| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2004 12:29:02 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten... |
John, you are an idiot. The challenge topic limits the creativity by specifying that the color yellow is important. |
Yes it does.. let's look at the challenge description:
"Photograph your interpretation of the color yellow. The color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo."
It says to photograph my interpretation of the color yellow. Then it limits my interpretation by specifying that the color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo. |
Maybe a photo of 'cowardice' would do better if the challenge topic was YELLOW and there was no description provided. Probably not in most cases, but it would allow some people to think differently maybe... |
My flower was actually very afraid of the snow. I didn't even notice that the flower itself was actually yellow in colour. I was just trying to show the juxtaposition of it's apparent strength standing tall in the snow, while facing his internal cowardice.
He was MUCH happier when he was inside the florists' dealing with his anxiety about dying before someone bought him. much like the puppy in the pet store window.
:D |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 12:55:47 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
My flower was actually very afraid of the snow. I didn't even notice that the flower itself was actually yellow in colour. I was just trying to show the juxtaposition of it's apparent strength standing tall in the snow, while facing his internal cowardice.
He was MUCH happier when he was inside the florists' dealing with his anxiety about dying before someone bought him. much like the puppy in the pet store window.
:D |
Juxtaposition is an artsy-fartsy term used only by the l337 people.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 01:00:38 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten... |
John, you are an idiot. The challenge topic limits the creativity by specifying that the color yellow is important. |
Yes it does.. let's look at the challenge description:
"Photograph your interpretation of the color yellow. The color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo."
It says to photograph my interpretation of the color yellow. Then it limits my interpretation by specifying that the color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo. |
Maybe a photo of 'cowardice' would do better if the challenge topic was YELLOW and there was no description provided. Probably not in most cases, but it would allow some people to think differently maybe... |
ROTFLMAO
Not sleeping much these days John? ;)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 01:26:59 PM · #54 |
First of all, I gave no 10's in the yellow challenge. Usually I give one to four tens, some more 9's (one in this challenge), some more 8's, a lot of sevens and sixes, some more fives and a few of the lower ones. So there you have my voting pattern without the why.
I gave two of the photos a 5 or lower score.
The first was #170 'Curves' by Vasilovkaya. I gave it a 5.
My reasons: I have seen enough extreme shallow dof flower shots to last me a lifetime. The dof was too shallow, the subject presentation (composition, lines, something that stands out) had nothing to make it stand out. Just not special enough. Hovered betweeen 6 and 5, became a 5. I don't think any different about it after the challenge.
The second one was #108 'Untitled' by jjbeguin. I gave it a 4.
I handed out that 4 pretty rapidly because I felt: "Is this guy trying to fool me?" Because the first thing that struck me was the extreme sickly yellowness of the skin tones of the people in the background. That can only mean that the tone of the photo has been shifted to yellow with an editing program (no filter, because it would have an effect on the whole photo and that has not happened). Was the yellow of the original to weak to enter it as yellow?
No matter how good the composition is (it is rather good), I disliked that pushed yellow so much that it became a 4. I still think that way.
If the yellow was normal it would have been a 6 or 7. There is nothing special about that street scene 'for me' (people ignore traffic signs all day over here and I could capture a gazillion of those).
What I find strange is that the faces, clothing, bags and such have a yellow cast, but the white street signs don't. Probably some selective desaturation or oversaturation stuff, but jj doesn't share much info.
#103 got a 6 (like it, but overprocessed).
#3,#8,#9,#27,#73 and #96 all got sevens.
#36 got an 8.
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 13:38:21.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 01:49:43 PM · #55 |
There have been a lot of good responses to this thread. Here are some of the conclusions I can draw from this:
1. Photographers don't like to look at more than one or two photos of the same subject in any short time frame. If they do, it makes them like all of those photos a little less.
2. Photographers are just as concerned with how a photo was achieved compared to how it looks and feels. We like to estimate how something was done, and our estimation of that guides how much we like/dislike the photograph.
