| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2006 09:10:57 AM · #26 |
If you submit a photograph of something other than a person, I will take a moment to see if it "feels" like a portrait, i.e., if you've emphasized or even personified the subject in the right way. But clearly that's a highly subjective decision, and if you're depending on every voter to make it, you're not going to have a very high score.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:11:50 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Why try to ascribe devious motives to the whims of the voters? or pin undesirable characteristics on them? Just accept the fact that some of them didn't like your photo as much as you did. That doesn't make them bad people. |
Coolhar, I don't know why it is you seem to have to or want to find the opposing side to nearly every post, but in my case, I was just using examples. Your "just didn't like your photo" is a given. Of course there are going to be those that just don't like what you have entered, or how you entered it via size, or how you post processed it, etc. Appeal is always a given and a mainstay, and that is why I didn't use it for examples. However, the examples I did give are also very real. I wasn't trying to imply that all voters have devious motives or undesirable characteristics, but we all know that quite a few do. :)
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 09:12:56. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:25:20 AM · #28 |
When I think Portrait...I think person/people. Not animals...flowers...baseballs...boats...or sunsets.
In my minds eye animal portraits, ARE or should be in a different category/sub category but are still portriats.
As somene pointed out (e301, I believe?)he wouldn't enter an animal in a Portrait Challenge for the same reason he wouldn't enter a human in an Animal Portrait Challenge. Humans are of course animals but in essence wouldn't fit.
Google and define til your hearts content, argue...hold your breath, whatever...but you will never change the fact that most people will define Portraits, unless specified (Bug Portrait, Animal Portrait, Soccerball Portrait, Flower Portrait)as having relation to People not animals, bugs or flowers.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:26:07 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by espy:
... However, the examples I did give are also very real. I wasn't trying to imply that all voters have devious motives or undesirable characteristics, but we all know that quite a few do. :) |
Got to take issue with you again espy. We don't "know" what any of the voters have inside their heads. Some of us have suspicions, but all too often those are used to justify something we don't like, such as low votes. You can't make the connection that low votes equals low-minded people. What good does it do to call them names? Salves your ego a bit perhaps?
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:38:15 AM · #30 |
Hello good people,
It's early here and the dawn's light wasn̢۪t what I had hoped it to be so I have spent the last hour or so reading posts. DPChallenge is fascinating not only as an excellent learning tool but also as a study of human nature. One thing I notice is that a lot of people on this site (me included) talk about the passion they have for photography. Passion is a strong emotion and it can cause people to act/react strongly, which can cause feathers to get a bit ruffled from time to time. I think anyone who excels at something must feel passionate about it in order to maintain the drive, the energy, it takes to keep pushing forward. My feathers can get ruffled from time to time but that allows me a chance to learn more about me, if I think about why I am reacting so strongly. Hopefully I will become a bit wiser and appreciate that in any 'family' problems will arise. DPC's are passionate about their photography. That's what makes this a wonderful place to learn. I know that I will still feel irked when someone comments that my submissions DNMC- (3 such comments to date on my enviro shot) but then I get over myself. Here's wishing us all wonderful light, creative ideas and the ability to carry them through...... sincerely, mac
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 09:40:10. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:39:55 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by espy:
... However, the examples I did give are also very real. I wasn't trying to imply that all voters have devious motives or undesirable characteristics, but we all know that quite a few do. :) |
Got to take issue with you again espy. We don't "know" what any of the voters have inside their heads. Some of us have suspicions, but all too often those are used to justify something we don't like, such as low votes. You can't make the connection that low votes equals low-minded people. What good does it do to call them names? Salves your ego a bit perhaps? |
Umm, I didn't call anyone names. I was just making suggestions as to why some may vote down a photo. In hindsight, some also vote up photos for the opposite reasons. It's all subjective was the point.
The names came from you (devious for one, and low minded for another), so watch your own ego and your own condescention, especially where I am concerned. I don't appreciate your candor, or your implication that I am name calling.
If you want to have any of your responses in this manner be actually effective, there are many "troll" threads and posts where name calling is definately an issue. Go find those to make your point. Here it is moot. But continuing to respond to me in this condescending manner will only get your post reported.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:47:23 AM · #32 |
I am usually a stickler for challenge interpretation. I did a lot of research on this topic before voting. I could not find anywhere where an environmental portrait was discussed that related to any subject other than a person. Looking at google images only three or four among pages and pages of pictures were of something other than people. Every photography site I looked at when discussing environmental portraits were discussing PEOPLE not flowers, dogs, insects, etc.
