Really?? Part of me sees what you're saying to an extent.....but isn't animal biology or zoology a huge field in science? Conservation? Rehabilitation? Darwin's a huge name in the scientific community, and he sat around and watched a lot of animals in their natural habitats.
I have nothing against biology or zoology, and I see what you mean. Of course, just studying animals and plants is part of the scientific work. It is also part of a photographer's work, especially a macro photographer's - and animals and plants have been around a lot longer than scientists. If there weren't so many such photos I might have voted differently, but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge.
Really?? Part of me sees what you're saying to an extent.....but isn't animal biology or zoology a huge field in science? Conservation? Rehabilitation? Darwin's a huge name in the scientific community, and he sat around and watched a lot of animals in their natural habitats.
I have nothing against biology or zoology, and I see what you mean. Of course, just studying animals and plants is part of the scientific work. It is also part of a photographer's work, especially a macro photographer's - and animals and plants have been around a lot longer than scientists. If there weren't so many such photos I might have voted differently, but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge.
I kind of agree with you, kind of don't; challenge clearly states "Convey to your viewer the subject, study, or results of science." I'm interpreting "subject" pretty broadly, which does allow some leeway. That said, there's clearly a lot of shoehorning going on, and one should have limits; otherwise, as you say, anything would work.
Quantum Physics is the only true science - all other 'sciences' are just a study of uncertainities.......paraphrasing W. Heisenberg..
Excellent! Now that I know Quantum Physics is the only science, everything else is getting a 1 from me! Wait - what is quantum physics, exactly? Me didn't do so good in phyziks class in high school.
Physics is the class that you ate fig-newtons and shot lasers at each other...
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Quantum Physics is the only true science - all other 'sciences' are just a study of uncertainities.......paraphrasing W. Heisenberg..
Excellent! Now that I know Quantum Physics is the only science, everything else is getting a 1 from me! Wait - what is quantum physics, exactly? Me didn't do so good in phyziks class in high school.
Physics is the class that you ate fig-newtons and shot lasers at each other...
Originally posted by noraneko:
Originally posted by pccjrose:
Quantum Physics is the only true science - all other 'sciences' are just a study of uncertainities.......paraphrasing W. Heisenberg..
Excellent! Now that I know Quantum Physics is the only science, everything else is getting a 1 from me! Wait - what is quantum physics, exactly? Me didn't do so good in phyziks class in high school.
No fair, Peter, sounds like your physics class was fun. I wonder why the teacher kept asking me to sit underneath his arm when he dropped an apple and talked about that Newton guy. All I got was a bruised head and no cookies.
I have nothing against biology or zoology, and I see what you mean. Of course, just studying animals and plants is part of the scientific work. It is also part of a photographer's work, especially a macro photographer's - and animals and plants have been around a lot longer than scientists. If there weren't so many such photos I might have voted differently, but now I decided that photos of nature itself without a special scientific context doesn't meet the challenge.
However, I am guessing that johst582 isn't alone in his views hence my current score:
Votes: 45
Views: 58
Avg Vote: 5.2000
Comments: 0
Its technically a pretty good photograph. It uses depth of field to bring the viewer into the frame. The focus is good on the main subject. Exposure was good. Colors are nicely saturated. Compositions isn't bad either.
Its just some might have felt that the subject was kinda shoehorned into the challenge...
I suppose I shouldn't be so disappointed for an image that I'm guessing is being seen as a shoehorn when others are faring worse, but I cringe at anything below my average these days.
well, (at least in the US) in school science classes...most of them dissect frogs..maybe thats the connection??
Good point but in that case wouldn’t the frog be dead and belly up. Not on a leaf or in some dirt. JMO. I guess from my interpretation of the challenge "science" I would like to think that they want you to show something that explains science. Not assume that a picture of something is science because the title says so.
I guess I'm a little confused. Someone please help me...
Probably people equating science with nature. Frogs are common subjects of scientific study (I actually know a frog biologist), and creative interpretations of the challenge topic are Kermitted.
Probably people equating science with nature. Frogs are common subjects of scientific study (I actually know a frog biologist), and creative interpretations of the challenge topic are Kermitted.
Kermitted ... that made me laugh! love your kermitivity!
PS: Not to mention Galvani's experiments (with frogs) which lead to the discovery of the electro-chemical nature of nerve impulses and the nerve/muscle interface. There would be no EKGs without frogs ...
