| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2005 05:38:28 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I can't even get the posting of out-takes banned ... |
And the RANT forums shall be filled with GIMME FREE SPEECH crap.... lol |
|
|
|
08/05/2005 03:32:32 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Originally posted by amber:
I am beginning to agree with those that say that threads like this - posted whilst voting is ongoing- are meant to influence voters, intentionally or not IMHO. Why can't you just wait till voting is finished? |
Finally, A voice of reason. Someone from the SC listening? |
I can't even get the posting of out-takes banned ... |
|
|
|
08/05/2005 03:31:02 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by amber:
I am beginning to agree with those that say that threads like this - posted whilst voting is ongoing- are meant to influence voters, intentionally or not IMHO. Why can't you just wait till voting is finished? |
Finally, A voice of reason. Someone from the SC listening?
Just as posting challenge entries before voting completion is a no-no, discussing voting and interpretations during the voting stage should also be discouraged.
Disclaimer: I didnt enter this challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 07:48:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by amber:
I am beginning to agree with those that say that threads like this - posted whilst voting is ongoing- are meant to influence voters, intentionally or not IMHO. Why can't you just wait till voting is finished? |
I agree. I'm not even entered in this challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 10:14:09 AM · #5 |
I am beginning to agree with those that say that threads like this - posted whilst voting is ongoing- are meant to influence voters, intentionally or not IMHO. Why can't you just wait till voting is finished?
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 10:14:46. |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 10:00:26 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across. |
understandable, but if the photographer can afford the camera and he is to shoot affluence then he should know that its all about money and take the photo accordingly.
I have to disagree. If you can afford a digital camera then you should know what afluence means. |
The person taking the picture isn't necessarily part of the society being portrayed in the image. |
|
Where does it say the image has to portray the photographer's point of view? |
It doesn't but mterial wealth is just that and if the photographer can afford a digital camera then he show know what material wealth is and that IS the challenge. A guy in a desert hold a bottle of water is the richest man in that situation but put the same man in Beverly hills and he's nothing. Personally I don't believe he is anything in the desert either because that example does not convey material wealth. |
In the context of that society it would. ;oP -- I'm not going to convince you to think outside the context of the most affluent neighbourhood in the US and your not going to convince me to narrow my view to only think in that context. -- end of discussion, we disagree
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 09:32:06 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Xilebo:
In some people the word means excess even Gluttonous which is one of the deadly sins. All in all though it stirs a negative feeling in most people.
What is your real feeling towards "Affluence" and what it represents? Would be interesting to know.. |
So would fat people not be gluttonous??? (not all fat people but the ones the order a Big Mac combo with a diet coke are the ones I'm refering to)
As for my feelings toward "Affluence"... I have everything I want need and can basically buy whatever else I need, want or crave. Not to brag but I really don't need as much as I got which is why I'm constantly help people financially that are in need. Where I lack is in the emotional aspect of life but on that note I could care less.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 09:24:38 AM · #8 |
It's very interesting to follow this thread and see how differently people read and interpret the word "Affluence"
In some people the word means excess even Gluttonous which is one of the deadly sins. All in all though it stirs a negative feeling in most people.
There seems to be 2 poles of opinion in the challenge entries, one is showing the said "Affluence" and the other deploring it. Aren't both valid?
What is your real feeling towards "Affluence" and what it represents? Would be interesting to know..
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 09:25:27.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 08:19:43 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across. |
understandable, but if the photographer can afford the camera and he is to shoot affluence then he should know that its all about money and take the photo accordingly.
I have to disagree. If you can afford a digital camera then you should know what afluence means. |
The person taking the picture isn't necessarily part of the society being portrayed in the image. |
|
Where does it say the image has to portray the photographer's point of view? |
It doesn't but mterial wealth is just that and if the photographer can afford a digital camera then he show know what material wealth is and that IS the challenge. A guy in a desert hold a bottle of water is the richest man in that situation but put the same man in Beverly hills and he's nothing. Personally I don't believe he is anything in the desert either because that example does not convey material wealth.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 10:14:32 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across. |
understandable, but if the photographer can afford the camera and he is to shoot affluence then he should know that its all about money and take the photo accordingly.
I have to disagree. If you can afford a digital camera then you should know what afluence means. |
The person taking the picture isn't necessarily part of the society being portrayed in the image. |
|
Where does it say the image has to portray the photographer's point of view?
Message edited by author 2005-08-03 22:15:13.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 08:52:28 PM · #11 |
You know what dissapointed me about the affluence challenge?
Not a single picture of Woody with BlingBling.
Hey i may have abandoned my woody, but it doesnt seem like i'm the only one guilty of woody abuce - hasn't anyone brought thier woody a gold diamond encrusted $ necklace and a fur coat?
