DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Personification
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 95, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/07/2005 06:11:24 AM · #51
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have been on a roll lately...I like my entry (although it's not a shoe in) and it is definitely not a rock or a tree (BTW, people, trees are not inanimate...unless they are dead).

So in your veiw does a human become inanimate when they are dead?
 10/07/2005 06:34:19 AM · #52
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have been on a roll lately...I like my entry (although it's not a shoe in) and it is definitely not a rock or a tree (BTW, people, trees are not inanimate...unless they are dead).


I think it depends how you look on something, true if something is dead then it is inanimate, but on the flip side a tree i think can be classed as inanimate because it is not self moving, it requires wind or an outer forced to make the branches move or human intervention to make the tree has a whole move.

edit: typo

Message edited by author 2005-10-07 06:35:02.
 10/07/2005 07:39:16 AM · #53
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... (BTW, people, trees are not inanimate...unless they are dead).

OK people. Somebody PLEASE grab a dictionary for the definition of 'inanimate'.

Oh fine - I'll do it. ;^)

inanimate
1) Not having the qualitites associated with active, living organisms; not animate.
- dang, now I have to look up 'organisms'!

2) Not animated or energetic; dull.
- shoot, now what does 'animated' mean!!!

3) Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things.
- ahhh, but what makes something 'living' (opposite of 'nonliving')? Does something have to breathe to live?
- shucks! pull out the dictionary AGAIN! (at least I'm getting some exercise).

Now that was fun - I almost feel animated! He-he.
 10/07/2005 11:53:13 AM · #54
I think if you use the simple definition "not alive" for inanimate, you will be safe. Some people might let you get away with plants, others might not. It's a risk you are going to run. They do not meet the "strict" definition of inanimate (#1 on glad2badad's post), but they may meet the #2 definition (not animated or energetic).

And, yes, I would consider a dead person inanimate, however, they would look human, wouldn't they? (I wonder if you are thinking of the word organic, for which a dead person would qualify).
 10/07/2005 12:02:58 PM · #55
Well, while there may be a lot of boring pictures in this topic, it should be fun to see a record number of 1s and 10s for the same picture. In statistical terms it will be ONE odd looking bell curve.

:)
 10/07/2005 12:17:36 PM · #56
Originally posted by benhur:
e a tree i think can be classed as inanimate because it is not self moving, it requires wind or an outer forced to make the branches move or human intervention to make the tree has a whole move.



But Trees are selfmoving. They grow which is movement both up and outward. They rotate thier leaves in accordance to the weather conditions. Some trees like the mimosa curl thier leaves closed at night in order to preserve moisture from evapourating. Trees are definately Not inanimate if you are defining animate as self-moving. Just because you can't see it with a human eye (though often with trees you can if youre willing to watch long enough) doesn't mean it doesnt happen.
 10/07/2005 01:53:18 PM · #57
hmmmm, not much left to photograph if even trees are animate. What about rocks then? They evolve too giving it thousands of years to change shape, are they also animate? What isn't animate in that sense then? Wood animates by changing shape through warping, various objects move by decomposing into dirt etc.
Come on, how detailed are people gonna get in this challenge? That's like taking out a light meter on the complimentary challenge and saying that the green used in the picture does not perfectly align with the amount of red in the object, therefore you didn't meet the criteria. blah blah blah
Let's just have some fun and let our creative minds come up with some great pics to look at, forget about the technical mumbo-jumbo. If someone has a great idea to display and the picture is of good quality I'll vote a 10, even if it doesn't meet the definition or criteria of this challenge a 100%. Hope there are others feeling the same way when voting this challenge.
Good luck to everyone daring enough to enter.
 10/07/2005 04:14:34 PM · #58
Originally posted by dahkota:



Now you put these two together and it personifies …

Sorry - could not ressist.
 10/07/2005 04:37:33 PM · #59
I am entering I have put in my veiws on personification. I know people are not going to like it but that is not my problem. It is my veiw in which i think i have done well in representing. After all isnt that what photography is about putting your veiw of the world accross even if some people do not like it.
 10/09/2005 07:18:23 AM · #60
I am looking to enter this comp as my first entry on this site.
And im kinda lost with everyones ideas of whats "inamamate" whats "personification"

To me its to give objects that arent moving or capable of movement (inanamate) some sort of human quality.

A living tree moves around with the wind... a dead tree dosent so maybe could it therefore be considered to not be animated so ... its inanamate??

To me it would be human like somehow.
Like the window would need curtains like eyelids .... and a window with a round pupil stained glass bit in the middle to give it some wow!
But then is the window an object? Or is it a structure? lol

And what about objects that can be arranged to look like an animal.... so a frying pan goldfish in a tank.... that wouldnt cut it right?
But what if someone was feeding it ... would it then have the neccesarry human qualities neded?
IM THINKING NO!

