| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2006 03:25:57 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you going to diagram some sentences too? |
I have to be boring to make up for all the funny people.
|
In that regard, I would say you have met with unparalleled success. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:35:11 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by raish:
It's like 'ball park', which cannot have any reference to parking balls.
|
Like, that would be cool.
It would also be thinking outside the box. It just happens to be outside your scope of creativity. No, I'm not saying you aren't creative, your creativity just doesn't lean that way. Me, mine tends to, and in this challenge I'm getting hammered for it.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 15:35:33. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:41:56 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by raish:
"still life" is a compound noun and not a noun phrase
if it were a noun phrase then elements of the word 'still' and the word 'life' would be involved in interpretation of the phrase
it is not a noun phrase, so the individual elemnt words do not necessarily bring anything to the meaning of the term
a still life is a picture of a set of inanimate objects, arranged and composed for visual effect |
Dude - you are wrong. A still life CAN BE ONE OBJECT - arranged and shot as a study of that object. You should do some research before leaving comments on people's shots like "does not meet challenge because there is only one or only two objects...." I am an art school graduate, I studied this and other related art topics for years.... what's your background? |
Speaking as someone who studied math, a set can contain only one object as well. :)
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:43:25 PM · #129 |
I call it thinking outside the box too. The rules do say get creative. If you think outside the box though, unless it's obvious, you should have a title that relates it to the topic.
Obvious: the subject is ball park and you have a pictures of 10 balls arranged in parking spaces..I think most people would understand that it's outside the box.
Not obvious: [reference to specific challenge entry removed: Gist of it: something that makes you guess and the point/meaning isn't plain]
No where near the subject: A photo of a mountain with the title "Mountain" being entered into the lenscap challenge.
Message edited by frisca - specific entry reference removed. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:43:45 PM · #130 |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:45:18 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by sdunsmoor:
Originally posted by raish:
It's like 'ball park', which cannot have any reference to parking balls.
|
Like, that would be cool.
It would also be thinking outside the box. It just happens to be outside your scope of creativity. No, I'm not saying you aren't creative, your creativity just doesn't lean that way. Me, mine tends to, and in this challenge I'm getting hammered for it. |
I also thought a ball bearing individual might be one imbued with high levels of testosterone. I don't want to let my boredom quotient drop though, so let me tell you about the importance of being creative within the self-imposed discipline of form...
On a slightly more serious note, it's not you getting hammered, it's the scores given to your picture. It's still your picture and it's still the same picture. I guess you know all that, but hey, keep on doing your thing and don't let them (least of all me) get to you... |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:48:38 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
except for the null set |
there's only one null set, right? but is it effectively contained in all other sets? |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 03:53:30 PM · #133 |
| So, I've been watching the arguments about what is/isn't still life. Since there are so many flower shots, I have to ask... is it no longer a still life if you can't see the vase? The flowers are still arranged. Flowers are a typical still life object. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:02:06 PM · #134 |
I'm in a deep discussion with another member about the "arrangement" of things in an outside shot. They weren't physically moved, but things (such as trash, etc) were removed, yet the viewer doesn't know this and just sees it as an artfully done shot of something already there. Although out of the box is fine, I think "perception is reality" and if we THINK we SEE a certain thing, then that is what we base our opinions on, right?
What is your thoughts on this???
The saga continues.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:02:50 PM · #135 |
To me, one flower is not a still life. (Sorry, but I still believe one item is a study, not a still life.) Flowers in a field is not a still life. If the flowers look arranged, even without a vase it's a still life, but I would also hope to see some kind of lighting effect.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:06:12 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by raish:
a still life is a picture of a set of inanimate objects, arranged and composed for visual effect |
I see from your posts in this thread that you are using a very narrow definition that perhaps applies primarily to classic paintings. Modern versions of still lifes are inanimate objects and composed, but not nessecarily arranged, or in a studio, or with specific quantities, or flower or not flower. Since this is a photo website, look at some other photo websites, you'll see this.
I understand the dog in a cat challenge arguements. But your post and others are putting so many stipulations on what is a still life, I seriously wonder if any entry could go without a DNMC. This site and these challenges are suppose to be about fun and learning, all these tight and narrow defintions have usurped all of that.
How about a little bit more open thinking about challenges(and I'm not talking about accepting dogs in a cat challenge)!
~Mark |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:07:04 PM · #137 |
| Aii-yii-yii!!! Where's that dead horse gif image? |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:07:43 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
I'm in a deep discussion with another member about the "arrangement" of things in an outside shot. They weren't physically moved, but things (such as trash, etc) were removed, yet the viewer doesn't know this and just sees it as an artfully done shot of something already there. Although out of the box is fine, I think "perception is reality" and if we THINK we SEE a certain thing, then that is what we base our opinions on, right?
What is your thoughts on this???