I think the interpretation of the word subject to mean ANY subject is incorrect in this case. The subject in this case is the PERSON you are taking a portrait of...not the flower, etc.
I did find a lot of references to other types of portrait as well and every time it was not people it was always clarified with a second word - animal portrait for example. But every time the word portrait alone was used, it was always people and just people. Every time I found environmental portrait it was ALWAYS people in their environment, not the beach or flowers or animals.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:49:31 AM · #33 |
Turkey Breast Portrait
Title:Final Moments
Here's my Environmental Portrait of a Turkey Breast minutes before cooking. As you can clearly see the breast up front is down on it's luck, depressed totally not in control of the situation, while the the breast in the background has a devil-may-care atittude...like...it's saying, "I've had a great life, wtf, it's my time and I'm going to march into that oven with pride". For those DNMCers...if you carefully look you'll see that the oven is set at 315 and both breast are in for a long slow roast. Not the best of circumstances.
Note the groovy border...
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 09:51:49.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:52:58 AM · #34 |
| It's a good thing we don't allow outtakes anymore since we certainly don't want to sway the way people vote. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:53:11 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Turkey Breast Portrait
Title:Final Moments
|
Ooo, that looks like it turned into a tasty meal...
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:54:12 AM · #36 |
| Not to be mean or anything, but I just don't see any of what you described in that photo. Are you joking or being serious? |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:06:31 AM · #37 |
You guys are funny! I think the bottom line with meeting any of these challenges is just to remember that we are in a contest each week -- to win -- and we have to appeal to the judges. Period. No matter how much we think the judges are wrong. . .they are the ones who decide whether we are successful in our contest or not. If we want to win, we have to be right on target with what they want. I guess that's what makes it. . .ummm. . .challenging :) There are other sites where you can just post your creative, wonderful photos. . but here. . .we are trying to win, so we can't always submit our own interpretation of the challenge. . .we have to submit what the judges think is the interpretation of the challenge.
My pictures get tanked sometimes for one reason or another, but rarely for not meeting the challenge because I learned to try to be creative without getting outside that box even a little bit.
Anyway, that's my 2-cents :)
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:07:13 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Turkey Breast Portrait
Title:Final Moments
|
Ooo, that looks like it turned into a tasty meal... |
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:12:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by espy:
[quote=coolhar]
.... But continuing to respond to me in this condescending manner will only get your post reported. |
I read Coolhar's comments and nowehere did I find any comments I found to be condescending, he simply did not agree with you.
Rather sad that you "seemingly" want to stifle normal discourse with a threat of reporting the post.
Getting back to the topic... portraiture includes a bevy of items and is in my opinion not limited to people. A bee gathering pollen on a very pretty flower is indeed representative of an environmental portrait.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:16:40 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Not to be mean or anything, but I just don't see any of what you described in that photo. Are you joking or being serious? |
If you are refering to my Turkey Portrait...total sarcasm with a soupcon of irony.
...but I do think the finished product image that followed ooozes sex with a little bit a Rock and Roll. "Cooked Turkey Breast Portrait".
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 10:18:11.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:36:36 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by espy:
Umm, I didn't call anyone names. I was just making suggestions as to why some may vote down a photo. In hindsight, some also vote up photos for the opposite reasons. It's all subjective was the point.
The names came from you (devious for one, and low minded for another), so watch your own ego and your own condescention, especially where I am concerned. I don't appreciate your candor, or your implication that I am name calling.
If you want to have any of your responses in this manner be actually effective, there are many "troll" threads and posts where name calling is definately an issue. Go find those to make your point. Here it is moot. But continuing to respond to me in this condescending manner will only get your post reported. |
Take a look at all the threads concerning what is the proper subject for an environmental portrait. There is a wide variety of opinion. I don't agree with all of them but I can't say any are wrong because I don't know what was inside the head of the person who wrote the challenge's topic and description. I don't see any of those whose opinions are at odds with mine as bad people.
