| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2006 12:33:33 PM · #1 |
What's the point of having an abstract challenge when voters are going to vote it down when they cannot tell what the subject is? IT"S SUPPOSED TO BE ABSTRACT. I've already recieved comments that they don't know what it is and therefore voted low...
i just don't understand this place sometimes... |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:35:20 PM · #2 |
Yea, this place is often abstract:)
This is why I didn't enter this challenge...the longer you are here, the wiser you get. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:35:52 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by otisXmike:
What's the point of having an abstract challenge when voters are going to vote it down when they cannot tell what the subject is? IT"S SUPPOSED TO BE ABSTRACT. I've already recieved comments that they don't know what it is and therefore voted low...
i just don't understand this place sometimes... |
Agreed...
But I think it should be "somewhat" recognizable... I think. If not, we get hammered... I am one of them :D
Again, just for the fun, I don't care though :P |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:36:13 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by amber:
...the longer you are here, the wiser you get. |
LOL
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:36:38 PM · #5 |
Not realistic, though the intention is often based on an actual subject, place, or feeling. Pure abstracion can be interpreted as any art in which the depiction of real objects has been entirely discarded and whose aesthetic content is expressed in a formal pattern or structure of shapes, lines and colors. When the representation of real objects is completely absent, such art may be called non-objective.
www.patronsartgallery.com/glossary.htm
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:36:43 PM · #6 |
An art expression in which the artistic values reside in the forms in colors rather than in the reproduction or presentation of subject matter.
www.tvdecorators.com/infopages/dictionary.html |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:36:56 PM · #7 |
Works in which objects, people, and/or places are depicted in simplified arrangements of shapes, lines, textures, and/or colors. Abstract art may or may not bear a resemblance to its subject.
projects.edtech.sandi.net/montgomery/mysteriousmasks/art_terms.htm |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:37:07 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:38:22 PM · #9 |
A 20th century style of painting in which nonrepresentational lines, colours, shapes, and forms replace accurate visual depiction of objects, landscape, and figures. The subjects often stylized, blurred, repeated or broken down into basic forms so that it becomes unrecognisable. Intangible subjects such as thoughts, emotions, and time are often expressed in abstract art form. ...
www.bubbaloola.com/fineartglossary0.php |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:38:23 PM · #10 |
| I agree with you. As a registered user, I can't vote in this challenge, but expected to see more macro/abstract images. IMO, the more abstract, the better. Otherwise it's just fun with food, no? |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:38:32 PM · #11 |
You know Mike, this is exactly why I didn't enter. Abstract is just that, abstract, it varies from person to person. What's abstract to me might not be an abstract to you. Take it with a grain of salt and don't let it get to you, if you're happy with the shot and it succeeds with one person you've done your job.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:38:33 PM · #12 |
A style of art that shows objects as simple shapes and lines, often geometric, with emphasis on design.
www.buena-vista.k12.va.us/ArtIcons/Glossaryofterms.html
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:50:35 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by amber:
Yea, this place is often abstract:)
This is why I didn't enter this challenge...the longer you are here, the wiser you get. |
Now you tell me... Thanks! Anyway no, I'm not wise... maybe a wise-ass, but not wise. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 12:58:54 PM · #14 |
I agree. I was torn on whether to even enter this one as well. Mine is knida abstract in that you may not know right away what it is (unless you read the title) and it is doing ok. my wife went less abstact and is below 5. I tihnk those that are really abstract will get hammered and those that aren't abstract enough will as well. it is a no win. it happens here sometimes. the new challenge will feature alot of jewlery because people won't read the challenge description, just the way it goes.
Message edited by author 2006-07-17 12:59:13. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:01:47 PM · #15 |
| I've always been amazed at the number of people who say they didn't read the challenge description before they entered...bizarre! |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:02:32 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by naldslc:
You know Mike, this is exactly why I didn't enter. Abstract is just that, abstract, it varies from person to person. What's abstract to me might not be an abstract to you. Take it with a grain of salt and don't let it get to you, if you're happy with the shot and it succeeds with one person you've done your job. |
er, some things, frankly, just don't work that way.
