| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2004 12:27:47 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
What would an example of something electrical that involves no electonics be? |
Light bulb? |
Maybe, but not exactly low tech. With so many mellenia of invention under our collective belts, you should be able to find something less sophisticated than an object requiring electricity to run. |
I agree, I was just giving an example of something electrical that involves no electonics :)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:28:41 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by joebok:
In the right context, I think that an electrical item could be well presented as "low" tech. |
I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine how. You would certainly be handicapping youself in the voting. |
Well, for the record my entry doesn't have any electric or electronic components so I'm not pursuing any personal agenda, but I thought some of the entries did do a clever job of showing an old electric device. Just because it's not the "lowest" tech does not mean it isn't low - otherwise we would just have a collection sticks and crudely shaped stones to judge.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 12:29:28. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:30:14 PM · #53 |
Man... I really thought that I had a chance at this one. Darn voters ... if i can't ribbon here, how can i ever do it later on?
Things just don't work out...
5.5432
1 comment
Lee |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:31:47 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by joebok:
In the right context, I think that an electrical item could be well presented as "low" tech. |
I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine how. You would certainly be handicapping youself in the voting. |
Leyden Jar
Telegraph Key
Volta's original "Pile" (wet-cell battery)
Faraday's Dynamo
Lawrence's Original Cyclotron ("Atom Smasher")
Note: sorry, don't mean to refer to current entries if I did; I just started typing when I saw the post and wasn't thinking about any of the actual pictures.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 12:33:36. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:44:03 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by joebok:
...we would just have a collection sticks and crudely shaped stones to judge. |
Nonsense. Old technology does not equal low technology, and suitable subjects abound. Any old hand tool, wooden sailboats, horse-drawn carriages, a compass, paper airplanes, fishhooks, rubber bands, pencils or quills, washboards, butter churns, spinning wheels, water wheels, tins cans and string, duct tape, rocking chairs, matches, barbed wire... the possibilities are endless (no intentional reference to any entries that might use such subjects). Pretty much anything that existed before the use of electricity is fair game, so why limit your potential by shooting something more modern?
EDIT- Sorry Paul, but telegraphs, dynamos, atom smashers and batteries don't strike me as low tech, no matter how crude they may be.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 12:47:29. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:49:14 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by joebok:
...we would just have a collection sticks and crudely shaped stones to judge. |
Nonsense. Old technology does not equal low technology, and suitable subjects abound. Any old hand tool, wooden sailboats, horse-drawn carriages, a compass, paper airplanes, fishhooks, rubber bands, pencils or quills, washboards, butter churns, spinning wheels, water wheels, tins cans and string, duct tape, rocking chairs, matches, barbed wire... the possibilities are endless (no intentional reference to any entries that might use such subjects). Pretty much anything that existed before the use of electricity is fair game, so why limit your potential by shooting something more modern?
EDIT- Sorry Paul, but telegraphs, dynamos, atom smashers and batteries don't strike me as low tech, no matter how crude they may be. |
Why limit yourself by NOT considering things that use electricity (in addition to all the things you mentioned)? |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:53:51 PM · #57 |
| Volta's original battery is a stack of alternating copper and zinc disks, separated by cloth pads soaked in acid (or saline, I can't premember). This was within the technology available in the Bronze Age. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:53:56 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Why limit yourself by NOT considering things that use electricity (in addition to all the things you mentioned)? |
For the same reason I wouldn't consider lasers or holograms... because electricity suggests advanced technology (which is why electronics were specifically excluded). Expecting voters to make a distinction between electric and electronic is just silly.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 12:59:59. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:56:11 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by joebok:
...we would just have a collection sticks and crudely shaped stones to judge. |
Nonsense. Old technology does not equal low technology, and suitable subjects abound. Any old hand tool, wooden sailboats, horse-drawn carriages, a compass, paper airplanes, fishhooks, rubber bands, pencils or quills, washboards, butter churns, spinning wheels, water wheels, tins cans and string, duct tape, rocking chairs, matches, barbed wire... the possibilities are endless (no intentional reference to any entries that might use such subjects). Pretty much anything that existed before the use of electricity is fair game, so why limit your potential by shooting something more modern?
EDIT- Sorry Paul, but telegraphs, dynamos, atom smashers and batteries don't strike me as low tech, no matter how crude they may be. |
Why limit yourself by NOT considering things that use electricity (in addition to all the things you mentioned)? |
Why not just call it a 'Free Study'?
There are challenge specifications or there are not.
In this case the guidelines state "Shoot something non-electronic that would be considered "low" technology.", now I really do enjoy seeing imagination let lose and the challenge specifications tested to the limits, but when people enter electrical related objects in a challenge that states 'non-electronic' does not suggest flexing of the guidelines. To me it suggests a lack of paying attention to the guidelines.
