| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2005 02:12:22 PM · #76 |
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.
First, I did not enter this challenge. Hats off to those who had more guts than I.
Second, as long as it had a human characteristic, be it form, feature, emotion, or action, I thought it met the challenge. Unless (thats almost the same as but, right?) it already had a human characteristic - statues in particular. I could not give as high a score to those things. That would be imitation, not personification.
There are a few images in here I had to rate a 10 - they are great.
Good luck to all and I will comment on as many as possible.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:16:32 PM · #77 |
Personification occurs wheninanimate objects are endowed with human qualities or represented as possessing human form or personality. Take a photo of somethingnon-human-looking but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling.
I find this is very clear.
Inanimated Object: obviously something that will not move on its own, has no heart or organic brain with which to fonction on its own accord.
Endowed with human qualities or represented as possessing human form or personality: By definition, this can be an object that looks humanoid if placed properly, or can be an object or toy which looks humanoid, which can be manipulated to show or express a certain personality trait (read: emotion).
The only problem i have with this description is the 'non human looking' part, where it says HUMAN and not HUMANOID. Those two are very similar in term, but very different in description/explanation. Human being a Humain being (Man, woman...) and Humanoid being anything that has got 2 legs, to arms and a head.
Overall, i agree that statues or GIjoes are not good because they represent a human form (read: Man, Woman...), but all toys, objects or any non HUMAN (read: Man, Woman...) items/objects are perfectly legit.
Basically, think about PIxar's animated Lamp (and logo), or ToyStory (minus the main characters, which are human-looking and represent humans as man or woman). Those are all Personifications. Objects (read: Toys in this context) endowed with human form or personality.
Message edited by author 2005-10-12 14:17:42. |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:16:46 PM · #78 |
| I'm one that DrAchoo left his reply about a face not possessing human form and as far as i read what personification means that should be ok... shouldn't it? |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:17:18 PM · #79 |
I moved my comments to the Personification thread...
Message edited by author 2005-10-12 14:26:02.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:19:42 PM · #80 |
Wow! That touched off a fire-storm. Perhaps to let people post their scores here and keep it on track this enticing conversation could go in this existing thread?
Personification
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:19:56 PM · #81 |
i agree, not fond of construction.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by queanbeez:
i didnt enter, but i'm not voting like you. isnt "capturing a face" a physical characteristic? to me it is, so i dont see what is wrong with those photos. |
Just a clarification of the challenge description:
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.
Capturing a face in an inanimate object...fine. Artificially building/constructing a face isn't quite the same thing and IMO isn't within the context of this challenge. I think the last line is really two parts; 1) "still shows human characterisitcs" and 2) "evokes a human feeling. 2nd one is harder to capture. Again, JMO. ;^) |
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:25:38 PM · #82 |
| Looks like one comment pointed out a large mistake on my part, I didnt check my monitor to make sure it was balanced, so on my monitor at home shot looked great, but here it is to dark. Looks like this one will go bust on my own fault |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:31:27 PM · #83 |
| I'll move my rebuttal over to the thread glad2badad mentioned. I didn't mean to touch off this argument again... ;) <--- personification? |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:40:06 PM · #84 |
Back to the scores...still rising slightly to moderately respectable...
Votes: 86
Views: 106
Avg Vote: 5.6512
Comments: 2
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 03:03:03 PM · #85 |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 03:04:41 PM · #86 |
Well, got the first of my "responses" from my comments, actually tried to explain why I gave a low score and got back in return?? "do not look inside the box
mate but by the look of your photos that is all you do", nice huh? Wonder why people do not even try to explain when giving out low scores?? HMM, maybe that is why! Still will not deter me, but sure makes for bad vibes for me, anyway!
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 03:13:41 PM · #87 |
It only needs to capture a face...the instructions say quote "Take a photo of something non-human-looking but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling."
You are missing the word "OR". Shows human characteristics OR evokes a human feeling. To lower the score of a shot because it does not do one or the other is unfairly "according to the rules discriptions" penalizing the entry.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've only voted on 20% so far, but I had to copy the following comment, as I have pasted it into probably 10 pictures out of 40...
It captures a face, but doesn't capture a characteristic or feeling.
People just seemed to have a difficult time grasping what the challenge was all about. I did think there were a few which did a good job. I actually gave a 10 so someone out there gets it...
Climbing somewhat...
Votes: 82
Views: 99
Avg Vote: 5.5976
Comments: 2
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0 |
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 03:15:57 PM · #88 |
Yippee! I have reached out to grab the rim of the toilet and hoisted myself out of "3" land - temporarily :)
Unlike the sea lashing out in anger at the ships, unwilling to tolerate another battle, I shall instead observe, learn, and show not remorse for discarding the shot of "Mr. Potato Head" and going with something deeper. I shall admire the photos that met the challenge and patently hope for beauty to wait upon my steps and pitch her tent before as more challenges and opportunities are soon to come.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 03:24:50 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by olddj:
Well, got the first of my "responses" from my comments, actually tried to explain why I gave a low score and got back in return?? "do not look inside the box
mate but by the look of your photos that is all you do", nice huh? Wonder why people do not even try to explain when giving out low scores?? HMM, maybe that is why! Still will not deter me, but sure makes for bad vibes for me, anyway!
