Hey, I couldn't remember how to do the "o" with the umlaut, so I put an "e" afterwards - when I was a kid in Argentina they told us that was OK :)))
In German, the "oe" combination is considered the typographical equivalent to the o-plus-unlaut; likewise for the "ue" and "ae" combinations. This is (so far as I know) a worldwide convention to handle situations where the umlaut is not available.
I think you can also always use an "ss" combination if the character ß is not available.
I agree 100% with Vanautsch's reply. He said it far better than any of us. Again the name of this site is DPChallenge. Some of the people speaking on this topic don't seem to realise that.
Or they do well realize this, but question the need to subscribe to yours...
I agree 100% with Vanautsch's reply. He said it far better than any of us. Again the name of this site is DPChallenge. Some of the people speaking on this topic don't seem to realise that.
My problems with that approach are that our challenges are rarely so exlicitly targeted ("take a picture of food," not "take a picture of a steamed artichoke"), and it ignores the oft-stated but repeatedly ignored challenge directive to "exercise your creativity." Unfortunately, I think it's a case of "doesn't meet the challenge in an obvious, straightforward way - 1," and not "meets the challenge but in an unexpected way - 10."
Not to be a pain,lets take my IRONY Challange pic (Dolphins). It got7 ones, 11 twos,33 threes, and 41 fours. I feel it met the Challenge perfectly, But a lot of people said 'Dolphins?' They didn't get it. And I think it was my best picture to date.( Not saying much I guess.) So I can relate to David a little.
My problems with that approach are that our challenges are rarely so exlicitly targeted ("take a picture of food," not "take a picture of a steamed artichoke"), and it ignores the oft-stated but repeatedly ignored challenge directive to "exercise your creativity." Unfortunately, I think it's a case of "doesn't meet the challenge in an obvious, straightforward way - 1," and not "meets the challenge but in an unexpected way - 10."
Just pointing out that I stated if it doesn't meet the challenge in any form, then the voter has the right to give it a 1, regardless of how great a picture it is.
The voter should also have the right to give a low score based on how much the entry hurts their brain from straining to see a connection to the challenge. It's a form of payback! ;)
"...meeting the challenge should not be taken into consideration to the extent that people give 9 points off for it."
According to that statement, every picture should start out as a 10. Everyone knows that is not true. Some pictures deserve a 10, but many more don't. I do think meeting the challenge requirements is a big part of the score. Vonautsch gave excellent examples. I take points off if I don't feel the challenge has been met. I don't immediately give it a '1'; I take other aspects of the photo into consideration, but it doesn't do nearly as well as if the challenge was met.
I also agree with Gordon. It doesn't matter how simplified or complex a universal voting system is (if DPC had one) no one would ever come up with the same score for an image. Some would still score an image a '1' and some may score it a '10'. Everyone has their own criteria/ideas of what makes up a good image. There are things you'll love about an image (dark blurriness) that others will hate. Diversity is a good thing.
Just as an example, what if you're given an assignment in a class to write a 5 page essay on human rights and you turn in a 1 page paper on how to make toast? Even if it is the greatest paper ever written on making toast, it's very likely you're going to get a failing grade because you failed to meet the assignment.
Another example, what if you're a photojournalist who's assignment is to get a cover shot from the Yankees vs. Red Sox game and you turn in photos of your favorite flower. Even if the photo of the flower is excellent, do you really think you're going to keep your job?
The challenge is the assignment. It's the most important part. If it were considered less important, then people would disregard the subjet of the challenge in order to work on something they're more comfortable with. At that point there would be no use for a challenge and instead submitting your best photo of the week, regardless of what it is.
So to sum it up, if the photo doesn't meet the challenge in any form, then the voter has every right to give it a 1. But that's just my thickheaded caveman opinion!
How about if Yankee player gives flower and kiss to a Been player?
Well look at my urban shot:
Taken in downtown Itasca (town of 10000 people),little but beautiful town with parks and lot of trees and comments are coming" hey where are the buildings ,only one? "
Doesn't have to be an aerial shot of Brooklyn to be Urban!
Meeting the challemge is very subjective and everyone have right to decide how good is that...
Not to be a pain,lets take my IRONY Challenge pic (Dolphins). It got7 ones, 11 twos,33 threes, and 41 fours. I feel it met the Challenge perfectly, But a lot of people said 'Dolphins?' They didn't get it. And I think it was my best picture to date.( Not saying much I guess.) So I can relate to David a little.
Hey, I gave "Dolphins" a 7. I actually knocked off a point (would have got an 8) just due to the title. It didn't seem to clarify the irony being presented -- it almost seemed to be there to obfuscate the issue. The title drew me to the ring, which had nothing to do with the irony in the image. How ironic is that? Oh wait....
That being said, the blurry dog is still a one as an Urban Landscape.
Well look at my urban shot:
Taken in downtown Itasca (town of 10000 people),little but beautiful town with parks and lot of trees and comments are coming" hey where are the buildings ,only one? "
I agree ... somewhat. The challenge was "Urban Landscapes." If a photo was a close-up of a single building, especially just the top of the building against the sky, it was missing the challenge to me. Your photo was only of one building, but in a complete landscape setting, which I felt met the challenge 100%. I gave it an 8 though because I felt the saturation and/or contrast were pushed just a bit too far which made the foreground flowers look like red blobs and it made the church look blown out a bit. Still, an 8 ain't bad.
