroom to work in, so Photoshop, or a similar program, becomes the digital darkroom.
No one would accuse Ansel Adams of “faking” his photographs simply because he used every talent at his disposal and chemical in his darkroom to make his work look its absolute best when printed from his original negatives. The same approach would apply to this contest. No one would realistically expect that your contest-level submission would be the raw negative or digital file taken straight from your camera. This was not a photojournalism contest, it was a photography contest.
I used Photoshop to make standard adjustments to my submission that can be performed in a wet darkroom. Rebalancing colour, adjusting contrast, dodging and burning shadows and highlights (those terms are even taken from wet darkrooms where the techniques originated). What I did not do is “create” anything. Each of the seven display devices were physically positioned on the bookcase where they appeared in the final shot. All images on the devices were displayed “as is” and not added later. All I had to do was stand behind them when the shutter was tripped.
I expected that there would be some doubt as to the legitimacy of the shot when I was planning it, so I took additional shots of the set-up as support. You can see an unedited version of the set-up without me behind it here (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/378435541_68f8cd605b_o.jpg).
There is a black sheet taped to the wall, fingerprints on the bottom laptop’s screen that I neglected to clean, and some books used to finesse the final positioning of one laptop and the PSP. All I did was black-out the book spines in the final shot and removed the tiny “pause” icon on the portable DVD’s display.
Photoshop is a powerful tool, but simply because a photograph seems impossible without it does not mean that is was. It may simply have been difficult.
Thanks Scott for the clarifications. If anyone has seen or done "see-through" laptops, you will realize that photoshop is not the way these are done, and Scott has done a very good job with his. Also a poster claimed that Kurt Humiller's photo was photoshopped. Well such a thing is entirely possible with flash photography to freeze motion, so it isn't necessarily fake, and if it is for real, well good job to Kurt, nice colors and shadows (though the Nikon's LCD is a bit overpowering).
And can someone please tell me what Anthony Yim's and Aaron Rincover's piece are supposed to be?
AJ Mast - an interesting story, good layout, nice colors and shadows, I voted for this one.
David Browning - I like the content, very creative and works well, but I think the colors could have been better in the scene, and the high ISO noise of the camera shows (without these two defects I may have voted for this one). Sorry if I base my opinion on the technical qualities of the image, but to me it factors into the appeal.
Devin Bryant - Very nice colors and effect you're getting from the vacuum tube, though a little bit old in terms of technology ;) I think a little bit more creativity could have been added somewhere.
Juan Carlos Lopez - Feels like too much photoshopping for me, but would be amazing if you actually sacrificed a phone for this one-shot image (which I doubt).
Patrick Fletcher - Once again too much photoshopping and not enough photography.
Paul Weaver - Very nice shot, the irony works very well. The colors look desaturated though, which is really bugging me.
Yeah ... I'm number 10!!!