| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2012 10:47:16 AM · #1 |
My Rock was excited to see this new challenge!
 |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 10:49:56 AM · #2 |
should be fun, although i wish th stipulation didn't allow all inanimate objects, just make it rocks.
Im definitely entering this one. I already have the blue ribbon idea, i just need to do it properly. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 10:54:40 AM · #3 |
Another Expert Editing ruleset challenge.
One of two things should happen. Either voters should discriminate against entries which are not photographic in nature. Or, that particular suggested requirement should be removed from the Expert ruleset language.
IMHO, some voters discriminate against images which are photographic in nature in favor of those which are far afield from photography. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 10:56:51 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Another Expert Editing ruleset challenge.
One of two things should happen. Either voters should discriminate against entries which are not photographic in nature. Or, that particular suggested requirement should be removed from the Expert ruleset language. |
Completely agree.
Originally posted by hahn23:
IMHO, some voters discriminate against images which are photographic in nature in favor of those which are far afield from photography. |
I do my best to restore balance in favor of photography.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:07:04 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Another Expert Editing ruleset challenge.
One of two things should happen. Either voters should discriminate against entries which are not photographic in nature. Or, that particular suggested requirement should be removed from the Expert ruleset language.
IMHO, some voters discriminate against images which are photographic in nature in favor of those which are far afield from photography. |
i only discriminate the ones that use some off the wall processing to make there photographic image look not photographic.
but yeah remove the "rule", it no one follows it especially the voters. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:07:29 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Another Expert Editing ruleset challenge.
One of two things should happen. Either voters should discriminate against entries which are not photographic in nature. Or, that particular suggested requirement should be removed from the Expert ruleset language. |
Completely agree.
Originally posted by hahn23:
IMHO, some voters discriminate against images which are photographic in nature in favor of those which are far afield from photography. |
I do my best to restore balance in favor of photography. |
Even if this challenge is more like a Worth1000 challenge than a DPC one all this discussion about what is photography and what is not, is quite boring. When you begin to restore the balance in all the fields involved in this problem (super HDR first) let me know. It's not only a matter of expert editing ruleset (as Gyaban has perfectly shown in his last entry). |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:20:41 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Another Expert Editing ruleset challenge.
One of two things should happen. Either voters should discriminate against entries which are not photographic in nature. Or, that particular suggested requirement should be removed from the Expert ruleset language. |
Completely agree.
Originally posted by hahn23:
IMHO, some voters discriminate against images which are photographic in nature in favor of those which are far afield from photography. |
I do my best to restore balance in favor of photography. |
Even if this challenge is more like a Worth1000 challenge than a DPC one all this discussion about what is photography and what is not, is quite boring. When you begin to restore the balance in all the fields involved in this problem (super HDR first) let me know. It's not only a matter of expert editing ruleset (as Gyaban has perfectly shown in his last entry). |
I really hate the concept of altering my long term voting scale, but I will start to make exceptions now. Low votes (1s) for the "super HDR" stuff. Low votes for images which are not photographic in nature. I vote on almost every challenge. I don't like being forced into this kind of sorting, but the general voting scale has fallen, so it's a "beggar thy neighbor" contest now. The spiral downward has been going on for a while. This trend away from photography is hurting participation humbers. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:25:31 AM · #8 |
| The description of this challenge makes no sense at all in the context of expert editing: "Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet." |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:27:08 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The description of this challenge makes no sense at all in the context of expert editing: "Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet." |
ha
+1
|
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:33:12 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The description of this challenge makes no sense at all in the context of expert editing: "Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet." |
ha
+1 |
+2
Let's say my dog has moved onto greener pastures and I had him preserved by a taxidermist. Would he qualify as an inanimate object or DNMC? |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:47:49 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Either voters should discriminate against entries which are not photographic in nature.
|
Already doing that.
I hate to see this evolving from a photography site to a digital playground. Christophe's recent ribbon winning image (in a basic challenge) is proof that there can be fantastic images without the expert set.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2012 11:48:44 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The description of this challenge makes no sense at all in the context of expert editing: "Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet." |
ha
+1 |
+2
Let's say my dog has moved onto greener pastures and I had him preserved by a taxidermist. Would he qualify as an inanimate object or DNMC? |
Eeewwww! Do people really stuff their pets? |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 12:24:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by MarkB:
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The description of this challenge makes no sense at all in the context of expert editing: "Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet." |
ha
+1 |
+2
Let's say my dog has moved onto greener pastures and I had him preserved by a taxidermist. Would he qualify as an inanimate object or DNMC? |
Eeewwww! Do people really stuff their pets? |
Are you really unaware of this? |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 12:29:00 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by MarkB:
Originally posted by Denielle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The description of this challenge makes no sense at all in the context of expert editing: "Take a photo of a rock (or any other inanimate object) as if it were a pet." |
ha
+1 |
+2
Let's say my dog has moved onto greener pastures and I had him preserved by a taxidermist. Would he qualify as an inanimate object or DNMC? |
Eeewwww! Do people really stuff their pets? |
Are you really unaware of this? |
Yes, I always thought it was a "redneck" type joke. When I went to the Academy of Natural Science, I thought it was cool that the animals were so lifelike. Then I found out they were real stuffed animals. OK, for science, for a museum, I get it. But for a pet that you loved, that's just a little twisted. Kind of like stuffing grandma and sitting her in the rocker in the corner.
eta: This is a personal opinion/preference/whatever before you decide to flame me because you really do have grandma in the corner. ;D
Message edited by author 2012-10-05 12:31:01. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 12:32:45 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Eeewwww! Do people really stuff their pets? |
Are you really unaware of this? |
Yes, I always thought it was a "redneck" type joke. When I went to the Academy of Natural Science, I thought it was cool that the animals were so lifelike. Then I found out they were real stuffed animals. OK, for science, for a museum, I get it. But for a pet that you loved, that's just a little twisted. Kind of like stuffing grandma and sitting her in the rocker in the corner. |
Heck, Pet Taxidermy is possibly THE major source of income for what remains of the taxidermy profession. Nowadays you can't even legally have, say, an owl that you found dead in the woods stuffed, because it's a protected species. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 12:48:29 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Heck, Pet Taxidermy is possibly THE major source of income for what remains of the taxidermy profession. Nowadays you can't even legally have, say, an owl that you found dead in the woods stuffed, because it's a protected species. |
Not too unrelated... an evolving trend... Horsehair pottery.  We sell this quite a lot in our gallery.