3. There are certain subjects that photographers have seen too much. Seeing any more of them in the future won't help. There is an automatic dislike (to some degree) of the photo that contains this subject.
4. The degree to which a photo meets the challenge is very important.
5. There is an occasional image, that upon a closer look, would have gotten a higher rating.
This list doesn't seem to contain any new reasons that have not been discussed many times in the past on this site. Have I missed anything?
Ridergal's post brings up an issue that I believe is a strong one. Anyone care to discuss what that may be?
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:34:07 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Ridergal's post brings up an issue that I believe is a strong one. Anyone care to discuss what that may be? |
There being something unique, the technique suits the photo or thinking and appreciating thinking outside the box?
All three items are in my opinion very personal (not emotionally or privately). What is unique for me, what is unique for you? The same applies to the other two items.
I think it has a lot to do with how far you have matured as a photographer, but also as a viewer. A few years ago I hated certain paintings, I just could not see what was so good about them (especially the abstracts, surrealism, etc, but also work by Da Vinci). It took years (not full-time, only my thinking works full-time) of viewing, thinking, learning new stuff totally unrelated to the paintings and bang next time I see one of the ones I hated I am suddenly in love with it. Cannot explain it, but sometimes you need to learn a lot before everything can be understood and appreciated.
Same applies to photos.
Also, how good is the imagination, the fantasy of the viewer. This might even come down to a level of cultural development, education, upbringing, religious background, political background etc.
What references does the viewer have? Does he have a constrained view because of a religious upbringing (some people say Dutch suffer from a past Calvinistic nature of their culture that prevents them from appreciating certain stuff to their fullest extent), seen much of the world, seen much of his country, studied economy or history, studied culture or agriculture etc etc etc.
What may be outside the box for me, may therefore be inside the box for you, offend someone else and bore the heck out of a different person.
I must say that my own photography is pretty square when it comes to 'out of the box'. Not surprising when I only spent about an hour a week creating and more than 15 hours looking and discussing. :)
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:36:59 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Pedro:
My flower was actually very afraid of the snow. I didn't even notice that the flower itself was actually yellow in colour. I was just trying to show the juxtaposition of it's apparent strength standing tall in the snow, while facing his internal cowardice.
He was MUCH happier when he was inside the florists' dealing with his anxiety about dying before someone bought him. much like the puppy in the pet store window.
:D |
Juxtaposition is an artsy-fartsy term used only by the l337 people. |
well, I'd hate to be a leet person, so i guess the troof is I just took it cuz it wuz yella. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:40:09 PM · #58 |
It Must be BradP in disguise! |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:41:48 PM · #59 |
I think the crux of her idea is:
How can one appreciate something that they don't understand?
This comes into play at multple levels also.
How can I appreciate a compositional issue that I don't even see?
How can I appreciate an idea that I can't grasp?
How can I appreciate a mood that I can't feel?
There are more, but these 3 issues are important to me. Part of the problem in being able to draw these items from a photo in a challenge is that we have no context other than the title and the challenge topic to go on (free study challenges not included). I think the free study challenge bring out the best in the photogrpaher and the voter, but that's another story.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:45:43 PM · #60 |
I love these threads which at the very end leave the same ambiguities as when they first started. Of course, we all know the reason. Whenever artist express opinions they actually open a window into their souls which lead to very interesting reading.
First in defense of Mr. Setzler: He merely selected the images he gave a ten to. If we all do the same, that is select the images we scored high, there will be quite a collection of different images. Even he will agree that this new collection may prove impractical for discussion. He will also agree that his choices are solely based on his judgment the same as ours are. To avoid confusion he asked not for others to post theirs. This simply means that this thread is of no interest to those that want to discuss other images. Since there are ribbon winners here first let me pay respect to them:
The image challenge suffers from a very minor flaw and that is the um. Outside of this the image is a clear winner because it meets the challenge head on and then it displays a fascinating silhoette of horses in activity against a colorful dynamic background whose effect is a strong visual panorama. The color scheme makes this a pleasant wall hanger. Blue is well deserved here.
