| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2007 12:20:14 PM · #51 |
Votes: 40
Views: 53
Avg Vote: 4.9500
Comments: 0 |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 01:49:08 PM · #52 |
Votes: 41
Views: 63
Avg Vote: 4.6341
Comments: 0
it wouldn't hurt so bad if I had just 1 comment.....
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 01:49:52 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ladyhawk22:
Really?? Part of me sees what you're saying to an extent.....but isn't animal biology or zoology a huge field in science? Conservation? Rehabilitation? Darwin's a huge name in the scientific community, and he sat around and watched a lot of animals in their natural habitats. |
I have nothing against biology or zoology, and I see what you mean. Of course, just studying animals and plants is part of the scientific work. It is also part of a photographer's work, especially a macro photographer's - and animals and plants have been around a lot longer than scientists. If there weren't so many such photos I might have voted differently, but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-05-30 13:52:06. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:04:30 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by okiesisi:
it wouldn't hurt so bad if I had just 1 comment..... |
That's probably true in more than one sense. ;-) |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:16:20 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by johst582:
Originally posted by ladyhawk22:
Really?? Part of me sees what you're saying to an extent.....but isn't animal biology or zoology a huge field in science? Conservation? Rehabilitation? Darwin's a huge name in the scientific community, and he sat around and watched a lot of animals in their natural habitats. |
I have nothing against biology or zoology, and I see what you mean. Of course, just studying animals and plants is part of the scientific work. It is also part of a photographer's work, especially a macro photographer's - and animals and plants have been around a lot longer than scientists. If there weren't so many such photos I might have voted differently, but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge. |
I kind of agree with you, kind of don't; challenge clearly states "Convey to your viewer the subject, study, or results of science." I'm interpreting "subject" pretty broadly, which does allow some leeway. That said, there's clearly a lot of shoehorning going on, and one should have limits; otherwise, as you say, anything would work. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:19:15 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Quantum Physics is the only true science - all other 'sciences' are just a study of uncertainities.......paraphrasing W. Heisenberg..
|
Excellent! Now that I know Quantum Physics is the only science, everything else is getting a 1 from me! Wait - what is quantum physics, exactly? Me didn't do so good in phyziks class in high school. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:23:52 PM · #57 |
Physics is the class that you ate fig-newtons and shot lasers at each other...
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Quantum Physics is the only true science - all other 'sciences' are just a study of uncertainities.......paraphrasing W. Heisenberg..
|
Excellent! Now that I know Quantum Physics is the only science, everything else is getting a 1 from me! Wait - what is quantum physics, exactly? Me didn't do so good in phyziks class in high school. |
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:31:34 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Physics is the class that you ate fig-newtons and shot lasers at each other...
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Quantum Physics is the only true science - all other 'sciences' are just a study of uncertainities.......paraphrasing W. Heisenberg..
|
Excellent! Now that I know Quantum Physics is the only science, everything else is getting a 1 from me! Wait - what is quantum physics, exactly? Me didn't do so good in phyziks class in high school. |
|
No fair, Peter, sounds like your physics class was fun. I wonder why the teacher kept asking me to sit underneath his arm when he dropped an apple and talked about that Newton guy. All I got was a bruised head and no cookies. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:32:19 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Ok, yeah, maybe my picture is not as good as most, but this is one of my best attempts! 4.2?? |
Yeah, mine sucks too. I'm getting low votes, but at least I feel I deserve them. Unlike my Desat II entry (ahem).
Btw, I just got the second-shortest possible comment: ok
:-)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:36:33 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Ok, yeah, maybe my picture is not as good as most, but this is one of my best attempts! 4.2?? |
Yeah, mine sucks too. I'm getting low votes, but at least I feel I deserve them. Unlike my Desat II entry (ahem).
Btw, I just got the second-shortest possible comment: ok
:-) |
I got that same comment.
This is my worst scoring entry EVER. I'm at a 4.3!!! YUK!
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:39:00 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by magenmarie:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Ok, yeah, maybe my picture is not as good as most, but this is one of my best attempts! 4.2?? |
Yeah, mine sucks too. I'm getting low votes, but at least I feel I deserve them. Unlike my Desat II entry (ahem).