Abstract is defined in and of itslef, as something that consists of lines and shapes and colors, that are not immediately recognizeable as another object. They are supposed to studies in light and compositions, not recognizeable objects.
If it's weird and you can tell what it is, it's just impressionistic or surreal, not abstract.
What ticked me off, is that the Abstract Macro challenge has Blue and Red ribbon winniers that were surreal, not abstract.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:07:51 PM · #17 |
A bag head left me a comment giving me the definition of abstract. Apparently mine isn't abstract enough or is it? Who knows, who cares. I'll just take my medicine and keep going.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:08:17 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by otisXmike:
What's the point of having an abstract challenge when voters are going to vote it down when they cannot tell what the subject is? IT"S SUPPOSED TO BE ABSTRACT. I've already recieved comments that they don't know what it is and therefore voted low...
i just don't understand this place sometimes... |
ohhhhh, yours must be abstract, just caught up on the forum post. and amen to what you said, i was hoping someone would be as frustrated as i am. :)
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:12:27 PM · #19 |
I struggled with this dilemna and opted for fairly unrecognizable. I felt as though it were a strong image; but the voters seem to disagree.
I'll be quite intersted to discover the fatal flaw(s). I'm getting wiser, but not wise enough to stop entering challenges:) |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:18:08 PM · #20 |
mine is very abstract & still hovering near 6'ish
i haven't had time to look at the other contenders as yet ... |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:40:11 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I struggled with this dilemna and opted for fairly unrecognizable. I felt as though it were a strong image; but the voters seem to disagree.
I'll be quite intersted to discover the fatal flaw(s). I'm getting wiser, but not wise enough to stop entering challenges:) |
LOL greatandsmall!
While mine's not technically 100% perfect and it is quite abstract... I took a nasty hit with jpg noise/compression... but it's not a 4.3... |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:54:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by naldslc:
You know Mike, this is exactly why I didn't enter. Abstract is just that, abstract, it varies from person to person. What's abstract to me might not be an abstract to you. Take it with a grain of salt and don't let it get to you, if you're happy with the shot and it succeeds with one person you've done your job. |
er, some things, frankly, just don't work that way.
Abstract is defined in and of itslef, as something that consists of lines and shapes and colors, that are not immediately recognizeable as another object. They are supposed to studies in light and compositions, not recognizeable objects.
If it's weird and you can tell what it is, it's just impressionistic or surreal, not abstract.
What ticked me off, is that the Abstract Macro challenge has Blue and Red ribbon winniers that were surreal, not abstract. |
Actually, the key is "immediately" recognizable. You are allowed to recognize the components, but the first impression should be of shape and color rather than of a specific object. In Abstract Macro, I would say that blue and yellow are abstract because I see the shape and THEN recognize objects, but red is not because the first thing I see is the object and the rest is just background. So just because it's recognizable doesn't mean it's not abstract - but if object recognition comes before the impression of shape, form, color, etc, then abstract it is not.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 01:55:16 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
A bag head left me a comment giving me the definition of abstract. Apparently mine isn't abstract enough or is it? Who knows, who cares. I'll just take my medicine and keep going. |
That's probably Routerguy666 - he bagheaded himself after a flood of hate mail over it. Check the scores thread for the heated discussion.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:00:56 PM · #24 |
I think the challenge desription needs to be put under each picture that is being voted on.
As of now, it just gives the challenge title.
Maybe people will then be reminded of what they are suppposed to be voting on.
But then again, it probably won't make any difference!!!!!
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 02:01:24 PM · #25 |
| I was COMPLETELY prepared to go the traditionally abstract road when i read the challenge title. but after reading the forums i was confused as to what to do so I specifically asked if it should be recognizable or not and was told that it should have been called "creative food" as abstract would not score well. so I went for creative because I wanted a fair score for my WPL team and now i have a photo thats getting slammed in the voting AND isnt even abstract. had i just went with my first instinct I at least HOPE i'd be scoring better. |
|
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: 08/28/2025 08:21:53 AM EDT.
