| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2006 01:57:58 AM · #26 |
Descriptions mean nothing. They could tell you to take a picture of a rose bush and some one would argue the definition of bush and then submit a oak tree. They shouldn't even be called challenges. More like "interpretations or "irrational anal-ysis."
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 01:59:49 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Descriptions mean nothing. They could tell you to take a picture of a rose bush and some one would argue the definition of bush and then submit a oak tree. They shouldn't even be called challenges. More like "interpretations or "irrational anal-ysis." |
 |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:01:41 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The word offset, as used in this description has nothing to do with an asymetrical subject. It simply states to use color to offset your subject as in separating or as in standing out from the rest. The description here has nothing to do with placement. |
Agreed and that's why I'm having the difficulty with some. I've studied and will review more tomorrow. There are some kick A shots, but I don't see the subject offset by color, but amidst it as another element, which actually makes many subjects???? |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:06:04 AM · #29 |
threads like this make my face wrinkle and my hair fall out
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:09:02 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The word offset, as used in this description has nothing to do with an asymetrical subject. It simply states to use color to offset your subject as in separating or as in standing out from the rest. The description here has nothing to do with placement. |
Agreed and that's why I'm having the difficulty with some. I've studied and will review more tomorrow. There are some kick A shots, but I don't see the subject offset by color, but amidst it as another element, which actually makes many subjects???? |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, subject matter is always a debatable point. Example, you hold a hose and instead of water it lets out, say wine. The hose can be considered a subject, but the the colorful wine trumps because it is not expected. The important thing is that the main subject may be subdued and its counterpart colorful. Another way to interpret all this is by looking at an image and see if anything in it jumps out at you to hold your attention or win it from the rest of the image. Semantics, semantics. lol |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:09:36 AM · #31 |
Doug - shall we get you Rogaine and some face cream? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Does it offend you to discuss things such as this? |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:38:23 AM · #32 |
| My interpretation is that the colour in the image is what gives it the impact, I don't believe there has to be a particular part of the image that stands out because of its colour. I think some people are thinking far too deep into this. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:36:32 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Mr Tee:
I think some people are thinking far too deep into this. |
Or far too shallow?
Originally posted by digitalknight:
threads like this make my face wrinkle and my hair fall out |
I believe they happen for a pretty good reason. People are confused in their voting and are looking for clarification. Don't you find that many times you open a challenge for voting and see stuff that is totally unexpected. It doesn't make sense, you don't know how to vote it ... so you come here and ask the question or join the thread.
Works for me.
Brett
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 07:16:46 AM · #34 |
| My shot is doing fairly bad...well it almost has an exact 5 score. I kind of expected this though. I had a hard time choosing a photo last night and didn't get it submitted untill 11:30. The main dilema I was having was that all the shots were colorful but did not particularly have a single object that the color enhaced. Granted I think some of the other shots would have done better than what I have up there now because they were more pretty (but they were all somewhat uninspired and average creativly). The idea I originally had would probably have been a high ranker because it was far more creative but I ran out of time on getting the main prop (the actual colorful item) done. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:00:21 AM · #35 |
Catching up on some thread reading and I have to say I agree with ursula and graphicfunk on the meaning/definition of "offset" for this challenge.
My take is the subject should clearly identifiable, and the use of color in the main subject (or the subjects color brilliance) makes it stand out or be "offset" from the rest of the image.
Of course, threads like this aren't complete without the proverbial dictionary definition. ;^)
offset
1. An agent, or element, or a thing that balances, counteracts, or compensates for something else.
2. One thing set off or developed from something else.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The word offset, as used in this description has nothing to do with an asymetrical subject. It simply states to use color to offset your subject as in separating or as in standing out from the rest. The description here has nothing to do with placement. |
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:11:35 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Descriptions mean nothing. They could tell you to take a picture of a rose bush and some one would argue the definition of bush and then submit a oak tree. They shouldn't even be called challenges. More like "interpretations or "irrational anal-ysis." |
LOL...this made me laugh. I totally agree.
We are all individuals and are all striving to meet the challenge at hand to the best of our ability in order to do well in the challenge. Hence, every word in the description is scrutinized. However, with different interpretations as individuals, the challenges usually end up a mess of confusion. Again, I agree with no descriptions and just titles. LOL...Then there is no argument as to what does or doesn't fit.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:18:48 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
threads like this make my face wrinkle and my hair fall out |
You must look like a giant raisin by now. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:18:58 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The word offset, as used in this description has nothing to do with an asymetrical subject. It simply states to use color to offset your subject as in separating or as in standing out from the rest. The description here has nothing to do with placement. |
Ok, so lets say it has nothing to do with placement. However, when one encompasses an entire photo with color, then just what is standing out from the rest? The rest of what? A plain background? No background?
