| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2006 03:18:09 AM · #51 |
I am having soooo much fun voting this challenge ... way more than ever before.
With each tribute I am going to //images.google.com (thank you Bear_Music!) and looking at the photogs work. I am finding the most amazing images and following links all over the place. So much to see, so little time. Sigh ... 3hrs voting and only 11 images voted on :)
Brett
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 03:18:27. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 03:30:03 AM · #52 |
thanks for commenting on my pic, I really appreciate that you liked it. Only three pictures can win the challenge, but a tribute really means much more than winning a ribbon. And there is so many good images in the challenge that it makes it worth participating. (i would not mind scoring average in this one)
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
I am having soooo much fun voting this challenge ... way more than ever before.
With each tribute I am going to //images.google.com (thank you Bear_Music!) and looking at the photogs work. I am finding the most amazing images and following links all over the place. So much to see, so little time. Sigh ... 3hrs voting and only 11 images voted on :)
Brett |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:03:13 PM · #53 |
I've been doing the same thing... and posting a link in my comments to those photos. This is going to take time to finish voting....
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
I am having soooo much fun voting this challenge ... way more than ever before.
With each tribute I am going to //images.google.com (thank you Bear_Music!) and looking at the photogs work. I am finding the most amazing images and following links all over the place. So much to see, so little time. Sigh ... 3hrs voting and only 11 images voted on :)
Brett |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:34:27 PM · #54 |
| I echo what Brett said, and am very impressed with the quality of this challenge. But I'm also terribly disappointed by the beautiful photographs that are NOT given attribution. I'm not sure what to do with those. My impulse right now is to not give them any score. There were only 2 or 3 unattributed photos that I was sure I figured out. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 04:15:37 PM · #55 |
| if they were unattributed then I would give them a 2 or 3... but this challenge is going to take a bit of time for me to judge. I hope I can get through all of them. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:33:59 PM · #56 |
I'm giving unattributed an automatic 3 at the moment and will go back and review later. I only do this after I have searched the web for the title and the subject in case I can find a match.
It's really sad because there are some very very good unattributed pics which we have no way of checking the tribute.
Brett |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 05:49:09 PM · #57 |
Just realized after reading this post and a comment left on my entry that my attribution was probably not clear. Would it be out of whack to post it here?
I'm giving unattributed an automatic 3 at the moment and will go back and review later. I only do this after I have searched the web for the title and the subject in case I can find a match.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 18:18:01. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 06:15:14 PM · #58 |
Yeah - Well what do you think of the photo(s)? Nowhere did it say the photographer had to be listed in the title. Adding new rules as we go along? ;^)
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
I'm giving unattributed an automatic 3 at the moment and will go back and review later. I only do this after I have searched the web for the title and the subject in case I can find a match.
It's really sad because there are some very very good unattributed pics which we have no way of checking the tribute.
Brett |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:24:18 PM · #59 |
It didn't say it had to be in the title but there's been a week's worth of warnings in the forums that in order to vote on teh "Tribute" we'd need to know who the tribute was to. Not rocket science or a conspiracy - just good old common sense.
What do I think of the photos? Some of them are brilliant but this isn't a free study
Brett
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 19:26:06. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:32:59 PM · #60 |
I saw the warnings also...not a concensus, but I did hear you earlier. Guess I'll have to do that offsetting I mentioned earlier also, you know - to counterbalance. ;^)
Edit to add; I wouldn't really vote down intentionally (I've learned to be much more flexible the past 6-8 months) - but I did want to make a point on the flip side of automatically dishing out 3's or under to entries without a mentioned tribute in the title as was suggested earlier.
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 20:26:39.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:33:11 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
It didn't say it had to be in the title but there's been a week's worth of warnings in the forums that in order to vote on teh "Tribute" we'd need to know who the tribute was to. Not rocket science or a conspiracy - just good old common sense... |
Common sense tells me to look at the photo (1.), consider a style or manner of photography reminiscent of what I'm looking at (2.) and return to the posted photo to consider it on its own merit (3.), if I cannot conjure a déja vu - just in case it's my shortcoming and not the photographer's. -Does the the author not serve me better by not spelling out the inspiration?
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 19:36:55.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 07:50:18 PM · #62 |
This challenge is fantastic and there are so many wonderful tributes. I am glad I don̢۪t have an entry so I can appreciate all the work that was done and not have an emotional tie to the challenge (I believe it makes me more objective in my subjectivity).
