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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Low Tech - ... no, that is no low tech ...
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 65, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/30/2004 01:45:24 PM · #26
There we go. If something doesn't meet the challenge, it shouldn't be deducted just one mark. Someone might take the most incredible picture ever, yet if it doesn't meet the challenge, why should it win?
11/30/2004 01:53:20 PM · #27
GoldBerry -
touché - you hit the mark.
(Where the heck is all the anger coming from. All this playground behavior over a little ribbon icon. hmmm...)
Kathy
11/30/2004 02:01:54 PM · #28
Do my eyes deceive me or did GoldBerry just suggest that a 10 year old computer is Low Tech? Man, I feel old.
11/30/2004 02:08:13 PM · #29
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Shoot something non-electronic that would be considered "low" technology.


electric is NOT the same as electronic

... at least that is my opinion

t.
11/30/2004 02:34:52 PM · #30
according to this description from above (or below)
(2). Of, based on, operated by, or otherwise involving the controlled conduction of electrons or other charge carriers, especially in a vacuum, gas, or semiconducting material.

technically, anything electric would count. turning a switch is a controlled conduction of electrons.
People shoud learn to use the most literal ideas for these challenges. If you have any slight doubt, someone will vote it down, because of the anal problem. Some people just have that continual problem of caudal-rectal inversion (my idea for Humor, but I am not that flexible and would have had to edit more than probably allowed.) (C:
electronic has electr in it, and involves electricity....don't shoot ANYTHING that involves electricity.
11/30/2004 02:40:57 PM · #31
Electric is something that uses electricity, flow of electrons. Electronic is something that incorporates transistors. Transistors weren't widely used until the 1950's and even then they weren't that mainstream (big vacuum tubes). Objects that were produced before the 1950's don't have electronics.

From the humble eyes of an electrical engineer.
11/30/2004 02:52:28 PM · #32
Originally posted by pcarpi:

Electric is something that uses electricity, flow of electrons. Electronic is something that incorporates transistors. Transistors weren't widely used until the 1950's and even then they weren't that mainstream (big vacuum tubes). Objects that were produced before the 1950's don't have electronics.

From the humble eyes of an electrical engineer.


thanks Peter ... that was exactly what i meant to say ... but too lazy to actually spell it out ;-)))

Message edited by author 2004-11-30 14:53:26.
11/30/2004 02:57:37 PM · #33
Devices that use electricity aren't generally low tech. Whether it's electric or electronic is a moot point- if it can be plugged in, it will be voted down. That would likely be the case even if electronics weren't exluded.

Expecting the voters to distinguish between electric and electronic is fodder for the Humor challenge.
11/30/2004 03:54:59 PM · #34
I don't understand why people get so upset about this. If you dont like the photo vote accordingly and move on. Some people like to take photos, it is fun for them, Not work! So if they want to submit something that does not fit the challenge so what, at least they are trying to learn. That is the reason I don't enter challenges here. I know that the people here are very picky and angry. If you don't submit exactly what they think fits the challenge, it is a big deal. Relax and have fun.
11/30/2004 03:57:27 PM · #35
Originally posted by Karalew:

I don't understand why people get so upset about this. If you dont like the photo vote accordingly and move on. Some people like to take photos, it is fun for them, Not work! So if they want to submit something that does not fit the challenge so what, at least they are trying to learn. That is the reason I don't enter challenges here. I know that the people here are very picky and angry. If you don't submit exactly what they think fits the challenge, it is a big deal. Relax and have fun.


That's a pretty silly statement really, why would somebody want to submit something that doesn't meet the challenge? They would gain no decent comments and learn nothing. If someones misinterprets it sure, but people don't do it intentionally.
11/30/2004 05:46:15 PM · #36
I disagree that it is a silly statement. Rock on Karalew! You got it right. No wonder the world is in such a miserable state, we get bent because an image doesn't meet a photography challenge by our own narrow definition. Live and let live, I say.

I am curious; is there always so much animosity and cynicism here? Are people always so surly and disputatious? It is a tad toxic, don't you think?
11/30/2004 05:56:30 PM · #37
Originally posted by kdolso:

...
I am curious; is there always so much animosity and cynicism here? Are people always so surly and disputatious? It is a tad toxic, don't you think?


