| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2002 01:38:34 PM · #51 |
I have argued for a literal and logical interpretation ONLY because the words are there. If the words are there, they are to be used. I agree entirely with the examples given by mag.
I repeat, I am all for single word challenges with NO explanation. That way, there is no problem so far as I can see. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:49:03 PM · #52 |
How close? Might it need to be close enough that you were using your camera's 'macro mode'? : )
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
Since we agree on that, is a huge panoramic image of the Serengeti Plain a macro?
It could be... if you photographed a postcard view of that plain from close range, it would definitely be a macro :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:17:08 PM · #53 |
My 2 cents. Too many people think that the reflection needs to be mirror like, life like. I knew that my photo would probably not do well. I choose to submit it because I knew it would be different, it has good artistic merit and great composition! I wanted reactions to my vision. By some comments, many believe that this is a "natural photo". The colors and feel have been "curved" and by doing so actually diminished the reflective qualities. Too bad "good" pics get more comments than "bad" pics.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 2:16:30 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:22:29 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
How close? Might it need to be close enough that you were using your camera's 'macro mode'? : )
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
Since we agree on that, is a huge panoramic image of the Serengeti Plain a macro?
It could be... if you photographed a postcard view of that plain from close range, it would definitely be a macro :)
[/i]
Like I said, you can't have a challenge with a single interpretation :)
I'm not sure which direction you want to go mag... Are you supportive of allowing greater scope in the interpretations or do you support a strictly worded challenge where there is no room for interpretation?
I can go either way. What I don't like is the 'in the middle' qualifications that we have now...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:29:58 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Damitriel:
There are a few photos this week that have noting to do with reflections. These photo's are quite nice, but it would be really silly if one of them won the challenge.
There are always some people who send in some flower photo's, whatever the challenge. I think it's quit easy to take a nice picture of a beautiful flower, but it's quite difficult to make your trash look attractive.
I would be cautious about such a statement. You may well find out that you were entirely incorrect in your assumptions.
Linda
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:31:34 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Klaus:
My 2 cents. Too many people think that the reflection needs to be mirror like, life like. I knew that my photo would probably not do well. I choose to submit it because I knew it would be different, it has good artistic merit and great composition! I wanted reactions to my vision. By some comments, many believe that this is a "natural photo". The colors and feel have been "curved" and by doing so actually diminished the reflective qualities. Too bad "good" pics get more comments than "bad" pics
Yeah, and I want to know where it said that all "reflection" submissions had to have perfect focus!! Some of my commenters seem to think that this was the case!
Linda
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:33:11 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by lina:
... it seems that many of the people here are concerned with the letter of the rules, and not creating art. Kind of like how it is in...art school. When the rules are more important than the finished piece, it seems that dpc has strayed from what it used to do--namely promote creativity within a wide range of very different people.
if you were in this art class and the lesson for the day was FRUIT, and there were various apples and oranges placed around the room --- and you painted your car because it was a lemon --- creative, yes (fortunately, we didn't get any of those in OUR f/v challenge :) but surely you knew the intent of the assignment
i believe WE ALL knew what was intended, but some chose to take a different path - that was their choice, and they probably should have known what was coming - and unfortunately (or not) the majority is speaking their disfavor
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:36:49 PM · #58 |
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!"
Spiderman? |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:42:30 PM · #59 |
Where I am going with this is, and I also posted a thread in Site Council if you want to weigh in there -
I think if a particular technique is prescribed, there should be no latitude. If most people are going to be hobbled by using that technique, then EVERYONE should be, and that should be explicit. Within that constraint, all creativity allowed.
However, if it's a concept challenge, ie blue, red, age, fear, then anything goes, and looser interpretations should be explicitly ENCOURAGED.
Make sense?
: )
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]How close? Might it need to be close enough that you were using your camera's 'macro mode'? : )
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
Since we agree on that, is a huge panoramic image of the Serengeti Plain a macro?