Great, GREAT work people.
Bravo.
The Wazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 08:01:29 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Common sense tells me to look at the photo (1.), consider a style or manner of photography reminiscent of what I'm looking at (2.) and return to the posted photo to consider it on its own merit (3.), if I cannot conjure a déja vu - just in case it's my shortcoming and not the photographer's. -Does the the author not serve me better by not spelling out the inspiration? |
In a gallery context, I might agree with you. But for the medium of DPC, and in this challenge, I think that omitting the name of the photographer to whom the tribute is intended is asking too much of the voters.
As a voter myself, I strive to make the most informed decision possible when calculating an image's merit; often this simply means analyzing the content of the photo for its conceptual, technical, and artistic content. In this case, however, I am also being asked to compare each of 188 images to the style of a given photographer. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of those photographers, and in order to be able to evaluate properly, I feel the need to do some research.
This research becomes almost impossible without a name or a title to use as a search term.
As I see it, not spelling out the inspiration in this particular case means at least one of three things: (1) that the voter should already have a broad enough knowledge of photography to be able to make the connection without needing further research, which is unrealistic; (2) that the voter should undertake a search with no defined starting or ending point, which is unreasonable; or (3) that the voter should take for granted that the imitation of style is a good one, which is unfair.
Damon |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 08:24:20 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
This research becomes almost impossible without a name or a title to use as a search term.
As I see it, not spelling out the inspiration in this particular case means at least one of three things: (1) that the voter should already have a broad enough knowledge of photography to be able to make the connection without needing further research, which is unrealistic; (2) that the voter should undertake a search with no defined starting or ending point, which is unreasonable; or (3) that the voter should take for granted that the imitation of style is a good one, which is unfair.
Damon |
I'm not sure I agree that it's unfair - perhaps someone didn't want to mess up their title with another photographer's name -- to be forever displayed in their portfolio that way?
While I didn't enter this particular challenge, I saw a lots of great unattributed images. I entered a few simple search terms in Google (headshot, famous, dpchallenge, etc.) and came up with this link and also this other link and was able to (I hope correctly) guess that a couple of photographers tributed Kevin Major Howard.
What seems less than fair (to me, anyway) is giving an automatic 3 to shots without a famous photographer's name in the title. Why not judge the shot on it's merits, and give the photographer the benefit of the doubt as to the tribute? If it were you, wouldn't you want the same courtesy? |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 08:46:13 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by A1275:
I'm not sure I agree that it's unfair - perhaps someone didn't want to mess up their title with another photographer's name -- to be forever displayed in their portfolio that way? |
No argument that the inclusion of another photographer's name can be awkward.
Originally posted by A1275:
While I didn't enter this particular challenge, I saw a lots of great unattributed images. I entered a few simple search terms in Google (headshot, famous, dpchallenge, etc.) and came up with this link and also this other link and was able to (I hope correctly) guess that a couple of photographers tributed Kevin Major Howard. |
(my emphasis.)
The part I bolded is to me the crux of the issue. I feel it's too generous to assume that because I see a link between photograph X and photographer Y, photograph X must be a tribute to photographer Y. What if, despite the fact that X looks like Y, X was intended to imitate Z instead, and just did a poor job of it?
The problem with making assumptions about which photographer is being tributed is that it removes a great deal of the difficulty in meeting the challenge. It is important to me that the link to the challenge be clear, because so much of the challenge itself is not just taking a good picture, but taking a good picture of a certain kind.
Originally posted by A1275:
What seems less than fair (to me, anyway) is giving an automatic 3 to shots without a famous photographer's name in the title. Why not judge the shot on it's merits, and give the photographer the benefit of the doubt as to the tribute? If it were you, wouldn't you want the same courtesy? |
I'd have trouble answering that last question, because I included the tribute photographer's name in my title.
Judging the shot on its own merits renders this as nothing more than a Free Study, which it is not. I want to reward with my votes the photographers who took the time and effort to execute a capable mimicry of a photographer of their choice--and if I can't tell who their chosen photographer is, I am robbed of my ability to reward in the way I think best.
I can tell you it's not my policy to give an automatic 3 to photos without the tribute clearly spelled out in the title. For someone with my attitude toward this challenge, what to do with the inexplicitly tributed photographs is a difficult problem. The best solution I can think of is to skip them during voting, because I can't make the kind of determination about them that I think is necessary.