Btw, I just got the second-shortest possible comment: ok
:-) |
I got that same comment.
This is my worst scoring entry EVER. I'm at a 4.3!!! YUK! |
LOL ... I just got exactly the same comment: "OK" |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 02:40:44 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by johst582:
I have nothing against biology or zoology, and I see what you mean. Of course, just studying animals and plants is part of the scientific work. It is also part of a photographer's work, especially a macro photographer's - and animals and plants have been around a lot longer than scientists. If there weren't so many such photos I might have voted differently, but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge. |
My inspiration for my subject came from here:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoology
However, I am guessing that johst582 isn't alone in his views hence my current score:
Votes: 45
Views: 58
Avg Vote: 5.2000
Comments: 0
Its technically a pretty good photograph. It uses depth of field to bring the viewer into the frame. The focus is good on the main subject. Exposure was good. Colors are nicely saturated. Compositions isn't bad either.
Its just some might have felt that the subject was kinda shoehorned into the challenge...
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:07:43 PM · #63 |
Votes: 53
Views: 81
Avg Vote: 5.3585
Comments: 1
I suppose I shouldn't be so disappointed for an image that I'm guessing is being seen as a shoehorn when others are faring worse, but I cringe at anything below my average these days.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:24:10 PM · #64 |
okay I know this is a bit off topic but as I am going thru the science pictures and voting I am seeing a lot of frogs.
no joking here and I am completly misunderstood right now, but what does a frog have to do with science???
JUST so I can understand, that's all. I'm not knocking or bashing anyones frog pictures but can someone help me understand this???
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:29:40 PM · #65 |
Frogs are adorable!
Wait, that doesn't answer the question. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:30:58 PM · #66 |
well, (at least in the US) in school science classes...most of them dissect frogs..maybe thats the connection??
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:31:50 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
okay I know this is a bit off topic but as I am going thru the science pictures and voting I am seeing a lot of frogs.
no joking here and I am completly misunderstood right now, but what does a frog have to do with science???
JUST so I can understand, that's all. I'm not knocking or bashing anyones frog pictures but can someone help me understand this??? |
I'm voting & wondering the same thing, also a lot of animal shots which I'm having a hard time tying into science. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:32:15 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Frogs are adorable!
Wait, that doesn't answer the question. |
HHAHAHAHA LMAO.
that was too funny
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:32:28 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by johst582:
... but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge. |
I agree, but these photos won't get a DNMC from me -- just a lowered consideration.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:35:27 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by okiesisi:
well, (at least in the US) in school science classes...most of them dissect frogs..maybe thats the connection?? |
Good point but in that case wouldn’t the frog be dead and belly up. Not on a leaf or in some dirt. JMO. I guess from my interpretation of the challenge "science" I would like to think that they want you to show something that explains science. Not assume that a picture of something is science because the title says so.
I guess I'm a little confused. Someone please help me...
|
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:39:56 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
...what does a frog have to do with science??? |
Probably people equating science with nature. Frogs are common subjects of scientific study (I actually know a frog biologist), and creative interpretations of the challenge topic are Kermitted. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:41:48 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... and creative interpretations of the challenge topic are Kermitted. |
Pardon me if I ribbit you...but that was totally un-croaked for!
;-) |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:41:57 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
...what does a frog have to do with science??? |
Probably people equating science with nature. Frogs are common subjects of scientific study (I actually know a frog biologist), and creative interpretations of the challenge topic are Kermitted. |
Kermitted ... that made me laugh! love your kermitivity! |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:42:39 PM · #74 |
I keep forgetting that I'm not supposed to enter challenges where the topic is open to interpretation.
Oh, crap.
I'd never be able to enter another challenge.
gotta rethink my realities... |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:47:01 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
...what does a frog have to do with science??? |
Probably people equating science with nature. Frogs are common subjects of scientific study ... |
Often one's most vivid (some might say only) memory of Biology class is of dissecting a frog.
Frog Dissection Lab
PS: Not to mention Galvani's experiments (with frogs) which lead to the discovery of the electro-chemical nature of nerve impulses and the nerve/muscle interface. There would be no EKGs without frogs ...
Message edited by author 2007-05-30 15:49:09. |
|
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: 09/14/2025 02:28:00 PM EDT.
