| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2012 11:37:05 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Devinder:
You really don't have to be blind or an idiot. Not everyone has the same level of education, or same level of recall. A lot of folks don't assign remembering the difference between certain words as high priority so it gets lost in memory. Its a normal part of brain function, and you should probably learn to recognize that. Its your choice if you choose to ignore that information, but then you'd be falling into the same category you assigned the blind and the idiots.
edit: i m going to step out of this now. I've made a clear case, and am just annoyed that the supposedly intelligent do little more than provoke like forum trolls abundant on different sites. |
You are simply not correct, if you can't be bothered to remember the difference between words, then why is there any point to even bothering to make sense at all?
(The above statement typed as though the difference between words doesn't matter)
User isn't simplified and wrong, as they should do pissed three forget a strangeness across speaking, before question are located all sharpness one level assault as created money for every.
(each word is somehow related to the original word, but since I didn't care to use the correct words, it's now just pure unintelligible crap.) |
OMG... I literally couldn't stop laughing after reading this.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 11:45:18 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
You really don't have to be blind or an idiot. Not everyone has the same level of education, or same level of recall. A lot of folks don't assign remembering the difference between certain words as high priority so it gets lost in memory. Its a normal part of brain function, and you should probably learn to recognize that. Its your choice if you choose to ignore that information, but then you'd be falling into the same category you assigned the blind and the idiots. |
Fine, I'll respond.
If you don't know what a word means look it up. I know, crazy concept. Instead you posit we should relish in our ignorance and try to attribute it to some normal brain function. Another crazy idea here, but everyone on a photography website should know the difference given that everything we do utilizes one or both concepts. If it wasn't for refraction all of your lenses would not function as advertised.
I'm not asking you to do a episiotomy on yourself. To claim I'm asking for anything more than basic knowledge, especially for photographers, is pandering to the blind and idiotic.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 11:48:45. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 11:47:57 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
you have an inflammatory response against currently accepted theory on memory and recall? Sigh.. i m getting caught in the web again. Nvm |
Dude, it's because you're being disingenuous in relation to this topic. If you're not, then I really have no response to give. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:04:45 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Devinder:
You really don't have to be blind or an idiot. Not everyone has the same level of education, or same level of recall. A lot of folks don't assign remembering the difference between certain words as high priority so it gets lost in memory. Its a normal part of brain function, and you should probably learn to recognize that. Its your choice if you choose to ignore that information, but then you'd be falling into the same category you assigned the blind and the idiots.
edit: i m going to step out of this now. I've made a clear case, and am just annoyed that the supposedly intelligent do little more than provoke like forum trolls abundant on different sites. |
You are simply not correct, if you can't be bothered to remember the difference between words, then why is there any point to even bothering to make sense at all?
(The above statement typed as though the difference between words doesn't matter)
User isn't simplified and wrong, as they should do pissed three forget a strangeness across speaking, before question are located all sharpness one level assault as created money for every.
(each word is somehow related to the original word, but since I didn't care to use the correct words, it's now just pure unintelligible crap.) |
or "All your base are belong to us" |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:05:44 PM · #130 |
perhaps the violin shot would have ribboned if dnmc votes did not drag it down.
also, a reflection, or appearance of a reflection, can be a reflection, even if its not a reflection in the finest scientific definition of a reflection. a trick shot.
and finally, why focus solely on the violin, there are actual reflections in the shot, colors, shapes, glanced off the side of the vase. Sometimes one can look too close at a thing and lose sight of the bigger picture.
Your basic theory of the thread is quite sound... to add to it, voters seem to care more about "quality" photography rather than meeting the challenge to the exact letter of the law with an inferior shot. Tie goes to the eye candy. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:16:47 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
also, a reflection, or appearance of a reflection, can be a reflection, even if its not a reflection in the finest scientific definition of a reflection. a trick shot. |
What? Looks like I need to go redo that Ph.D. in physics if you're correct, which you're not. A reflection either is or is not, there is no middle ground.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
and finally, why focus solely on the violin, there are actual reflections in the shot, colors, shapes, glanced off the side of the vase. Sometimes one can look too close at a thing and lose sight of the bigger picture. |
Where? There really isn't no matter how hard you look. There's not a single reflection in that entire image, at least not by the scientific definition.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 12:20:21. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:25:38 PM · #132 |
| DNMCs make me so damn mad that I wish my voting average were higher than 3.8. When I give them a 1 it hardly matters. Arrrrrgh! |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 12:40:25 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Reflections challenge.
