"miniature" rewording - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/28/2004 11:20:48 AM · #26

This might be the first time EVER that I have disagreed with EddyG (marking date on calendar...). To me, it apppears that the author of this challenge has merely repeated the challenge title in the description as a way to tie the two together. Take out the title, and the description is clearer:

"Compose and photograph something in such a way that it conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger."

Anything that appears miniaturized in your photograph (whether it really is or not) is fair game.

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

07/28/2004 11:21:54 AM · #27

Originally posted by scalvert:

I agree with EddyG. I believe the challenge description was composed in such a way as to leave out perspective shots. You have to actually shoot something miniature.

"Shoot something "miniature" (small, wee, or tiny) and compose your shot to show that it is not in fact the real thing.

I think these photos would be two fine examples that meet this challenge:

One more edit:

I believe these would not fit this challenge:

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 11:31:51.

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

07/28/2004 11:23:14 AM · #28

Hey Shannon...if I can get a company to clone me, only in a smaller version...a mini-me, if you will (pinky firmly on corner of mouth)...I could take over the world faster, don't you think? LOL ;o)

edit...I might win the challenge as well...

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 11:27:46.

07/28/2004 11:27:11 AM · #29

Shannon, would it help if I said that I wrote the challenge description? =] (There are quite a few ideas in the challenge database with just titles and no description, so I occasionally go in and try to come up with some clear wording for the details. Looks like I failed this time. I hate it when that happens.) My intention was to have folks photograph something that really is miniature, and not just made to look miniature via forced perspective...

Edward: I agree that those examples fit the challenge theme well.

07/28/2004 12:06:10 PM · #30

Eddy- Not much, I'm afraid. Regardless of your intention I think the description, as written, allows for several different approaches. If you didn't want forced perspective, or required the subject to be tiny, you should have said so. The basic premise appears to be, "Photograph something that LOOKS smaller than it is in real life."

You CAN make something look miniature without using forced perspective, and I don't think the item has to BE miniature in order to look that way (do you get the impression that I already have a shot in mind? hehe).

To further confuse the issue, you note that Edward's examples are good, yet the first one doesn't really make anything look small, and uses forced perspective, doesn't it? Lastly, I'd just like to point to the winner of the "Fear" challenge...

07/28/2004 01:07:23 PM · #31

Originally posted by scalvert:

If you didn't want forced perspective, or required the subject to be tiny, you should have said so.

I guess I don't know how I could have made:

the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger

more clear than it is.

Originally posted by scalvert:

To further confuse the issue, you note that Edward's examples are good, yet the first one doesn't really make anything look small

Since the car in the first photo is a "toy" car (and therefore smaller than a "real" car) I thought it fit the challenge, but now that you point it out, the context in that photo is such that it uses forced perspective to make it look the same size as the plane (instead of making it obvious the car is miniature), so I can see your point with that one.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Lastly, I'd just like to point to the winner of the "Fear" challenge...

Doesn't meet the challenge, unless the mountain goat is a "miniature version" of a real mountain goat... =]

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 13:12:28.

07/28/2004 01:29:08 PM · #32

Originally posted by EddyG:

I guess I don't know how I could have made:

the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger

more clear than it is.

You are omitting the all-important qualifiers:
Compose and photograph something "miniature" in such a way that it conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger."

That can be interpreted as "[Make the viewer think] that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger." It's a very different statement than, "In a creative manner, photograph something that is a tinier version of something that is normally larger."

The car shot doesn't look like a tiner version to me- it looks like a full-size car, hence it's a poor example of meeting the challenge. Plus, it uses the very technique you were trying to avoid. I think you understood me on that one.

The point of the Mountain Goat image is that it won first place by showing bravery in the Fear challenge, and was interpreted as meeting the challenge anyway. Despite the "not meeting the challenge" paranoia, it demonstrates (to me) that most voters will allow a strong image that connects with SOME interpretation of the challenge- even if it's not the intended one.

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 13:37:14.

rgordon

Canon PowerShot A70

07/28/2004 01:50:39 PM · #33

Originally posted by scalvert:

I have to agree with scalvert. EddyG, I totally understand your clarification, but the cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

Given the current wording of the challenge, and unless it is officially changed and advertised to everyone (outside of this forum thread) it does seem like a shot that MAKES something look tiny, even if it's not, would be a perfectly acceptable entry for the challenge.

But anyway, I digress -- I've got my idea and damn the torpedoes, I'm going to submit it. It'll either bomb or ribbon. =)

07/28/2004 02:10:56 PM · #34

Originally posted by scalvert:

Compose and photograph something "miniature" in such a way that it conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger."

That can be interpreted as "[Make the viewer think] that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger."

I guess I don't see how. =[ Even just:

Compose and photograph something "miniature"

is pretty clear to me that the subject should be "miniature"... you didn't bold the word "miniature" for some reason, and that is the key word which makes all the difference. It doesn't say:

Compose and photograph something in such a way that it conveys to the viewer...

it specifically says to photograph something miniature, and while doing so, put it in a context that makes your subject's diminutive size obvious. IMHO, you can't really just ignore bits-and-pieces of the challenge details. Taken together, it seems pretty clear that your actual subject should be a miniature version of something that is normally larger, just like it says.

