| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2004 10:07:47 AM · #26 |
| Think nobody will ask for a proof about location for the shots but if background seems unnatural the rating of the image could suffer for that. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:14:43 AM · #27 |
Can anyone tell whether this was taken in a zoo?
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:17:58 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Can anyone tell whether this was taken in a zoo?
|
Well, I know that's not the typical Canadian wildlife! ;0)
I would definitely not vote down that image, as I'm going to be assuming that all the shots were taken in the wild unless there is something in the photo to tell me otherwise. This photo looks perfectly natural to me and I'd have to give it an appropriate score.
But at the same time, if I could see savannah in the background (which would truly make it look like a real 'wildlife' shot) I would boost the score. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:19:09 AM · #29 |
No.
If I where a animal-biologist or something like that I might say that the background wheren´t like normal habitans of this animals. But since I´m not I couldn´t. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:24:40 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Can anyone tell whether this was taken in a zoo?
|
Not in the first glance. But the tree trunks at the background are suspect - they look like cement :-). It's still a wildlife shot though. To many of us, the only way we can see wildlife is through zoos. Besides, tigers are not domesticated. Even if they are considered as pets, they revert to the their wild state like the Siegfried and Roy incident. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:26:54 AM · #31 |
Not within the photo itself, but knowing the snow leopard is endangered and lives in very cold, rugged climates ... this one would be considered by all to be a zoo shot ... even if it wasn't. Nice shot, by the way.
Originally posted by doctornick:
Can anyone tell whether this was taken in a zoo?
|
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:27:44 AM · #32 |
Hi flip89, I just wanted to point something out:
The subject should be non-domesticated and living in a natural environment. Not one or the other, it should be both... |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:37:21 AM · #33 |
no one is going to be able to tell if you shot it in a zoo, if your slick about it.
that's why, as i said in another thread, a zoo shot is going to win, and no one is going to know for sure if it was a zoo until after the challenge ends and maybe not even then, if the photographer doesn't put that info in his/her comments.
:P
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 10:43:29 AM · #34 |
I suppose it comes down to a matter of integrity. You can either follow the rules to the letter, or slip by with a "they'll never know the difference."
Personally, I find it much more gratifying to follow the rules to the letter than to bend them to fit my needs.
The admins have said what the challenge is. I hope everybody will stick to it and not argue, "but this" or "whatabout that." You have your bounds; stick to 'em.
But that's just my $1.85 worth ;) |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:30:49 AM · #35 |
| Why the admins couldnt just add 'no zoo' or 'zoo animals included' in the challenge description I dont know. If they had then it would have solved the whole issue. If I shoot an animal at the zoo then in theory I could be penalised for it by a large number of the voters. If I shoot an animal in the 'wild' it will likely be not as good and in the end a zoo animal will probably win anyways. It's really annoying when the challenge is working out what the voters are going to find acceptable more than it is of taking a good photograph, which is truly a shame. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:34:11 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Why the admins couldnt just add 'no zoo' or 'zoo animals included' in the challenge description I dont know. If they had then it would have solved the whole issue. If I shoot an animal at the zoo then in theory I could be penalised for it by a large number of the voters. If I shoot an animal in the 'wild' it will likely be not as good and in the end a zoo animal will probably win anyways. It's really annoying when the challenge is working out what the voters are going to find acceptable more than it is of taking a good photograph, which is truly a shame. |
I agree completely. Photography is abou the result... not about how you get to the result. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:36:03 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Why the admins couldnt just add 'no zoo' or 'zoo animals included' in the challenge description I dont know. If they had then it would have solved the whole issue. If I shoot an animal at the zoo then in theory I could be penalised for it by a large number of the voters. If I shoot an animal in the 'wild' it will likely be not as good and in the end a zoo animal will probably win anyways. It's really annoying when the challenge is working out what the voters are going to find acceptable more than it is of taking a good photograph, which is truly a shame. |
Careful! Last time I made comments like that I was told by a site council person that if I didn't like the descriptions, I should go back and write the challenge descriptions myself, until they were perfect...