This finished 34th.
There isn't a reflection anywhere in this entry. It doesn't meet the challenge by any stretch of the imagination. I'm assuming the voters were either woefully ignorant as to the difference between refraction and reflection or simply didn't care. |
Interesting that 6 of 12 people that commented during voting also mentioned that this was more of a refraction and not a reflection, yet the avg vote for commenters was 6.8+.
I agree that it was a refraction - gave it a 4. In a free study I would have given it probably around an 8. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:00:53 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
or "All your base are belong to us" |
One of my very favorites, for great justice. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:03:20 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Devinder:
You really don't have to be blind or an idiot ... |
I didn't ignore it, it's just my response would have been flagged so I opted to take the higher road. |
Calling people "idiots" is the high road, eh ... perhaps you should use the dictionary yourself and check out the words "insult" and "rude" ...
Originally posted by Venser:
Unlike some other topics, the difference between refraction and reflection is not subjective, it's quite definitive. So those "out-of-the-box" people in relation to this entry have no leg to stand on. |
The IMAGE of the instrument is "reflected" (flipped horizontally), even though it is produced by the optical effect of refraction. In graphic design, to reflect an object is the same as to flip horizontally -- some of the editing buttons are even labelled that way.
The glass itself is a reflecting surface (there are some reflections of lights, no?). The photographer has chosen to photograph a non-mirror reflecting surface, making it, not a "traditionally reflected" image, the subject. The challenge was to photograph a "reflecting surface" without including the camera. It doesn't say that the subject has to be some other image appearing on that surface. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:10:38 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Devinder:
You really don't have to be blind or an idiot ... |
I didn't ignore it, it's just my response would have been flagged so I opted to take the higher road. |
Calling people "idiots" is the high road, eh ... perhaps you should use the dictionary yourself and check out the words "insult" and "rude" ...
Originally posted by Venser:
Unlike some other topics, the difference between refraction and reflection is not subjective, it's quite definitive. So those "out-of-the-box" people in relation to this entry have no leg to stand on. |
The IMAGE of the instrument is "reflected" (flipped horizontally), even though it is produced by the optical effect of refraction. In graphic design, to reflect an object is the same as to flip horizontally -- some of the editing buttons are even labelled that way.
The glass itself is a reflecting surface (there are some reflections of lights, no?). The photographer has chosen to photograph a non-mirror reflecting surface, making it, not a "traditionally reflected" image, the subject. The challenge was to photograph a "reflecting surface" without including the camera. It doesn't say that the subject has to be some other image appearing on that surface. |
- Paul, you put into words what I could not express. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:12:00 PM · #137 |
Unfortunately, i have enough immaturity in me to come back and respond to this. I was just telling Cory over PM how i refuse to answer to the whole thread, but here i am.
You're absolutely right about looking up definitions, I agree. When it comes up and you don't know it, look it up. Its clear that some of the commentators knew the difference between reflection and refraction and decided to weigh it one way or another in thier scoring.
I think what you're dismayed by is a lack of knowledge, but in my mind, this has more to do with the way people (us included) remember.
People tend to think they know about things especially if they think they've learned it(almost all of us are guity of this). So unless they come up with a word they haven't heard of before or have doubts, people won't generally look up a word. Few people really had reason to look up "reflection" and especially not "refraction". I m going to assume that you've never, in your life, been wrong about the definition of a word you thought you had right, so I'll explain it from the other perspective.
First the recall bit, (this part's about Cory's comment). The example uses association between common words and has nothing to do with recall of words that may not be "at the surface" so to speak. In essence, its trying to prove the wrong point and does not apply here. Again, unless you have better than average recall or have reason to remember the words, and on top that that, can properly differentiate them, you won't.
Whatever definitions of reflection you read, quite a few folks will do something Along the lines of following: Go with what they read, then put emphasis on the examples they see. This is how parameters can be set to define the word. 1. can see self in shiny surface 2. its flipped.. This is how many of us remember. This is if people have seen the word refraction at all. If its not part of their active recall, they may not even think of it, when they're seeing something that might fit the criteria for "reflection" in their minds.
