Numbers Clarification - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/03/2003 10:10:03 AM · #1

I could probably use a little clarification on the numbers challenge. The description says:

Your photograph should include a naturally occurring (not manufactured in any way) number.

So from this, I'm assuming that we should be looking for items in nature that resemble numbers, like a tree shaped like an 8 or something?

My initial thought was that if we had a building, for example, that looks like a giant 7, that would be a good example, but buildings are "manufactured," whether the architect meant for it to resemble a 7 or not.

Thoughts?

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/03/2003 10:14:21 AM · #2

Or maybe a row of trees. It doesn't show the actual number, but you do have to count them. What do you think?

I think the building would be good because it isn't just taking a picture of the number 7 it is a building that looks like the number 7.
Does that make sense?

Message edited by author 2003-03-03 10:16:07.

03/03/2003 10:30:06 AM · #3

I'm reading it as "something that looks like a number"...?

Konador

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/03/2003 10:38:01 AM · #4

Originally posted by alansfreed:

I'm reading it as "something that looks like a number"...?

ditto

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/03/2003 10:41:27 AM · #5

Me three.

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/03/2003 10:45:12 AM · #6

It's seems like the "not by the hand of Man" challenge witha twist. Makes it more challenging. :-)

Konador

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/03/2003 10:50:43 AM · #7

Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

It's seems like the "not by the hand of Man" challenge witha twist. Makes it more challenging. :-)

I think manurfactured things ARE allowed, but the number MUST be naturally occuring.

joshua

03/03/2003 10:53:55 AM · #8

does anyone have any examples they care to share? i'm stumped

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

03/03/2003 10:54:56 AM · #9

Originally posted by alansfreed:

You talking about Arabic numbers 0-9 or can be Roman I,II,III,IV ?

03/03/2003 11:07:17 AM · #10

Originally posted by pitsaman:

You talking about Arabic numbers 0-9 or can be Roman I,II,III,IV ?

Doing Roman numerals actually came to mind as I was driving to work this morning. One of my ideas was to take a shot of a building with pillars, which could look like a Roman numeral. For example: III

But the phrase "not manufactured in any way" scared me away from that idea.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

03/03/2003 11:13:20 AM · #11

To add to the confusion, "natural number" is a mathematical term. It means a positive integer.

I'm sure most people would use a natural number in their photo, since it's hard to photograph something that looks like a negative integer, a decimal of any kind, or even an imaginary number (a multiple of the square root of negative one). But I'd be impressed if anyone tried :).

Message edited by author 2003-03-03 11:13:46.

03/03/2003 11:20:26 AM · #12

Originally posted by lisae:

To add to the confusion, "natural number" is a mathematical term. It means a positive integer.

Well, so much for my idea of taking a shot of a piece of pie, and passing it off as 3.14159...

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

03/03/2003 11:40:29 AM · #13

This is scaring me ,half of the people didn't saw face on this tree!:

albright1

Canon PowerShot A10

03/03/2003 11:54:32 AM · #14

I almost don't want to mention this... but you should check out Arlene Alda's 1, 2, 3. It's a children's book that is entirely photos of "natural numbers" as I think this challenge implies. It's an incredible collection of numbers. Even the front cover offers a great idea!

Finally, my life as a math teacher has given me something to offer in the forums!

jjbeguin

Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED Zuiko Digital

03/03/2003 11:58:20 AM · #15

would this qualify as 411?

Message edited by author 2003-03-03 11:58:44.

albright1

Canon PowerShot A10

03/03/2003 12:02:09 PM · #16

More inspiration can be found in "City by Numbers", by Stephen Johnson. Amazing stuff.

Konador

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/03/2003 12:09:59 PM · #17

Originally posted by jjbeguin:

would this qualify as 411?

I'd say yes, but it isnt natural.

jjbeguin

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED Zuiko Digital

03/03/2003 12:28:51 PM · #18

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by jjbeguin:
would this qualify as 411?

I'd say yes, but it isnt natural.

does it realy have to be natural. the numbers should not be manufatured, but what they are composed with could (?)

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

03/03/2003 12:40:16 PM · #19

Ok now I know I'm not alone on this I couldn't figure it out either. My thoughts were something natural that you can count, like the ducks walking in a straight line, or the v fomation of the geese flying or a line of trees. I am very much in question about this one as it appears everyone else is too.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/03/2003 12:45:13 PM · #20

OneSweetSin, the little icon next to your name shows you as a guy!

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

03/03/2003 02:07:56 PM · #21

Originally posted by kiwiness:

OneSweetSin, the little icon next to your name shows you as a guy!

Don't know why it is doing that...cause I am definately not a guy...ok with that said I am gonna try and fix the icon!

shutterfly

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM III

03/03/2003 03:58:56 PM · #22

This is scaring me ,half of the people didn't saw face on this tree!

Pitsa, i still don't see it.

Message edited by author 2003-03-03 16:01:00.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/03/2003 04:02:23 PM · #23

I don't either and I have good imagination!!
:)

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D