| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2002 06:44:50 PM · #1 |
Wow! I sure got a lot of replies about this subject. Some agree and some disagree thats what makes this site interesting. Everybody has their own preferences, likes, and dislikes. I personally would rather see an interesting creative photo (like the one of the little toy car with the two wheels off the ground looking like its about to be crushed by a big ball, that was great)even if the sharpness or lighting isn't perfect rather than a perfectly composed picture of a boring flower taken by someone who happens to have several-thousands of dollars of equipment which allows them to get a sharper picture than everyone else but has no creativity or sense of humor.
I am not a photographer but enjoy taking creative or funny pictures of family, friends, or whatever with my older cheaper Sony digital camera. Now that digital cameras have come down in price I am looking on getting one that will allow me to take sharper pictures but I am not going to spend thousands of dollars. I am surprised I got so many comments regarding my "man shaving" picture as it does not show full nudity, but is cut just above. I suppose it could have been cropped higher but I thought I would just leave it un-cropped to show the typical overweight American male(me)and his fully exposed gut shaving away like I normally do after I take a shower in the morning. The white shaving cream seemed appropriate for black and white and people thought it was a funny and interesting to see a picture of a heavy guy without his clothes shaving away so I submitted it.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 06:57:03 PM · #2 |
| This is an interesting group. We recognize and condem boring routine run of the mill photos and we give anything more creative than that a low score because it does not fall lock step into the topic. |
|
|
|
06/12/2002 07:24:39 PM · #3 |
That is really funny, but I disagree. While foliage maybe a text book photo, it was still creative. So was taking cover. Black and chrome was very interesting, and I saw nothing else like it. And neither would take $1000 in equipment to make.
Also, I think Dear John got it''s recognition from it''s. creativity.
But, there is definitely a limit to what is allowed to succeed. That is what happens when you have such a diverse goup. The more middle of the road people will prevail. You notice very few people actually come to the forums, I would say maybe a dozen, but there is still a split on what is "creative" and what is "cliche". I think crappy self portraits are "cliche" Jim thinks well executed photos of beautiful subjects are "boring".
C est la vie.
Originally posted by heritcon:
This is an interesting group. We recognize and condem boring routine run of the mill photos and we give anything more creative than that a low score because it does not fall lock step into the topic.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/12/2002 8:47:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2002 10:47:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Photo Jim:
I personally would rather see an interesting creative photo ... rather than a perfectly composed picture ... by someone who happens to have several-thousands of dollars of equipment which allows them to get a sharper picture than everyone else
I agree, but I think the goal is to get both right, for me that's what makes a really good photo. There's nothing like a perfectly executed idea that is both creative and technically correct.
With that said, perfection of course, is a state of mind ... but we all know it when we see it. |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 06:26:54 AM · #5 |
| I'm just dying to know, Jim; what's the target demographic for japanese magazines featuring nude photos of naked bearded men? |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 08:29:03 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by irae:
I'm just dying to know, Jim; what's the target demographic for japanese magazines featuring nude photos of naked bearded men?
Hey, if there is a big dmand count me in.
I can see it now, hoardes of japanese manga chicks in knee high go-go boots and pink plastic mini skirts chasing me down the middle of southwest-Virginia as I frantically fight them off, razor in hand, threatening to shave my beard unless they bow to my wishes!!!
Hey, we can dream can't we? ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 08:56:00 AM · #7 |
lol, hokie.
i'm going to put my money on the fact that probably it's a niche market, even in exotic japan . . . |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 10:15:35 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 10:37:59 AM · #9 |
| Get use to what happens about creativity. Just so long as there is one person who likes it. Now don't get me wrong I like cats and babies but I was about ready to scream on the black and whites voting. I admit I usually take pictures of a couple dogs on outings because they so much look like the owners. I know that we love our pets and children. There is nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 10:43:05 AM · #10 |
No real creativity in my shot for this challenge. But, I am pretty happy with it.
Cant wait to get some input on this shot!
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 01:04:45 PM · #11 |
I don't know if it's as much about lack of creativity in submissions, or lack of creativity in VOTING.
the latter definitely tends to reinforce the former, especially if people want to do well ...
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:06:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I don't know if it's as much about lack of creativity in submissions, or lack of creativity in VOTING.
the latter definitely tends to reinforce the former, especially if people want to do well ...
Its not surprising really. Anything that could be considered edgy will
never do well in a forum like this. Take an abstract image, say 50% of
the voters love abstracts and give it 10, and 50% of the voters hate
abstracts and give it a 1. You'll be smack in the 5 catagory, certainly
not winning.
But take a slightly more conventional, less edgy picture, that everyone
can appreciate, but nobody really adores, so the majority give it a 7. This picture will win, but probably more people felt strongly moved by
the abstract shot.
This is just a fact of any kind of voting/ popularity based selection criteria. The most middle of the road, conventional but well done option will typically win.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:19:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
.....This is just a fact of any kind of voting/ popularity based selection criteria. The most middle of the road, conventional but well done option will typically win.
This is what I have said over and over myself Gordon. If you chase the middle you gonna be great at making beer commercials :-)
And that is not a bad thing if that is your goal because at the very least you become very good at the technical aspect...the general public does not tolerate anything but ad quality images so if you do well here I doubt that the photo had any significant technical problems if any at all.
The larger this site gets the more your math will hold up Gordon.
Go to photo sig and view the most viewed photos to see what most people are looking for. Nude women (playboy nude..not hardcore nude), sunsets and kitty cats.