The image by terge is another little wonder because it incorporates an abstract motif against a classical style with the well defined lemons on the right. If you do not like modern art than you will not like this image, but the voters rose to acknowledge it as so. Again another worthy winner.
The daisy in the snow needs no praise. It is a complete image of the story of the changing seasons and the cycle of life and death. Again, very well deserving of its place.
Now, this does not mean that there are no other competing images, but given the nature of competition in DPC only three get the top honors.
All the other good images may have even ribboned under different circumstances and it is perfectly healthy to acknowledge their goodness and the possibility that many may have been underrated. This happens in all challenges because the high quality of many of the images.
In short this becomes an excercise of examining the psychology of the voters. Why did they pick those and ignored the others. I am sure many threads exist which lead to no enlightment because the subject is like the proverbial snake that circles to swallow itself. That is you enter here and you exit no better off because you will never be able to read the voters collective mind because it is everchanging without any absolutes and too diverse to address.
Yes, these threads have a virtue because they make members reconsider and possibly look at an image in a different light. My humble advise is to look at an image isolated from all others and feel what the image conveys. Ask yourself does this image move me? Does it attract my attention, does it hold it. Is there something that bothers me about it.
If something does bother me, examine it closely and see if you see what the solution may be. Put the image aside and return to it. The important thing is that a once through on voting does not do justice to yourself or the image.
Given the above and the fact that many voters have no time to return leaves the images with the highest visual impact as the winners, yet these have to be good in order to attract so much attention. The fact that some excellent images will fall by the wayside is the natural consequence of the system and that will always be the case. it is the nature of the beast.
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 15:20:45. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 02:54:54 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Part of the problem in being able to draw these items from a photo in a challenge is that we have no context other than the title and the challenge topic to go on (free study challenges not included). |
Perhaps it would be fun (and useful to both viewer and photographer) to have a challenge where there are no scores given but which is more about a continious week-long open discussion between photographers and viewers?
I think serious open discussion about photographs are the best way to address these issues. Many people could learn a lot from it.
On the other hand, I don't know about any site where this really works. It is too much kissing butt and no serious depth.
edit= spelling
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 14:58:12.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 06:35:48 PM · #62 |
great thread here/
this really illustrates the fact that you can produce really technically great, competently composed and arranged photos and you could still be missing something. And that the profile for too many people giving scores and commenting on this site.
Now- the really great thing is that a snapshotter with a crappy camera could produce some great photos and all the art school, big bucks, conformist principles and whatever else you've got in the camera bag just aint gonna cut it.
sorry to go a little off topic but It has to do with looking at photos on the site.
I read someone write once- to a newbie- something to the effect- don't give up you have good stuff adn you will do well and others who don't do well will give up and leave"-
I'm here to say now-
and I hope people listen to this
Listen to Setzler!
Look at photos
WHen you are going to write a comment- pretend you are someone who has artistic sense, and write what they would write!
And go for the unique shot- not "consistently better" shots!
lastly...Wouldn't you rather have one or two knockout artistic photos rather than a whole bunch of "consistently better" shots?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 09:21:05 AM · #63 |
I would like to make an additional observation about the photos I listed at the top of this thread...
NONE of the photographers who produced these photos included photograher comments explaining why they thought these were great photos. In my mind, each of them is an example of great photography. The scenes/subjects obviously inspired the photographer in some way also, but why? How? I believe that each of these photos is well composed... subjectively and visually appealing... but why? What intrigued the photographer when these scenes were discovered? Some of them are designed rather than discovered, which makes another statement. Why are those tomatoes organized the way they are? Why did Pedro choose the angle and perspective he did? There are many more questions I could ask about these photos. The answers to these questions would provide a lot of additional insight into why these images are so nice. Was it simply luck? It could be.
