Did I make this too hard?

[+worstcaster]

I just hid a cache where the final coordinates are hidden in a series of pictures. I can see and find the numbers, but I know what the numbers are and where they are hidden. Should I increase the contrast with the picture in the background or leave them as they are?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5B758_mud-pond-mystery-cache

[+The A-Team]

I just hid a cache where the final coordinates are hidden in a series of pictures. I can see and find the numbers, but I know what the numbers are and where they are hidden. Should I increase the contrast with the picture in the background or leave them as they are?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5B758_mud-pond-mystery-cache

There's a similar style cache near me. I was eventually able to pick out most of the digits, but I had to stare for a long time (it was all in one image). With yours, I can't spot any digits in any of the images. I thought I might have spotted something in the first image, but the digits would put the final way too far away from the posted coordinates to comply with the 2-mile restriction.

 

Personally, I'd either increase the contrast so the digits are slightly easier to see, or leave it as it is and bump up the difficulty. FWIW, the similar cache I mentioned is rated D3, but puzzle ratings may be different in your region. YMMV

[+mdeanbbn]

I just hid a cache where the final coordinates are hidden in a series of pictures. I can see and find the numbers, but I know what the numbers are and where they are hidden. Should I increase the contrast with the picture in the background or leave them as they are?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5B758_mud-pond-mystery-cache

 

The numbers in the last picture jumped out at me quickly. I could not see numbers in the other images upon scanning them. If this is rated a difficulty three, I think it would probably be about right - might take an hour or so, or more likely for me, a few visits to the cache page to find the answer.

[+CdAGeoGeeks]

There's numbers in there?

 

Note to self: Stay away from New York.

[+giddeanx]

I am able to see em, I think. I have spend more time on a three star puzzle. Maybe a geochecker would be nice in case someone becomes the victim of pareidolia.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I cannot see a thing. But I have severe vision problems, including cataract surgery. Plastic inset lenses do not focus.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's numbers in there?

 

Note to self: Stay away from New York.

 

Like the dolphin I also saw the numbers in one of the pictures fairly quickly and only slightly longer for a second one.

 

Coincidentally I have a similar cache that uses photoshopped photos to show numbers. I tried to be creative on several of them. In one case I created a cloud in the shape of a four in the sky. On another I spelled out "two" on a chalkboard that is outside a museum. All of the photos were of objects or locations near actual caches in the area. I think mine was rated a 2.5 and it's also in New York.

[+Sunmill]

I've been staring at one of these from a local cache, I'm usually good with visual puzzles...but not these apparently!

[+ecumountaineer]

I saw the numbers in just one of them. When I first looked at your cache page I thought you were supposed to hike the trail and get approximate coordinates for where each picture was taken and complete all of them for the final coordinates... Now, that's not a bad idea, but it might not work too well.

[+msrubble]

I can see the number in the fourth picture easily, and the third one with a little effort. I have to look at it right.

 

In the second picture, I can see something easily, all right, but it's not a number. These aren't your original photos, are they? Might want to pick a picture without subliminals.

[+Team Pixos]

Glad you told me I was looking for numbers, still can't see them

[etarace]

I can see the winter scene and the porcupine numbers. I might be able to see more if I stare at them. There is a broken picture under the porcupine picture on your page.

[etarace]

First: picture: can't see it at all (but can deduce the number)

Second: had to save the picture then "zoom in" ... but even knowing where it is, I can't see it on the site.

Third: I can see it

Forth: I can see it

 

Your geochecker seems completely broken (the icon and the link).

 

So... I have a pretty good idea of where I am probably going tomorrow.

 

Edit to add... I have a good idea of going IF the checker gets fixed. While I will drive that far for a cache, I won't drive that far for unconfirmed coordinates.

Edited August 21, 2014 by etarace

[etarace]

The checker shows for me now, yay!

[+worstcaster]

I edited the pictures to make the number a little easier to see.

[+worstcaster]

 

In the second picture, I can see something easily, all right, but it's not a number. These aren't your original photos, are they? Might want to pick a picture without subliminals.

 

Other then resizing and adding the numbers these are the original pictures. Not sure what you mean by "subliminals".

[+cerberus1]

When I first looked at your cache page I thought you were supposed to hike the trail and get approximate coordinates for where each picture was taken and complete all of them for the final coordinates... Now, that's not a bad idea, but it might not work too well.

