| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2006 12:14:03 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Classic :-D
A few of us started a topic a while back where we posted historical photos here in the forum under the guise that the photos were ours and we wanted feedback.
The comments were priceless! Even after a few people found out what we were doing someone even had the audicity to say "Yeah, but if these photographers just had photoshop back in their time imagine how much BETTER they would have been!"
Sometimes I just don't think people get it at all :-/ |
That was definitely fun :) We should revive that exercise some day ;)
The comments posted in that blog are quite typical though. I think that his subject for that post sums up a lot though. I won't try to 'hammer' him for what he's doing.
I believe that his point comes down to the theory that the internet itself becomes the lowest common denominator. If we presented certain pieces of Robert Mappelthorpe's works to art professors from Liberty University, we would get a majorly different reaction than if we presented the same images to members of the Rainbow Coalition. If we did the same experiment with half Liberty and half Rainbow Coalition viewers, we would find the median quickly.
The number of professional and qualified critics who post comments online at places like DPChallenge are very few. We have a lot more newcomers to photography frequenting these sites. Their comments are based on what they know and what they are doing in their own endeavors. The rule of thirds comes up most frequently because it's the only rule a lot of people know. People who are studying camera technique don't usually give a rat's ass about emotional value in a photo. Eye candy carries a lot more weight in a crowd like this. Our winners page shows that regularly.
Our own critique club is hung up in this loop also. I got kicked off of it (my monologue about that is in my profile) for trying to critique the artistic process rather than the image itself when the photographer didn't post any of his own thoughts about the image before asking for critique. The CC management REQUIRES that participating members discuss the image at hand to some degree, even if we are writing what the photographer probably already knows. I suppose that the CC and it's management would rather hear about and discuss the rule of thirds, depth of field, focus, and composition. In recent juried competitions I have entered, none of my feedback from the judges included anything about these elements of my image. They were all more concerned with what the image said to them. I can't buy that kind of feedback here.
Our growth is stunted by the venues we choose to enter. Any particular photo website can teach you something, but it will ultimately fall short of the overall goal in most cases.
Oh... and we also must not assume that every photographer has goals :)
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 12:26:57 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Our own critique club is hung up in this loop also. I got kicked off of it (my monologue about that is in my profile) for trying to critique the artistic process rather than the image itself when the photographer didn't post any of his own thoughts about the image before asking for critique. The CC management REQUIRES that participating members discuss the image at hand to some degree, even if we are writing what the photographer probably already knows. I suppose that the CC and it's management would rather hear about and discuss the rule of thirds, depth of field, focus, and composition. In recent juried competitions I have entered, none of my feedback from the judges included anything about these elements of my image. They were all more concerned with what the image said to them. I can't buy that kind of feedback here. |
My thoughts switched to the stuff you wrote on your profile page directly after reading that funny blog. Yes, maybe we could have the option to ask the CC for comments on the photograph minus the technical evaluation sometimes, would that be a rude request to make? Thanks |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 12:29:19 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by crayon:
My thoughts switched to the stuff you wrote on your profile page directly after reading that funny blog. Yes, maybe we could have the option to ask the CC for comments on the photograph minus the technical evaluation sometimes, would that be a rude request to make? Thanks |
I dunno. What is legal and what isn't as a CC is defined by the CC admin team. I don't know who all of them are and I also don't know what their qualifications are. All I know is that I'm sub standard.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:37:18 PM · #29 |
| Sorry for the double post... just saw it on Metafilter. Great find! |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:07:12 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Placing: 11th
Average Score: 6.658
Don't forget that right here at DPC this picture by Ansel Adams himself was secretly entered into the Ansel Adams challenge by site administrators as an experiment to see how it would be scored by DPC voters. |
It was great to see how the DPC voters dealt with this photo though. There were no ridiculous comments like on that blog or Flickr thread. Some people rightly identified it as Adams' work, others were astounded that someone had reproduced it so faithfully. And the ones who didn't recognise the photo still gave it praise.
I think that displays that DPC'ers have quite good taste... Well done guys. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 07:02:44 PM EDT.
