Definition of 'architecture'... ?

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/02/2002 01:12:11 PM · #26

Hey Drew and Langdon, are we giving ya'll a hard time or what?

Shiiizzzam

Sony DSC-F707

04/02/2002 01:12:20 PM · #27

I agree with what you're saying and that's why some get low scores for sure. Everyone doesn't think alike...it's a good thing most do. I'm just saying maybe they had their reason. Doesn't mean I would give a high vote for some off the wall shot say of a parrot when the challenge is for communication. Sure the parrot may can talk...but that isn't what 99% of us see as communication. I was just trying to make a point.

David Ey

Nikon D80

04/02/2002 01:19:34 PM · #28

Who was it that said something to the effect------"Use your imagination,remember,architecture is not just buildings. It could be --------" Wasn't it the challenge moderators? Maybe not, I can't find the origional instructions.
Are you who complain worried about being beaten by these three or four shots? I think not. Grow up. Give them a one and go on to the next photo.

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/02/2002 01:30:10 PM · #29

I'm quite happy with the interpretations of architecture we've received -- I think more highly of the submissions that weren't of just buildings.

But a guy playing a guitar is not architecture in my opinion, no matter what the title says. Neither is the moon. (see Reuben's post on 'everything is created by God, so everything is architecture').

I don't really care one way or the other if they're removed from the challenge or just sit at the mercy of your voting -- but the easy answer to this is again: if you think a submission completely disregards the challenge criteria, recommend it for disqualification and/or give it a low vote.

Fair?

Reuben

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/02/2002 01:41:30 PM · #30

You're probably talking about me, in the post here.

I'm personally not going so far as to recommend the sculptures for disqualification. They come very close to fitting the challenge from my point of view, and so I know they must fit in the challenge for others. Besides, this isn't a flagrant foul, and I don't think it would be useful to DQ them.

I'm still deciding whether or not to recommend the other two. As far as I know, you can't take back your recommendation for disqualification, and so I'd rather not do it hastily.

Originally posted by David Ey:
Who was it that said something to the effect------"Use your imagination,remember,architecture is not just buildings. It could be --------" Wasn't it the challenge moderators? Maybe not, I can't find the origional instructions.
Are you who complain worried about being beaten by these three or four shots? I think not. Grow up. Give them a one and go on to the next photo.

vin rigby

Panasonic DMC-FZ30

04/02/2002 03:00:00 PM · #31

Don't see a problem with any of the submissions - your voting decides the issues and the dubious(to some)entries were few so not much time wasted in voting.

Vin.

Drew, just tried to post this with the 'Apply signature' box ticked and still will not post until box unticked.

04/02/2002 03:49:18 PM · #32

I cut the horse sculptures some slack because they located in a plaza, which is architecture. Not much, though. The Buddha (or whoever it is) is part of a wall and most definitely counts, in my opinion, since you can even see the individual stones! The moon and rock star? *bzzzzzt*

I'm happy to see that nobody's complaining about the coral, I'd have to drop some metaphorical plates on your metaphorical asses.

* This message has been edited by the author on 4/2/2002 4:21:34 PM.

langdon

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/02/2002 03:56:44 PM · #33

Originally posted by vin rigby:
Drew, just tried to post this with the 'Apply signature' box ticked and still will not post until box unticked.

Vin-- Problem solved, sorry for the inconvenience.

Mousie-- You might wanna edit your post, you posted mid-fix. :)

* This message has been edited by the author on 4/2/2002 3:57:21 PM.

04/02/2002 04:22:05 PM · #34

Do I win something? :)

vin rigby

Panasonic DMC-FZ30

04/02/2002 05:00:14 PM · #35

Thanks Langdon, it works Ok now.

04/02/2002 06:40:39 PM · #36

Originally posted by Mousie:

I'm happy to see that nobody's complaining about the coral, I'd have to drop some metaphorical plates on your metaphorical asses.
[/i]

Does that mean you submitted the coral?

04/02/2002 06:53:14 PM · #37

Nope, I didn't submit it. But I fight for what's right! Karate chop!

04/02/2002 09:14:02 PM · #38

Originally posted by shortredneck:
What's wrong with Arkansas? I'm not from there. I'm just curious.

Nothing wrong with Arkansas. I was referring to the Scopes trial, and have just remembered that it was Tennessee, not Arkansas. My apologies.

