DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Some of you need to get a life!
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 68 of 68, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/16/2002 05:27:19 PM · #51
Originally posted by sgtpepper6344:
Doesn't anybody think it's just a tad freaky that GeneralE and I both put in a close up shot of the Lychees? Did anyone think that it was just a little weird? Now that I see you GeneralE - you are on teh west coast and I am in Beantown - it strikes me just a tidbit bizarre ... did ayone else react the same way?

I did a double-take when the vote page came up, thinking the server had made a mistake, or that I was logged-in on my son's account. At least the colors were a little different. Thanks for the info on lychees -- I didn't know a lot of the details. You can usully find them canned in the "oriental foods" section of a large supermarket.

But maybe I should have entered these rambutan, which kavey says taste almost exactly like lychees.
09/16/2002 05:36:50 PM · #52
If yours are same as these

www.eatethnic.com/_borders/ rambutan.jpg

Then I reckon rambutan - it's what I thought when I saw the pic anyway.

Nice fruit.

I ADORE fruit of all types and can get most anything in London now. Haven't been brave enough to try that stinky one yet, I forget the name temporarily...
09/16/2002 06:13:07 PM · #53
Originally posted by Kavey:
...I ADORE fruit of all types and can get most anything in London now. Haven't been brave enough to try that stinky one yet, I forget the name temporarily...

Would that be these Horned Melons (as called in the US)?

Also, your link above had a space in it which made it not work -- this one should:
www.eatethnic.com/_borders/rambutan.jpg
or click here..

It's interesting that they look a little like a kiwi in cross-section.

* This message has been edited by the author on 9/16/2002 6:13:22 PM.
09/16/2002 06:25:18 PM · #54
Originally posted by inspzil:
Maybe I should be a little clearer on what I was thinking when I said what I said. I was trying to say that if the model was standing there naked as the day she was born holding 2 real cherries in front of her...that THAT image would be more preferential to the male vote.


Can't agree with that. Personally I prefer the suggestion of nudity rather than outright nudity.

John
09/17/2002 12:16:27 AM · #55
If it was a shot of Giselle Bundchen (one of the Victoria Secret's hottie models), then it'd be something, but you left me really dissappointed after clicking on the link :(

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
lol

now ive got to put in my plug for victoria secret.

note a) i dont normally sneak around with my camera in lingerie stores, and b) this is not a real human being :)

LINK


09/17/2002 12:20:41 AM · #56
Well, i happened to have an idea for the challenge but ended up not doing it -- i was going to have a woman, half naked, lying on bed, with dark shadows on one side, her butt covered (but revealing that slight crevasse) with a strawberry near her butt and some water/honey dripping on her backside and titled it "Forbidden Fruit" :)

Somehow, i just couldn't convince my female friends to do it, well, at least the ones with good bodies (you need a woman who is tall with nice shapes to get that done right), even though it won't be anything close to nudity.

Besides, i figure i were to do that, i'll probably get nailed by the Christian conservative lamers on this site and get voted down badly :)



Originally posted by bamaster:
How is it that our winning photo, a worthy picture with an edgy sense of righteousness, receive such high votes... while Cherry Pie gets SLAMMED just 25 spots out of dead last?!!!

I gave Cherry Pie an 8. And now that I look at it again, I shoulda gave it a 9. The colors are wonderful, the subject is sexy, and I love the light coming from over her wrist with a slight sun glare.

Reading some of those comments makes me mad. What is so bad taste about this? Is it that fact that you see her underwear? The model in our winning photo is NAKED, people!!! Or is the cherries? *sigh* So when I was a little boy wearing underoos with Superman on them... was I trying to say something about my manhood?

I hope you feel better for giving this photo a 1 or 2. Maybe it'll make up for your lack of reality.

/end rant. Calls in appointment with therapist.


09/17/2002 12:50:32 AM · #57
Originally posted by paganini

Besides, i figure i were to do that, i'll probably get nailed by the Christian conservative lamers on this site and get voted down badly :)



~sigh~

Being a christian doesn't make someone a conservative lamer.

I'm a christian but enjoy good art...John's photo is just that and I love it...however there is a huge difference in porn and art. John's photo is 100% art...very well done with style and grace. Porn however is something I don't like at all. Not a matter of my faith.


09/17/2002 12:58:21 AM · #58
Originally posted by paganini:
Somehow, i just couldn't convince my female friends to do it, well, at least the ones with good bodies (you need a woman who is tall with nice shapes to get that done right), even though it won't be anything close to nudity.

Let me guess your approach... you describe it to a bunch of girls, someone says "Oh I'll do it", and you say "Sorry, you're too short and fat, I really need a woman who is tall with nice shapes to get that done right".

Well, no wonder.

Honestly, I can't understand why a short girl with a nice, pear shaped derriere wouldn't suffice for your photo. This is the kind of thing that deserves the discussion Setzler's "Forbidden Fruit" photo received in another thread. Once upon a time the female form was considered a thing of beauty, now it's a tool of oppression.
09/17/2002 01:02:37 AM · #59
No, they didn't want to do it because they think i might sell it to a magazine :)

As far as tall women goes, well, that's the way it is -- the curves and lines look better on a diagonal line across the photograph in my vision and if there aren't enough torso length, just can't do it.