I think you just need to accept the fact that not everyone is going to think that your entry is so good that you are not going to get a low vote once in a while. And that not every voter is going to appreciate your interpretation of the challenge's topic. And allow that those voters are no less of a person than you for thinking that way. That's all I'm trying to say. Please indulge my "candor", it is my way of trying to speak accurately.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:39:22 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
There are other sites where you can just post your creative, wonderful photos. . but here. . .we are trying to win, so we can't always submit our own interpretation of the challenge. . .we have to submit what the judges think is the interpretation of the challenge.
|
Well put! I posted in the other forum on this as well.
Sticking to a criteria does not stifle "thinking outside the box". In fact, it is even more challenging. Being creative with limited options is more difficult than a wide open anything goes contest.
I think the frustration here is
1. People not knowing what an Environmental Portrait is.
2. People knowing what it is, but not being able to execute within the criteria
3. People stretching to make a good image fit a criteria that it doesn't really belong to.
To say that keeping to a standard definition is stifling creativity is a copout IMO. Think of it on a more basic level, If the Contest was simply titled "Yellow" (and there have been several) and I enter something green because, in my mind, yellow is a part of green, am I "thinking outside the box", or am I just wrong?
I think it's the latter
Entering a picture of a bug, car, rope, etc in the Environmental Portraits challenge is the same as entering something green in the Yellow challenge.
Of course I am still stinging from the beating I took in DPC Cinema! ;-)
How could Darth Potato Conquest average just above a 5? I bought 15 pounds of potatoes for that shot. I'll be eating potato salad for months, FOR A 5!
Rememeber we are here to learn and have fun. Good luck everyone!
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:41:28 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by espy:
[quote=coolhar]
.... But continuing to respond to me in this condescending manner will only get your post reported. |
I read Coolhar's comments and nowehere did I find any comments I found to be condescending, he simply did not agree with you.
Rather sad that you "seemingly" want to stifle normal discourse with a threat of reporting the post.
Getting back to the topic... portraiture includes a bevy of items and is in my opinion not limited to people. A bee gathering pollen on a very pretty flower is indeed representative of an environmental portrait.
Ray |
I actually wanted to respond to SandyP, and will in a minute, but Ray, when it is suggested one is calling names or that one's ego is somehow bruised and that is why one posts what they do, that is in the very least condescending not to mention inciteful and even insulting. Below he said this to Bear "What's up with you Bear? Are you trying to stifle people's creativity? trample on their imagination? ;)" To me it was "salves your ego perhaps?".
Coolhar has this unfortunate habit of asking questions that really are rhetorical and insulting at the same time. I don't find it appealing, or appropriate. I find it condescending and insulting, and I also find it to be him that disrupts the "normal discourse" of conversation on a thread and this is by far not the first time. But no, I don't mind when people disagree with me. It only makes for worthy and heated debate. It keeps the brain cells active. There is just no need to be insulting and condescending when doing so.
Now, speaking of appealing, and getting back to the actual thread subjects, I find what SandyP to have said to be spot on. Appealing to the masses on any given challenge is the real key to any decent score or placement. Sometimes there are trends. Sometimes everyone likes blue, or red, or waterdrops one week, and the next it is flowers, or insects, or landscapes. One never knows what will appeal from one challenge to the next, so yes, I totally agree that you have to submit what you think will also be appealing at that time (nearly impossible to know, if at all), and still keep your own style in check and do what you love at the same time. I am usually just entering what I love and try to keep my own style while at it...LOL. Trying to appeal to the masses comes third on my list. :)
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 10:47:04. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:56:27 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Take a look at all the threads concerning what is the proper subject for an environmental portrait. There is a wide variety of opinion. I don't agree with all of them but I can't say any are wrong because I don't know what was inside the head of the person who wrote the challenge's topic and description. I don't see any of those whose opinions are at odds with mine as bad people.
I think you just need to accept the fact that not everyone is going to think that your entry is so good that you are not going to get a low vote once in a while. And that not every voter is going to appreciate your interpretation of the challenge's topic. And allow that those voters are no less of a person than you for thinking that way. That's all I'm trying to say. Please indulge my "candor", it is my way of trying to speak accurately. |
Ok, now we are getting somewhere, at least with paragraph one. Actually, American_Horse is the originator of the challenge. He stated that his initial intention WAS that it be persons and not plant or animal life when he used the word "subject". HOWEVER, he also suggested that he was not opposed to animal or plant life if represented well in the challenge. I have also stated on those other threads that I also was not opposed to animal or plant life being used, if represented well in the challenge, but that I myself stuck with 'person' and not plant and animal. Simply because that is how I interpretted the challenge. So I have no arguments there. I agree with whatever anyone wants to enter whenever they enter. If they want to enter a macro of a flower in a "great dof" challenge, then so be it. If its what they love, then the heck with the score.
