I have no idea if this is what is being looked for, but I'd thought I'd throw them out there and see what people (and hopefully the dpchallenge people) think in terms of close to the theme or not.
I think all of those were made by man, See my post in the other thread about this topic, as I put in an explanation of what I think this means, and used this example.
I saw the comments in the other thread. I disagree with the idea that the object has to be a thing of nature. I think the subject has to have the shape of a number, but not be constructed to intentionally have that shape - so man made objects are fine.
I don't think the spider qualifies because it doesn't look like a number - although I wish we could represent numbers this way like in the 'four' competition where sometimes you would see the number '4' and sometimes you would see four objects.
I saw the comments in the other thread. I disagree with the idea that the object has to be a thing of nature. I think the subject has to have the shape of a number, but not be constructed to intentionally have that shape - so man made objects are fine.
This is the challenge description
"Your photograph should include a naturally occurring (not manufactured in any way) number. Good luck!"
I saw the comments in the other thread. I disagree with the idea that the object has to be a thing of nature. I think the subject has to have the shape of a number, but not be constructed to intentionally have that shape - so man made objects are fine.
This is the challenge description
"Your photograph should include a naturally occurring (not manufactured in any way) number. Good luck!"
I stand corrected - although its still not clear to me whether the object has to look like a number or represent a number like the spider can represent the number eight . . .
upon closer inspection, you'll see that there are 10 'legs' - the 2 in the front are actually called pedipalps - or palps. these two sensory feelers are for sniffing out food
Ok, so let me see if I'm on the right track for this weeks 'natural numbers' I've read the forum and I'm still a little confused as to what we are supposed to be photographing. I had a go and I need some input as to wheather this type of photo would qualify?
Number 0
I don't see where all the confusion is. Just look around you. You will see numbers as well as letters everywhere. This challenge is a very typical assignment in beginner photography classes because it encourages people to look more closely at the world around them. It can be found in nature or in man made structures as long as it wasn't meant to be an actual number. Let's see, sitting right where I am in front of my computer I see many o's, tons of 1's (although not many ones that would lend themselves well to a photograph, a few 2's which could also be 5's, and a good amount of 6's that could also be 9's. There are of course also a few good 8's. It's really not a hard thing to do and there is no confusion about it. It does not imply counting. For those of you in the city, you're probably going to find even more interesting numbers than those in the woods. I'm sure I'll find something easily enough. Just a stroll outside will do. Aussie, your photo is fine, but in my opinion just not a great photo. The best photos, in my opinion, will be one's in which the number stands out more vividly and is obviously a number but only made to look that way because of the creativity of the photographer's use of perspective, light, and composition. I'm looking quite forward to the challenge.
Oh, if you want to see a good example, check out this picture by nds for a previous challenge. HERE
ok...my brain must have gone to the Bahamas...i'm still having trouble understanding how to interpret this challenge!
can the photos be of something manufactured (smokestacks or drain pipes) that look like numbers naturally without any "staging"...or do they have to be something from nature (trees, flowers, roads) that resemble numbers or that can be "staged" to look like numbers?
i think it would be best if everyone had the same understanding or we're gonna have a wide array of votes from people who think it should be one way or another. i would hate to see a terrific photo get low votes because the voter interpreted the challenge a different way.
perhaps the person(s) who thought of the challenege could let us know what their thoughts were when it was posted.
I agree. Given that the Bridges challenge was changed so swiftly in reaction to complaints of vagueness, I am surprised that a clarification has not been made for this challenge.
I saw the comments in the other thread. I disagree with the idea that the object has to be a thing of nature. I think the subject has to have the shape of a number, but not be constructed to intentionally have that shape - so man made objects are fine.
This is the challenge description
"Your photograph should include a naturally occurring (not manufactured in any way) number. Good luck!"
Gordon - i thought you made it clear in your comment above that 'number can not be manufactured' which i interpret as it must be organic, ie: occuring in nature. so, the photos i started this tread with, which are manufactured objects, even though they were not manufactured to represent a number, do not meet the challenge objective. there continues to be a lot of confusion (myself included). could you clarify? thanks.
I saw the comments in the other thread. I disagree with the idea that the object has to be a thing of nature. I think the subject has to have the shape of a number, but not be constructed to intentionally have that shape - so man made objects are fine.
This is the challenge description
"Your photograph should include a naturally occurring (not manufactured in any way) number. Good luck!"
Gordon - i thought you made it clear in your comment above that 'number can not be manufactured' which i interpret as it must be organic, ie: occuring in nature. so, the photos i started this tread with, which are manufactured objects, even though they were not manufactured to represent a number, do not meet the challenge objective. there continues to be a lot of confusion (myself included). could you clarify? thanks.
my comment was a direct quote from the description of the challenge. It says your subject should not be manufactured. Therefore man-made objects would seem to be not meeting the objective. It seems quite clear. It makes no mention about subjects that are supposed to be numbers in the first place or not.
Take advantage of the fact the challenge definition is not totally clear. I am choosing to use whatever number looking things I find, organic or not, and have fun doing my picture. I hope others will too.
my comment was a direct quote from the description of the challenge. It says your subject should not be manufactured. Therefore man-made objects would seem to be not meeting the objective. It seems quite clear. It makes no mention about subjects that are supposed to be numbers in the first place or not.
i understand what you are saying and how you are interpreting it, but the only thing that is really clear is that other intrepretations are out there (like in the other thread on this subject 'Numbers Clarification', where KarenB, another 'Site Council' said the pipes would work for 411) and no one has said yes or no - (i) must be natural (ie: organic) or (ii) may be manufactured, just not manufactured intentionally as a number. but whatever, i found my natural organically derived number and submitted it (so i'm set for either way). good luck to everyone else!
In a local kindergarten classroom is a poster with the entire alphabet displayed as found on the wings of butterflies and moths. Some of the images are stunning!
For the tarantula to be clearly an number 8, you could try fiddling around with lighting (if it will hold still!) to make more clear the connection between its body shape and the number 8. I also liked the idea of using Roman numerals. Clever!