It could be... if you photographed a postcard view of that plain from close range, it would definitely be a macro :)
[/i]
Like I said, you can't have a challenge with a single interpretation :)
I'm not sure which direction you want to go mag... Are you supportive of allowing greater scope in the interpretations or do you support a strictly worded challenge where there is no room for interpretation?
I can go either way. What I don't like is the 'in the middle' qualifications that we have now...
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:43:50 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by lina:
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!"
Spiderman?
Lina, there is nothing wrong with going out into left field to find your own unique interpretation of each challenge... You are always more than welcome to be as creative as you like :) You just have to weigh the options... "should I create an image that is my most artistic and thought provoking work ever, even though it will be photograph of water in a DRY challenge?" or "should I attempt to create a very artistic impression of something DRY"?
You have obvoiously been introduced to the way the vote works around here :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:45:23 PM · #61 |
That sounds like a great idea to me...
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Where I am going with this is, and I also posted a thread in Site Council if you want to weigh in there -
I think if a particular technique is prescribed, there should be no latitude. If most people are going to be hobbled by using that technique, then EVERYONE should be, and that should be explicit. Within that constraint, all creativity allowed.
However, if it's a concept challenge, ie blue, red, age, fear, then anything goes, and looser interpretations should be explicitly ENCOURAGED.
Make sense?
: )
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]How close? Might it need to be close enough that you were using your camera's 'macro mode'? : )
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]
Since we agree on that, is a huge panoramic image of the Serengeti Plain a macro?
It could be... if you photographed a postcard view of that plain from close range, it would definitely be a macro :)
[/i]
Like I said, you can't have a challenge with a single interpretation :)
I'm not sure which direction you want to go mag... Are you supportive of allowing greater scope in the interpretations or do you support a strictly worded challenge where there is no room for interpretation?
I can go either way. What I don't like is the 'in the middle' qualifications that we have now...
[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 03:16:32 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Sure.
What about a one word challenge like 'macro'?
Does anything go there?
And when 'anything goes', where is the 'challenge' anymore?
WHy even have challenges per se? WHy not just have 'open shooting' every week ? :)
These reductions of arguments to absurd degrees are all very fun and all,
but don't really help much. I know you personally define 'macro' as
meaning it had to be shot using a macro lens, but this isn't actually
the normal meaning (which is more something that has a larger than
1:1 scale)
However, I don't think any of the entries in the current challenge that
seem to be provoking so much debate are anything like an 'open'
challenge, or shooting day for a night challenge. In each of
the cases I've seen, the people have gone to a lot of effort to create
the illusion of a reflection. They didn't just go and randomly shoot
a pretty picture and hope nobody would notice. They just took a
different approach. I also understand your point about feeling that
the 'technical' aspects of a pure reflection are much harder - so I'd
ask you, have you tried doing a 'faked' reflection like these other
entries ? Do you know how difficult it is to do those so they are
a convincing illusion ? It could be harder than you think - most
things I haven't yet tried have a way of seeming easier than they
turn out to be :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 03:25:29 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by jakking:
I repeat, I am all for single word challenges with NO explanation. That way, there is no problem so far as I can see.
Then why don't YOU vote that way and disregard that apparently unhelpful explanatory paragraph.
I'm curious to see how you voted on my photo as I included TWO distinct reflections. Will I be disqualified for not depicting "my reflective SURFACE" (singular only) or because it's smaller than the minimum size limit?
One problem I have with your position is that you see "literal and logical" as meaning exclusive. So, tell me, logically speaking, does light consist of particles or waves? I'm sure I'll take more suitable photos once I better understand the true nature of light...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 3:25:00 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 03:25:40 PM · #64 |
| Multi-level voting would probably be another answer to this. That way one can give a 1 in the challenge department, but a 7 for technique, etc. So that way Jakking can still get the gratification of giving a 1. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 03:51:02 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Then why don't YOU vote that way and disregard that apparently unhelpful explanatory paragraph.
