| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2006 12:30:56 AM · #1 |
Couple of picture that got in top 10.That did not read the Challenge Description.
Your challenge this week is deceptively simple: photograph a sporting venue after the game is over and the players and people have gone home :-)
 
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:32:32 AM · #2 |
Its not very suprising.
Equally unsuprising is the reaction you are sure to receive for pointing it out. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 12:34:33 AM · #3 |
Thanks for the warning... Run but ya cant hide.LOL Originally posted by routerguy666:
Its not very suprising.
Equally unsuprising is the reaction you are sure to receive for pointing it out. |
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:00:03 AM · #4 |
| err... what's wrong with the 2 pics you posted? |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:06:20 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by crayon:
err... what's wrong with the 2 pics you posted? |
Originally posted by dv_rock:
Your challenge this week is deceptively simple: photograph a sporting venue after the game is over and the players and people have gone home :-)
|
You see now? |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:06:32 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by crayon:
err... what's wrong with the 2 pics you posted? |
Both shots show people. The challenge description was:
Your challenge this week is deceptively simple: photograph a sporting venue after the game is over and the players and people have gone home :-)
There were actually a LOT of entries that had people in them. Surprised me. I've never seen a clearer illustration oh how easily many people disregard the challenge description. I mean, it was pretty straightforward, nothing ambiguous about it. But the challenge TITLE was "After the Game", no mention of people in that...
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:09:38 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by crayon:
err... what's wrong with the 2 pics you posted? |
Both shots show people. The challenge description was:
Your challenge this week is deceptively simple: photograph a sporting venue after the game is over and the players and people have gone home :-) |
I'm guilty as charged - I didn't notice anything wrong until you pointed out the obvious! OMG...
UPDATE: but reading the description again, it doesn't mean that ALL the players and people have left the place. I think some people may have interpreted that the shot should be taken after people have started to leave the place. Just a thought
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 01:11:12. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:12:16 AM · #8 |
I agree with DV. The challenge was to try to take an interesting and compelling shot without needing to include a person to do it. That specific exclusion of people in the challenge description made it much harder but some managed it very well.
I just don't understand how a picture that DNMC can score a perfect 10. What's the point of having challenge descriptions then?
Don't get me wrong, I think those were two great shots, and I would have scored them highly in a challenge that they fit. :)
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 01:13:21. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:13:13 AM · #9 |
those two shots in particular, and others with people, didn't bother me. like crayon pointed out, even though there are people in the picture, it is more than obvious that everyone (meaning the the general populace) has left the building (or field).
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:16:30 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by crayon:
reading the description again, it doesn't mean that ALL the players and people have left the place. |
If you haven't already, I'd encourage you to pursue a career in legal defense. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:19:10 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by crayon:
reading the description again, it doesn't mean that ALL the players and people have left the place. |
If you haven't already, I'd encourage you to pursue a career in legal defense. |
ouch |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:28:36 AM · #12 |
I'm not a hard-ass about this, but I tend to agree with the "what's the point of having a description?" camp. The whole CHALLENGE, the tough part of it, was to do a shot of a venue that is usually characterized by its intensely human activity and to somehow capture its character without using people. That's how I saw it, anyway... It was a very interesting challenge.
That it was a DIFFICULT challenge is (in my mind) underlined by the fact that it only drew 80 entries. This was something people had to think about, and it required some effort to find the appropriate locale for the shot as well.
I do find it strange that these two top-10 shots garnered a total of 70 9's and 10's between them even though to some extent they clearly did not meet the challenge. I'm willing to concede that they are "borderline" in that the single, isolated figures when everyone else has gone home tend to highlight the emptiness around them, but still...
What the heck. Voting in DPC has always bemused me, it's not a big deal. They're both very nice images :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:33:53 AM · #13 |
| I can see the argument for an image containing a person in this challenge. However, how do you NOT come across as the DNMC police when in the "Landscape in Portrait Orientation" there are submissions that are neither Landscapes (subject) or Portrait (orientation)? |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:34:06 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not a hard-ass about this, but I tend to agree with the "what's the point of having a description?" camp. The whole CHALLENGE, the tough part of it, was to do a shot of a venue that is usually characterized by its intensely human activity and to somehow capture its character without using people. That's how I saw it, anyway... It was a very interesting challenge. |
I understand where this came from.