But to be fair, it pretty much says "No zoo animals" by saying that they should be "living in a natural environment". |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:38:03 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Why the admins couldnt just add 'no zoo' or 'zoo animals included' in the challenge description I dont know. If they had then it would have solved the whole issue. |
It's possible the intent was to allow zoo shots, as long as they sufficiently resemble the natural environment -- no bars, moats, or people allowed.
As you've noticed, there's an argument about every single challenge as to whether the admins meant for us to follow a strictly literalist reading of the topic, or to encourage more liberal and creative interpretations by leaving the descriptions deliberately imprecise.
It is my personal belief that the latter is the more accurate view, but the former seems to be what rules the vote. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:41:00 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by moodville:
Why the admins couldnt just add 'no zoo' or 'zoo animals included' in the challenge description I dont know. If they had then it would have solved the whole issue. If I shoot an animal at the zoo then in theory I could be penalised for it by a large number of the voters. If I shoot an animal in the 'wild' it will likely be not as good and in the end a zoo animal will probably win anyways. It's really annoying when the challenge is working out what the voters are going to find acceptable more than it is of taking a good photograph, which is truly a shame. |
SOme of us think zoos ARE natural environments.
June
Careful! Last time I made comments like that I was told by a site council person that if I didn't like the descriptions, I should go back and write the challenge descriptions myself, until they were perfect...
But to be fair, it pretty much says "No zoo animals" by saying that they should be "living in a natural environment". |
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:41:59 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=moodville]
As you've noticed, there's an argument about every single challenge as to whether the admins meant for us to follow a strictly literalist reading of the topic, or to encourage more liberal and creative interpretations by leaving the descriptions deliberately imprecise. |
This type of argument each week can easily be eliminated. I brought this up in the past, but if you simply EXCLUDE the challenge description, the problem is solved. Defining a topic always brings up debate about things that are not explicitly implied in the description. If this challenge was called "Wildlife" with no extra qualifications, there would be very little debate about what is or isn't acceptable for it. The only time you need a description for a challenge topic is when you want to specifically exclude something as a possible photo subject. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:42:56 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you've noticed, there's an argument about every single challenge as to whether the admins meant for us to follow a strictly literalist reading of the topic, or to encourage more liberal and creative interpretations by leaving the descriptions deliberately imprecise.
It is my personal belief that the latter is the more accurate view, but the former seems to be what rules the vote. |
That's because the wording is usually exclusive, rather than inclusive!
I would rather have broad interpretation of challenge descriptions as well, but they're rarely written to allow for that! |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:43:49 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=moodville]
As you've noticed, there's an argument about every single challenge as to whether the admins meant for us to follow a strictly literalist reading of the topic, or to encourage more liberal and creative interpretations by leaving the descriptions deliberately imprecise. |
This type of argument each week can easily be eliminated. I brought this up in the past, but if you simply EXCLUDE the challenge description, the problem is solved. Defining a topic always brings up debate about things that are not explicitly implied in the description. If this challenge was called "Wildlife" with no extra qualifications, there would be very little debate about what is or isn't acceptable for it. The only time you need a description for a challenge topic is when you want to specifically exclude something as a possible photo subject. |
Yes, yes, yes !!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly! |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:45:26 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
But to be fair, it pretty much says "No zoo animals" by saying that they should be "living in a natural environment". |
Many zoos strive to make the animal environments as natural as possible. The safari-type animal parks, where animals graze out in the open, would certainly be hard to distinguish from a natural environment. Personally, I feel that allowing zoos will permit more people to enter- and a wider range of animals. It's also easier to focus on the photography aspect when you're not waist-deep in a swamp looking for gators. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:52:35 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by moodville:
Why the admins couldnt just add 'no zoo' or 'zoo animals included' in the challenge description I dont know. If they had then it would have solved the whole issue. |
It's possible the intent was to allow zoo shots, as long as they sufficiently resemble the natural environment -- no bars, moats, or people allowed. |
It's possible but we have no way of knowing as they dont exactly say it. And the same point you have given for zoo shots to be included has been immediately used after you to argue against zoo shots.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you've noticed, there's an argument about every single challenge as to whether the admins meant for us to follow a strictly literalist reading of the topic, or to encourage more liberal and creative interpretations by leaving the descriptions deliberately imprecise. |
I'm not sure there is a creative interpretation of this challenge. We have to shoot an animal. Photographing an animal in the zoo is not what I consider to be creative, but I'd like to say it can be more difficult than some people in this thread are stating. It just seems to me that this could have been a very straightforward challenge and the inclusive of a few additional words, or as Setzler suggested no words at all, could have solved a lot of the problems. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:54:15 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This type of argument each week can easily be eliminated. I brought this up in the past, but if you simply EXCLUDE the challenge description, the problem is solved. Defining a topic always brings up debate about things that are not explicitly implied in the description. If this challenge was called "Wildlife" with no extra qualifications, there would be very little debate about what is or isn't acceptable for it. |
(emphasis added)
I think you'd end up with the same arguments, much in the same way making comments mandatory for low votes would just shift the vote.