For me, each of these photos has a strong compositional element that creates most of the impact. I would love to hear the photographers who made these images discuss their thoughts on the creation of these compositions.
I often make photos where the composition just 'happens' on its own. I also make photos where I create the composition. For the latter, I can usually describe why I got the result I did.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 09:46:22 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
NONE of the photographers who produced these photos included photograher comments explaining why they thought these were great photos. |
I think this observation extends way beyond the set of images you kicked this thread off with. It seems that very few people write about the inspiration they felt as a photographer. We see more of the technical hard details like photoshop techniques and EXIF because it is not risky to share unambiguous facts. In contrast, to share what connected you to a moment is risky. Yet, as a learning site, these inspriations are far more valuable to the community than technical details.
I can usually estimate a focal length, aperture, and shutter speed within reason when I look at an image. But mastering the switches and dials on a camera is a short and steep part of the learning curve. Once you get past it, this information is of little use. The longer, and much more difficult slope of the learning curve is seeing photographically; Emphasizing and connecting with discrete aesthetic elements within the world. This is something that I view as being accessible from understanding the thoughts and emotions of photographers who are creating work that touches you in some way.
For that reason, I would love to see more of the "story behind the shot" captured in the comments. It would be a great site feature if DPC added something which worked accross between "favorite images" and "this comment was helpful" to track people who found your photographer's comments useful to them.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 09:55:15 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
We see more of the technical hard details like photoshop techniques and EXIF because it is not risky to share unambiguous facts. |
What would be 'risky' about sharing the other?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:51:02 AM · #66 |
First of all thanks Jon for including my photograph in this thread. for reference, this is what I am talking about
For the last one week, I have been trying to learn some simple still life and playing around with light. I can say the inspiration for this photo was from these photographs on dpchallenge.. just including a few here..
  
All the above have have really amazing lighting and i always wanted to try something myself...
Why tomatoes ?
the very first idea that I had was to get some pear and try to use lighting in a controlled environment and then I was thinking about may be some bananas ( for their color). I went out to get them from a local grocery store and while I was there, I found these tomatoes...I would say it was luck that I came across these.
Arrangement and composition?
I arranged them the way they are mostly because of the stem. this made the stem look like some kind of insect ( may be a spider ) crawling/creeping all over the tomatoes ( I don't think anyone saw/noticed that, but I liked the way it grew/crawled up over these tomatoes ).I played around a little and found the best view I got was from a view point nearly 30degrees from horizontal plane.
Why droplets ?
Because without droplets they didn't look fresh. I really like the droplet photos, but was always worried about reflections and since I have no polariser, I hadn't tried that ever. It was a good time. More inspiration for droplets...
 
I have been trying to look at the photos on dpchallenge and study them, what they did, how they did it and why is that I like them and then I try to use their technique and this shot was one of those trials.
-Gaurawa |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 11:43:17 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What would be 'risky' about sharing the other? |
I guess without context my wording was a bit too strong. It's more of an emotional risk to share things like "feelings" than to share thing that can't be debated. For example, if I tell you that I composed the image below using a 2 second exposure at f/20 at an 18mm focal length, you can't argue with me. It's a fact.
However, if I tell you that I was most inspired by the feeling that Nature was communciating with me through the burbling creek, and announced her presence with subtle rays of light you could take me to task because you feel that I should have accentuated the light rays rather than allowing them to be diluted by the rest of the image.
If I'm not seasoned to receiving critique (or not receptive to it, as many newer photographers may not be) then I might not want to put out the "feelings" aspect, and instead stick to the safer facts. Or, I may not yet fully understand what speaks to me in a particular image, which is a common problem when newer photographers are learning to simplify an image. In general it's a riskier area to share with others because it's tougher to effectively communicate, and extremely personal in many cases.