The saga continues. |
We can only use what we see when making our judgement. My opinion is that objects (plural) are to be arranged by the photographer in an artistic manner. Lighting is then to be used to create a mood or effect. This could be done outdoors, but probably harder to do, as the lighting is harder to control.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:19:05 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
We can only use what we see when making our judgement. My opinion is that objects (plural) are to be arranged by the photographer in an artistic manner. Lighting is then to be used to create a mood or effect. This could be done outdoors, but probably harder to do, as the lighting is harder to control. |
Absolutely! But without giving it away, these were items already there, and were "artfully placed" within the viewfinder, not physically moved. Ok, let's say you are in an arena and there is a sign, a metal bolt, attached to the ground, and a "TICKET SALES" sign attached somehow as well. THe lighting is great. The contast is great. BUT, other than a sack of popcorn, that you took out of the shot (and of course we the viewer don't know that), then "placing" those inanimate images in the shot, is not the same as arranging them on a table, a stool, on the sand, etc. I guess this discussion could go on ad nauseum.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:20:26 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
I'm in a deep discussion with another member about the "arrangement" of things in an outside shot. They weren't physically moved, but things (such as trash, etc) were removed, yet the viewer doesn't know this and just sees it as an artfully done shot of something already there. Although out of the box is fine, I think "perception is reality" and if we THINK we SEE a certain thing, then that is what we base our opinions on, right?
What is your thoughts on this???
The saga continues. |
We can only use what we see when making our judgement. My opinion is that objects (plural) are to be arranged by the photographer in an artistic manner. Lighting is then to be used to create a mood or effect. This could be done outdoors, but probably harder to do, as the lighting is harder to control. |
My opinion is a little broader. First of all, one item can be or seem "arranged" and still qualify. Secondly, if the photographer creates an illusion/mood of things being arranged, I will accept that even if I figure out that it's an illusion.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:22:23 PM · #141 |
Secondly, if the photographer creates an illusion/mood of things being arranged, I will accept that even if I figure out that it's an illusion.
I agree. Again, it is what we perceive as real~ good point. BUT if it doesn't LOOK arranged...... see what I mean?
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:24:49 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Secondly, if the photographer creates an illusion/mood of things being arranged, I will accept that even if I figure out that it's an illusion.
I agree. Again, it is what we perceive as real~ good point. BUT if it doesn't LOOK arranged...... see what I mean? |
if it doesn't LOOK arranged, but I figure out that it was in fact arranged, I might give it a high score. But if I don't figure it out, then that's just too bad.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:35:43 PM · #143 |
I was sort of wondering-
I had a comment that i recieved a low score from the commentor because it was not "arranged". I would love to know why people make those assumpations just because it wasn't taken in a studio on an old wooden table with a black cloth hanging behind it?
Everyone speaks of thinking outside of the box, yet, when voting they take the simpliest personal explaination in their own mind.
We should all admit sometimes we put in a lot of work to make something look simple, and it isnt always noticed or appericated.
Edit- Well i posted this without first reading the 6th page of this thread and I see I am not alone /shrug
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 16:37:48. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:39:30 PM · #144 |
While my picture isn't that great (I lack a studio, black sheet, etc), I didn't think it'd be so bad that I'd be losing comments! Please, if you see obvious room for improvement in some of the low end pictures which fit the challenge, let us know so we can improve our photography for the next challenge.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 04:44:25 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Morry32:
Everyone speaks of thinking outside of the box, yet, when voting they take the simpliest personal explaination in their own mind. |
Actually, it's divided. Plenty of people want to stay in the box and lock it tight.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 05:39:09 PM · #146 |
You can be in my box if I can be in yours.
No, wrong persona, sorry, this is a private box.
You have to go outside of the box to think - house rules.
The photographer is innocent until proven guilty and, furthermore, a misunderstood genius until beyond all reasonable doubt proven otherwise.
336 images I've voted on all of them and commented on all bar 52. Next time I'll do less and be more careful.
FWIW, there are suspiciously unarranged looking things over the five line, at least one single-object picture in the eights and nines and something with eyes up there too.
I am humbled. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 05:43:54 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by meyers:
While my picture isn't that great (I lack a studio, black sheet, etc), I didn't think it'd be so bad that I'd be losing comments! Please, if you see obvious room for improvement in some of the low end pictures which fit the challenge, let us know so we can improve our photography for the next challenge. |
My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:36:04 PM · #148 |
I recieved a comment as well questioning the "still life" catagorization of my image. While I admit not traditional in nature it meets both conditions set forth
1. Inanimate - Not really in question
2. An arrangement of objects - These objects were put together and arranged into a set configuration.
Other than that the average score is well deserved, the DOF is a bit shallow.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed reference to specific challenge entries. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:38:28 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by jsugi:
I recieved a comment as well questioning the "still life" catagorization of my image. While I admit not traditional in nature it meets both conditions set forth
1. Inanimate - Not really in question
2. An arrangement of objects - xxxxxxx arranged into a set configuration.
Other than that the average score is well deserved, the DOF is a bit shallow. |
Ooooooooooh please refrain from describing your challenge entry until after voting has ended. Read the forum rules for more info.
For what its worth though, I too got "the" comment.
Message edited by author 2006-05-18 19:40:38.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 07:45:07 PM · #150 |
| appologies....will follow the rules. |
|
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: 07/27/2025 02:16:28 AM EDT.