//edited for grammar
Message edited by author 2006-01-25 20:53:36. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 09:27:09 PM · #66 |
I've been googling and googling images, and I have to say that I am underwhelmed by the tribute photos with names in the title. Very few of them bear much resemblance to the "well-known photographer" that inspired them. (I'll also say that some of the "well-known photographers" aren't that great either.)
I'm tired of scratching my head trying to find a resemblance between the original photos and the tributes, and I'm just going to vote the pictures by their appeal to me. If I like them, I'll vote them high. If I think they suck, I'll vote them low.
There.. I feel better now. End of tirade.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 11:37:04 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by A1275:
Why not judge the shot on it's merits, and give the photographer the benefit of the doubt as to the tribute? |
I guess that would be because its not a Free Study and in the last 20 challenges, 2 ribbon winners have been caught cheating. Not making errors of judgemment or mistakes ... cheating. |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 11:47:23 PM · #68 |
I did the same thing, trying to find out how the images tribute the photographers by googling and very few bear resemblance. It was taking me so long to vote (on such a strict time frame) I gave up and started voting on the merits of the photo submitted. Sorry guys and gals, there are just so many hours in a day. I didn't enter this challenge, but I have time constraints that prevent me from spending hours researching and can't look up every single thing I have to vote on. There was one in the challenge (I won't mention) I couldn't even find on the internet. I found the photographer but the image did not match at all what I saw. It was easier to vote on the photo I was looking at and they probably made higher scores when I didn't look at the original photographer. Ok .. enough of my little rant :) I really loved the majority and voted higher on most than I normally would because I thought they were overall great!
Originally posted by Germaine:
I've been googling and googling images, and I have to say that I am underwhelmed by the tribute photos with names in the title. Very few of them bear much resemblance to the "well-known photographer" that inspired them. (I'll also say that some of the "well-known photographers" aren't that great either.)
I'm tired of scratching my head trying to find a resemblance between the original photos and the tributes, and I'm just going to vote the pictures by their appeal to me. If I like them, I'll vote them high. If I think they suck, I'll vote them low.
There.. I feel better now. End of tirade. |
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 08:36:00 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
It didn't say it had to be in the title but there's been a week's worth of warnings in the forums that in order to vote on teh "Tribute" we'd need to know who the tribute was to. Not rocket science or a conspiracy - just good old common sense... |
Common sense tells me to look at the photo (1.), consider a style or manner of photography reminiscent of what I'm looking at (2.) and return to the posted photo to consider it on its own merit (3.), if I cannot conjure a déja vu - just in case it's my shortcoming and not the photographer's. -Does the the author not serve me better by not spelling out the inspiration? |
I don't usually jump in on such debates. But this challenge is truly a great idea and has allowed me to understand some great photographers that I had to at least share where I'm coming from as part of the DPC community. First, thanks Kiwipix for your insightful comment on my entry altho' I don't particularly share your logic of voting. I don't begrudge you your opinion as I hope you won't mine. As for the threads, I only happened upon them yesterday as I don't always read forum threads. My thinking is more in line with what Zeuszen and some others like Glad2badad when I first thought of my entry. What I liked about this challenge is it says "The image should not be a copy but should seek to convey your chosen photographer's style, subject matter and/ or techniques." And that's what I did. My entry, on the whole, is really inconspicuous and doesn't say anything about my chosen photographer, R Doisneau.
I deliberately chose not to copy any of his images (I mean, how could I when the world has changed from when he lived it and now). This is not the case for some entries I glanced at but of course it's still open to individual interpretation. Anyway, in my case, I tried to approach the subject matter, which is dear to his heart, from my view of how he would photograph it today using his philosophy. And since that interpretation is my own unique perspective, I couldn't see how the majority of voters could possibly read into that with or without his name in the title. I didn't even do much processing despite it being advanced editing to keep in his spirit. I left hints of course in my title but didn't specify exactly as I didn't want voters to vote based on a direct comparison and get a lot of frustrating DNMC comments. Especially when Doisneau is most widely famous for one specific subject which to me did not really embody his true philosophy. Beyond that I didn't expect anything more.