We did one similar. Got it when just out.

Good thing, as the CO didn't consider Seasons (and age) and nothing looked the same soon after placement.

I don't think his upping the D/T ratings helped much.

'Course the same along a boulder field or canyon could be cool.

[etarace]

The waterfall one is now a little "too" obvious. But now I can see the first one. It's good. I'm on my way to the cache right now.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The waterfall one is now a little "too" obvious. But now I can see the first one. It's good. I'm on my way to the cache right now.

 

Dang. I'm going to be in the general area (maybe 15 miles away) tomorrow. We could have had a FTF race.

 

 

[+wmpastor]

I can see the number in the fourth picture easily, and the third one with a little effort. I have to look at it right.

 

In the second picture, I can see something easily, all right, but it's not a number. These aren't your original photos, are they? Might want to pick a picture without subliminals.

Oh, so I'm missing both the numbers AND the subliminals??

[+wmpastor]

 

In the second picture, I can see something easily, all right, but it's not a number. These aren't your original photos, are they? Might want to pick a picture without subliminals.

 

Other then resizing and adding the numbers these are the original pictures. Not sure what you mean by "subliminals".

That's where if you study the ice cubes in a whiskey ad, it appears (with a slight stretch of the imagination) that there are images of people having fun.

[+Sunmill]

Oh! I've gotten three!....four! Awesome.

This is excellent practice, I need to go work on the local one...

Edited August 21, 2014 by Sunmill

[+The A-Team]

Wow, those are a very different size than I was originally looking for!

After the changes, I quickly spotted the numbers in the 2nd photo. Knowing then what the numbers looked like, the 1st and 3rd followed in quick succession, followed a few minutes later by the 4th.

 

I'd say the 1st and 4th are about right and offer a good balance between being tough to spot, but not being impossible. The 2nd is too obvious and could be toned down quite a bit, and the 3rd could be toned down slightly (or maybe just the colour changed).

[Alvater]

I could find all the numbers. The 1st was tough and I stared it for a while. Then I moved on and decided the colors in the 4th look promising. I found the number quickly and thereafter the rest of the pictures caused no difficulty.

 

Oh, they were already edited? My phone throws me almost straight to the last post so I read the first sentences of the first post and then the last sentences of the last post. So I missed that information.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Alvater

[+Mudfrog]

I spotted the number in the 3rd image fairly quickly last night. Just now looked at it again and now see an even more obvious number. Was the typed in number there the whole time?

 

Edited to say,,, looks like you edited the images to maybe make them easier. Could only find #3 last night. It was definitely easier for me today although #4 still gave me some trouble.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In the second picture, I can see something easily, all right, but it's not a number. These aren't your original photos, are they? Might want to pick a picture without subliminals.

 

Other then resizing and adding the numbers these are the original pictures. Not sure what you mean by "subliminals".

That's where if you study the ice cubes in a whiskey ad, it appears (with a slight stretch of the imagination) that there are images of people having fun.

 

Oh. I thought it was that after looking at that waterfall picture for 10 minute I had to take a leak.

 

 

[+NanCycle]

Still too hard for me. I was able to see the number in #3 by using Photoshop to enlarge it and now that I know where it is I can see it in the original. Can't see anything in #1 even enlarged, and can't get #2 and #4 to open in Photoshop.

[+JPreto]

Yup... I can see them all under 5 min... Actually in the 3rd picture I found them in 2 spots!

Edited August 21, 2014 by JPreto

[etarace]

The waterfall one is now a little "too" obvious. But now I can see the first one. It's good. I'm on my way to the cache right now.

 

Dang. I'm going to be in the general area (maybe 15 miles away) tomorrow. We could have had a FTF race.

I don't really play the "race" game, although I'm pretty sure you were joking. I just think it's kind of cool to get a FTF. Chances are much higher for me getting the honor on a walk in the woods ranked as higher than two stars terrain.

Of all my (three) FTF's the caches had been out for days. Not a lot of caches last days around here. (this reminds me.. I was going to start a new topic)

 

Anyway.... NYPC, I highly recommend the cache. I hadn't been to the park before this, and will definitely be going back. The coords and hint on this cache are great. The hint had me hopping off the trail at just the right moment.

