| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2006 10:08:42 AM · #1 |
Looks like a large number of entries have titles that tell what the subject is. Doesn't this "self-DNMC" the entry?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:26:32 AM · #2 |
| I thought this odd as well. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:28:57 AM · #3 |
so all the titles should be 'no subject'?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:30:27 AM · #4 |
ha! I took pains to avoid that myself! but while voting I allow for several interpretations of "no subject" and as long as the picture meets any of them, I do not dnmc. Unfortunately, many voters seem to look for any excuse to dnmc. they think of it as an opportunity!
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:31:08 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
so all the titles should be 'no subject'? |
Not necessarily - but to title what is supposed to be a subjectless image something that makes you either focus on or bring out the main subject would seem to defeat the purpose of the challenge. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:31:27 AM · #6 |
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:32:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
ha! I took pains to avoid that myself! but while voting I allow for several interpretations of "no subject" and as long as the picture meets any of them, I do not dnmc. Unfortunately, many voters seem to look for any excuse to dnmc. they think of it as an opportunity! |
I agree here. There are some creative interpretations on the challenge yest there are also some that clearly do not fit. And let me say that I am not one of the DNMC Nazis. I just may score a point or two lower if it blatantly DNMC. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:51:36 AM · #8 |
I think an example photo should be provided with the challenge description when the interpretation can be viewed in more than one way. I've looked at all the photos twice now and I see a subject in 99% of the photos. But I am thick headed about this. I think if you point your camera at it, It automatically becomes the subject So IMHO we all DNMC . When I vote on this challenge the DNMC factor is not going to be considered I am scoring the photo quality not the content.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:57:58 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R. |
this is roughly the definition that i aimed for
but it appears the voters wanted abstracts (!?)
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:11:37 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R. |
I wish I had known this... Several photos i'd taken this week would've fit the theme. I was unclear as to what it meant. How about a "Images without subjects II? :-)
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:18:44 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R. |
this is roughly the definition that i aimed for
but it appears the voters wanted abstracts (!?) |
Mine's pretty abstract, and still sub six. It's still recognizeable as what type of object, so it's kind of half and half.
I like Bears definition better than the challenge description. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:21:54 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R. |
sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:23:45 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
but it appears the voters wanted abstracts (!?) |
Not all "the voters" did. :) |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:27:05 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R. |
I wish I had known this... Several photos i'd taken this week would've fit the theme. I was unclear as to what it meant. How about a "Images without subjects II? :-) |
It means both, but people seem to be sticking to Bear's interpretation more than to the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 11:58:48 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Image without subject" refers to an image in which no single element within the image dominates the other elements to such a degree that it can be considered a "subject". That the "subject" of the image as a whole is recognizable is neither here nor there.
R. |
I'd certainly agree with this (and that the image doesn't need to be abstract) but if the image contains an X, a Y, and a Z, such as none of them predominate, but the title is "X", that seems to defeat the purpose of the challenge! (And there are more than just a couple of these.)
|
|
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: 08/27/2025 06:22:11 PM EDT.