As far the other comment about porn: it all depends on what people consider as porn. Is Playboy porn? I dunno, the photos are revealing (and most "nudes" aren't too revealing) but I dont' think i'd consider that porn, while most Christian conservatives would.


Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Somehow, i just couldn't convince my female friends to do it, well, at least the ones with good bodies (you need a woman who is tall with nice shapes to get that done right), even though it won't be anything close to nudity.


Let me guess your approach... you describe it to a bunch of girls, someone says "Oh I'll do it", and you say "Sorry, you're too short and fat, I really need a woman who is tall with nice shapes to get that done right".

Well, no wonder.

Honestly, I can't understand why a short girl with a nice, pear shaped derriere wouldn't suffice for your photo. This is the kind of thing that deserves the discussion Setzler's "Forbidden Fruit" photo received in another thread. Once upon a time the female form was considered a thing of beauty, now it's a tool of oppression.
[/i]

09/17/2002 01:25:05 AM · #60
Let me just say...I'm 4' 10 1/2" and I've been in a good bit of photos. Several for Sunday Sales paper ads for Gayfers and several stores. I've never once had them say...oh Angel, you're too short. I hate to bust ya bubble...but I think you're the one with the lamer attitude.
09/17/2002 01:54:10 AM · #61
If being short was a handicap, Kylie Minogue wouldn't be having much fun.
09/17/2002 07:45:58 AM · #62
I have to chime in here and give my two cents. Paganini, you really should not generalize so much. I am another Christian on this site and I must admit I don't even know the definition of a "lamer". Some folks would call me anything but conservative when it comes to being so judgemental of sexuality. In my wilder days I could be quite raunchy at times. I have settled down now and changed my ways but I have a lot of tolerance towards other's attitudes and viewpoints on this subject.

I am also short, 5'0". In my day I never heard anybody say I was too short to look good in a picture.

Broaden your horizons a bit. You will find that most of us in this world can not be easily placed into neat categories. Narrow mindedness isn't necessariy a Conservative Christian thing. Sometimes it's the Liberal Aethiest that's narrow minded. It takes all kinds to make a world.
09/17/2002 08:49:13 AM · #63
I don't believe that height matters in these types of photos. The model in "Forbidden Fruit" is about 5'5" or 5'6". The height of the model is only visible in perspective with her environment anyway. It depends on what else is in the photo before you could even begin to tell how tall someone is...
09/17/2002 09:13:08 AM · #64
This is very true.
09/17/2002 09:29:33 AM · #65
Originally posted by paganini:
As far the other comment about porn: it all depends on what people consider as porn. Is Playboy porn? I dunno, the photos are revealing (and most "nudes" aren't too revealing) but I dont' think i'd consider that porn, while most Christian conservatives would.

Are you saying you'd consider Playboy to be art? I sure hope not... I've seen lots better shots here...

What's your hang up with Christians? I would think feminists would be more inclined to have issue with you for stereotyping the female form. Look at the art work of the Vatican and you will find more then a few nudes.


* This message has been edited by the author on 9/17/2002 9:37:40 AM.
09/17/2002 11:08:29 AM · #66
ok, ok, ok. if anyone were to be described as a fundamentalist, conservative, Christian, it would be me. there I have admitted it. I have no problem with that "title" except when people start making stereotypes and pigeon holes for me. My conservative views are mine. I understand FULLY that not everyone adheres to that viewpoint. Heck, I would never survive in the education system if i thought everyone believed like me or tried to force them to.

Did I vote John's pic low because of my Christian beliefs, absolutely not. I judged it as a piece of art, not a piece of meat. The picture you described would get my same objectivity.

I could go on, but i won't.
09/17/2002 12:04:11 PM · #67
Actually when I saw that photo I know the model is short. There wasn't enough lines and curves for a nude.


Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I don't believe that height matters in these types of photos. The model in "Forbidden Fruit" is about 5'5" or 5'6". The height of the model is only visible in perspective with her environment anyway. It depends on what else is in the photo before you could even begin to tell how tall someone is...



09/17/2002 12:06:56 PM · #68
I am sure the Vaticans also have a few naked little boys running around in their rectories, much like the Boston archdioses. :)


Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]As far the other comment about porn: it all depends on what people consider as porn. Is Playboy porn? I dunno, the photos are revealing (and most "nudes" aren't too revealing) but I dont' think i'd consider that porn, while most Christian conservatives would.


Are you saying you'd consider Playboy to be art? I sure hope not... I've seen lots better shots here...

What's your hang up with Christians? I would think feminists would be more inclined to have issue with you for stereotyping the female form. Look at the art work of the Vatican and you will find more then a few nudes.[/i]


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/10/2025 10:13:24 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 10/10/2025 10:13:24 AM EDT.