To me, in order to have a subject, the main subject, you have to take a shot of that subject. Then, within that subject there needs to be a very colorful impactual "other" subject which draws the focus to IT more than the original subject you had in mind. That to me is what this challenge is about. Complicated and not easy in a sense.
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:20:23 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... Hence, every word in the description is scrutinized. However, with different interpretations as individuals, the challenges usually end up a mess of confusion. Again, I agree with no descriptions and just titles. LOL...Then there is no argument as to what does or doesn't fit. |
Recently completed challenge 'Mother' didn't have a description and the entries consisted of a wide range of interpretations: Mother (traditional Mom type), Grandmother, Mother Mary (religious), Mother Nature, etc...
If you read thru some comments on the non-traditional (Mom type) entries, the whispers of DNMC still show up. ;^)
edit to add ", etc..." for the animal and misc entries.
Message edited by author 2006-01-09 09:21:29.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:24:04 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... To me, in order to have a subject, the main subject, you have to take a shot of that subject. Then, within that subject there needs to be a very colorful impactual "other" subject which draws the focus to IT more than the original subject you had in mind. That to me is what this challenge is about. Complicated and not easy in a sense. |
No, no, no...you're right - that's WAY too complicated. This challenge isn't really difficult at all - quite simple really and one of the more enjoyable ones we've had.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:33:32 AM · #41 |
I agree 100% with you glad2badad. Some peoiple ahave ever analizzed thsi to death and instead of enjoying have decided that they need to criticize some very nice work
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... To me, in order to have a subject, the main subject, you have to take a shot of that subject. Then, within that subject there needs to be a very colorful impactual "other" subject which draws the focus to IT more than the original subject you had in mind. That to me is what this challenge is about. Complicated and not easy in a sense. |
No, no, no...you're right - that's WAY too complicated. This challenge isn't really difficult at all - quite simple really and one of the more enjoyable ones we've had. |
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:33:36 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... Hence, every word in the description is scrutinized. However, with different interpretations as individuals, the challenges usually end up a mess of confusion. Again, I agree with no descriptions and just titles. LOL...Then there is no argument as to what does or doesn't fit. |
Recently completed challenge 'Mother' didn't have a description and the entries consisted of a wide range of interpretations: Mother (traditional Mom type), Grandmother, Mother Mary (religious), Mother Nature, etc...
If you read thru some comments on the non-traditional (Mom type) entries, the whispers of DNMC still show up. ;^)
edit to add ", etc..." for the animal and misc entries. |
Well, that just comes from personal preference to what "mother" means to some people and not from the actual challenge description. There will always be those, but at least no one really had cause TO argue. Some will always find the reason to I'm afraid.
But, as an example for this challenge, and one that isn't used, here is what I interpretted this challenge "description" to mean:
Let's say you are at a wedding. You are focusing in on the bride. There she is. All dressed in white, long veil, flowing dress, against let's say a background of solid green bushes. Ok, there is your "subject". Now, off to the right, left, front, wherever, comes walking up a passer by dressed in the brightest purples, blues, reds, etc, and just wants to come over to congratulate the bride. So obviously the "subject" of the photo, as at all weddings, is usually the bride. An obvious main subject for your photo. BUT that bride is offset in the photo by the very colorfully dressed passer by walking over and into your shot. That to me is "offseting the subject matter with color". The focus is then drawn TO the neighbor, and not the subject of the bride.
Another example is your main shot being that of angel dolls all dressed in white. There are all in a row and looking gorgeous. You make it your subject matter by focusing on the row of angels, BUT, again, off to the side you see a little girl with hand outstretching to the dolls as she wants one. The little girl is dressed a red velvet dress, and has a colorful draping ribbon in her hair draping down. You now have your subject, the angel dolls, offset by the approaching little girl dressed colorfully. This is my interpretation of this challenge.
In some cases, for example, what I am seeing is the bride and the angels all dressed colorfully along with the passer by and the little girl, making nothing really the main subject matter or offseting that subject matter with color. EVERYTHING is color. This is where I believe some entries went wrong.
Now, had the title just been burst of color with no description, I would say everything fits. But descriptions are there for a reason, and in this case, if everything was supposed to be colorful, I don't think a description was necessary.
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:34:59 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
To me, in order to have a subject, the main subject, you have to take a shot of that subject. Then, within that subject there needs to be a very colorful impactual "other" subject which draws the focus to IT more than the original subject you had in mind. That to me is what this challenge is about. Complicated and not easy in a sense.