Jacque |
I will catch this I responded to your message in that way because I feel that if you think that my photo is badly lit then you must have a bad monitor because all I have had is compliments on the lighting plus you said you couldnt see why I did somthing which if you actually looked at the photo you would see it is an important part of the photo and adds eliments to it maby i was a bit harsh but i am only being as honest about it as i can...(plus today isnt a good day all in all) |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 04:14:48 PM · #90 |
Great Googley Moogley! My score is rising and falling like a boat captain in heavy seas!
...did I just personify my score? :3O |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 04:15:35 PM · #91 |
polkop, I think I probably should let this die, but feel I have to respond to your post. First off, there is nothing wrong with our monitor, second I did not see it that way alone - three adults in this house saw it the same way, and thirdly - and MOST importantly, all I was trying to do was give MY OPINION on why I scored it under average, that is ALL it was, my reasons. If two hundred others say the lighting is great, okay, I was wrong, but it is still the reason I gave it the score I did, and responding in that "I will get even" way just makes it harder for others to express their (hopefully) honest reasons. Did not attack your concept or yourself, just gave my reasons why! Sorry if they upset you THAT much.
Jacque |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 04:16:23 PM · #92 |
This really reminds me of the Decisions Challenge. I just knew I shouldn't have entered! :)
BTW ... I vow to comment on 50% of the entries ... and not one of them will ask, "How does this meet the challenge?" Um, how about telling me what you think of the photo? Does the lighting suck, is my focus ok, how about the DOF? That would be helpful!
OK ... done ranting ... thanks for listening ... :)
Message edited by author 2005-10-12 16:25:10. |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 04:41:38 PM · #93 |
From all the gripping about scores, myself included, I think this challenge is being totally misunderstood. Bring on What?
Oh, here is my score so far;
Votes: 85
Views: 124
Avg Vote: 4.8000
Comments: 1
At least my 1 comment liked it. I knew I should have used that piece of toast that looked like Elvis. |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 05:39:06 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
It only needs to capture a face...the instructions say quote "Take a photo of something non-human-looking but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling."
You are missing the word "OR". Shows human characteristics OR evokes a human feeling. To lower the score of a shot because it does not do one or the other is unfairly "according to the rules discriptions" penalizing the entry.
|
Don't worry, kenskid, like I said, I'm not giving these pictures 1s and 2s (the "does not meet challenge" score). I'm typically giving them 4-6. The high scores are going to people who have accomplished both or even better conveyed the emotion without a face (harder to do in my opinion so worthy of a higher score). It's just my take. I'm applying it consistently so it will not unfairly penalize someone... |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 06:21:57 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by olddj:
polkop, I think I probably should let this die, but feel I have to respond to your post. First off, there is nothing wrong with our monitor, second I did not see it that way alone - three adults in this house saw it the same way, and thirdly - and MOST importantly, all I was trying to do was give MY OPINION on why I scored it under average, that is ALL it was, my reasons. If two hundred others say the lighting is great, okay, I was wrong, but it is still the reason I gave it the score I did, and responding in that "I will get even" way just makes it harder for others to express their (hopefully) honest reasons. Did not attack your concept or yourself, just gave my reasons why! Sorry if they upset you THAT much.
Jacque |
This disagreement has hopefully being sorted out have pm ed olddj and hopefully he will accept my apology thanks for the comment. |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 06:26:32 PM · #96 |
Right on Doc..
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by kenskid:
It only needs to capture a face...the instructions say quote "Take a photo of something non-human-looking but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling."
You are missing the word "OR". Shows human characteristics OR evokes a human feeling. To lower the score of a shot because it does not do one or the other is unfairly "according to the rules discriptions" penalizing the entry.
|
Don't worry, kenskid, like I said, I'm not giving these pictures 1s and 2s (the "does not meet challenge" score). I'm typically giving them 4-6. The high scores are going to people who have accomplished both or even better conveyed the emotion without a face (harder to do in my opinion so worthy of a higher score). It's just my take. I'm applying it consistently so it will not unfairly penalize someone... |
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 06:26:39 PM · #97 |
Votes: 86
Views: 117
Avg Vote: 3.8023
Comments: 3
ouch ..oh ouch..
either (a) i'm an idiot (b) all of you are ...
mmmmmm... multiple choice question ...
oh never mind .. i'll move on to a WTF? wide angle reflective image ....
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 06:49:59 PM · #98 |
Votes: 106
Views: 131
Avg Vote: 6.3208
Comments: 10
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 10/12/05 06:49 pm
:-)
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 07:01:45 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Votes: 106
Views: 131
Avg Vote: 6.3208
Comments: 10
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 10/12/05 06:49 pm
:-) |
DAMN dooode :P |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 07:11:46 PM · #100 |
Votes: 95
Views: 452
Avg Vote: 3.7263
Comments: 4
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
this is begining to hurt |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 02:14:16 PM EDT.
