DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Three Techniques Constructive Discussion
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 89, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/26/2009 12:23:57 AM · #1
I'd like to constructively discuss some of the techniques being used in the current challenges. Of course we cannot address specific photos. I have a feeling this challenge is going to spur a "little" debate, and it might be better to keep it out of the post your scores forum. I'm not advocating voting one way or another based on how well titles match photos.

The first thing that is striking me is some difficulty understanding the rule of thirds in some of the photos. Some seem a bit shoehorned, but otherwise excellent photos. There are elements that do occur in the thirds portion of the photo, but not major elements. I don't think the major subject can be in the center of the photo and still be rule of thirds. Do you believe a photo should shout "rule of thirds" or that it can be a more subtle characteristic of the photos?
10/26/2009 12:27:40 AM · #2
I had an issue with this during the rule of thirds challenge. I believe that a subject can be in the center, but have the most important part on the rule of thirds line -- this is how I compose a lot of my photos.

this is the example The head of the beastie is the most important part, and it is exactly on the thirds lines. Yet at a 5.1, people disagreed with this. But I guess I have a generous view when it comes to rule of thirds.

Message edited by author 2009-10-26 00:30:47.
10/26/2009 12:30:12 AM · #3
Originally posted by aplomb76:

Do you believe a photo should shout "rule of thirds" or that it can be a more subtle characteristic of the photos?

It can be way more subtle. The subject does not need to be plopped on a set of crosshairs. The composition can simply be leading the eye that way. Take for instance my entry in the "Rule of Thirds" challenge a couple of months back:


And a grid showing how the composition is set to lead the eye to where the gears mesh, which is on one of the third intersections.

The overall shape of the gears roughly follows the thirds as well. I did get several comments that made reference to the subtlety of the technique in this one.
10/26/2009 01:04:41 AM · #4
There are a few that I've seen so far where I'm missing the technique...like I don't see it and will vote them accordingly. There are also some that have used techniques but with no purpose or benefit to the image...and they'll get their due, as well.

I'd say if you don't see the technique, look harder and if it's still not there, do what you gotta do. Keep in mind not every techniques needed to be done with a sledgehammer either, to qualify.
10/26/2009 01:09:01 AM · #5
Originally posted by pawdrix:

There are a few that I've seen so far where I'm missing the technique...like I don't see it and will vote them accordingly. There are also some that have used techniques but with no purpose or benefit to the image...and they'll get their due, as well.

I'd say if you don't see the technique, look harder and if it's still not there, do what you gotta do. Keep in mind not every techniques needed to be done with a sledgehammer either, to qualify.


i,m sure i have the techniques down just a so so shot ..but thats my fault so not the creative type ..
10/26/2009 01:16:58 AM · #6
Originally posted by pawdrix:

There are also some that have used techniques but with no purpose or benefit to the image...and they'll get their due, as well.

challenge description just says to slap 'em on, not make 'em function.
10/26/2009 01:32:32 AM · #7
Regarding the "rule of thirds", that's an interesting question. In my mind, people mislabel images as ROT a LOT. Not that these images may not follow ROT to some degree, but the dominant compositional motif is often something else.

For example, using Wendy's blossom-n-bug as an example, it's more of a centered composition, I believe, than it is an ROT composition. This actually was an amusing thought that was occurring to me early in the week, to do an image that contradicted itself, like combining "centered" with "ROT", or "soft focus" with "deep DOF", stuff like that. But it seemed a quixotic enterprise so I slapped myself down.