This time, your perception was that people did not follow the challenge description. But lets not forget that in the past, photos that did not follow the challenge topic, too, got placed in top places. Worse, some are technical challenge topics too, remember? |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:45:07 AM · #15 |
You can't really blame the people that submitted them. It's the 350+ voters that put them there. So apparently 350+ people didn't understand or read the description.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 01:45:27.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:54:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
You can't really blame the people that submitted them. It's the 350+ voters that put them there. So apparently 350+ people didn't understand or read the description. |
No, it's both. The photographers did not read (or chose to ignore a portion of) the challenge description, and a lot of the voters don't seem to care. But if you read the comments on the 7th place image, there are a LOT of DNMC comments, many of them expressing their appreciation of the image but saying they knocked it down a couple points for having a person in it.
THAT I can understand. What I don't understand is the 10's and 9's. But like I say, it's all a mystery and an enigma to me.
The thing of it is, I keep remembering back to my earliest days in DPC and my lovely (and controversial) self-portrait-as-raindrop. I believed, and STILL believe, it's perfectly possible to do a self-portrait without including your own likeness in it, but that image was utterly CRUCIFIED by the voters (65 1's, 41 2's, and 56 3's) and is my lowest-scoring ever at 3.4696 :-) So even the DNMC police are erratic, it seems... jejeje™
For the record, the challenge description said "Find your best side, and submit a self-portrait", and I thought long and hard about this and decided that my "best side" is my mind. So how do I photograph my mind?
R.
Edit to add: I'll sic karma on the first person to suggest a lobotomy as the solution to my dilemma...
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 01:55:33. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:55:47 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So how do I photograph my mind? |
here's a knife :p
(dont do it, Robert!!!) |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:56:35 AM · #18 |
"Karma, there's Crayon! Sic him, gal, sic him!"
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:57:35 AM · #19 |
It clearly didn't say "every single person gone home"
One person in the shot is perfectly fine with me, and I DID read the description ;)
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:09:17 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by oskar:
It clearly didn't say "every single person gone home"
One person in the shot is perfectly fine with me, and I DID read the description ;) |
It didn't say "some of the people gone home"...
We waited and waited, with freezing toes and fingers, for the last people to leave. I had a great shot with one kid in it but didn't even consider entering it. Then, once we finally had the field to ourselves we only had about 5 minutes (or less) before they turned the lights out on us! :(
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 02:12:53. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:11:58 AM · #21 |
OK...technically people is plural. If the photog is there, taking a picture of a person, there are people there. If it is the photog alone, he is singular and a person. The description says after the people are gone, hence, just the photog is there.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:14:26 AM · #22 |
You really can't say it's both. All you hear about on here are the multitudes of ways to interpret or decipher a challenge descripition. The most common answer you get is "leave it up to the voters." So why not do it. There is no penalty for not following the simplest part of a challenge which is the description. If you enter a pretty picture that's totally irrelevant to the topic and it scores well, it's like a bonus. IMO there should be some type of penalty. But how do you implement it?
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:23:28 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
You can't really blame the people that submitted them. It's the 350+ voters that put them there. So apparently 350+ people didn't understand or read the description. |
...or they read it and didn't agree with  dv_rock's interpretation of it.
Granted I tend to interpret challenge descriptions broadly, but I think a lone prson, lingering after all the rest have long since gone, represents the challenge topic well.
This is precisely why we don't DQ for not meeting the challenge, instead leaving that issue in the hands of the collective voters.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:25:34 AM · #24 |
my photo was taken with a 10 second self-timer. I had to run quickly out of the stadium before the shutter triggers. This way, I'm sure EVERYONE wasn't in the stadium when the shot was taken. I even checked to see that the cleaners have left the place and nobody was left in the toilets... wait a minute, I forgot to submit my entry! :p
just kidding... |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:26:44 AM · #25 |
Dragging this back to the point, here's one shot I felt totally under-rated -
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 11:37:25 PM EDT.
