| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2003 12:50:35 PM · #1 |
| I am getting great critics in this challenge, 5 out of 10 credit me with a perfect score. However my overall score is in the low fives. One site administrator and one member of the site council rave about the "good job with the challenge" while an another site council member gives me a "does not meet challenge" type of line. It would be nice if things where a little more clear to every one. To me, there are no "manufactured numbers" in my picture, only a few objects that SUGGEST numbers. If people do not see them (hi jak!) this is my problem, not making things obvious enough and i won't be complaining about that. But please at least get your instruments in tune up there. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 12:59:03 PM · #2 |
(hi jean-jacques!) I am at a loss as to understand how an artificial arrangement of manufactured objects can meet the test of "a naturally occuring" event, I guess. But each to each his own.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 02:52:11 PM · #3 |
SITE COUNCIL REFERENCE #1 - MANUFACTURED BUT NOT INTENDED IS OKAY
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by jjbeguin:
would this qualify as 411?
|
I'd say yes, but it isnt natural. |
Why isn't that "naturally occurring"? I would say it is.. I don't think the plumber thought to make the pipes into the number 4. I took the description to mean no numbers in the readily recognized way. ... ex. on signs, doors, text.. etc. |
SITE COUNCIL REFERENCE #2 - MANUFACTURED BUT NOT INTENDED IS NOT OKAY
Originally posted by Gordon:
my comment was a direct quote from the description of the challenge. It says your subject should not be manufactured. Therefore man-made objects would seem to be not meeting the objective. It seems quite clear. It makes no mention about subjects that are supposed to be numbers in the first place or not. |
MY RESPONSE THAT WAS NOT ANSWERED
i understand what you are saying and how you are interpreting it, but the only thing that is really clear is that other intrepretations are out there (like in the other thread on this subject 'Numbers Clarification', where KarenB, another 'Site Council' said the pipes would work for 411) and no one has said yes or no - (i) must be natural (ie: organic) or (ii) may be manufactured, just not manufactured intentionally as a number. but whatever, i found my natural organically derived number and submitted it (so i'm set for either way). good luck to everyone else!
------------------------------------
Okay - so many people are getting comments that their manufactured, but not manufactured as a number but representative of a number is not within the guidelines (or even when it is natural, there was the 'hand of man' somehow, so its less 'pure'), and that because the purists searched for days seeking the stricter definition of the challenge, they will punish those that didn't (those that interpreted things differently). This bad situation clearly could have been handled better by the dpchallenge people before it got to this. It's quite frustrating.
Message edited by author 2003-03-10 14:54:26. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 02:56:48 PM · #4 |
However, you have to realise in this case that the site council doesn't
a/ set the challenge
b/ disqualify based on meeting or not meeting the challenge
and as such, we are as likely to interpret the challenge description in different ways as the voters are. However, the goal is to create a picture that meets the challenge in the minds of the voters - if your interpretation is ambiguous or open to be mis-interpreted, then you are very likely to suffer, no matter what anyone happens to have said in the forums or not.
If we all came out and really strongly said that, in this challenge, called 'natural numbers' that manufactured were allowable, people would still vote with the opinion that they were not. There are some truely outstanding pictures this week, that use man-made items, that were never intended to be numbers. Vote on them as you see fit, is my advice. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 03:13:32 PM · #5 |
I love photography because it soothes my soul. I feel disappointed to hear all you great photographers quibbling. Sometimes it's best to choose your battles wisely.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 03:47:09 PM · #6 |
| I think the problem is that "not manufactured" wasn't clear enough. I took it to mean not specifically meant to represent a number (ie. Like an address on a mailbox or whatever). But oh well. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 04:16:14 PM · #7 |
I posted that in an attempt to understand this myself. I feel that I can still stand by my interpretation. It didn't really spur on the discussion as I had hoped. It does not make it a rule though just because I am on site council.