R.
10/26/2009 01:37:25 AM · #8
Originally posted by vawendy:

I had an issue with this during the rule of thirds challenge. I believe that a subject can be in the center, but have the most important part on the rule of thirds line -- this is how I compose a lot of my photos.

this is the example The head of the beastie is the most important part, and it is exactly on the thirds lines. Yet at a 5.1, people disagreed with this. But I guess I have a generous view when it comes to rule of thirds.


this is ROT to me. so no issues when I start voting tonight.
10/26/2009 06:17:14 AM · #9
Funny, before I posted my picture I was warned that someone would notice it's not exactly on the thirds line, and they were correct. It was a friendly comment and hopefully they didn't adjust their score because of it, but to what point does ROT need to be precise? Is .28 or .37 close enough or does it need to be right on .333? Also, something in the shot is very close to 1/3 from the left/right but not quite 1/3 from the top/bottom and I think this was the cause of the friendly comment. Is one of the thirds enough or does it look strange and not quite right?

For those of you getting out your ruler, shouldn't your eyes tell you if it's a pleasing composition without requiring a measurment? Really... if the picture looks nice and one reason is that the main subject (or something important in the picture) is near the thirds line... isn't that what matters??
10/26/2009 09:08:58 AM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Regarding the "rule of thirds", that's an interesting question. In my mind, people mislabel images as ROT a LOT. Not that these images may not follow ROT to some degree, but the dominant compositional motif is often something else.

For example, using Wendy's blossom-n-bug as an example, it's more of a centered composition, I believe, than it is an ROT composition. This actually was an amusing thought that was occurring to me early in the week, to do an image that contradicted itself, like combining "centered" with "ROT", or "soft focus" with "deep DOF", stuff like that. But it seemed a quixotic enterprise so I slapped myself down.

R.

Yeah.....I'm kinda on the same page as to centered, 'cause even though the title of the image directs it to be the skipper, the big yellow p[osie in the center of the comp tells me that's the focal point.

'Course, I'm an uneducated heathen so what do I know?

What I have been having problems with is the images that I've been seeing that say deep DOF, and the ONLY thing that's sharp is the foreground. I don't really know what to do, 'cause they've been good images, and IMO, terrific exammples of *shallow* DOF.
10/26/2009 09:17:02 AM · #11
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Regarding the "rule of thirds", that's an interesting question. In my mind, people mislabel images as ROT a LOT. Not that these images may not follow ROT to some degree, but the dominant compositional motif is often something else.

For example, using Wendy's blossom-n-bug as an example, it's more of a centered composition, I believe, than it is an ROT composition. This actually was an amusing thought that was occurring to me early in the week, to do an image that contradicted itself, like combining "centered" with "ROT", or "soft focus" with "deep DOF", stuff like that. But it seemed a quixotic enterprise so I slapped myself down.

R.

Yeah.....I'm kinda on the same page as to centered, 'cause even though the title of the image directs it to be the skipper, the big yellow p[osie in the center of the comp tells me that's the focal point.

'Course, I'm an uneducated heathen so what do I know?

What I have been having problems with is the images that I've been seeing that say deep DOF, and the ONLY thing that's sharp is the foreground. I don't really know what to do, 'cause they've been good images, and IMO, terrific exammples of *shallow* DOF.


ah, so the flower is more the issue? I was curious why people had problems with it. The face of the skipper was at the third lines because I wanted the eye to flow to him. Perhaps the flower is just too invasive for the 1/3 to work for the bug. Interesting...
10/26/2009 09:30:48 AM · #12
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What I have been having problems with is the images that I've been seeing that say deep DOF, and the ONLY thing that's sharp is the foreground. I don't really know what to do, 'cause they've been good images, and IMO, terrific exammples of *shallow* DOF.

I've run into this in some discussions on Flickr. Some people get the mistaken idea that the term "depth of field" refers to separating the subject from an OOF background, rather than a quality that can be deep or shallow. I think this is because blurry background shots are where they see the term "Depth of Field" used first. For instance, one person in the S5 group asked "How can I get a depth of field effect?", and linked to an example of shallow DOF.

Message edited by author 2009-10-26 09:31:31.
10/26/2009 09:34:43 AM · #13
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Yeah.....I'm kinda on the same page as to centered, 'cause even though the title of the image directs it to be the skipper, the big yellow p[osie in the center of the comp tells me that's the focal point.