I don't know why this isn't very easy to see(i suppose this makes me guilty of the same thing). I get that you'd want people to be able to recall a concept, but i don't get why you'd have trouble seeing why they wouldn't recall it by the book just because you do. I've already conceded your originial point in an earlier post, there's not always "by the book" emphasis on the entry topics, but theres more to this than pandering. People really do look at things in different ways. There are differences in recall given both ability and the frequency with which the memory is stimulated, and people do tend to simplify definitions so there is room for error. I guess on this one, i had to say this bit before i made my peace.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 13:21:38. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:20:54 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Calling people "idiots" is the high road, eh ... perhaps you should use the dictionary yourself and check out the words "insult" and "rude" ... |
It is compared to what I had originally wrote.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The IMAGE of the instrument is "reflected" (flipped horizontally), even though it is produced by the optical effect of refraction. In graphic design, to reflect an object is the same as to flip horizontally -- some of the editing buttons are even labelled that way. |
My favorite part of this rebuttal is the use of quotations around the word reflection. Since your field has a mislabeling of terms I'm suppose to cede to its fallacious terminology?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The glass itself is a reflecting surface (there are some reflections of lights, no?). The photographer has chosen to photograph a non-mirror reflecting surface, making it, not a "traditionally reflected" image, the subject. The challenge was to photograph a "reflecting surface" without including the camera. It doesn't say that the subject has to be some other image appearing on that surface. |
Grasping at straws are we?
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 13:21:37. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:29:44 PM · #139 |
There is more than the literal definition of reflection. If it appears to be a reflection, it essentially is.
If someone entered two objects that were juxtaposed in such a way to make it look like a mirrored image of the other, and the naked eye could not tell the difference, should that be dq'd?
There is a difference between splitting hairs on what makes a reflection and reflection, thinking out side of the box, a mathematical definition vs. a literal definition, a play on the words reflection, etc. - and the challenge description not mattering at all. Its not black and white, there are shades of gray and things upon which reasonable people can disagree.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 13:30:01. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:32:53 PM · #140 |
| All photographs are images created by reflected light. Light hits an object and certain wavelengths are reflected while others are absorbed. That reflected light is the light that enters the camera lens, where it's refracted to form an image on the film/sensor. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:34:41 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There is more than the literal definition of reflection. If it appears to be a reflection, it essentially is.
If someone entered two objects that were juxtaposed in such a way to make it look like a mirrored image of the other, and the naked eye could not tell the difference, should that be dq'd?
There is a difference between splitting hairs on what makes a reflection and reflection, thinking out side of the box, a mathematical definition vs. a literal definition, a play on the words reflection, etc. - and the challenge description not mattering at all. Its not black and white, there are shades of gray and things upon which reasonable people can disagree. |
Since we are both quite reasonable, I'm sure we can disagree on this.
Definitions are absolute, the word either means a specific thing, or it does not. There is a complication with inferred meanings and colloquialisms, but definitions are not mutable as you claim. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:36:38 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
All photographs are images created by reflected light. Light hits an object and certain wavelengths are reflected while others are absorbed. That reflected light is the light that enters the camera lens, where it's refracted to form an image on the film/sensor. |
You know, you actually have a good point here.
So what you believe is that it was basically impossible to be DNMC in that challenge unless you took a picture that included no light at all.
*shrug* You're clearly right, but the effect is that there's no point in having a theme at all if people judged it based upon the criteria you posit. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:50:47 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Spork99:
All photographs are images created by reflected light. Light hits an object and certain wavelengths are reflected while others are absorbed. That reflected light is the light that enters the camera lens, where it's refracted to form an image on the film/sensor. |
You know, you actually have a good point here.
So what you believe is that it was basically impossible to be DNMC in that challenge unless you took a picture that included no light at all.
*shrug* You're clearly right, but the effect is that there's no point in having a theme at all if people judged it based upon the criteria you posit. |
Originally posted by Challenge Description:
Creatively photograph a reflecting surface that is not a mirror while keeping your camera out of the shot. |
Now if the description had read, "... Your entry should contain an image reflected in a surface that is not a mirror..." it would be different. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:51:23 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
All photographs are images created by reflected light. Light hits an object and certain wavelengths are reflected while others are absorbed. That reflected light is the light that enters the camera lens, where it's refracted to form an image on the film/sensor. |
so essentially, we could have submitted ANYTHING that had any light and it would not be DNMC
a free study was what this challenge was.
hmph ... I should have entered! |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:53:50 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The glass itself is a reflecting surface (there are some reflections of lights, no?). The photographer has chosen to photograph a non-mirror reflecting surface, making it, not a "traditionally reflected" image, the subject. The challenge was to photograph a "reflecting surface" without including the camera. It doesn't say that the subject has to be some other image appearing on that surface. |
Grasping at straws are we? |
Apparently you are, since you can't seem to point out any logical or rational error in my statement.