Because that paragraph IS part of the challenge. That's why it cannot be avoided by anyone seriously attempting to match their skills against others in a reasonably open competion.
As many others have pointed out, people who deliberately choose to avoid the normal meanings of words and attempt to write their own language based on nothing but their own assumptions get the votes they deserve around here.
When there are one word challenges with no explication attached, I'll do that challenge. Until then, I follow the directions suggested by the wording of the actual challenge, not those of something made up to suit myself.
As for your other sarcastic remarks which are hardly worthy of a moderator, the challenge actually says "reflections" plural in the title and "reflection" singular in the body. I assume, therefore, that either would be correct.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 3:49:14 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 3:49:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:16:26 PM · #66 |
what mag99 and jakking said ... :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:28:53 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jakking:
As for your other sarcastic remarks which are hardly worthy of a moderator....
Sorry...I am not provided with the option to turn of the "Moderator" designation when I wish to give my opinion. In general, you should completely ignore that designation unless the post specifically speaks to an interpretation of the Rules (NOT Challenge) or site management.
I had a further response, but got logged-off without saving it, so I'll have to recompose it later. In the meantime, re-read my original post COMPLETELY LITERALLY -- ignore your feeling that my word choice and syntax imply "sarcasm," and deny that "logic" need not restrict us to a single, exclusively "correct" answer. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:51:44 PM · #68 |
If one ignores the true value of words, then you are correct. But that is not "logical".
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 4:50:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:58:17 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by jakking:
If one ignores the true value of words, then you are correct. But that is not "logical".
I have to wonder why whe feel the need to have our work boung by logic rather than artistic license. To me the challenge should be a springboard for creativity, and not something to be taken so literally. As long as I can see the connection, that's usually enough for me... it doesn't need to be literal. Otherwise, we might as well just have a "drivers license photo" challenge.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:36:41 PM · #70 |
some people don't need an added "be as creative as you want" proviso in a challenge - that's their normal inclination
the rest of the people will attempt to complete the challenge as the literal interpretation would imply
both groups know who they are - the question is, how can we please both of them?
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:41:15 PM · #71 |
| I chose to use both definitions for my picture this week. I composed my ENTIRE image based off both meanings of reflection. I used the second meaning of the definition as my insperation for creativity for both inside the box, and outside. Maybe we are being TOO literal with the Challenge wording. Why choose to limit your own creativity. Just an opinion. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:51:13 PM · #72 |
What confuses me is why the folks that think outside the box and the folks that think inside can't just agree to let each other interpret the challenge as they want. I tend not to stretch the definitions of the challenge too far, but I appreciate the thought process of those that do.
Do we really all need to think one way? I'd think that would be boring...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:56:35 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
What confuses me is why the folks that think outside the box and the folks that think inside can't just agree to let each other interpret the challenge as they want. I tend not to stretch the definitions of the challenge too far, but I appreciate the thought process of those that do.
Do we really all need to think one way? I'd think that would be boring...
It's simple. SCORE. This is a competition, and any opportunity for YOUR competition to not like YOUR photo is an opportunity :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:57:33 PM · #74 |
>insert clapping for Mygyl!!!
Yeah!
Ditto.
Originally posted by myqyl:
What confuses me is why the folks that think outside the box and the folks that think inside can't just agree to let each other interpret the challenge as they want. I tend not to stretch the definitions of the challenge too far, but I appreciate the thought process of those that do.
Do we really all need to think one way? I'd think that would be boring...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:02:56 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
some people don't need an added "be as creative as you want" proviso in a challenge - that's their normal inclination
the rest of the people will attempt to complete the challenge as the literal interpretation would imply
both groups know who they are - the question is, how can we please both of them?
Figure this out you will be a better man than most >:-D
Some people take pride in their differences and would see it as a personal failing to stray from their inclinations to accomodate alternate views.
Meaning many people thrive on conflict and tweaking peoples knobs...WooHooooooo!...Knob tweaking!! Now we talking entertainment! >:-D |
|