Darren
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:57:57 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
This was within the technology available in the Bronze Age. |
Sure, the materials were available, but I certainly wouldn't think of Volta's battery as Bronze Age technology. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:04:15 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by joebok:
Why limit yourself by NOT considering things that use electricity (in addition to all the things you mentioned)? |
For the same reason I wouldn't consider lasers or holograms... because electricity suggests advanced technology (which is why electronics were specifically excluded). Expecting voters to make a distinction between electric and electronic is just silly. |
Whatever dude - your ribbon count suggest you well understand the mindset of the DPC voters (and take excellent photographs). Nevertheless, I believe it is possible for an entry to be "low tech" and electrical (such as a telegraph key or something). I always enjoy voting on the challenges to see the entries that push the envelope of my pre-concieved notions. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:07:15 PM · #62 |
From the American Heritage Online Dictionary:
Low technology: Technology that does not involve highly advanced or specialized systems or devices.
And from a philosophical point of view, is a computer a computer if you don't plug it in?
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:09:18 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
From the American Heritage Online Dictionary:
Low technology: Technology that does not involve highly advanced or specialized systems or devices.
And from a philosophical point of view, is a computer a computer if you don't plug it in? |
Now that is thinking outside the box - I love it! Using old computers like cinder-blocks to make shelves or something... I can't wait for Low Tech II! |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:12:18 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
Personaly I would have unsubmited my photo from this challenge, but thats cool. Good luck!
Travis |
If I hadn't put so much into getting things together and doing this shot I might have not entered. However, I had my shot in the second day of the challenge so it was entered a while before I won my ribbon. In the beginning they told me I couldn't enter so I pulled it, but they apparently changed minds. There are at least 8 others (I think) who have won a ribbon since this challenge was announced.
You say you would have pulled yours under this situation but I think it too would have depended on how much time and energy you had put into your photo. If I do ribbon and people feel another shot should have then I will be more than happy to not accept the ribbon. I seriously don't think we'll have to worry about mine being one of the top 3. There are some outstanding shots in there and mine is not what I would call outstanding. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:19:04 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by BrenB:
You say you would have pulled yours under this situation but I think it too would have depended on how much time and energy you had put into your photo. If I do ribbon and people feel another shot should have then I will be more than happy to not accept the ribbon. I seriously don't think we'll have to worry about mine being one of the top 3. There are some outstanding shots in there and mine is not what I would call outstanding. |
And yet you've posted one of the higher scores in this thread. :P Don't mind what others tell you about not submitting. You were a non-ribboner before the challenge started, you deserve to compete. Good luck. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:21:26 PM · #66 |
I totally understand, Like I said its cool, I know how much work goes into one of these. I would just be worried that someone would get mad. But like I said, I know what you mean, so I say good luck to ya.
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 13:23:22.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:31:22 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Using old computers like cinder-blocks to make shelves or something... I can't wait for Low Tech II! |
OK- you got me there. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:37:20 PM · #68 |
| Just to lighten the conversation... this is the OPPOSITE of Low Tech. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:41:54 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just to lighten the conversation... this is the OPPOSITE of Low Tech. ;-) |
Wow - having grown up with cartoon transformers... man, that is way cool - thanks for the link! |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:49:07 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by daisy77:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I was in chat and totally forgot to enter :(
Enjoy this shot I took today (not low tech entry):
 |
wow...wow. a winner in my book! |
Is it too late to submit for landmark:P |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:58:06 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Is it too late to submit for landmark:P |
Isn't that a watermark? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 02:29:43 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Man... I really thought that I had a chance at this one. Darn voters ... if i can't ribbon here, how can i ever do it later on? |
same here, i really had high hopes for my shot in this 1 gess ppl just arn't feeling it....oh well
Votes:69
Views:101
Avg Vote:5.7246
note: my score is good and i am happy with it as a normal score but i thought now that BradP and other multipul ribbon winners wern't able to compete i might get to the 7s(from viewing results, winners are normaly in the 7s by the end).
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:37:55 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Man... I really thought that I had a chance at this one. Darn voters ... if i can't ribbon here, how can i ever do it later on? |
I was hoping that too, however i wasn;t terribly happy with my entry and its showing at 5.03 w/ 68 votes.
maybe next time......
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 15:38:30. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:53:58 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by fotodude:
...now that BradP and other multipul ribbon winners wern't able to compete i might get to the 7s. |
Eliminating Brad & the others won't change your score, it simply removes theirs. If somebody wins with a 6.9, he or she probably would have had a similar score in any other challenge. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 03:56:27 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by fotodude:
...now that BradP and other multipul ribbon winners wern't able to compete i might get to the 7s. |
Eliminating Brad & the others won't change your score, it simply removes theirs. If somebody wins with a 6.9, he or she probably would have had a similar score in any other challenge. |
depends how many people curve the field. ;-) |
|
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: 04/23/2024 03:17:20 PM EDT.