Originally posted by Challenge Description:
Creatively photograph a reflecting surface that is not a mirror while keeping your camera out of the shot. |
The glass vase is a reflecting surface, which is patently not a mirror. I don't notice the camera in the shot. It is certainly *creative* since it is obviously not a *classic* or *cliché* image. To me, that says the photographer has met all the stated criteria.
You seem to have imagined that the challenge description read "Creatively photograph *some object or scene in* a reflecting surface that is not a mirror while keeping your camera out of the shot."
In the end, you are penalizing the photographer for failing to meet your own preconceived non-literal interpretation of the challenge, when in fact it meets the description exactly as written. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:55:14 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There is more than the literal definition of reflection. If it appears to be a reflection, it essentially is.
If someone entered two objects that were juxtaposed in such a way to make it look like a mirrored image of the other, and the naked eye could not tell the difference, should that be dq'd?
There is a difference between splitting hairs on what makes a reflection and reflection, thinking out side of the box, a mathematical definition vs. a literal definition, a play on the words reflection, etc. - and the challenge description not mattering at all. Its not black and white, there are shades of gray and things upon which reasonable people can disagree. |
Since we are both quite reasonable, I'm sure we can disagree on this.
Definitions are absolute, the word either means a specific thing, or it does not. There is a complication with inferred meanings and colloquialisms, but definitions are not mutable as you claim. |
If someone used a black piece of paper in the shadow challenge, to simulate a more interesting shadow, would that be a dnmc? would it make a difference if you could not tell, or would it still be subject to the same hyper-specific it can either "be or not be"- standard?
This is art, not science. There are nuances that exist that cannot be snuffed out in some hyper-technical uber-fascist take all the fun-out-of-things way- but wait, you can do it with your own vote. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:11:09 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Spork99:
All photographs are images created by reflected light. Light hits an object and certain wavelengths are reflected while others are absorbed. That reflected light is the light that enters the camera lens, where it's refracted to form an image on the film/sensor. |
You know, you actually have a good point here.
So what you believe is that it was basically impossible to be DNMC in that challenge unless you took a picture that included no light at all.
|
What about Sony A77 and A99 users? Surely that reflected light is passing through a semi-translucent mirror thus making it a DNMC. ;)
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:31:55 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There is more than the literal definition of reflection. If it appears to be a reflection, it essentially is.
If someone entered two objects that were juxtaposed in such a way to make it look like a mirrored image of the other, and the naked eye could not tell the difference, should that be dq'd?
There is a difference between splitting hairs on what makes a reflection and reflection, thinking out side of the box, a mathematical definition vs. a literal definition, a play on the words reflection, etc. - and the challenge description not mattering at all. Its not black and white, there are shades of gray and things upon which reasonable people can disagree. |
Since we are both quite reasonable, I'm sure we can disagree on this.
Definitions are absolute, the word either means a specific thing, or it does not. There is a complication with inferred meanings and colloquialisms, but definitions are not mutable as you claim. |
If someone used a black piece of paper in the shadow challenge, to simulate a more interesting shadow, would that be a dnmc? would it make a difference if you could not tell, or would it still be subject to the same hyper-specific it can either "be or not be"- standard?
This is art, not science. There are nuances that exist that cannot be snuffed out in some hyper-technical uber-fascist take all the fun-out-of-things way- but wait, you can do it with your own vote. |
The difference is that a simulated shadow still looks like a shadow, while a refraction does not look like a reflection. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:34:33 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Cory:
... a refraction does not look like a reflection. |
Imagine the violin doesn't exist -- it's irrelevant to whether the photo meets the challenge description ... see my earlier posts.
ETA: my entry from Shadows III in 2006 ... 
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 14:37:33. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:38:10 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Cory:
The difference is that a simulated shadow still looks like a shadow, while a refraction does not look like a reflection. |
I was okay with your guys' stickler arguments (though I might not necessarily agree). You had a sound argument, however with that last statement you went from concrete to subjective reasoning.
As to say *all* "refraction do not look like reflection" is very subjective. |
|
