I think that if you are going to submit an animal, you are going to have to render it absolutely stunningly to overcome the bias of some voters and push it up near the top.
of course, if you're just doing it for fun and not a score, anything goes :D
I think that if you are going to submit an animal, you are going to have to render it absolutely stunningly to overcome the bias of some voters and push it up near the top.
of course, if you're just doing it for fun and not a score, anything goes :D
This would be also true of say a macro shot of a mushroom in this challenge. Both would be ignoring the basic challenge description, so would need to be quite good (given that it spells out that its a photo of a person...) I'm all for creative interpretations but...
I have a picture already that I think qualifies as a very nice portrait that isn't a person. I may end up saying "what the heck" and submitting it anyway. Who cares about the score. Or maybe I'll ask some random cute girl to volunteer.
Would you give a low score simply because it's not a person? As magnetic and Gordon stated it would have to be a fanstastic picture. If it was, would you give it a high scrore?
Would you give a low score simply because it's not a person? As magnetic and Gordon stated it would have to be a fanstastic picture. If it was, would you give it a high scrore?
If it didn't meet the challenge guidelines I'd give it a "1"...
some people actually consider domestics pets to be 'persons'.
only a few rare special people consider mushrooms such :)
thanks for the chuckle tho :D
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I think that if you are going to submit an animal, you are going to have to render it absolutely stunningly to overcome the bias of some voters and push it up near the top.
of course, if you're just doing it for fun and not a score, anything goes :D
This would be also true of say a macro shot of a mushroom in this challenge. Both would be ignoring the basic challenge description, so would need to be quite good (given that it spells out that its a photo of a person...) I'm all for creative interpretations but...
Would you give a low score simply because it's not a person? As magnetic and Gordon stated it would have to be a fanstastic picture. If it was, would you give it a high scrore?
If it didn't meet the challenge guidelines I'd give it a "1"...
In this case, the challenge details specifically state "person". And the rules specifically state:
While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly.
So purposefully going "against" the challenge details is likely to get you "doesn't meet the challenge" comments and low scores.
To me, thinking outside the box is more along the lines of submitting a picture of a tree in a "Pencil" challenge (whose details say "Take a picture that includes a pencil") with the title "Unprocessed Pencil" or something along those lines. In that instance, you have some leeway in the interpretation, but in this case I think it is pretty clear. Just my 2¢ worth.
Point taken EddyG. And you wouldn't be wrong for sticking to the rules. I guess I just don't take this as seriously as others. If it were for money then sure. Otherwise, I wouldn't give a low score unless it's completely irrelevant and is simply a terrible picture.
Would a majority of you think it unfair that a non-person portrait should win the challenge? Say there were 200 entries and you were the only one submitting a non-human. Would that be fair to the other 199 people, no matter how excellent the photo is? I'd still give a higher score to a mediocre photo fitting the challenge, than a stunning picture of something irrelevant.