All great things but not all that photography is about
:-)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:26:40 PM · #14 |
| That's why I'm just here for the comments and the company : ) .... |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:37:22 PM · #15 |
By the way...I know a lot of folks were getting the "How many road shots we gonna see" kind of thing.
Here is a road shot that is good no matter how many times it's done
[url= //www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=9014]Vacation in the Rockie[/url]
Cliche? yeah. Done? yeah. Great? Definitley! |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:44:50 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by hokie:
[url= //www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=9014]Vacation in the Rockie[/url]
that photo is great. i was trying to do something similar with my shot, but of course i'd never be able to find a landscape and an empty road like that. so i ended up with something a bit different.
- mike
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 03:09:14 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by hokie:
By the way...I know a lot of folks were getting the "How many road shots we gonna see" kind of thing.
Here is a road shot that is good no matter how many times it's done
[url= //www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=9014]Vacation in the Rockie[/url]
Cliche? yeah. Done? yeah. Great? Definitley!
Not sure about that shot - looks faked to me ,or at least a composite.
The background is as crisp as you'd get from a tripod mounted shot, the
road as blurry as a shot with a lot of motion.
Is that a single shot ?
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 03:31:01 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]I don't know if it's as much about lack of creativity in submissions, or lack of creativity in VOTING.
the latter definitely tends to reinforce the former, especially if people want to do well ...
Its not surprising really. [/i]
It's not surprising, only because it's not ENCOURAGED. If the site charter said something like: creativity should be favored over the mundane, it might be different. As it is, people are just trying to choose the "best" images.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:18:50 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by hokie:
[i]By the way...I know a lot of folks were getting the "How many road shots we gonna see" kind of thing.
Here is a road shot that is good no matter how many times it's done
[url= //www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=9014]Vacation in the Rockie[/url]
Cliche? yeah. Done? yeah. Great? Definitley!
Not sure about that shot - looks faked to me ,or at least a composite.
The background is as crisp as you'd get from a tripod mounted shot, the
road as blurry as a shot with a lot of motion.
Is that a single shot ?
[/i]
According to the blurb underneath the picture (I guess it could be called a profile/caption), it is just one picture. Of course, maybe he had a tripod attached to the car, and the mountains were moving with him. :-) Of course, since the road is blurry, his score would have to go down. (just kidding)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:37:02 PM · #20 |
| at 1/30 sec there would need be a gyro attached to camera to get that sharpness. I think it was photo enhanced myself. |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:41:38 PM · #21 |
It is a matter of perspective, the road close to the car will appear to blur more. It movement will affect more of the frame becaus of it's relative distance to the lens. If the the camera moved 2 inches duringthe exposure, an object 1.5 inches from the camera would be 0.5 an inch out of the frame by the time the exposure is complete. For an object 3000 feet away at the start would be 2999 feet 10.5 inches from from the camera, I believe that would hardly be noticable.
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
[i]Originally posted by hokie:
[i]By the way...I know a lot of folks were getting the "How many road shots we gonna see" kind of thing.
Here is a road shot that is good no matter how many times it's done
[url= //www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=9014]Vacation in the Rockie[/url]
Cliche? yeah. Done? yeah. Great? Definitley!
Not sure about that shot - looks faked to me ,or at least a composite.
The background is as crisp as you'd get from a tripod mounted shot, the
road as blurry as a shot with a lot of motion.
Is that a single shot ?
[/i]
According to the blurb underneath the picture (I guess it could be called a profile/caption), it is just one picture. Of course, maybe he had a tripod attached to the car, and the mountains were moving with him. :-) Of course, since the road is blurry, his score would have to go down. (just kidding)
[/i]
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:44:43 PM · #22 |
I think the main argument is that cars are not tripods. They vibrate with the road, and so it would be difficult to expose for any period of time long enough to get blurring on the road without lots of motion coming through from the car's vibration.
Originally posted by Zeissman:
It is a matter of perspective, the road close to the car will appear to blur more. It movement will affect more of the frame becaus of it's relative distance to the lens. If the the camera moved 2 inches duringthe exposure, an object 1.5 inches from the camera would be 0.5 an inch out of the frame by the time the exposure is complete. For an object 3000 feet away at the start would be 2999 feet 10.5 inches from from the camera, I believe that would hardly be noticable.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:53:41 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
I think the main argument is that cars are not tripods. They vibrate with the road, and so it would be difficult to expose for any period of time long enough to get blurring on the road without lots of motion coming through from the car's vibration.
I'll dispute this in more detail Monday, but for now I'll say that a sharp image at 1/45 sec is possible from/in a moving vehicle without a tripod.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:54:56 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
It is a matter of perspective, the road close to the car will appear to blur more. It movement will affect more of the frame becaus of it's relative distance to the lens. If the the camera moved 2 inches duringthe exposure, an object 1.5 inches from the camera would be 0.5 an inch out of the frame by the time the exposure is complete. For an object 3000 feet away at the start would be 2999 feet 10.5 inches from from the camera, I believe that would hardly be noticable.
Try it yourself. Point your camera at something on the horizon, take a picture while running forward.
It'll never be that sharp, while moving on a car ,or a person running or whatever. It would move up and down noticably in a shot like that - as 'along the road' is not the only movement that would be happening,
unless we are in some sort of hover car |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:56:23 PM · #25 |
Are you going to dispute that it's difficult? I certainly didn't say it was anywhere near impossible :)
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
I'll dispute this in more detail Monday, but for now I'll say that a sharp image at 1/45 sec is possible from/in a moving vehicle without a tripod.
-Terry
|
|
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: 04/19/2024 12:26:52 PM EDT.
