| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2005 02:07:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BeingClever:
Is this sorta like a negative space challenge? |
Yes, but more inclusive. That is, a negative space shot would certainly fit the subject, but so will other images.
Both of the previous Negative Space challenges (I & II) have many images that can give inspiration. While other images meet the discription just fine (and several of those shared here fall into this catagory) I fear having any object in the scene (city scape, sunset, bridge, wall of building) will likely fall short in the voting unless the small subject is glaringly obvious.
thefotog submitted an image for the Pet Portrait challenge that meets the discription for this challenge head on, but fell short in voting. This is the image:
and is discussed in this thread (link). Not meaning to pick on the photographer at all, but I believe the thread gives some insight to how the voters are likely to react.
I am also a bit disappointed that a photograph in the minimalistic style (impersonal abstract presentation of an object reduced to basic elements) has been overlooked by the challenge discription. I don't personally care for the whole abstract art field, but it is interesting to see what can be accomplished without photoshop filters and such in the style challenges.
David
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 02:32:44 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by cbonsall:
following the recent debate over a recent image, what was the decision on large uneven borders?
Are we allowed to take a pic of a small object on a pure white backgorund, and then "create" a 640x480" image by maiking a large border to the image thus making it the desired size.?? |
I wouldn't do it! :-P
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 02:39:38 PM · #28 |
  
2 from my collection.
-danny
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 14:44:57. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 02:53:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
.. snip..
I am also a bit disappointed that a photograph in the minimalistic style (impersonal abstract presentation of an object reduced to basic elements) has been overlooked by the challenge discription. I don't personally care for the whole abstract art field, but it is interesting to see what can be accomplished without photoshop filters and such in the style challenges.
David |
Me too. Read this definition:
A minimalist painting, for example, will typically use a limited number of colors, and have a simple geometric design. Minimalist sculpture on the other hand is greatly focused on the materials (see David Smith and Donald Judd). While many believe minimalism to be a movement specific to geometric representations, it extends far outside this constraint.
I think there's room for some great photographic work within that definition (few colors and or simple geometry). So why does the subject have to be "small" to be minimalist per the challenge definition:
Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space.
I read this to mean that this challenge definition is basically another negative space challenge (at least if you want to get a decent score)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 03:36:13 PM · #30 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 03:43:59 PM · #31 |
| this is within this topic but not really....just dropped my diamond ring through the flooring of my deck trying to work on minimalism.....anyone have any ideas on that????? |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 03:45:08 PM · #32 |
I agree. I don't see it as limited to "negative space" at all. I see the challenge as being more geared towards being able to "pull" a subject out of a complex background by means other than filling the frame with it. Like Brad's "Beach Bum", a perfect example for this challenge, Or crabby's shot of the centered chair, which I think is excellent indeed.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 03:47:09 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by justinbrook:
I took this a few days ago. I think this is the kind of thing they are looking for. Comments welcome.
 |
Minimalism is a good concept.
Does it work all the time? NO
Does it work most of the time? NO.
Does it work under specialized conditions? YES
Use it sparingly. :)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:06:47 PM · #34 |
I read this challenge to mean:
"Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space."
My favourite of all the examples posted so far is BradP's by far:
I read "Minimalism" as the title of the challenge, a title which fits snugly on the front Web page as a link to the actual description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The entire description itself would be much too long & cumbersome to fit on the front page, thus, I believe the wise strategy of the Webmaster was to come up with a short title, which could be linked via the miracle of HTML to the actual description of the challenge. To me, this description means "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The title may as well be "Challenge #567a," which could be skillfully linked to the masterfully simple description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space."
It's my sincere belief that if this were, in actuality, a Negative Space challenge, the actual words "negative space", in part or entirety, perhaps all lower case, upper case, or maybe even mixed case, would be included somewhere within the description. Might there be a large portion of negative space in an image where the subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space? Absolutely!
So what am I to do? Hopefully I will have the time & opportunity to think of and/or find a scene with which I can create an image where my subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space. In my dreams it can be something as interesting, attractive, and entertaining as BradP's (I mean that in a non-gay way, though there's nothing wrong with being gay, I have no attraction to the subject's bum other than its being a strong point of the image while only occupying a small portion of the image space).
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:23:43 PM · #35 |
 i wish i couldve used this photo...i think it wouldve been a good one
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:42:29 PM · #36 |
I think this is an inherent problem with the way challenges are described.
More often than not, the challenge description is a sentense which gives very little insight on "acceptable" interpretations. On the opposite spectrum is the recent the Rubber Ducky challenge which quite specific yet yielded many good photos.
I woould be interested in finding out if there would be any kind of an improvement if the challenge idea was expanded upon with some other interpretations in the challenge description. Maybe even have a sample or two.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 04:52:55 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by psychephylax:
I think this is an inherent problem with the way challenges are described.
More often than not, the challenge description is a sentense which gives very little insight on "acceptable" interpretations. On the opposite spectrum is the recent the Rubber Ducky challenge which quite specific yet yielded many good photos.
I woould be interested in finding out if there would be any kind of an improvement if the challenge idea was expanded upon with some other interpretations in the challenge description. Maybe even have a sample or two. |
No offense to anybody, but I'm so frustrated. I just don't understand how it's possible that anybody is confused by these challenge descriptions... "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." Samples would utterly defeat the purpose, though there are already a bunch of nice ones people have posted in this thread. I think my head is going to explode from frustration pretty soon!