Don't you want to argue about whether my shot of "Frat Party Aftermath" constitutes "wildlife" ... : )
Actually, I mostly agree with you, that the simpler the description the better. But that would have to be accompanied by a change in mind-set among the voters, towards creativity and inclusivity and a variety of ideas not their own ... |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:54:23 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=moodville]
As you've noticed, there's an argument about every single challenge as to whether the admins meant for us to follow a strictly literalist reading of the topic, or to encourage more liberal and creative interpretations by leaving the descriptions deliberately imprecise. |
This type of argument each week can easily be eliminated. I brought this up in the past, but if you simply EXCLUDE the challenge description, the problem is solved. Defining a topic always brings up debate about things that are not explicitly implied in the description. If this challenge was called "Wildlife" with no extra qualifications, there would be very little debate about what is or isn't acceptable for it. The only time you need a description for a challenge topic is when you want to specifically exclude something as a possible photo subject. |
AMEN!
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 11:59:29 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Don't you want to argue about whether my shot of "Frat Party Aftermath" constitutes "wildlife" ... : ) |
Not at all. I'm always open to alternative interpretations of the theme. I welcome them. Why stifle that sort of creativity by specifying what is and isn't acceptable?
Message edited by author 2004-09-27 12:00:09. |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:25:32 PM · #48 |
Agreed. I think the intent of the simple desctiption is to 1) not get bogged down in tons of clarifications and 2) allow the reader to interpret the verbiage as they see fit.
If you read the challenge as allowing zoo's and other canned stages then that is your perogative (sorry if I sound biased). Personally, I guess I'm more of a purist. "...living in a natural environment" means that I have to enter their house and take a shot in their environment. Not to go to a place that is comfortable for me to allow me to pick and choose.
I don't really see how this is such a hard thing to comprehend. There is wildlife all around us. Yes, the amazing wildebeast or koala might not be sitting on my back porch, but it just makes it a bit more challenging on trying to figure out how to track down a prospective subject that I've not contained.
For reference, the challenge description is:
For the purpose of this challenge, "wildlife" should be considered non-domesticated mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians living in a natural environment. Now that you know what to photograph, take your best shot! |
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:28:39 PM · #49 |
Then again, and its still up to the reader's interpretation, "...a natural environment" does not specifically say "...THEIR natural environmnent".
|
|
|
|
09/27/2004 12:31:28 PM · #50 |
For the purpose of this challenge, "wildlife" should be considered non-domesticated mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians living in a natural environment. Now that you know what to photograph, take your best shot!
Pish posh people... it says non-domesticated animals, living in "a" natural environment...not THEIR natural (as in non-zoo) environment. Most zoos that I've ever been in look pretty natural to me, even if it is a replica of their natural environment. Now everyone...take a deep breath, quit overanalyzing everything and take a picture or three! ;o) Love to all! |
|
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: 08/02/2025 06:42:02 PM EDT.
