For the Record - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/10/2005 01:29:04 AM · #1

Apparently my entry in "Affluence" was widely perceived as being off-topic, something that was shoehorned in. For what it is worth, it was an entirely made-for-the-challenge image. I expected we'd see a LOT of expensive crap, cars and jewels and booze and such (and we did), and I wanted to do something different.

So I thought about what "material" means, and what "wealth" really is. I decided there is NOTHING more material than our bodies, and no wealth more easily squandered nor more irrecoverable than our youth; so I went with it.

Thanks, as usual, to all commenters.

Robt.

totaldis

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/10/2005 01:30:23 AM · #2

how do you manage to get so many comments with such a low score!?

mesmeraj

08/10/2005 01:31:10 AM · #3

for the record - i gave you a 7, but were living in a material world...

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 01:31:52.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/10/2005 01:33:24 AM · #4

Originally posted by bear_music:

Congrats, you got one of the seven 10's from me, easy for me to see the wealth of life, the most precious thing anyone has ever received.

Xilebo

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

08/10/2005 01:39:07 AM · #5

Originally posted by bear_music:

You got one of my few 10's in the challenge and you can share my box, that I shall try to remain inside for at least some time ;)

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 01:39:34.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/10/2005 01:39:49 AM · #6

I too received the same comments, saying mine was so far off topic. I even had it requested for verification. Why, I don't know....! So I know where you are coming from Robert. I also received lots of comments, with a low score. Oh well....that'll teach me for being outside the square....or...out of the norm.

Judi

08/10/2005 01:44:39 AM · #7

Originally posted by totaldis:

how do you manage to get so many comments with such a low score!?

Because I take good pictures that piss people off in the challenge context; I seem to have a talent for that. It made perfect sense to me when I shot it, but then so did my infamous self-portrait-as-raindrop (grin). So people are saying "Man I love this shot, but I am FORCED to score it low because.... (fill in the blank)".

As I say, I seem to have a talent for this... Got 177th in the speed challenge just completed, LOL.

Robt.

ergo

08/10/2005 01:52:02 AM · #8

by Les Goodman. Sweet shot of a different kind of affluence, at the same time that yes, it speaks of some material wealth. Under 5???

I reckon some voters actually take pleasure in knocking down a good image because it "doesn't meet the challenge." I'm getting sick and tired of it, and not necessarily because this happens to me (I don't qualify as I take crap images).

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/10/2005 02:08:07 AM · #9

Originally posted by Judi:

There are many parts of the world, including Australia (where you're from) where water is a precious commodity and the most tangible form of wealth is access to unlimited water. Unfortunately,k the voters are thinking backwards, IMO.

Here's how I go about it; when I vote on a challenge I do NOT look at an image and say, "does it meet my concept of the challenge?" Instead, I try to open my mind and see the image from other points of view, if it appears to be outside the topic. In this case, I was immediately able to make the connection of water=wealth.

Ditto with Les Goodman's shot of the 3 girls, which speaks to me of upward mobility and growing affluence very directly.

To be honest, I got really bored voting this challenge, with wave after wave of shots of the same damned thing and very little evidence that more than a handful of people bothered to really EXPLORE the concept of affluence & wealth and make a personal statement about it. But I'm funny that way; I like to take pictures that MEAN something for challenges like this one, and I like it when others do that too.

But I'm a realist; I'm well aware that there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that images like ours, that use the topic as a starting point and move into obscure territory, will actually succeed in garnering significantly high scores, and frankly that's not my goal, or I'd shoot something "normal". I mean, Cape Cod is affluence central, it's LOADED with mansions and yachts and such, if I wanted to take advantage of them...

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 02:09:19.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/10/2005 02:11:32 AM · #10

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Judi:
I too received the same comments, saying mine was so far off topic. I even had it requested for verification. Why, I don't know....! So I know where you are coming from Robert. I also received lots of comments, with a low score. Oh well....that'll teach me for being outside the square....or...out of the norm.

Judi

There are many parts of the world, including Australia (where you're from) where water is a precious commodity and the most tangible form of wealth is access to unlimited water. Unfortunately,k the voters are thinking backwards, IMO.

Here's how I go about it; when I vote on a challenge I do NOT look at an image and say, "does it meet my concept of the challenge?" Instead, I try to open my mind and see the image from other points of view, if it appears to be outside the topic. In this case, I was immediately able to make the connection of water=wealth.

Ditto with Les Goodman's shot of the 3 girls, which speaks to me of upward mobility and growing affluence very directly.

To be honest, I got really bored voting this challenge, with wave after wave of shots of the same damned thing and very little evidence that more than a handful of people bothetred to really EXPLORE the concept of affluence & wealth and make a personal statement about it. But I'm funny that way; I like to take pictures that MEAN something for challenges like this one, and I like it one others do that too.

But I'm a realist; I'm well aware that there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that images like ours, that use the topic as a starting point and move into obscure territory, will actually succeed in garnering significantly high scores, and frankly that's not my goal, or I'd shoot something "normal". I mean, Cape Cod is affluence central, it's LOADED with mansions and yachts and such, if I wanted to take advantage of them...

Robt.

Just look at the current contest time capsule, same thing. Many ar definately out of the box but some are well within but just everyday things. DPC has chased many great people away because of the individual ideas. My goodness lokk at a picasso ... in reality a piece of junk when painted now worth a fortune.

Fibre Optix

08/10/2005 02:17:58 AM · #11

Okay Dude and to the rest of you who feel the same way.

There is nothing wrong with your image, infact it's a good image. It does'nt fit the challenge.

Challenge: Affluence
Rules: Basic Editing (Updated 1/5/05)
Details: The opposite of the poverty challenge. Knock us out with your representation of material wealth.

