| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2005 10:55:12 PM · #51 |
All of this is funny indeed. No, no one is trying to persuade others. I see no thread that changed multiple minds. Besides, not many members indulge in forum posts. But out of fun let us consider the pristine definition of camouflage. Take the soldier's attire. It helps if the looker is unsuspecting and cursory. But really, it is a very lame attempt whose advantage is really at a great distance. Now look at all the images that purport to be camouflage: did they really fool you. Did you really not see the supposed camouflage? Each one was evident to me on the initial first look. How effective is it? If you spotted the subject at once then how can one defend it as camouflage. Of course, one has to use one's imaginations and sort of make believe.
I simply avoid the trap and seek the quality of the concept and composition and get lost in the images. Remember that artistic license seeks to find any weakness in which to invade any realm. The same applies to humor. These two invade logic and introduce a higher realm of possibilities. No, no. Continue with your assertion of your convictions. If you feel that any deviation will cast you in unfamiliar grounds because you require immediate assertion to validate your understanding, then feel free to do as you would normally do. All that I am saying is that it would be a sad day if we all understood everything in the same way. Some of us are more fanciful and have given up living under general consensus. Consider: if we all fell in line with the strict definition of every challenge you would not see some of the outstanding work evident in DPC.
I have no desire to stir feelings in others. Be assured that you will leave this thread just as you entered because you have strong convictions that guide your reasoning. Personally, I do not subscribe to this belief because my convictions and reasoning are and have been in flux. In short, unlike you I have failed to cement my beliefs, so you are the better for it. Also is the sad fact that language is a brutal barrier for truth. If it were perfect than there would be little misunderstandings. lol
Message edited by author 2005-11-18 15:57:32. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 11:16:45 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Y'all can spin all the wordwebs and definitions you want, but in the end the nature of "camouflage" is to conceal from view and the nature of "disguise" is to hide the essence of. Sure, these may overlap from time to time, but they are NOT the same thing.
Robt. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How bad is language: take the above "conceal from view" as alloted to camouflage. Really: then a cat in back of the refrigerator is concealed from view. With this definition then the cat is camouflage! Or it could in humor be said that the cat is wearing the refigerator as a disguise.
If we say: blending into the background, this will also fall short because texture holds its own. Like paint against flesh and flesh against leaves. The truth is that an effective camouflage is hard to execute.
I am aware that we have all been the victims of a camouflage but after we got over our surprise we realize that it was not as well hid or disguised as we initially saw it. The snake that may have bit or scared us was more due to it lying still. So you see, we play the game when we look at images of camouflage. We are warned that something is ro be hid from view and some go the "Waldo" route. Others ponder and read definitions and then they make their image and then conclude that what they camouflage is too subtle or too obvious. Some of these images would work if they were in a different challenge. There is no way to win for the winner must hide the subject where nobody can find it.
Of course, if we all back off and kindle the child in us, then many images would work. This is not a challenge for left brainers for they pierce through any veil. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 11:24:35 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Y'all can spin all the wordwebs and definitions you want, but in the end the nature of "camouflage" is to conceal from view and the nature of "disguise" is to hide the essence of. Sure, these may overlap from time to time, but they are NOT the same thing.
Robt. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How bad is language: take the above "conceal from view" as alloted to camouflage. Really: then a cat in back of the refrigerator is concealed from view. With this definition then the cat is camouflage! Or it could in humor be said that the cat is wearing the refigerator as a disguise.
If we say: blending into the background, this will also fall short because texture holds its own. Like paint against flesh and flesh against leaves. The truth is that an effective camouflage is hard to execute.
I am aware that we have all been the victims of a camouflage but after we got over our surprise we realize that it was not as well hid or disguised as we initially saw it. The snake that may have bit or scared us was more due to it lying still. So you see, we play the game when we look at images of camouflage. We are warned that something is ro be hid from view and some go the "Waldo" route. Others ponder and read definitions and then they make their image and then conclude that what they camouflage is too subtle or too obvious. Some of these images would work if they were in a different challenge. There is no way to win for the winner must hide the subject where nobody can find it.
Of course, if we all back off and kindle the child in us, then many images would work. This is not a challenge for left brainers for they pierce through any veil. |
I hear you, but that's taking it to extremes language-wise. To say that "the nature of camouflage is to conceal" is not the same as to say that "all concealment is camouflage."
But the rest of your point is well-taken and I have no argument with it, nor did I have one when you first voiced it or I would have said so. My only goal with my "definitions" was to gently point out that there is a distinct and fundamental difference between the concepts "camouflage" and "disguise", however much they may overlap in practice.
