| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2005 08:12:55 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by rmtm333:
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." |
as would probably this
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:21:50 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
My wife told me I should do a nude self-portrait for minimalism. :-( |
Has your wife and mine been talking? LOL
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:22:13 PM · #53 |
Skip's picture would fit the challenge beautifully as far as I'm concerned; the "subject" is the kids and they take up very little of the image space in and of themselves.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:34:43 PM · #54 |
Would this be considered minimalist and meet the challenge?
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:35:46 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Would this be considered minimalist and meet the challenge?
|
My GOD yes. Minimalist by BOTH definitons, wonderful picture.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:46:08 PM · #56 |
| Wow,,I think everyone so far has done some grat work,,,,I love the ideas,,,now only if I can be as good,,,smile |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:57:34 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
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. |
Bear, thank you!
:-D |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 08:58:42 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Would this be considered minimalist and meet the challenge?
|
Holy smokes, awesome photo! Would be perfect, IMO. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:01:47 PM · #59 |
| well what if the picture was of something like for example a g-string,,something to symbolise miminalism?? It can be taken a few different ways,,I think it will be interesting to see,,I know I am deffintely already thing. |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:34:33 PM · #60 |
Too Much?
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:35:35 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by nfessel:
Would this be considered minimalist and meet the challenge?
|
Holy smokes, awesome photo! Would be perfect, IMO. |
Yoink.......another FAV.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:40:11 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Damian:
Too Much?
|
Probably borderline. The boat and the water are becoming "as one"... I suspect if the boat were snugger into the lower elft corner it would float better in this challenge.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:40:53 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by jensmustang:
well what if the picture was of something like for example a g-string,,something to symbolise miminalism?? It can be taken a few different ways,,I think it will be interesting to see,,I know I am deffintely already thing. |
Well, you're totally off-base, and apparently haven't read a word of this thread. But let it be known here & now, any g-string photos in this challenge will get a 10 from me if worn by an appropriate model.
;-) |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:41:39 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
My wife told me I should do a nude self-portrait for minimalism. :-( |
ROFL!!!! That is so wrong! LOL |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:46:02 PM · #65 |
| LOL,,,,I just may have to try that one strikeslip,,,,Lmao |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:47:29 PM · #66 |
| Again I will say there are some excellent examples of miminalism and I cant wait to experiment and see what I can come up with,,, |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:48:20 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jensmustang:
LOL,,,,I just may have to try that one strikeslip,,,,Lmao |
You go girl!
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 09:53:01 PM · #68 |
| LOL,,,smiling hmmmm what an idea!! |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 10:21:51 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
But let it be known here & now, any g-string photos in this challenge will get a 10 from me if worn by an appropriate model. |
So... I can count on your vote?
 |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 10:28:23 PM · #70 |
| LOL what can I say,,I love it kpriest,,,, |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 07:05:21 AM · #71 |
Now's here an image I wish I'd taken... It's gone straight to fav's though.
Originally posted by nfessel:
Would this be considered minimalist and meet the challenge?
|
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 08:04:10 AM · #72 |
in others words its almost a free study |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 08:11:06 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
But let it be known here & now, any g-string photos in this challenge will get a 10 from me if worn by an appropriate model. |
So... I can count on your vote?
|
Well, that model doesn't quite do it for me, but I'd give it a 10 if I knew it was yours.
:-P |
|
|
|
04/21/2005 08:24:41 AM · #74 |
Frankly I think the challenge's title is at odds with the given description of the challenge. If you were to take the challenge at its face value and took the minamalist approuch you wouldn't be isolating your subect in a large field of meaningless space but rather you would be reducing your subject to it's lowest common denominator, This is "Less is More".
An example would be, as a photographer you want to photograph a tree that has a special meaning to you. The question would be how do you convey what the tree means to you in a photograph...the problem is a photograph of a tree in some ways can look like all photographs of trees, how do you make this tree that you love become special to the person who looks at your photograph of this tree. The minamalist would reduce the subject to the smallist meaningful part of the tree that the artist can identify with and present this view as a gift to the viewer of his image. This "reduced" part could be geometric, color, texture etc....what ever the artist feels that comunicates what makes the tree special.
The problem for the artist is that minamlism requires real involvement with your subject. For the artist who is a photographer this involvement needs to be more than the few seconds it takes to shot off a role of film or to fill a memory card. A complete understanding of the subject and all that it is connected with and a spirtual connection with the subject helps..........
Barry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2005 10:18:30 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Barry:
Frankly I think the challenge's title is at odds with the given description of the challenge. If you were to take the challenge at its face value and took the minamalist approuch you wouldn't be isolating your subect in a large field of meaningless space but rather you would be reducing your subject to it's lowest common denominator, This is "Less is More".... |
Once again, taking BradP's excellent photo I quoted further up the thread, as an example; the subject isn't set in a large area of meaningless space. The subject stands alone in an attractive, interesting environment, which sets itelf to the background nicely by its 'monotony', or 'predictability'.
Nice example of Minimalism. I can see how it must have been tough to come up with a title for this challenge. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/06/2025 02:28:04 AM EDT.