That's the reason why your image did not do as well as you planned.
Let me put it this way. If you were the editior of a new magazine called "Affluence", a mag about material wealth. Would you put this pict on the cover or one of the top 10.

So I thought about what "material" means, and what "wealth" really is. I decided there is NOTHING more material than our bodies, and no wealth more easily squandered nor more irrecoverable than our youth; so I went with it.

Huh? Material Wealth...... ya your definition of material wealth is what pops in to most people's mind. Ya, not mansions, sport cars and diamonds..... or any other creative take on WEALTH, no.... what you said. OH and people who saw your image when voting are suppose to think.....there is NOTHING more material than our bodies, and no wealth more easily squandered nor more irrecoverable than our youth. ? And on top of it your title indicates something completely different.......mmmmm ya I can't see how this photo did not meet your expectations on how well it should have done.

Please imaging John Stewart reading the above paragraph... without the grammar and spelling mistakes.

Every challenge, there has to be someone who needs a hug after their Philosophical interpertation of a challenge did'nt do so well. Which one would hope that person would just accept it and move on. But noooooo, they have to start a thread accusing other people in the community of being so stupid and not seeing what they meant. Not to mention calling other people's photos (who met the challenge) crap.

Pffft gimmie a break. Ya ya ya it's a material world booo hooo. Go hug a tree.

Good luck in future challenges.

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 02:20:35.

08/10/2005 02:20:39 AM · #12

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Nothing wrong with everyday things lovingly shot in a straightforward manner. I got a whoel series of those going in my challenge entries; I call them my "banal objects series" and i enjoy making them. The thing of it is, some challenges are like metaphorical, or potentially so, and others are like reportage, object-oriented in concept. "Affluence" is an intangible concept, it's open to interpretation in a broad way. "Time Capsule", especially with the title constraint, seems to be just begging for literal renditions of everyday things that speak of the era of their creation.

Shrug... That's my take on it anyway; I didn't vote my take on others, though, but tried to take them on their own terms.

Robt.

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

08/10/2005 02:23:23 AM · #13

Originally posted by Fibre Optix:

Every challenge, there has to be someone who needs a hug after their Philosophical interpertation of a challenge did'nt do so well. Which one would hope that person would just accept it and move on. But noooooo, they have to start a thread accusing other people in the community of being so stupid and not seeing what they meant. Not to mention calling other people's photos (who met the challenge) crap.

Pffft gimmie a break. Ya ya ya it's a material world booo hooo. Go hug a tree.

Good luck in future challenges.

You're way out of line here. I didn't ask for sympathy, I didn't accuse others of being stupid, I never even expected the damned thing to do well because I knew perfectly well it was not going to meet the voters' expectations. I only posted this to answer the many people who asked me "How does this meet the challenge?"

Try to tone down the snide, wouldya?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 02:25:21.

truth4848

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/10/2005 02:24:11 AM · #14

It doesnt meet the challenge.
If you are shooting for an editor and this is what you have submitted, I'm sorry, you'll probably be fired very soon. Being "creative" and "out of the box" could only go so far sometimes.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/10/2005 02:28:52 AM · #15

Originally posted by truth4848:

Try reading my post of 2:08 AM. Dude, I'm NOT shooting for an editor, I'm shooting for me. I spent my working life shooting for other people and I made a lot of money doing it because I could give them what they wanted & expected. Now I shoot these challenges for ME because I can explore how I relate to & feel about things. Why all this crap thrown at me? I haven't once in this thread criticized people for voting they way they do.

Sheesh.

Robt.

Addendum: Note the challenge â�� "The opposite of the poverty challenge. Knock us out with your representation of material wealth."

That's what I did; showed MY idea of material wealth. Not YOUR idea, not the collective idea, MY idea. Capisce?

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 02:31:10.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

08/10/2005 02:31:42 AM · #16

WOW !!!! You people take this stuff to seriously. I thought photography itself and the challenges were supposed to be fun.

08/10/2005 02:33:25 AM · #17

So did I, and this thread started out fun too :-) I'm being reamed for discussing why I think & shoot the way I do, and that ain't much fun.

R.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

08/10/2005 02:34:11 AM · #18

<---------- just watching :)

08/10/2005 02:36:25 AM · #19

<------ Just leaving....

By the way, re-reading the first diatribe, let me say I never called the other photos "crap"; I said we'd see a lot of expensive crap. There's a difference. There were a LOT of really nice photos of expensive crap :-)

R.

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 02:39:03.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/10/2005 02:37:04 AM · #20

night bear :) i guess it just got a little too out of hand :(

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/10/2005 02:44:12 AM · #21

It seems any shot submitted can be ripped for either
1. Failing to meet the challenge, or
2. Being an obvious solution, and therefore being like many others that were submitted.
Of couse at the end of the day you have a lovely shot of someone who you might care about, and my shot of a hood ornament will probably never be looked at by me again.

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

08/10/2005 02:48:04 AM · #22

Fibre Optix, your post was really out of line IMO. Bear was not criticizing the voters for being 'narrow-minded,' he was simply explaining HIS interpretation of the challenge for those interested. It's quite admirable that he shoots for himself, rather than for DPC. He knew that he probably wouldn't win a ribbon, but he was fine with that, and that's not why he's here on DPC. Am I correct, bear?

08/10/2005 02:52:51 AM · #23

Correct. I'm here for the friendly forums and the chance to work with people on photographic issues, and to have FUN with the challenges.

R.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

08/10/2005 02:53:33 AM · #24

i'm glad to know i'm not the only one shooting for "myself" ;)

edit: welcome back bear :)

Message edited by author 2005-08-10 02:54:15.