Occasionally, a horse owner, who has recently lost a beloved horse will opt to have some pottery thrown with the lost horse's hair added at the moment of firing. Makes a nice pattern on the Raku. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 12:53:11 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Heck, Pet Taxidermy is possibly THE major source of income for what remains of the taxidermy profession. Nowadays you can't even legally have, say, an owl that you found dead in the woods stuffed, because it's a protected species. |
Not too unrelated... an evolving trend... Horsehair pottery. We sell this quite a lot in our gallery.
Occasionally, a horse owner, who has recently lost a beloved horse will opt to have some pottery thrown with the lost horse's hair added at the moment of firing. Makes a nice pattern on the Raku. |
Well that is interesting - the pattern the hair creates is amazing. Had you not said anything I would have thought it was just patterns painted before it was fired in the kiln.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2012 12:57:46 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Heck, Pet Taxidermy is possibly THE major source of income for what remains of the taxidermy profession. Nowadays you can't even legally have, say, an owl that you found dead in the woods stuffed, because it's a protected species. |
Not too unrelated... an evolving trend... Horsehair pottery. We sell this quite a lot in our gallery.
Occasionally, a horse owner, who has recently lost a beloved horse will opt to have some pottery thrown with the lost horse's hair added at the moment of firing. Makes a nice pattern on the Raku. |
Well that is interesting - the pattern the hair creates is amazing. Had you not said anything I would have thought it was just patterns painted before it was fired in the kiln. |
It's the sizzle of the hair on the wet clay during firing which creates the artistic pattern. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 01:38:01 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Heck, Pet Taxidermy is possibly THE major source of income for what remains of the taxidermy profession. Nowadays you can't even legally have, say, an owl that you found dead in the woods stuffed, because it's a protected species. |
Not too unrelated... an evolving trend... Horsehair pottery. We sell this quite a lot in our gallery.
Occasionally, a horse owner, who has recently lost a beloved horse will opt to have some pottery thrown with the lost horse's hair added at the moment of firing. Makes a nice pattern on the Raku. |
Well that is interesting - the pattern the hair creates is amazing. Had you not said anything I would have thought it was just patterns painted before it was fired in the kiln. |
It's the sizzle of the hair on the wet clay during firing which creates the artistic pattern. |
Love it! |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 02:48:18 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Heck, Pet Taxidermy is possibly THE major source of income for what remains of the taxidermy profession. Nowadays you can't even legally have, say, an owl that you found dead in the woods stuffed, because it's a protected species. |
Not too unrelated... an evolving trend... Horsehair pottery. We sell this quite a lot in our gallery.
Occasionally, a horse owner, who has recently lost a beloved horse will opt to have some pottery thrown with the lost horse's hair added at the moment of firing. Makes a nice pattern on the Raku. |
Well that is interesting - the pattern the hair creates is amazing. Had you not said anything I would have thought it was just patterns painted before it was fired in the kiln. |
It's the sizzle of the hair on the wet clay during firing which creates the artistic pattern. |
To be fair, it's actually the carbon deposits from the reducing environment that is created locally around the hair as it adds carbon to the atmospheric gasses in that area. |
|
|
|
10/05/2012 08:25:05 PM · #21 |
LOL My pet rock has been posing all afernoon
|
|
|
|
10/06/2012 09:30:50 AM · #22 |
Hmmm.
My pet rock has gone off to get its hair done...! Horse Hair..... |
|
|
|
10/07/2012 03:59:41 AM · #23 |
Can anyone explain me what we are supposed to do for this challenge? I searched on the Internet what is a Pet Rock (at least I would expect an explanation with a link in the challenge description) but still I can't understand what we should do...
Message edited by author 2012-10-07 04:00:28. |
|
|
|
10/07/2012 06:05:26 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Can anyone explain me what we are supposed to do for this challenge? I searched on the Internet what is a Pet Rock (at least I would expect an explanation with a link in the challenge description) but still I can't understand what we should do... |
According to this Wikipedia article, Pet Rocks started to be sold in 1975. They are normal rocks, in a cardboard box, and people would buy these mostly as a joke. They have often false eyes glued on them, like here or here.
So my understanding of the challenge is that you have to produce an entry showing one or several of them, as if they were a regular pet (for example eating, "playing" in the garden, sleeping on someone knees, etc.) |
|
|
|
10/07/2012 06:18:16 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Can anyone explain me what we are supposed to do for this challenge? I searched on the Internet what is a Pet Rock (at least I would expect an explanation with a link in the challenge description) but still I can't understand what we should do... |
According to this Wikipedia article, Pet Rocks started to be sold in 1975. They are normal rocks, in a cardboard box, and people would buy these mostly as a joke. They have often false eyes glued on them, like here or here.
So my understanding of the challenge is that you have to produce an entry showing one or several of them, as if they were a regular pet (for example eating, "playing" in the garden, sleeping on someone knees, etc.) |
Ok, that's what I had found on the net - now I'm wondering why 'expert editing' for this one... |
|
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: 07/31/2025 04:34:33 AM EDT.