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 08:44:58 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across. |
understandable, but if the photographer can afford the camera and he is to shoot affluence then he should know that its all about money and take the photo accordingly.
I have to disagree. If you can afford a digital camera then you should know what afluence means. |
The person taking the picture isn't necessarily part of the society being portrayed in the image. |
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 08:39:29 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by notonline:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across. |
I have to disagree. If you can afford a digital camera then you should know what afluence means. |
The person taking the picture isn't necessarily part of the society being portrayed in the image.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 08:36:59 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across. |
I have to disagree. If you can afford a digital camera then you should know what afluence means.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 08:24:12 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
You point is be well taken but the description stated "Knock us out with your representation of material wealth".
You really needed to show material wealth. |
Sat this challenge out. I will be pleasantly surprised if the winning photos are not Western Civilizationalisms. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 05:46:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
I've given up entering challenges now...too busy with all these rant threads!
Every challenge is dissected word by word before people enter, then they post their out-takes and dissect these bit by bit...then comes the fun part after the challenge closes -
No-one understands my out of the box, off the wall, dark and subversive, out of focus shot rants. That starts the whole ball rolling again, so off we all go until the next challenge is announced....
Return to top and start again.
Just chill and let it go if you get a few comments that don't ring your bell, float your boat or fire your rockets. It's supposed to be fun, lighten up! Can't think of anymore cliches, metaphors, similies...can't think anymore.
Steve |
Well said. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 04:09:03 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by louddog:
Get to work on the Enquirer too! |
Originally posted by rikki11:
When is the July issue of Enquirer coming out Ken? |
I'm sorry, the person you are trying to reach is unavailable. Please leave a message after the affluent sounding beep......
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
Hahahahahhaha! ROFLMAO! Love the "affluent sounding beep" part :) |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:49:33 PM · #18 |
I've given up entering challenges now...too busy with all these rant threads!
Every challenge is dissected word by word before people enter, then they post their out-takes and dissect these bit by bit...then comes the fun part after the challenge closes -
No-one understands my out of the box, off the wall, dark and subversive, out of focus shot rants. That starts the whole ball rolling again, so off we all go until the next challenge is announced....
Return to top and start again.
Just chill and let it go if you get a few comments that don't ring your bell, float your boat or fire your rockets. It's supposed to be fun, lighten up! Can't think of anymore cliches, metaphors, similies...can't think anymore.
Steve |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:35:42 PM · #19 |
Having followed this thread, think about the following situation.
In some parts of the world people may have to go to the river for water. In that particular society, someone with an indoor water pump would be seen as affluent.
In global context though both subjects would probably have to be present in the image to get the point across.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:33:11 PM · #20 |
IMO
I have been reading some threads about people being unhappy that their interpretation of affluence has been misread. Affluence does mean Rich and Plenty in a simple definition. This is a public contest. Don't feel bad if your submission of a kid, sunset or a waterfall is not doing so well. Obviously it's your interpretation of affluence.
To me? Ben Affleck is affluent. I am not rich but I consider my self affluent because I'm in good health, I have a loving family and good friends. As a member of the public, you see me and Ben in the street who do you consider more affluent?
Here is how I look at every challenge when I vote. I imagine I am the editor of (In this case) Affluent Mag. I need a cover for our first issue. That's it.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:30:09 PM · #21 |
A persons age will have an effect on what they consider material Wealth
For example what I considered wealth as a child my children and Grandchildren consider a necessite We're in the USA |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:29:05 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kongphooey:
I whole-heartedly disagree. All I can say to that is that I do not look forward to living in a world where there is no interpretation. For that sir, is what you are suggesting by your comment. We should all just go by the dictionary definition? Are you kidding me? And here I thought photography was a creative art....
|
You don't have to go by the dictionary defintion at all. You can be creative as you want. You just can't complain when you receive low scores/poor comments because a major part of the challenge is to fit the topic for a large variety of people and photos subscribing to the dictionary defintion are going to come a lot closer than "creative," tenuous, left-field connections based on how you choose to define a word or theme in your own head. |
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:23:12 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by louddog:
Get to work on the Enquirer too! |
Originally posted by rikki11:
When is the July issue of Enquirer coming out Ken? |
I'm sorry, the person you are trying to reach is unavailable. Please leave a message after the affluent sounding beep......
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
He's being closed minded to us!
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:19:30 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Get to work on the Enquirer too! |
Originally posted by rikki11:
When is the July issue of Enquirer coming out Ken? |
I'm sorry, the person you are trying to reach is unavailable. Please leave a message after the affluent sounding beep......
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
08/03/2005 03:16:58 PM · #25 |
This thread is quite amusing :)
When is the July issue of Enquirer coming out Ken? |
|
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: 04/25/2024 04:46:38 PM EDT.