My take-away from this challenge is:
- it helped me personally by opening up a wider world of photography to me
- if voters get it and score me well, great, if not, well, I still have something to share with them as in my interpretation of what I learnt of this photographer
- and for this, I've left a brief description of my chosen photographer for those interested to understand my interpretation after the challenge. Perhaps it was not well done, and perhaps it was, but the most important thing was I attempted something different and new.
For the record, I'm not voting as I don't think I know enough to be able to pass good judgement. So good luck to everyone who did and let those comments roll, bad or good. Wow, this is the longest post I've ever written - so forgive my long 2-cents ramblings. :)
Eileen
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 08:51:53 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by A1275:
Why not judge the shot on it's merits, and give the photographer the benefit of the doubt as to the tribute? |
I guess that would be because its not a Free Study and in the last 20 challenges, 2 ribbon winners have been caught cheating. Not making errors of judgemment or mistakes ... cheating. |
Yikes! Cheating? So now if someone enters a challenge and doesn't adhere to unwritten rules that have been fabricated in forum threads, they are potential cheaters?! Wow.
"Cheating", in the context of challenge entries as being referred, is submitting an image taken last year, or trying to edit exif data, or using a photo taken by someone else, etc...
Unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 09:02:54 AM · #71 |
Has anyone else received DNMC 1 because they didn't use the photographer's name in the title? I agree that unstated "rules" shouldn't hurt your score.
Also, a lot of people seem to be discussing "style" in these threads. What about the fact that under the description you can photograph in the sytle of, subject matter used, and/ OR techniques. If someone photographed a mountain in full color and said it was an Ansel Adams tribute, IT IS under the challenge description. Mountain is the subject matter. I hope people aren't getting marked down because looking at the image doesn't scream Ansel Adams.
Okay, sorry. This probably belongs in a rant. |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 09:13:30 AM · #72 |
Interestingly, someone else also seems to have made a bold interpretation of Doisneau, but s/he put Doisneau in the title, allowing me to judge the connection made. If Eileen did the same thing but did not put the name in the title, I could make no judgement. I'm just not savvy enough about photography. As a beginner, I like the opportunity to learn about each photographer named and then make a judgement call on how well this entry captured or interpreted his/her spirit. Those who did not include a name are excluding me from this process (I don't take it personally ;) ). I can tell that at least some are leaving hints that only people with advanced knowledge will pick up. That's their prerogative, but I think they should be willing to accept low scores from the people they are excluding. Other people seem to be shying away from being compared to the photographer they are giving tribute to. Those people are purposefully removing (or at least handicapping) everyone's ability to judge based on the criteria of the challenge. That's also their prerogative.
So, all in all, I'm having a wonderful, positive, educational experience with this strange undercurrent of feeling excluded. The positive far outweighs the negative, but I'm still left with a difficult decision as to scoring. So far I'm still not scoring the unattributed photos. The downside of this decision is that I'm giving no advantage to the really wonderful unattributed photos over the lousy unattributed photos. And since I tend to score higher than average, I'm giving a disadvantage to all these photos (but especially the good ones). |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 11:32:42 AM · #73 |
[quote=posthumous] Interestingly, someone else also seems to have made a bold interpretation of Doisneau, but s/he put Doisneau in the title, allowing me to judge the connection made. If Eileen did the same thing but did not put the name in the title, I could make no judgement. I'm just not savvy enough about photography. As a beginner, I like the opportunity to learn about each photographer named and then make a judgement call on how well this entry captured or interpreted his/her spirit. Those who did not include a name are excluding me from this process (I don't take it personally ;) ). I can tell that at least some are leaving hints that only people with advanced knowledge will pick up. That's their prerogative, but I think they should be willing to accept low scores from the people they are excluding.
I guess yes, I'm kind of resigned to receiving a low score just by my choice of interpretation, with or without the name in the title. And I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether you have more knowledge or less knowledge about the photographer. Like I said, it's a personal interpretation, not some photography textbook definition that says it should be read or understood a certain way. If you like, I'll PM you my entry after the challenge. |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 11:53:32 AM · #74 |
| I would like that, but if it's after the challenge, won't I be able to find it via your username (that was my plan. I'm curious!)? |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 11:58:32 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I would like that, but if it's after the challenge, won't I be able to find it via your username (that was my plan. I'm curious!)? |
Sure if that's your plan. :) You can tell me what you think then. |
|