Im just going to wack a few things together that give ordainery objects some life! and hope the voters are open minded. :)

Hello~

:)

10/09/2005 08:52:36 AM · #61
I think that is the best approach Budmulla. If you ask 10 people what this challenge (or any other challenge it seems)is about you will get 10 different answers. Good luck!
 10/09/2005 09:43:23 AM · #62
As I read this thread somehow I end up asking have people read the challenge instruction. It seem they only read the first sentence.

The focus seems to be very heavily on the word inanimate. However that word only appears in the preamble definition of personification. The actual instruction for the challenge reads:

Take a photo of something non-human-looking but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling.

I am told to "take a photo of something non-human-looking." There is not other restriction. I am not told to take a photo of an inanimate object. Thus I have no problems with something living or dead being in the image just as long as it is "non-human-looking."

So under that reading the image below fits the challenge perfectly.

10/09/2005 11:32:31 AM · #63
Originally posted by fixedintime:
So under that reading the image below fits the challenge

You forgot to add "in my opinion, although this may not be how other voters will see it". =]
 10/09/2005 12:00:17 PM · #64
I completely disagree that a tree couldn't be personified. See this entry of mine from a few months back -- a willow tree with a woman's curves, arms in the air like she's dancing. You say that wouldn't meet the challenge?

It's a photography contest people. Not a dictionary hair-splitting contest. Sheesh. (Definitely not entering this one... I'm annoyed already by it.)

Message edited by author 2005-10-09 12:01:08.
 10/09/2005 12:56:17 PM · #65
10/09/2005 01:11:49 PM · #66
Well, I just entered. It fits the challenge very clearly and I think it will do ok. No ribbon winner-I am sure of it.
 10/09/2005 01:14:28 PM · #67
I entered as well. Not so sure how it will do but I hope that it doesn't bomb. It's well balanced and all that jazz but it eally depends on the voters :(
 10/10/2005 04:47:18 PM · #68
I entered before reading through any of this thread. Mine is based on what I learned in English class many years ago... of giving human feelings and personality type characteristics to non humans. I like the photo and it took quite a bit of thinking to come up with an idea I could do. It's much easier to use personification in writing than it is to use it in a photo! Challenges like this are what intrigue me and get me thinking. It's the type of photo I probably otherwise would not have taken. Let the "does not meet challenge" wars begin! :) hehe

Actually...I have a quick question to add - Although I highly doubt this will ribbon, just in case I'm asked to verify my photo - My date was set incorrectly on my camera. It was only one day ahead, so it says I took the photo tomorrow morning instead of this morning. It's still within the challenge dates so it shouldn't be a problem, right? Thanks.
 10/10/2005 06:25:03 PM · #69
Originally posted by jpochard:
I entered before reading through any of this thread. Mine is based on what I learned in English class many years ago... of giving human feelings and personality type characteristics to non humans. I like the photo and it took quite a bit of thinking to come up with an idea I could do. It's much easier to use personification in writing than it is to use it in a photo! Challenges like this are what intrigue me and get me thinking. It's the type of photo I probably otherwise would not have taken. Let the "does not meet challenge" wars begin! :) hehe

Actually...I have a quick question to add - Although I highly doubt this will ribbon, just in case I'm asked to verify my photo - My date was set incorrectly on my camera. It was only one day ahead, so it says I took the photo tomorrow morning instead of this morning. It's still within the challenge dates so it shouldn't be a problem, right? Thanks.


It shouldn't be :) I took the image similar to your take :) No preconceived notions except for the things I learned. Adjust that clock of yours already :) Mine's cute and light hearted. Doubt it will ribbon but I hope to score at least a 5.75+ on it. We'll see.
 10/10/2005 06:57:09 PM · #70
OK lets look at this one sec, the contest is for non human looking, so to me a pick of a rock that looks like a human face in it is not personification, neither is a pic of a tree that looks like a person because it is human looking. But a picture of the ocean waves crashing into a ship showing "A rageing Sea" is giving a human emotion to a non human looking subject. Or a small rock holding up something much larger than its self could be showing "strength"

Message edited by author 2005-10-10 18:59:42.
 10/10/2005 07:14:42 PM · #71
Those would all be examples of what should be in the challenge because of this sentence..."Personification occurs when inanimate objects are endowed with human qualities or represented as possessing human form or personality.

Possessing human form is fine. I think what they want to avoid are objects that are created specifically in the image of humans, ie. dolls, maniquens (sp), robots, etc.

Message edited by author 2005-10-10 19:15:32.
 10/10/2005 07:48:58 PM · #72
"Personification occurs when inanimate objects are endowed with human qualities or represented as possessing human form or personality. Take a photo of something non-human-looking but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling."

so a rock that looks like a face is human looking
 10/10/2005 07:53:57 PM · #73
How about this?

10/10/2005 07:59:43 PM · #74
yes I think that fits as it isnt human looking but at the same time is.
 10/10/2005 08:13:37 PM · #75
So what is the difference between a rock that appears to have eyes and the image above?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 02:48:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 02:48:15 PM EDT.