Originally posted by vawendy:

ah, so the flower is more the issue? I was curious why people had problems with it. The face of the skipper was at the third lines because I wanted the eye to flow to him. Perhaps the flower is just too invasive for the 1/3 to work for the bug. Interesting...

I dunno if I'd call the beautiful yellow bloom an issue, or invasive.....8>)

I guess if someone would ask me cold what was the most prominent technique used in that image, I'd have said centered comp.
10/26/2009 09:40:40 AM · #14
Originally posted by Tammster:

Funny, before I posted my picture I was warned that someone would notice it's not exactly on the thirds line, and they were correct. It was a friendly comment and hopefully they didn't adjust their score because of it, but to what point does ROT need to be precise? Is .28 or .37 close enough or does it need to be right on .333? Also, something in the shot is very close to 1/3 from the left/right but not quite 1/3 from the top/bottom and I think this was the cause of the friendly comment. Is one of the thirds enough or does it look strange and not quite right?

For those of you getting out your ruler, shouldn't your eyes tell you if it's a pleasing composition without requiring a measurment? Really... if the picture looks nice and one reason is that the main subject (or something important in the picture) is near the thirds line... isn't that what matters??

I don't mean to be stupid or anything, but is there a ROT grid that gives you the exact latitude and longitude or something????

I always rate ROT imagery by how my eye is drawn to the focal point of the image.

I didn't think it was supposed to be exact since subject material often doesn't cooperate like that.
10/26/2009 09:41:39 AM · #15
FWIW, I think this is a wonderful challenge to view, vote, & comment as I'm learning again.....8>)

LOVE that!
10/26/2009 09:56:26 AM · #16
Originally posted by NikonJeb:


I don't mean to be stupid or anything, but is there a ROT grid that gives you the exact latitude and longitude or something????


In Photoshop, in your preferences, on the "grid" tab, you can set grid frequency to 33.33% and number of divisions to 1. Then, when working on a picture, you can use the view menu to "show grid" and the program will superimpose a 3x3 grid on the image. This is how you can check ROT while processing, though it's not useful for *voting* of course...

R.
10/26/2009 11:08:48 AM · #17
Wow...this is really pedantic bullshit, at it's finest.
10/26/2009 11:26:33 AM · #18
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Regarding the "rule of thirds", that's an interesting question. In my mind, people mislabel images as ROT a LOT. Not that these images may not follow ROT to some degree, but the dominant compositional motif is often something else.

For example, using Wendy's blossom-n-bug as an example, it's more of a centered composition, I believe, than it is an ROT composition. This actually was an amusing thought that was occurring to me early in the week, to do an image that contradicted itself, like combining "centered" with "ROT", or "soft focus" with "deep DOF", stuff like that. But it seemed a quixotic enterprise so I slapped myself down.

R.

Yeah.....I'm kinda on the same page as to centered, 'cause even though the title of the image directs it to be the skipper, the big yellow p[osie in the center of the comp tells me that's the focal point.

'Course, I'm an uneducated heathen so what do I know?

What I have been having problems with is the images that I've been seeing that say deep DOF, and the ONLY thing that's sharp is the foreground. I don't really know what to do, 'cause they've been good images, and IMO, terrific exammples of *shallow* DOF.


ah, so the flower is more the issue? I was curious why people had problems with it. The face of the skipper was at the third lines because I wanted the eye to flow to him. Perhaps the flower is just too invasive for the 1/3 to work for the bug. Interesting...


What happens when i look at it is even though the eye may be perfectly on the third intersection, the wings pull it up and away, and are more "dominant" making it look off of the thirds, and thus feels unbalanced to me. (But, then again, I go by "feeling" not by the ruler). So, while technically, it may "follow" the ROT, it doesn't "feel" like it does to me.

10/26/2009 03:22:45 PM · #19
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Wow...this is really pedantic bullshit, at it's finest.