As for your second paragraph, I am in no way suggesting that just because others may or may not like my particular entry that it makes them bad apples or ignorant imbosiles. LOL...I am just stating that others vote down because of a,b,c,d, etc. I know this to be true because some have actually stated a,b,c,d as to their reasons and openly in forum over the months I have been here. For one example, someone recently stated for the EP challenge this --- "whoever enters a flower is getting a one". Is it because they don't like flowers, or think that flowers don't belong, or are jealous of good flower shots? That I do not know, but I do know that it is often stated in forum what people will vote low and why. I was just reiterating that mindset.
If others don't like my entry, then that is certainly their perogative, just like it is mine to vote as I please for the same reasons. So of course no one is a lesser person then myself. I never implyed that either.
I think both of our "candors" came about due to miscommunication, even if we both speak accurately. In that, dropping the matter is most likely best.
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 11:04:32. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 11:01:18 AM · #45 |
Here we go again..
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 11:06:47 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by espy:
... I don't mind when people disagree with me. ...
|
Then why did you assume the motive of jealousy? I think that was where the "insulting" and/or "condescending" got started in this thread, in the attitude you showed toward voters who scored your image low. That was insulting to the voters, of which I am one. If you are going to make statements like that you should be prepared the normal reaction of those you have insulted.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 11:06:54 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by naldslc:
Here we go again..
|
No, that is incorrect. I'm done here. :) I have a shoot to do today, and I want to play with my new toy to take the shot with. LOL...So I need to concentrate on that and find other threads pertaining to my new toy before I begin. The accident has passed. There is nothing more to gawk at. :)
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 11:15:46 AM · #48 |
*sigh*
I have to admit I was shocked at quite how many flower/bug entries ther were - its clear that a lot of people took the challenge title without context - yes, portraits can include non-human subjects, and yes, leaves/flowers etc are "environmental", but "environmental portraits" are an already defined area of photographic portraiture - as Bear said, its a standard area of study for photography schools and only a distinct lack of research would have people believing otherwise ;)
Personally, I've just skipped anything that dnm the "simple, time-honoured genre" of environmental portraiture. Although with threads like this I'm sorely tempted to vote them down.
Which probably means we should all quit discussing the current challenge in a way to sway voters
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 11:18:53 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by espy:
... I don't mind when people disagree with me. ...
|
Then why did you assume the motive of jealousy? I think that was where the "insulting" and/or "condescending" got started in this thread, in the attitude you showed toward voters who scored your image low. That was insulting to the voters, of which I am one. If you are going to make statements like that you should be prepared the normal reaction of those you have insulted. |
Oh, ok, one more...LOL..
I mentioned jealousy because it has been mentioned quite often in forums since I have been here how others will vote down what they perceive as the "better" images just because they "think" it will improve their own scores. This argument is not limited just to DPC either. So, if they think the photo is "better" than their own, then that means it is out of jealousy they down vote it. At least that is how I interpret it. AS a matter of fact, I think there was a whole thread on that once here in which council actually said that voters doing such a thing really doesn't effect the overall scores because the voters who do so are most likely of a small majority.
Fact of the matter is, we really don't "know", as you have emphasized before, what really motivates a low vote or even a high vote in some instances. I was only listing suggestions off the top of my head. But the reasons, I am sure, are massive. I would love it if all would HAVE to tell why they vote a photo as they do, be it low or high, and have that be a stipulation for voting at all - as long as they didn't get repercussions from it. Hence the reason I no longer leave constructive critique on the photos I vote low. But even if that was a rule, no one could say for sure if it was the truth being said.
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 11:21:53. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 11:23:34 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by amandalore:
I'm an artist, not a measurebator. |
Good thing, cuz the latter could get you DQ'd. Ask Fotomann. ;-)
|
Uh yeah... that HAS happened ... :-P It's in my portfolio somewhere .. oy!
|
|
