November 26, 2008 at 2:55 pm #1482
Everywhere you go there is still life. In your home, the park, school, restaurants, anywhere! Take a picture of anything as long as it is inanimate and doesn?t violate the rules of the contest or the site.
Thanks to gensolo for the theme suggestion!November 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm #19928
Would a bowl of fruit count as “inanimate”? (Just thinking about classical still life)November 26, 2008 at 5:42 pm #19929
Should count. The fruit itself isn’t living.November 26, 2008 at 5:53 pm #19930jpattenParticipant
I don’t know about that…. I haven’t cleaned the fridge in awhile. I was attacked by a rogue Kumqat the other day. I think it was hungryNovember 27, 2008 at 10:25 pm #19931justkatParticipant
[entirely redacted by the author for being negative and not useful or helpful in any way]December 11, 2008 at 5:59 am #19932
The definition of “inanimate” is basically “isn’t moving” and “doesn’t have consciousness”, so a sleeping person should be out of the theme, but a living plant should be in the theme.
At least, that is the way I read the definition.December 11, 2008 at 6:17 am #19933
The classic still life paintings often contained fruit and/or cut flowers, but I’ve not seen living plants represented.December 17, 2008 at 8:29 am #19934harpoParticipant
Would fungus on a dead log be considered animate or inanimate?December 17, 2008 at 1:10 pm #19935
Well, it doesn’t move, but it is living. Soooo I don’t know?December 17, 2008 at 2:52 pm #19936
Maybe it should come down to incidental vs subject of the photo? As in, if the clear subject of your photo is the dead log, and the fungus is incidental, maybe it should count? Same for grass in your photo. But if the fungus (or grass, or other living plant/fungal material) is the clear subject, then it wouldn’t count? Dunno…December 17, 2008 at 3:41 pm #19937
Maybe it should come down to incidental vs subject of the photo? As in, if the clear subject of your photo is the dead log, and the fungus is incidental, maybe it should count? Same for grass in your photo. But if the fungus (or grass, or other living plant/fungal material) is the clear subject, then it wouldn’t count? Dunno…
That is part of why I quoted the definition of “inanimate”, where one of the definitions was ‘”isn’t moving” and “doesn’t have consciousness”‘, so the fungus and living plant doesn’t move (venus fly trap aside), and doesn’t have a consciousness, so should be allowed, right?
Unless you want inanimate = not living, which is a ton more restrictive.December 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm #19938jpattenParticipant
I took it at the second meaningDecember 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm #19939
Well here are the definitions of inanimate that I’ve found:
(Wikipedia): Animate means that which lives or moves, as opposed to inanimate, that which doesn’t live or move.
(Wiktionary): 1. Lacking the quality or ability of motion; as an inanimate object. 2. Not being, and never having been alive. 3. (grammar) Not animate.
(dictionary.com): 1. not animate; lifeless. 2. spiritless; sluggish; dull. 3. Linguistics. belonging to a syntactic category or having a semantic feature that is characteristic of words denoting objects, concepts, and beings regarded as lacking perception and volition (opposed to ANIMATE)
(American Heritage Dictionary): 1. Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead. 2. Not animated or energetic; dull. 3. Grammar Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things: The word car is inanimate; the word dog is animate.
(Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary): Not animate; destitute of life or spirit; lifeless; dead; inactive; dull; as, stones and earth are inanimate substances.
(yourdictionary.com): 1. not animate; not endowed with (animal) life 2. not animated; dull; spiritless
Other than the grammatical/linguistic definitions, “not living” seems to be a common part of the definition of “inanimate”December 17, 2008 at 11:25 pm #19940CuriousParticipant
hi folks, how you been?
i used this setup http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/studio-setup.jpg for tonight’s shots with good results. or i like them, we’ll let the voters decide how good they are 🙂
the folding studio is here http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Concepts-Ps-101-Portable-Lighting/dp/B000FBF400 but i got mine at wal-mart for $25 when they cut the price in half. at what i paid it’s a good deal.
the light laying in front is part of this kit http://www.davesweblife.com/images/stuff%20for%20friends/video-light.jpg which i recently picked up at goodwill for $5.00. i have no idea how old it is and can’t find any info on the web about it. if any of you can point me toward some it would be appreciated.
as to how i’ve been, well these will tell you. http://www.flickr.com/photos/57055068@N00/ not for the squeamish. managed to leave my finger in a machine at work just a bit too long. but its healing nicely and i should be back at work after the new year.December 17, 2008 at 11:32 pm #19941
hi folks, how you been?
My macro setup is very similar to yours, but I have 4* 26-watt fluorescent bulbs in the articulated desk lights that clamp to a desk. Like this with a tent similar to yours.
Your setup is much more portable than mine, which has basically taken over that whole desk since I got it.
One problem that you might have with your setup is that most cameras natural whitebalance is daylight, so the tungsten lights are going to cause a bit of loss in the green and blue channels compared to daylight-color lights.
(I had to look hard to get “daylight” fluorescent bulbs locally, they weren’t that expensive, though)
One thing you might want to try is pulling the backdrop forward a bit to make the transition from horizontal to vertical less noticable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.