Message edited by author 2004-12-16 11:45:09.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 12:11:20 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by miaminovice:
Originally posted by dsb_mac:
..."Which implies that either the Poster or DPC has a poor perception of what constitutes a good photograph."
I would say it's the latter. |
Please...that wasn't an accurate quote of dsb_mac's post. The words used were not "a poor" but "an eccentric", which not only has an entirely different meaning, but IMO more accurately describes what is going on.
Why did you feel it necessary to change it? |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 03:57:57 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
However, if I tell you that I was most inspired by the feeling that Nature was communciating with me through the burbling creek, and announced her presence with subtle rays of light you could take me to task because you feel that I should have accentuated the light rays rather than allowing them to be diluted by the rest of the image.
|
This is the essence of 'why' you made the photo though. You didn't make it so you could try out an exposure setting :) I don't have to like or care about the photo you post but I do like to know the reason someone chose to make a particular photo. This is where I'm learning these days. Thoughts like this often inspire someone to make a photo but they won't often tell you about it.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 04:25:36 PM · #70 |
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance I believe Robert Pirsig expressed an idea that Quality, while certainly containing a large element of subjectivity, is something that can also be "objective". There may very well be objective standards of quality "out there", ...and there are some people who may grasp it better than others. Never perfectly, though.
A combination of that subjectivity and objectivity, and the voters' degree of participation in each, contribute to the fact that we never see a final score of 10 or 1, or that the best photographers on DPC can never hope to average more than 6.5 or so... Those latter photographers are a tad closer to grasping Quality. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 04:35:34 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This is the essence of 'why' you made the photo though. You didn't make it so you could try out an exposure setting :) I don't have to like or care about the photo you post but I do like to know the reason someone chose to make a particular photo. This is where I'm learning these days. Thoughts like this often inspire someone to make a photo but they won't often tell you about it. |
So you're talking about getting to the root of preconceived photography more than serendipitous photography? By that I mean, you are suggesting that some images have a deeper message which the photographer is conveying through an ochestrated creation process vs. just going out and thinking something looked cool? And that in those cases, you have been learning...
Did I get that right?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 04:51:36 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Please...that wasn't an accurate quote of dsb_mac's post. The words used were not "a poor" but "an eccentric", which not only has an entirely different meaning, but IMO more accurately describes what is going on.
Why did you feel it necessary to change it? |
He didn't change it, dsb_mac did, about three hours after he originally posted "poor". It was an accurate quote at the time he quoted it.
Notice it says:
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 08:43:59.
at the end of his post.
Message edited by author 2004-12-16 16:51:56. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 04:53:19 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
So you're talking about getting to the root of preconceived photography more than serendipitous photography? By that I mean, you are suggesting that some images have a deeper message which the photographer is conveying through an ochestrated creation process vs. just going out and thinking something looked cool? And that in those cases, you have been learning...
Did I get that right? |
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Even in the most candid situations, the photographer snapped the shutter for a reason. It may not be a message that the photographer is trying to convey. It may be simply, as in your example, that the scene meant something to you.
If something just looks cool, that is a reason in itself. When that's the case, I like to know why you chose the composition you did. What is it about this object or scene that intrigued you?
I think that I may start another thread about this topic as well. I may use one of your photos in my first post :)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 05:00:27 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think that I may start another thread about this topic as well. I may use one of your photos in my first post :) |
By all means... This sounds like an interesting path to explore, and it's off the topic of this original thread.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 05:32:07 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by jemison:
Please...that wasn't an accurate quote of dsb_mac's post. The words used were not "a poor" but "an eccentric", which not only has an entirely different meaning, but IMO more accurately describes what is going on.
Why did you feel it necessary to change it? |
He didn't change it, dsb_mac did, about three hours after he originally posted "poor". It was an accurate quote at the time he quoted it.
Notice it says:
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 08:43:59.
at the end of his post. |
Thank you for the explanation, and my apologies. |
|