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 05:39:29 PM · #38 |
Each of these shots has a minimalist aspect. Yet, to me, only one of could be described as a minimalist image:
   
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 05:46:22 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by psychephylax:
I think this is an inherent problem with the way challenges are described. |
No offense to anybody, but I'm so frustrated. I just don't understand how it's possible that anybody is confused by these challenge descriptions... |
Maybe because the description actually describes something other than minimalism?
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 05:48:45 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by psychephylax:
I think this is an inherent problem with the way challenges are described. |
No offense to anybody, but I'm so frustrated. I just don't understand how it's possible that anybody is confused by these challenge descriptions... |
Maybe because the description actually describes something other than minimalism? |
I read "Minimalism" as the title of the challenge, a title which fits snugly on the front Web page as a link to the actual description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The entire description itself would be much too long & cumbersome to fit on the front page, thus, I believe the wise strategy of the Webmaster was to come up with a short title, which could be linked via the miracle of HTML to the actual description of the challenge. To me, this description means "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The title may as well be "Challenge #567a," which could be skillfully linked to the masterfully simple description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 05:52:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by psychephylax:
I think this is an inherent problem with the way challenges are described. |
No offense to anybody, but I'm so frustrated. I just don't understand how it's possible that anybody is confused by these challenge descriptions... |
Maybe because the description actually describes something other than minimalism? |
I read "Minimalism" as the title of the challenge, a title which fits snugly on the front Web page as a link to the actual description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The entire description itself would be much too long & cumbersome to fit on the front page, thus, I believe the wise strategy of the Webmaster was to come up with a short title, which could be linked via the miracle of HTML to the actual description of the challenge. To me, this description means "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The title may as well be "Challenge #567a," which could be skillfully linked to the masterfully simple description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." |
I totally agree, just pointing out one aspect which could easily confuse people. I feel sorry for any poor soul who reads the title, goes out shooting for a day because they know exactly what minimalism is, and then ...
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 05:55:40 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by psychephylax:
I think this is an inherent problem with the way challenges are described. |
No offense to anybody, but I'm so frustrated. I just don't understand how it's possible that anybody is confused by these challenge descriptions... |
Maybe because the description actually describes something other than minimalism? |
I read "Minimalism" as the title of the challenge, a title which fits snugly on the front Web page as a link to the actual description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The entire description itself would be much too long & cumbersome to fit on the front page, thus, I believe the wise strategy of the Webmaster was to come up with a short title, which could be linked via the miracle of HTML to the actual description of the challenge. To me, this description means "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." The title may as well be "Challenge #567a," which could be skillfully linked to the masterfully simple description, "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." |
I totally agree, just pointing out one aspect which could easily confuse people. I feel sorry for any poor soul who reads the title, goes out shooting for a day because they know exactly what minimalism is, and then ... |
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 05:58:12 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by bod:
I feel sorry for any poor soul who reads the title, goes out shooting for a day because they know exactly what minimalism is, and then ... |
|
... gets trapped in a photobooth with Slippy, that was it ; )
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 06:00:00 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by bod:
I feel sorry for any poor soul who reads the title, goes out shooting for a day because they know exactly what minimalism is, and then ... |
|
... gets trapped in a photobooth with Slippy, that was it ; ) |
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:22:55 PM · #45 |
From my folio.... basically considered duds or just low scoring pictures but I consider these having minimalist attributes:
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:28:26 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Here are a few:
 - probably a bit too 'full' |
This is my biggest concern with this challenge. IMO this image would "meet the criteria" and I absolutely know that many will mark something similar down because "it takes up to much space."
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 19:30:12.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:46:54 PM · #47 |
Would  do? |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:54:19 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
From my folio.... basically considered duds or just low scoring pictures but I consider these having minimalist attributes:
|
I think a lot of your very nice samples and would do well if the challenge were truly minimalist, but would be voted down here, becase the subject takes up too much of the frame. That's my point exactly!
And it's too bad, because I would look forward to seeing more photos like this. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 07:59:16 PM · #49 |
now this is one of my favorite challenges!!!
RED |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:00:45 PM · #50 |
Undie (edit: add fotoshoot) has(have) shown some lovely images that I would consider to be "Minimalist", but not a one of them meets the challenge as it is described. The title is not the challenge, it's just a one-word placeholder. It may be well- or ill-chosen, but it doesn't really matter because it is not the challenge.
This is the challenge: Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space.
Here's what's debatable; how much power must something demonstrate to be considered "the strong point" of the image? How small of a space can be construed as as being "a very small portion" of the image space? Should it be measured in terms of "number of actual pixels occupied by the subject", or should it be measured in terms of "amount of real estate the subject is superimposed upon"? In other words, if we draw a BOX around the subject that's tangent upon all its extremities, and if that box occupies more than a very small portion of the image space, is the image considered to be within the spirit of the challenge if most of the box itself is filled with "not-subject" matter?
I know this is sounding ridiculous, it's meant to sound ridiculous. Some extremely subjective responses to meeting-the-challenge can be expected from the voters in this one. And from the photographers of course. For example, I might make a very tight, very close image that's entirely filled with a human face, with only one eye showing and that eye being the only thing in precise focus (extremely shallow DOF), and I might consider the EYE to be the "subject" of the photo, but the voters might consider the "subject" to be the face, and I'd be on the way to sub-5 average country even if it was a stunningly good photograph, most likely.
Nevertheless, to base your entry on your own personal definition of "minimalism" just because that's the TITLE of the challenge is just asking for trouble, vote-wise...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-04-20 20:01:38.
|
|
i wish i couldve used this photo...i think it wouldve been a good one