Not to be a pain,lets take my IRONY Challenge pic (Dolphins). It got7 ones, 11 twos,33 threes, and 41 fours. I feel it met the Challenge perfectly, But a lot of people said 'Dolphins?' They didn't get it. And I think it was my best picture to date.( Not saying much I guess.) So I can relate to David a little.
... "Dolphins"...The title drew me to the ring, which had nothing to do with the irony in the image. How ironic is that?...
I think it regrettable you didn't and, apparently, still don't even consider the possibility that there may indeed have been irony by the inclusion (and allusion to) the dolphins, particularly since the connection was clearly established by the title. The fact, that you only deducted one point, however, strikes me as more than fair, given these circumstances.
To some of us, this entry represented a poignant example of irony, and one of the finest fabric.
Not to be a pain,lets take my IRONY Challenge pic (Dolphins). It got7 ones, 11 twos,33 threes, and 41 fours. I feel it met the Challenge perfectly, But a lot of people said 'Dolphins?' They didn't get it. And I think it was my best picture to date.( Not saying much I guess.) So I can relate to David a little.
... "Dolphins"...The title drew me to the ring, which had nothing to do with the irony in the image. How ironic is that?...
I think it regrettable you didn't and, apparently, still don't even consider the possibility that there may indeed have been irony by the inclusion (and allusion to) the dolphins, particularly since the connection was clearly established by the title. The fact, that you only deducted one point, however, strikes me as more than fair, given these circumstances.
To some of us, this entry represented a poignant example of irony, and one of the finest fabric.
Man Zeuszen you really do talk like a lawyer! Can't you talk in a way our international guests can also understand you? :-)
Just pointing out that I stated if it doesn't meet the challenge in any form, then the voter has the right to give it a 1, regardless of how great a picture it is.
The voter should also have the right to give a low score based on how much the entry hurts their brain from straining to see a connection to the challenge. It's a form of payback! ;)
I noted that -- just I think there's also a significant subtraction by a lot of voters in general if "meeting the challenge" is done in any but the most straightforward way.
Why is a photograph which makes someone think, encourages contenplation, and offers an unexpected interpretation of the topic deserving of "payback?" It seems that this would be exactly the goal of of the artist -- creating "art" which is more than a pretty picture.
Taken in downtown Itasca (town of 10000 people),little but beautiful town with parks and lot of trees and comments are coming" hey where are the buildings ,only one? "
Doesn't have to be an aerial shot of Brooklyn to be Urban!
Meeting the challemge is very subjective and everyone have right to decide how good is that...
Just for the record Kosta I think your shot met the challenge perfectly. I was really disappointed with the urban challenge it said Urban Landscape...that means at least a building and some landscape. So many did CITYSCAPES and for once the voters didn't take it literally and say this is a cityscape not an urban landscape.
I think it regrettable you didn't and, apparently, still don't even consider the possibility that there may indeed have been irony by the inclusion...
I find it ironic that in quoting me, you left out the last statement of my paragraph:
Originally posted by hgpayne:
The title drew me to the ring, which had nothing to do with the irony in the image. How ironic is that? Oh wait....
That "Oh wait...." is meant to imply that upon reevaluation, and perhaps more so upon reflection of my own statement preceding the "Oh wait..." that indeed I may have seen now how the title related to irony.
At least that was what I was trying to imply, in "Harvey speak", which is an offshoot of American English -- practically the only language I know. Sorry if you don't speak it :)
Oh, and to really be honest though... I don't get how the dolphin ring, or perhaps even the dolphin animal relates to the juxtaposition of the cancer stick with the hand full of vitamins/medicines, which I saw as the irony in the shot. Can you please explain it to my stupid self?
I think it regrettable you didn't and, apparently, still don't even consider the possibility that there may indeed have been irony by the inclusion...
I find it ironic that in quoting me, you left out the last statement of my paragraph:
Originally posted by hgpayne:
The title drew me to the ring, which had nothing to do with the irony in the image. How ironic is that? Oh wait....
That "Oh wait...." is meant to imply that upon reevaluation, and perhaps more so upon reflection of my own statement preceding the "Oh wait..." that indeed I may have seen now how the title related to irony.
At least that was what I was trying to imply, in "Harvey speak", which is an offshoot of American English -- practically the only language I know. Sorry if you don't speak it :)
Oh, and to really be honest though... I don't get how the dolphin ring, or perhaps even the dolphin animal relates to the juxtaposition of the cancer stick with the hand full of vitamins/medicines, which I saw as the irony in the shot. Can you please explain it to my stupid self?
I did miss the appendix in 'Harvey Speak', hg! ;-/
I have, already, attempted an 'explanation' of the origins, history and usage of irony in another thread. The gist of it: whatever the author's technique, he demands that an audience perceive a concealed meaning that lies beneath a surface statement, i.e. [eironeia, Gr. > dissembling. The eiron is meant to prevail over the alazon, the bully or braggart.
In the image we're discussing, we have, by my interpretation, a double-whammy: a depiction of what you call a smoking 'cancer stick' along with an assortment of drugs and vitamins. The irony in this is obvious, i.e. an accessible form of irony aimed at the alazon. The required concealment is, at least at first sight, given only 'formally', addressed at the eiron or at 'those in the know'. On closer examination, however, the fact that dolphins signify animate intelligence contributes to a more holistic understanding.
Classical irony, made of silk and delivered with a hammer, if you ask me (and so you did). ;-)