It grieves me to find out that so many people are more caught up in what meets the challenge down to the letter (or in this case the number!) rather than seeing how the topic inspired someone to go out there and shoot photos.
Let's please continue both threads (the other one and this one) in this thread to alleviate confusion and repetition.
Thanks
Message edited by author 2003-03-10 16:20:24. |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 04:26:34 PM · #8 |
i agree with Karen. i'm voting on these photos by their merit and the inspiration. ultimately, (even though i didn't make the deadline to enter a photo) i decided that this challenge was about making people see things in a different way, i.e. numbers in things that weren't intended to look like numbers, "manufactured" or not. i'm voting with that in mind.
i also agree, though, that the challenge should have been explained a little bit better.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 06:24:54 PM · #9 |
Hope I don't make any enemies on my first post here, but... ;-)
Seems to me, whether the challenge description was clear or not (I'll hold my opinion on that at this point), it would have been a wise(r) choice to stick with natural subjects (not man made in any way), since a fairly significant number of people expressed their opinion early on that this was their interpretation. Whether or not it's appropriate to score man-made items lower or not, it was pretty clear from the start that many posters were going to do just that. While I don't want to imply that "you got what you deserverd" or anything harsh like that, you did have some degree of fair warning.
Just a thought. Might be worth keeping in mind for future disputed challenges... |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 07:25:40 PM · #10 |
I did not submit a photo to this challenge, but I really applaud all of you. I was looking them over and they are all creative and interesting. My kids gathered around as I was looking; they wanted to see the numbers. There was a lot of inquisitive joy going around. I'll be selecting a lot of favorites from this challenge! Thanks!
David
|
|
|
|
03/10/2003 08:05:21 PM · #11 |
No enemies made Scott. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It troubles me, though, that there might be a "ruling body" over what will do well in a challenge. Is that "ruling body" the most verbose of the populace in the forums? I'd still rather see people making their own interpretations. You are given a subject. Too little description? What if there was too much? It might cramp your creative spark. Take the subject and run with it. Why go with the masses? Why go with the interpretation of a few? Why not think out of the box? Why not be allowed to? Why all the "peer pressure"?
Photography? Art? Are you sure? Or is everyone like cattle, and following each other into the coral? |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 09:39:17 PM · #12 |
Wow! That's some deep socio-political implications! ;-)
Seriously, I guess I just tend to the more practical in my thinking. Taken to an extreme, the kind of sentiment could be extended to argue that putting any kind of limitation at all is limiting to artistic freedom. Why only numbers, I saw letters? Why numbers or letters at all, I got some great general nature shots? Why can't I doctor parts of my picture to blur out background, and make my number stand out better? Because what makes this "challenge" far more interesting that a site like photoSIG where everyone posts willy-nilly is the limits within which you have to work. THAT'S where creativity really blossoms and shines.
I read once that Steven Tyler (of Aerosmith fame) complained about how restrictions on what words he could use in songs really "cramped" his artistic freedom. But I personally think the lyrics he wrote back in the 70's were tons more creative than the stuff he does now, because he had to be more creative to express his thoughts and ideas. Today he's free to use more "expressive" language, but I personally think the lyrics aren't nearly as interesting. (And, their some biggest hits in the last few years are written by others, FWIW.)
As far as the confusion that was expressed early on, I do think somebody should have officially come on and clarified the issue one way or the other. Being new here, I'm not sure who that would be and why they might have chosen not to, but that's another topic, maybe.
But again, from the practical point of knowing how people were thinking, and without any clear indication otherwise, yes, I would have taken the view of the "masses" into account, since they are the judges.
If that's bowing to peer preasure and following the cattle into the coral, then.... Moooo! ;-) |
|
|
|
03/10/2003 10:22:40 PM · #13 |
I made at least 50 miles driving arround to find natural number, so all those fingers and hands ???? Why posting a photo just to be in the game?
|
|
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: 08/29/2025 04:26:52 AM EDT.