It may be pedantic, but in the context of DPC it unfortunately has weight. I would NEVER use the ROT grid to create my compositions for my "own" work, I just do what feels right to me. But DPC voters are *notorious* for voting down images that don't adhere to the "rules". So when I have an image that is basically organized on a ROT principle, I definitely use the grid and, where possible, adjust cropping so ROT is satisfied without any debate.

When I DON'T do that, I get dinged by nit-picking voters.

In the meanwhile, in THIS challenge we have ROT as one of the options, and naturally this means the nit-pickers are watching like hawks to make sure that users of the rule actually FOLLOW the "rule". It's sad, but it's reality.

In my own personal world, compositional "rules", like scansion in poetry, are something that's applied after the fact to analyze *why* an image works, or does not work. These "rules" are informational, descriptive, not prescriptive.

But this particular challenge (indeed, *any* technical challenge) makes the "rules" prescriptive for that challenge.

Kinda like doing exercises on the piano... Useful stuff.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-10-26 15:23:49.
10/26/2009 04:28:56 PM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Wow...this is really pedantic bullshit, at it's finest.


It may be pedantic, but in the context of DPC it unfortunately has weight. I would NEVER use the ROT grid to create my compositions for my "own" work, I just do what feels right to me. But DPC voters are *notorious* for voting down images that don't adhere to the "rules". So when I have an image that is basically organized on a ROT principle, I definitely use the grid and, where possible, adjust cropping so ROT is satisfied without any debate.

When I DON'T do that, I get dinged by nit-picking voters.

In the meanwhile, in THIS challenge we have ROT as one of the options, and naturally this means the nit-pickers are watching like hawks to make sure that users of the rule actually FOLLOW the "rule". It's sad, but it's reality.

In my own personal world, compositional "rules", like scansion in poetry, are something that's applied after the fact to analyze *why* an image works, or does not work. These "rules" are informational, descriptive, not prescriptive.

But this particular challenge (indeed, *any* technical challenge) makes the "rules" prescriptive for that challenge.

Kinda like doing exercises on the piano... Useful stuff.

R.


Well said (as usual). Even the name of the thing, the "Rule" of thirds makes me want to throw up. And the rigidity with which some "Comply With The Rule Of Thirds" and insist that a composition is inherently wrong if it does not do so is abhorrent to me. Clearly in a challenge where the assignment is to apply the so-called-rule of thirds, one would need to do so, but to otherwise regularly apply it as a constraint on one's own images, and to measure other images by that yardstick is fundamentally ridiculous to me. But, on the plus side, when someone informs me that I have VIOLATED the RULE of Thirds, I can tell right away that they are, at best, a reverse-barometer for me :-)

Message edited by author 2009-10-26 16:30:08.
10/26/2009 05:20:19 PM · #21
...

Message edited by author 2009-10-26 17:36:10.
10/26/2009 05:33:02 PM · #22
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Wow...this is really pedantic bullshit, at it's finest.


It may be pedantic, but in the context of DPC it unfortunately has weight...

R.


I certainly understand the meaning of things but when people get so bollixed up in nickel and dime issues the death of creativity is sure to follow.

It's high time on this site that people collectively reel against such things.


And the way to do that is to propose a challenge that requires people to choose 3 from a laundery list of techniques/rules and apply them to their images?

R.
10/26/2009 05:43:53 PM · #23
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Wow...this is really pedantic bullshit, at it's finest.


It may be pedantic, but in the context of DPC it unfortunately has weight...

R.


I certainly understand the meaning of things but when people get so bollixed up in nickel and dime issues the death of creativity is sure to follow.

It's high time on this site that people collectively reel against such things.


And the way to do that is to propose a challenge that requires people to choose 3 from a laundery list of techniques/rules and apply them to their images?

R.


Well, nobody said "be technique Nazis" while voting"...

The mentality of site does not necessarily have to be one way, always. Unless it's members allow it to be that way. For the record, I think the Challenge is great and the discussion is even better. Anything provocative is welcome and if this Challenge mixes it up...praise be!

If this Challenge positively effects the way a few people think that's all we can ask. I think it's fun.