 

Back on topic.... I am really glad you posted this on the forum, because I might not otherwise have searched for this cache (a puzzle almost 2 hours away?) I like that at least one of the numbers (waterfall in my opinion) is a little "too obvious" because this helps those of us who are not Puzzle Masters know what in the world we are looking for, hoping that the other photos follow a similar rule.

 

It really was a great cache. My log will be up a bit later. I wanted to get a photo or two uploaded and watch a movie with my husband first.

[etarace]

I just looked at the pictures again. The second (new) number on the winter scene is WAY too obvious. That needs to go away. The winter scene was the first one I saw the number on in it's original version. I mainly focused on it because I was quite certain what number I was looking for there. With that second, new, way-too-obvious number it takes away from your puzzle.

[kanchan]

Pretty easy for me. One took almonst 10 seconds, but others took 2-3 seconds maximum.

[+wmpastor]

Pretty easy for me. One took almonst 10 seconds, but others took 2-3 seconds maximum.

Okay, we all are filled with self-doubt. Happy now?

 

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I didn't see it before the photos were edited, but it seems a little too easy for a three star puzzle. It's not "easy" but once you see the first numbers, it's much easier to see the others just because you know what to look for.

[+Team Pixos]

and I still can't see nothing.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Looks fine to me. At first I had trouble, but once I realized they weren't Magic Eye puzzles, it came together quickly. The first 3 pictures were almost instant. The last one took me quite a while.

[+cerberus1]

We both couldn't make out a thing on the pc.

CJ grabbed her ipad and they came up clear enough, even I could spot 'em.

Not sure why that is.

[+wmpastor]

Looks fine to me. At first I had trouble, but once I realized they weren't Magic Eye puzzles, it came together quickly. The first 3 pictures were almost instant. The last one took me quite a while.

Thanks to you & others for tips I've gathered about puzzles, especially these optical ones.

 

I probably should have referred to the lure lovers as "aficionados" (no pun intended).

[+kunarion]

Looks fine to me. At first I had trouble, but once I realized they weren't Magic Eye puzzles, it came together quickly. The first 3 pictures were almost instant. The last one took me quite a while.

I found 3 digits in the last one (the porcupine picture) quickly. I didn't find numbers in the other pictures. Knowing in advance that that I'm looking for actual numbers photoshopped onto pictures makes a difference. If encountering that page at random, I'd probably have tried a couple of things, given up, then someday at an Event, someone might mention "look for tiny hidden actual numbers".

 

But since I found a set of digits quickly, I may assume that the other pictures have the same thing, and eventually find all of them. The "XXX.??" thing was kind of confusing at first, but fine as part of the puzzle as a whole. So the clues within the puzzle make your rating suitable to the difficulty.

 

On my Google Nexus 7 tablet, the porcupine numbers are a little harder to see than on my PC for some reason, maybe due to pixellation and JPG artifacts. Especially the third digit which is crossed by an object in the photo. On my PC screen, a different viewing angle (up or down) changes the picture's brightness. So if I were working that puzzle, I might adjust the pictures in Photoshop to see if I can find the numbers.

Edited August 22, 2014 by kunarion

[+J Grouchy]

I saw the numbers in the first image...and at first I was confused because I thought I was supposed to find ALL the numbers in that one, so I spent a minute or two looking for the rest. Then I saw the text below the image and realized what I was supposed to do.

 

#4 took the longest. I closed it out and came back to it a few hours later and spotted the numbers immediately. Checker went green on my first attempt.

[+terrkan78]

Don't see any numbers in any of them. Even after the edits.

[+NanCycle]

Finally got #2. Opened it in Paint and zoomed in. Still haven't got #1 & #4

[+The A-Team]

and I still can't see nothing.

Try closing your eyes. Then you might see nothing.

 

[+The_Incredibles_]

[+Mudfrog]

There is a leaf in front of the porcupine that kinda looks like it has the number 4 in it. I spent most of my time studying and zooming in on that spot thinking it would give the other two numbers. Finally spotted what i was looking for,,, in another spot on the image.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+rjb43nh]

As others have said, once you see one number, the rest are much easier. As the pictures are now I got the numbers fairly quickly and was #23 on the geochecker. The difficulty is probably correct judging by the average of the replies to this thread and the fact that there are a number of cachers getting the OK from the geochecker. The difficulty rating on puzzle caches is kind of hard to gauge, especially on your own puzzles. I know a lot of cachers curse my puzzle caches!