| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2006 04:12:47 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Mick:
"Gather exactly two objects that are completely unrelated (for example, a carrot and a yo-yo) and make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking."
...doesn't state that there absolutely cannot be any other objects in the photo. It's quite obvious to me that the photo is about the two objects in the tree. [/i]
|
Of course it does. It said "Gather EXACTLY two objects". Meaning two not one, not three, etc. However, I do agree with you that Coley's shot IS about two objects so from that stand point one could easily argue it met the intent of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 04:36:11 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I believe that's the challenge part of it. |
I agree, and I also believe that we should allow at least a modicum of leeway to anyone trying to meet that challenge. To me, it's more about the art than it is about blindly following a formula. I would rather reward someone that displays true artistic talent than someone that simply follows the exact letter of the challenge description and produces a more mundane image. IOW, I believe the challenge criteria is important, but it's certainly not the only thing that matters and it's always going to be subject to interpretation.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
edit: the specific photo was discussed to death at the time. I'm in the camp of tree/grass/sky are ancillary objects that don't count. The guy standing there looking at those other two things was most certainly a major subject and constituted one of three elements that when put together made the photo what it was. Three, not two. Take that guy out and look at the photo with just two pieces of whatever hanging from a limb. Still a 1st place shot? I wonder. |
There's no way to know. Removing the man would make it a different photo and the entire challenge would have to be re-voted. However, as it is, enough people agreed with my view on artistic license for the photo to have won a ribbon.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:37:36 AM · #78 |
At the end of the day we’re a community and a photographic community at that. I would imagine even a community of paperclip collectors would find they had a range of differing opinions – photography covers such a vast expanse of styles and answers such a varied array of needs that it inevitably means different things to different people. And being a community we need to cater for all the various shades and hues that photographers come in.
I didn’t enter After The Game, but I did vote and so inevitably gave consideration to my interpretation of the challenge – which I saw as an ‘emotive’ description – ie create an image that captured that feeling of a game being over – I didn’t consider the wording to be a specific recipe more a guide to evoking that mood. However I can see how some people could interpret it that way – effectively as a specific detailed brief rather than a general interpretive one.
Maybe it’s not the membership that’s at ‘fault’ here but the challenge description itself. Maybe challenges could be labelled as to be interpreted either ‘literally’ or ‘emotively’. I don’t think that’s unreasonable – if I was getting a brief from a client the first thing I’d want to discern is how wide or how specific that brief was. There’s something to be said for both, and both can be equally creative. The friction is only occurring here because the intent behind the challenge description is not clear.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:53:14 AM · #79 |
people:
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson.
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.
tr.v. peo·pled, peo·pling, peo·ples
Usage Note: As a term meaning "a body of persons sharing a culture," people is a singular noun blah blah blah ....
----
imo some of you people are too limiting in your definitions.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:53:04 PM · #80 |
I was getting so frustrated with the DNMC police that I posted this as a joke to make me feel better & the damn thing scored a 6.2207.
go figure!
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 16:54:25. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:21:14 PM · #81 |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 12:51:00 PM · #82 |
| WAIT!! The game can't be over....there are still people here! |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:44:30 PM · #83 |
[facing the Jury...]
Gentleman, I did gather and string up EXACTLY TWO objects.
The man was am innocent bystander, that just happened to walk in front of my camera, so he got SHOT, too! I had no such motives and it was not premeditated either.
[Results...]
Hung jury, acquittal!
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:47:05 PM · #84 |
I mean, this forum thread is like a "Hung Jury", too.
|
|
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: 04/19/2024 06:15:11 AM EDT.