Basically what we're doing here is the same thing we do in almost every Challenge it's just being parsed differently. Read my last post in this Challenge Suggestion thread...

eta: I was going to try and bail out of this discussion by deleting my previous post but you quoted me...dammit!

Message edited by author 2009-10-26 17:57:50.
10/27/2009 06:01:07 AM · #24
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Well, nobody said "be technique Nazis" while voting"...

The mentality of site does not necessarily have to be one way, always. Unless it's members allow it to be that way. For the record, I think the Challenge is great and the discussion is even better. Anything provocative is welcome and if this Challenge mixes it up...praise be!

If this Challenge positively effects the way a few people think that's all we can ask. I think it's fun.

Basically what we're doing here is the same thing we do in almost every Challenge it's just being parsed differently. Read my last post in this Challenge Suggestion thread...

eta: I was going to try and bail out of this discussion by deleting my previous post but you quoted me...dammit!

Okay.....let me toss this back to you, Steve.

I hear about "Technique Nazis", "let's not nit-pick", "too literal"......if all these are true, then what's the point of a challenge description?

If you've got 100 entries, the challenge description says:"Your title should be your three techniques, in alphabetical order to also aid in the education of voters." and an image pops up after you've looked at 43 that have had alphabetical descriptions that says "Statue of Liberty", what do you do?

43 people have followed the guidelines, so does that make you a "Nazi", a "Nit-picker", or "Too literal" if you vote it down because the photog either missed the boat, or didn't care?

I'm certainly not going to give the guy a 1, but by the same token, what do I give the image if it clearly has three of the techniques on the list and is a fine image?

Would it be fair to award it the same score you would have had the photog "Followed the challenge guidelines as stated."

I have a little bit of a problem with the way that there's always someone squaking about Nazis and literalism when people do NOT follow the guidelines.

They're there.......don't follow them, suffer......and don't call out people for busting you for them.

I've been busted for not "Following the spirit of the challenge." whatever *that* means, so why on earth is it not reasonable to pop someone who just plain didn't do what they were supposed to do?

To me, the creative interpretation thing comes into play when the title of a challenge is stated, and the challenge details are: "N/A", or "Creatively use _______ as your example of _______."

What prompted this is that I just had an image pop up that I can't make head nor tail of the title........at all. It's not even words.

If I'm not supposed to utilize the challenge description as it's written, then what's the point of having it?

10/27/2009 07:14:35 AM · #25
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

[quote=pawdrix]Well, nobody said "be technique Nazis" while voting"...


I beg to differ. This challenge is all about technique. The idea is to follow a technique. If you are supposed to be showing rule of thirds and you have your subject directly in the center of the photography, you don't know the technique and are dumbing down others who don't know it very well. This challenge basically said you can photograph whatever you want....You just have to use three of these TECHNIQUES. So if you did technique wrong, doesn't that say that you didn't know what you were doing when you shot, and wouldn't the lesson learned be a lower score and a comment on why you did the technique wrong? Yes this challenge is all about technique nitpicking.....Okay some people may take rule of thirds too far. I wouldn't be putting a grid on a photo, but at a glance it should seem somewhere near a third of the photo. I should be able to put imaginary lines on a photo with my eyes and it looks about there. Deep DOF seems to have been abused in this challenge also. If your entire background is blurred, you probably didn't do deep DOF.

As for the title thing. I think you should have followed the description and gave it the right title. I'm not supposed to be sitting here and guessing what techniques you used. I'm not supposed to tell you which one you used. You were supposed to tell which 3 you used and I'm voting on how you used them to make a beautiful piece of work (photograph). If I have to guess which one you used, my only assumption is that you don't know what you used or you didn't care about your score enough to follow the challenge description. If you are doing a school assignment and you don't follow directions...the teacher normally takes off a few points for not following the assignment directions right? The same thing applies here....for this challenge...one of few that gave clear cut directions in the description.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:44:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 04:44:34 PM EDT.