Rose |
So we need to have 2 subjects? My Subject, which there is only one, of takes up most of the picture and yet you can see the background. It stands out from the backrgound quite dramaticaly and yet by your interpratation it wouldnt meet the challenge. And yes, Im getting hammered out there... |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:35:03 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Di:
Some peoiple ahave ever analizzed thsi to death... |
OK DI, hand over your keyboard. Friends don't let friends drink and type. ;-P |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:37:47 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Di:
I agree 100% with you glad2badad. Some peoiple ahave ever analizzed thsi to death and instead of enjoying have decided that they need to criticize some very nice work
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... To me, in order to have a subject, the main subject, you have to take a shot of that subject. Then, within that subject there needs to be a very colorful impactual "other" subject which draws the focus to IT more than the original subject you had in mind. That to me is what this challenge is about. Complicated and not easy in a sense. |
No, no, no...you're right - that's WAY too complicated. This challenge isn't really difficult at all - quite simple really and one of the more enjoyable ones we've had. |
|
I am not criticizing work. And it is comments like that against me, since you quoted me I assume that was meant for me, that tend to cause me to be defensive and then I get lashed out at for ME starting trouble.
I am not critcizing the work, and I am enjoying the entries. I am merely discussing the meaning of the challenge, just like others are on this thread. It IS that complicated, and should be debated on, because descriptions MEAN something or they wouldn't be needed at all. If anything goes, then it might as well have been a "color free study".
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:37:59 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
... I don't think a description was necessary. |
Agreed. Way too much thinking going on...
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:42:45 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Doug - shall we get you Rogaine and some face cream? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Does it offend you to discuss things such as this? |
Offend is too strong a word. It makes me sad that so many people are so willing to take such an extreme left-brain view of such a right-brain pursuit.
Of course these photos aren't going to be what you would interpret the challenge to be - by definition there should be a couple hundred photos that are completely different than how you think the challenge should be interpreted. It's art.
Give the artist the benefit of the doubt - free your mind of the fences that surround - and embrace their view for just a moment. That is what makes art so cool - you can see the world through someone else's eyes for just a moment.
Threads like this seem to celebrate and encourage this thought process "DNMC according to my (the voter's) very small view of the world - so plunk down a 3 and move on". I think that is an incredible disservice to the photographers that worked hard on a challenge, and to the voter for not taking a moment to see the world (and the challenge rules) from a different perspective.
Hence I age a little from saddness of the lack of tollerance.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:43:09 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Kivet:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
To me, in order to have a subject, the main subject, you have to take a shot of that subject. Then, within that subject there needs to be a very colorful impactual "other" subject which draws the focus to IT more than the original subject you had in mind. That to me is what this challenge is about. Complicated and not easy in a sense.
Rose |
So we need to have 2 subjects? My Subject, which there is only one, of takes up most of the picture and yet you can see the background. It stands out from the backrgound quite dramaticaly and yet by your interpratation it wouldnt meet the challenge. And yes, Im getting hammered out there... |
No, I dont mean two main subjects. That was just a poor choice of words on my part. Read my previous post to this one using the examples and you will see what I mean.
Now if your main subject is the colorful object and it is offset by a solid background of some sort, then it does stand out, yes, but to me it is not "offsetting" the main subject. That is just the way I see it, and if you are getting hammered, maybe others see it like me? Not sure. We all get hammered now and then..LOL..and from some posts I read, in more ways then one. :)
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-01-09 09:43:36.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:55:16 AM · #49 |
I don't think any one is critizing anyone elses work. I think they are just realizing that they matched more closely what the challenge says where some people just did nothing but color. I know I got the commment that the background is off set from the colors...but unless the background has an object on it then I just am not interpreting the photo per the challenge description.
People have thier own opinions on this one, and it's too bad that they weren't the same...my photo is getting a horrible score so far..and mine is what the challenge says it should be! |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 10:05:00 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by angela_packard:
I don't think any one is critizing anyone elses work. I think they are just realizing that they matched more closely what the challenge says where some people just did nothing but color. I know I got the commment that the background is off set from the colors...but unless the background has an object on it then I just am not interpreting the photo per the challenge description.
People have thier own opinions on this one, and it's too bad that they weren't the same...my photo is getting a horrible score so far..and mine is what the challenge says it should be! |
*Go Angela! Go Angela! Go Angela!* I'm with you on this one ALL the way. At first I was almost swayed to believe that anything with a burst of color is not DNMC material, but every time I read the description, it smacks me back. I think something needs to be said for descriptions on challenges. They need to be read and adhered to.
Now I am going back to oversee how I voted last night when I was too tired to know any better. LOL....
SO nice that we agree! :)
Rose
|
|
