GOLD IS NOT JUST THE METAL (DESIGNATED AU)...

07/24/2006 12:55:54 AM · #3

Where does one find good looking models and cool looking props? I need to know.

faidoi

07/24/2006 12:56:16 AM · #4

Didn't enter :(

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/24/2006 12:56:23 AM · #5

Originally posted by TooCool:

sorry I shouted...

And I won't even say anything about it actually being Au...

Sorry, I'm a chemist.;)

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

07/24/2006 12:58:05 AM · #6

...

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/24/2006 01:03:35 AM · #7

Originally posted by mad_brewer:

And I won't even say anything about it actually being Au...

It's hard to shout "Au" over the internet...

DefyTime

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

07/24/2006 01:13:41 AM · #8

Yea I'm getting messed up for the same reason

LERtastic

Nikon D200

07/24/2006 01:14:41 AM · #9

Same here, same here...

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/24/2006 01:41:57 AM · #10

Hummmmmmm ...
"Without using jewelery, find something gold and shoot it."

So at what level does metal, cloth, paint, etc become jewelery or something that was manufactured versus "found"

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/24/2006 02:31:35 AM · #11

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Hummmmmmm ...
"Without using jewelery, find something gold and shoot it."

So at what level does metal, cloth, paint, etc become jewelery or something that was manufactured versus "found"

You can find stuff at a store, take it home, and shoot it there too you know. What? Were we supposed to find gold in the hills and take pictures of it there?

Why do people so agonize of the symantecs of the descriptions? They just meant take a picture with gold in it. duh.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/24/2006 10:54:18 AM · #12

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Hummmmmmm ...
"Without using jewelery, find something gold and shoot it."

So at what level does metal, cloth, paint, etc become jewelery or something that was manufactured versus "found"

You can find stuff at a store, take it home, and shoot it there too you know. What? Were we supposed to find gold in the hills and take pictures of it there?

Why do people so agonize of the symantecs of the descriptions? They just meant take a picture with gold in it. duh.

I for one have never agonize over descriptions. If the entry is so far out of the description but is a great photo it still gets a mid level score. Heck if it fits the challenge but is a "bad" photo it still gets a mid level score. The Wow's get 10's and the why did they waste electrons taking this photo gets 1 or 2's.

It's just fun to see the effort many go to trying to fit something into the challenge description. There also many who read the first few words of a challenge and never read the rest. In this challenge there are things that would be considered jewelery, great pics but if it's gold, you carry it, it's for display, it's decorative, you wear it, it's main purpose is as an adornment ... it's jewelery. I'm not saying clothes is jewelery because you wear them, but if the intent is a combination of the above they ..... From looking at the scores from the thread it looks like a lot of entries are being hit pretty hard because of a strict intrepetation of the rules. Like this thread started ... Gold is not just metal.

Isn't this just too much fun ;)

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/25/2006 08:50:01 AM · #13

Originally posted by wavelength:

They just meant take a picture with gold in it. duh.

Hey who you calling "they"??? and when did I become a part of "they"???

777STAN

07/25/2006 03:08:21 PM · #14

Thank you for consistently challenging my knowledge & wisdom! It requires me to regularly check my facts, especially by a Google search.

Since I know how exacting the voters at DPChallenge always are, I always search my memory banks to see if a fact (that forms the basis of my challenge entry) is indeed a fact or simply a personal hypothesis.

I always scrutinize every photo that I enter, and by my own standards I have never entered a perfect photo. My first line of personal critique is always...Does it meet the challenge requirements & intent? I humbly submit that they ALL do!
(Admittedly, some are terribly difficult to see at first glance, and often FAR afield from the norm, but unless the Site Council gives intricate details as to what it expected, then the challenge purpose statement is in there as interpretted by me.)

I demand quality from myself, not perfection before I enter a photo. I readily confess that some of my entries have been terribly sophomoric,...and...have brought me to the point of admitting that (compared to my years of film photography) digital photography is "brain surgery."

All that being said,...I have never argued with a score on one of my entries. I agree with them because I can recognize quality at a much higher level that I can create right now. (Just look at my Favorites.)

However, many comments on my entry for the Gold Challenge leave me "scratching my head",...Not because I can't comprehend the responses. I do. I understand every one of them perfectly, and from that mindset they all make complete sense.
Yet, the directions for creating the photo never defined Gold as being "Yellow, metallic, and having either or both of those characteristics as a permanent make-up of their physical state."

Therefore, Glass transformed into a brilliant replica of white gold as well as a replica of the brilliant sun that created it...does qualify!

Can I get a witness? :)

P.S.- Below is a link to a jewelry website with wonderful photo- examples of White Gold.

P.P.S.- Thanks for the opportunity to "air out" my growing concerns over what does or does not meet the challenge on a weekly basis. It is my understanding that intricate specificity is required in a court of law to rule out any meaning other than the intent of the speaker at any given point in time. :)

//gilletts.com.au/information.php?info_id=13

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

07/25/2006 03:14:13 PM · #15

White gold...

If it's white in color it better be pretty obvious that it is a metal otherwise what a ludicrous assumption that people would figure it out.

Of course now it's a snap to go back and find your entry...

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

07/25/2006 04:42:00 PM · #16

I'm sorry, 777STAN, but if it isn't some form of yellow, I'm not going to recognize it as gold.

At one point, I even considered downgrading my votes on shots that were pure yellow as opposed to the deeper color of gold, but then decided I'd go with a looser definition. However, I'm left scratching my head at why you'd deliberately try to find something that would be difficult to identify as gold in color.

Blonde hair, yellow flowers, yellowish sunsets - they all at least resemble gold in color.

Fool's gold, brass, bronze, even mica in the right light - they all at least resemble gold in color.

But white gold looks like silver, platinum, aluminum, stainless steel, etc. It doesn't look like gold. Even the Web page you cited says there's not much difference in color between platinum and white gold. If you held up a white gold ring to 100 people, I'd bet not one would say "look, a gold ring."

And that's what you're doing with a photo here. You're holding up something that doesn't resemble the color or the metal, and asking people to identify it.

If you took a picture of crude oil, I'd be more likely to get "black gold" and credit you for creativity than if you did something silver in color.

As has been said many times in many threads, the voters spend maybe 30 seconds if you're lucky. I tend to spend 10-15. If it's not obvious, you're not going to connect. It's up to you whether that matters, of course, but don't expect voters to climb into your head or invest a lot of time trying to connect things to the challenge.

Now, all of THAT said, I agree completely with your other comments, and I think your attitude toward quality vs. perfection, and striving for the latter while accepting that your current talents might not yield it, is right on target. :) It's right where I am at the moment.

Message edited by author 2006-07-25 17:16:05.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

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

07/25/2006 05:08:09 PM · #17

I don't doubt that there could be some technically fantastic shots within the challenges here that far outstrip what I can achieve now and possibly will ever manage to achieve with a camera.

However, technically perfect as an image may be, if I can't see within it, for myself, the link to the theme, then it's not going to get a perfect score. It could still score highly (from me) but it's not going to do as well as it would had it been technically perfect (as far as I can see) and fitted the challenge too.

Many people have had their own take on gold in this challenge, some I've considered and thought "yep, I can get that", others I've looked at and thought "now why would you do that?". Sadly, I think, the latter group has contained quite a few photos that present metals or other substances that are not gold in colour.

Try as someone might, I find it hard to associate a white, colourless, or lacklustre object with "gold".

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/26/2006 04:33:42 AM · #18

I thought the challenge was pretty simple. Gold not yellow. Anything else but gold is open to interpretation to each photographer and voter. Take the good with the bad and stop your crying.

777STAN