04/02/2002 09:17:01 PM · #39

Originally posted by Maverick:
I'd call that reasonable, btw I'm nowhere near Arkansas >= )
not that there is anything wrong with Arkansas,
you're leaning towards "he's a hick" i believe, trust me I'm not, nor am I that religious, just trying to offer an explanation for that entry
No. Not calling anyone a hick. Just referring (erroniously, as it turns out) to the classic test of evolution vs. creationism). No mudslinging intended.

so.....no more photos from you for 2 weeks!
j/

Actually, my cam's in the shop for a final warranty overhaul, so it looks like this crack monkey is stuck digging through the archives for the next couple of weeks. Easy to bet what you've already lost (not that I concede).

04/02/2002 09:19:20 PM · #40

Originally posted by Reuben:
By the way, there are lots of people who don't consider the kind of photography that's done here 'art'.
There are still many who don't consider any kind of photography art.

04/03/2002 01:56:54 AM · #41

mmmmm. crack monkey!

04/03/2002 05:24:17 AM · #42

Maybe there are many who don't consider photography art but does everyone here think it is? I for one think that any form of expression that touches something in a person is a form of art. Who could look at some of the most famous photos in Time or Life magazine and not be touched?

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/03/2002 06:54:45 AM · #43

hey who cares what some self-styled arbiter of 'what is art' all holed up in some ivory tower like a dried up mummy of doom says is art. we love it, we need it, we do it, and that's all that matters!!!

: D

Maverick

Nikon D200

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

04/03/2002 07:01:01 AM · #44

true dat

heritcon

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

04/03/2002 09:45:27 AM · #45

Originally posted by irae:
Originally posted by Reuben:
[i]By the way, there are lots of people who don't consider the kind of photography that's done here 'art'.
There are still many who don't consider any kind of photography art.
[/i]

There is an age old (well ok, as old as photgraphy, about 150 years or so) argument of photography as art -vs- technology. While I admit that there are elements of art in photography I come down on the technology side of the argument. True the photographer does limit the scene and set the composition but generally the artist is whoever or what ever is responsible for the subject. I can shoot a wonderful flower or a stunning sunrise but my artistic extent is framing the shot.

That does not diminish the photographer or take away from the quality of the work it is merely a symantic exercise that, like the darn tree in the forrest, will never be settled.

Bryan

04/03/2002 10:01:51 AM · #46

I just love starting these debates!

JJart

Fujifilm FinePix 1300

04/03/2002 10:08:06 AM · #47

I don't know if this will be helpful or make thing more muddled. There is a fomous quote that equates photography to music. It says the negative is the composition and the print is the preformance. Since this dcontest doesn't allow for much manipulation where does that leave us. If you look at some prints made by ,say , Ansel Adams and review how they were made (dodged, burned etc.), I don't see how you can not call it ART. We seem to be straying for the architecture question.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/03/2002 10:13:17 AM · #48

Originally posted by JJart:
I don't know if this will be helpful or make thing more muddled. There is a fomous quote that equates photography to music. It says the negative is the composition and the print is the preformance. Since this dcontest doesn't allow for much manipulation where does that leave us. If you look at some prints made by ,say , Ansel Adams and review how they were made (dodged, burned etc.), I don't see how you can not call it ART. We seem to be straying for the architecture question.

It's true (and it was a quote by Adams himself) that each of his pictures have had tons of tweaks/ adjustments made for each print.

In fact, if you look at some of the collections of his work they have
the same negative and multiple prints showing just how differently he
approached each 'performance' as he got older and changed in his art.

Some of his negatives had more than 50 adjustments made to the final exposure for the print. A lot of this is why I'd wish the rules here would allow pretty much any and all digital manipulation you wanted to do, as long as all the images you started with were photos you had taken yourself ie., no reusing other people's pictures, no clip art etc.

People can then decide themselves what is a good photograph and what has been trashed by using one of the stock crappy filters that photoshop provides for 'art' effects.

There is probably a happy medium in between the two, but I think there a
whole lot more to processing a 'digital negative' than just cropping it,
hitting 'auto contrast', resizing and some sharpening. Sure you should
take the best initial shot that you can, but it then has to be developed
in something like photoshop to give you your final 'print'

My Gallery

* This message has been edited by the author on 4/3/2002 1:38:08 PM.

04/03/2002 10:35:18 AM · #49

I submit at another site where "anything goes", and the difference in the images is very apparent. I've been learning Photoshop for about two years (still a toddler), and I love the results I'm able to get. Having an outlet for that kind of work, though, I'd rather see this place stay a "global changes only" site (and I imagine it will). It does give people who are just starting out a more level playing field, and makes a nice change of pace for me.