In my relatively few months there I would say that there really isn't that much animosity, but there are some touchy subjects which get some dander's up fairly often. Two biggies lately are

PMing or not during a Challenge
Artistic Interpretation of Challenge Topic VS Shoehorning Any Old Thing

And then there is always the old Canon VS Nikon debate (Nikon Rules!!)
11/30/2004 05:58:06 PM · #38
I don't think any animosity or anger has been shown in this discussion. I am simply expressing an opinion of how I would expect the majority of voters to interpret the challenge. Others are presenting a counter view that it "shouldn't" be that way. Whether you agree or disagree with either side is irrelevant- the overall view of the voters is all that matters if you care about the score. There is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, but if you intentionally submit a photo that doesn't clearly fit the challenge, then you should expect some low votes. It DOES seem silly to enter a shot that clashes with the predominate interpretation of the challenge- especially if you later complain about it.
11/30/2004 06:10:27 PM · #39
This is what this reminded me of and it gave me a bit of a chuckle so I thought that I would share....

[How many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb]
This is a fun one.

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

7
to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs

53 to flame the spell checkers

41 to correct spelling/grammar flames

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"
... another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are in violation of their "acceptable use policy"

109 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum

203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic forum, and lightbulb forum about changing light bulbs be stopped

111 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this forum

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty

27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group

33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three"

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ

44 to ask what is a "FAQ"

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

1 new forum member to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again
11/30/2004 07:42:02 PM · #40
Originally posted by Rankles:

Well first of all I don't agree that you should be telling us which is your picture here, it's supposed to be anonymous.

Anyway, I see what you're saying, but I also said it was electronic because it is, and the challenge guidelines clearly stated it had to be non-electronic.

Electricity was invented when many other low tech things are about, electrical appliances can also be low tech, but it syas in the guidelines that they are not to be entered, otherwise it paves the way for other electronic outdated things, such as old mobile phones and Acorns.


so on this note would you consider an old SLR low-tech even tho you have to set film speed???
11/30/2004 07:46:17 PM · #41
Originally posted by Anni:

This is what this reminded me of and it gave me a bit of a chuckle so I thought that I would share....

[How many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb]
This is a fun one.

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

7
to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs

53 to flame the spell checkers

41 to correct spelling/grammar flames

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"
... another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are in violation of their "acceptable use policy"

109 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum

203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic forum, and lightbulb forum about changing light bulbs be stopped

111 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this forum

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty

27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group

33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three"

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ

44 to ask what is a "FAQ"

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

1 new forum member to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again


Loved reading this! Thanks! So very ture, too.
11/30/2004 07:53:50 PM · #42
Anni,
Absolutely hilarious!

Have you ever considered what a nightmare we're all creating for future historians? If not, you're expose' certainly gives a hint of what those great-grandchildren of ours will have to put up with if they want to try to understand their forebears. (I think embroidered jeans are a tad bit easier to handle.)
11/30/2004 07:59:50 PM · #43
Anni, that was hilarious. I don't know how long you've been a member here, but you got it pegged about right! ;) Very funny. I'm going to have to print that one out!

Message edited by author 2004-11-30 20:00:10.
11/30/2004 08:31:23 PM · #44
Originally posted by Anni:

[How many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb]


hmmmm ... now would that be an electric or an electronic light bulb ;-)
11/30/2004 10:29:56 PM · #45
z

Message edited by author 2005-07-12 11:11:33.
12/01/2004 11:53:38 AM · #46
glad you all enjoyed...:)
12/01/2004 12:03:04 PM · #47
Originally posted by KDO:

I disagree that it is a silly statement. Rock on Karalew! You got it right. No wonder the world is in such a miserable state, we get bent because an image doesn't meet a photography challenge by our own narrow definition. Live and let live, I say.

I am curious; is there always so much animosity and cynicism here? Are people always so surly and disputatious? It is a tad toxic, don't you think?


Look I'm not showing animoisity, but there is no narrow definition is there? The definition is clear cut, it is what it is. I say take a picture of something yellow and you hand me something green, can anyone really argue that it represents yellow? No they cannot.
12/01/2004 12:11:30 PM · #48
Originally posted by Rankles:

I say take a picture of something yellow and you hand me something green, can anyone really argue that it represents yellow? No they cannot.


In RGB, G (green) = yellow (you asked for it).
12/01/2004 12:15:22 PM · #49
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Rankles:

I say take a picture of something yellow and you hand me something green, can anyone really argue that it represents yellow? No they cannot.


In RGB, G (green) = yellow (you asked for it).


Pff fine I take back everything I've said :p
12/01/2004 12:52:00 PM · #50
low-tech to me,

wheel/caveman
arrowhead/Native American
cottonpickers/gloves
etc.

Electronics are all way to hi-tech to me! So, I guess 1s for any electronic items. Just my thoughts. Van

Message edited by author 2004-12-01 12:53:00.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/21/2021 07:20:15 AM

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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/21/2021 07:20:15 AM EST.