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 14:16:40.

07/28/2004 02:19:01 PM · #35

EddyG- yes, the subject should be miniature, but not necessarily in real life. If I can devise a way to make a real Boeing 747 look 3" tall using basic editing and no "I crush your head" perspective tricks, then I should be in good shape.

Thinking outside the box... ;-)

Konica Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4

07/28/2004 02:21:56 PM · #36

Originally posted by scalvert:

yes, the subject should be miniature, but not necessarily in real life

I guess that's where we disagree. The intent behind the challenge was to find tiny versions of normally-larger things and photograph them in creative, interesting ways that show their miniatureness. But if your "trick photography" allows you to photograph a normally-sized object and make it appear "miniature" to the voters (i.e., by putting a normally-sized object near a bunch of mega-sized objects to make the normal-sized object look tiny), there is nothing to stop you...

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 14:33:38.

Allyrellia

Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D

07/28/2004 02:37:57 PM · #37

I get it. I had a miniature object and a regular sized one, I took the shot, I like it, I submitted it. Thanks for this neat challenge! :)

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/28/2004 02:38:48 PM · #38

I'VE GOT ONE

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/28/2004 02:43:56 PM · #39

or this

dahved

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

07/28/2004 02:46:12 PM · #40

EddyG,
I think part of the confusion goes back to putting the word in quotes. In the context of the challenge description, it tends to make people think it's not actually miniature, but kind of a joke.

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by scalvert:
yes, the subject should be miniature, but not necessarily in real life

I guess that's where we disagree. The intent behind the challenge was to find tiny versions of normally-larger things and photograph them in creative, interesting ways that show their miniatureness. But if your "trick photography" allows you to photograph a normally-sized object and make it appear "miniature" to the voters (i.e., by putting a normally-sized object near a bunch of mega-sized objects to make the normal-sized object look tiny), there is nothing to stop you...

Faye Pekas

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/28/2004 02:47:38 PM · #41

The confusion for me comes in the quotation marks around the word miniature. What that says to me is that it isn't really miniature but appears to be.

It will be a heckofalot easier to photograph something actually miniature though :)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/28/2004 02:52:45 PM · #42

EddyG makes note to avoid quotation marks when coming up with challenge details

My intent of the quotation marks was to imply that there are other words for miniature, such as tiny, diminuitive, miniscule, teeny, little, toy, etc.

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/28/2004 02:55:30 PM · #43

ok then how about this one? was going to enter for the word challenge,
would this make the challenge?

07/28/2004 03:48:31 PM · #44

Goodman's first shot with the motorcycle is a good one. The clothespin doesn't give me a sense of scale, so I don't feel the "miniature-ness" of it. The cactus is too hard for me to make out from the small image.

Here's a decent example of something miniature:

And this would be the OPPOSITE of showing something miniature:

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

07/28/2004 03:53:47 PM · #45

Originally posted by EddyG:

...The intent behind the challenge was to find tiny versions of normally-larger things and photograph them in creative, interesting ways that show their miniatureness.

Yes- where we disagree is whether you actually have to FIND tiny versions of larger things, or merely SHOW tiny versions of larger things in a photograph (all because of those pesky quotation marks). I'm willing to bet that the latter approach is possible. Thanks for the spirited debate Eddy!

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 15:55:37.

Staralfur

Nikon Coolpix 5400

07/28/2004 06:24:09 PM · #46

Originally posted by Sammie:

Compose and photograph something "miniature" in such a way that it conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger

To my mind this means take a picture of a miniature version of something along with something that shows it should normally be bigger. For example - take a picture of a miniature book along with a normal size pair of reading glasses. Or take a picture of a miniature car along side a normal size set of car keys.

I agree with this statement, but also want to point out that this is a challenge to show how something is miniature, even if the subject isn't really miniature... This isn't a treasure hunt to go out and find some actual physical miniature object. It's a photography challenge.

To say this isn't a forced perspective challenge is accurate, but if that's just the technique used to indicate miniature, there is nothing wrong with this. Remember not all forced perspective photos indicate miniature.

From the challenge:
Compose and photograph something "miniature" in such a way that it conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger.

This says "Conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger" where does it say specifically that your subject needs to physically be miniature?

I am going to submit what I want to. I urge everyone else to do the same. Part of the art of these challenges is how it gets interpreted by each photographer.

-m

Message edited by author 2004-07-28 18:30:34.

soccerdad

Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro

07/28/2004 08:11:29 PM · #47

Originally posted by EddyG:

This thread was helpful, and is a feature that we should think of adopting. The author of the challenge details could make clarifications when there were questions during the first day or so of the challenge. It should cut down on the does not meet the challenge voting activity, or at a minimum, provide some clarity so we could spend more time setting up/shooting and less time agonizing over the details.

At a very minimum, we should have more threads where EddyG says "This is what I meant..." and scalvert (and company) argues that he could have meant something else. If you looked up the definition of "entertainment" there would be a picture of this thread, and the rest of us hitting the refresh button just to see the next installment.

It has the makings of a great sitcom: "All in the Challenge!"

Anyway, good luck everyone, no matter what you submit. Seems to me that if scalverts illusion works, we won't be able to tell during voting, and if it doesn't work, the voting will take care of itself.