If I went into the mountains in winter with a white snowsuit on, you wouldn't say I was disguising myself would you? And if I went out in public wearing a blonde wig and woman's clothing, you wouldn't say I was camouflaging myself. Unless my destination was Provincetown, in which case I might definitely be seeking to blend in...
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 11:43:03 PM · #54 |
I agree with Daniel and Robert,
The problem with the challenge is that you have to show something being camouflaged, which means it really can't be camouflaged if you wan't the photo to have impact.(well, you could, but that is reserved for the best of us)
The other problem with all challenges is that the line between the challenge definition and creatively meeting that challeng is indefinable in it's vagaries.
I disagree with the notion that all language is in flux, not constant anyways. Language takes many years to take on new meanings, changing it to suit your purposes leaves others in the dark, and defeats the purpose of language. The same with art, if no-one gets it, does it matter how "creative" the artistic message was? If the art is meant to convey an idea (which, if it's not, then why did you make it, to convey nothingness? which is still an idea BTW), and no one is struck by your idea that you presented, you failed to communicate. That's a pretty black and white situation to me.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 05:40:24 AM · #55 |
Wow, what a thread! Thank you all for the precious contribution. Art is art and camouflage is camouflage... Anyway I'm strongly convinced that voters are biased by the connection between the image and the theme (correctly); so we use low score not only because we don't get the message or the art, but especially when we find a good picture which is out-of-theme.
At least now I learned a new "false friend" in the language translation...
Camouflage is "mimetizzare" in Italian.
While "camuffare" in Italian (that looks and sounds very similar) is closer to "disguise" in English than it is to "camouflage".
S.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 06:38:55 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by srugolo:
Camouflage is "mimetizzare" in Italian.
S. |
I think I've eaten that at an italian restaurant
Message edited by author 2005-11-17 07:24:37. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 04:13:38 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I agree with Daniel and Robert,
The problem with the challenge is that you have to show something being camouflaged, which means it really can't be camouflaged if you wan't the photo to have impact.(well, you could, but that is reserved for the best of us)
The other problem with all challenges is that the line between the challenge definition and creatively meeting that challeng is indefinable in it's vagaries.
I disagree with the notion that all language is in flux, not constant anyways. Language takes many years to take on new meanings, changing it to suit your purposes leaves others in the dark, and defeats the purpose of language. The same with art, if no-one gets it, does it matter how "creative" the artistic message was? If the art is meant to convey an idea (which, if it's not, then why did you make it, to convey nothingness? which is still an idea BTW), and no one is struck by your idea that you presented, you failed to communicate. That's a pretty black and white situation to me. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I am sorry but you misread my statement. I said that my beliefs and convictions are in flux. Regarding language I said that it is rather a brutal medium to convey the fullness of our inner universe. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 04:27:09 PM · #58 |
One blatant attempt to sway voters coming up.
If you think a photographer has missed the point of the camoflage challenge, but you can see that they took a different approach than you did, but produced a techincally fine and otherwise attractive photograph, it deserves no lower than a five or six. Seeing fine work dinged with ones and twos because of differing interprtations makes me grind my teeth. I thank you, my dentist thanks you, ( climbs down from soapbox ).
|
|
|
|
11/18/2005 04:32:41 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
One blatant attempt to sway voters coming up.
If you think a photographer has missed the point of the camoflage challenge, but you can see that they took a different approach than you did, but produced a techincally fine and otherwise attractive photograph, it deserves no lower than a five or six. Seeing fine work dinged with ones and twos because of differing interprtations makes me grind my teeth. I thank you, my dentist thanks you, ( climbs down from soapbox ). |
You need to read the Why do we score so low? thread. You'll need a dental nightguard after that. I'm still a little upset about how some people said they score. But it's not under my control, and never will be, so I can't worry about it too much.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2005 04:34:38 PM · #60 |
Yep - pretty blatant I'd say. Nice to see this thread make it to the front page again (not).
People can vote how they want. Period.
People can determine for themselves if an image meets the challenge, in their opinion, or not.
The voting scale runs from 1 to 10 - I say use it as you please.
Smile and keep having fun! ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/24/2005 05:15:09 AM · #61 |
Now that it's over, just for people curious to understand why I asked if Disguise was OK for Camouflage challenge...
...this was my disguised/camouflaged entry. ;-)
After all, considering my misunderstanding of the "camouflage" word it went ok!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 10:31:48 AM EDT.
