| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2004 10:58:36 PM · #1 |
The challenge clearly says to photograph food. I am curious, does a representation of food, or fake food qualify as "food" and meet the challenge? Or would a photo of faux food be something that is clearly outside the scope of the challenge?
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:09:01 PM · #2 |
| I'd say it should be food... but then somethings are food to some and not food to others. |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:13:32 PM · #3 |
Like plastic crocodile on bread? lol
I gave it a [10] by the way ;)
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 23:14:03. |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:15:58 PM · #4 |
well it could be something perported to be food, but clearly is not edible... or something that looks like food, but is acctually fake food... you know, kinda of like the plastic glossy fake food some restaurants put out for display in the front windows... looks like food, but it is not really food...
|
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:17:11 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
The challenge clearly says to photograph food. I am curious, does a representation of food, or fake food qualify as "food" and meet the challenge? Or would a photo of faux food be something that is clearly outside the scope of the challenge? |
Speaking as someone that photographed "faux" food My idea was that the fact that It insinuated that one might mistake or actually eat fake food was wacky... *shrugs*
I guess the message is in the eye of the beholder... |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:19:49 PM · #6 |
To me wacky food is food I would not eat. Since food is a universal subject with so many different cultures, no one can really define it specifically. What defines wacky? It could be bad mixtures, funny or something not quite desired by the palete. This is my opinion.
Message edited by author 2004-09-30 23:33:49. |
|
|
|
09/30/2004 11:25:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:
Like "referenced photo deleted"? lol
I gave it a [10] by the way ;) |
Please do not reference specific photos while the challenge is on-going - it is not only against the rules, but it is also unfair. |
|
|
|
10/01/2004 02:29:05 AM · #8 |
I have taken a very wide definition in my voting.
Many people have used objects you would normally not eat, it would be real wacky to eat them, therefore in my view they quality as wacky food.
If then someone uses a fake object to represent something which is really eaten somewhere in the world, and which someone else would also consider wacky, then this is also acceptable in my view.
Whether it is real food, or is made to look like real food, does not matter to me.
But I might be biased .......
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:24:27 AM EDT.
