| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2006 02:18:58 PM · #51 |
.
If there are more than two objects, I'm making sure that the two "main" subjects stand out or are the focus of my attention.
IMO, generally (99% of the time) these images will ALWAYS contain more than two objects: the background (cloth, board, sky, ground, etc.) will always be the third (or more) object.
Also, let's say the photo is of a car tire and an office stapler. The car tire will probably be mounted on a rim (another object), or maybe the rim is mounted on the axle with the car being visible (yet another object). But if the crop is close enough to grab my attention of the tire and the stapler, there is no DNMC and I will vote on it as usual.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 02:19:44 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by yanko:
3. Make some sense out of their combination - DOUBLE, TRIPLE CHECK!
4. Oh and make sure it's a nice looking photo - CHECK
I thought it was an incredibly simple concept but I guess I miscalculated. Argh! Oh well, back to frustration.
|
The making sense part must be where I went wrong. I thought that your #3 and #4 were basically one in the same, which is why I didnt worry about a catchy title or something to bring my items together beyond an attractive picture. Very frustrating. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 02:21:47 PM · #53 |
I've got 1, 2, and 3 covered. It's #4 that seems to be, um, lacking. :-)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 04:45:08 PM · #54 |
So I guess I got this one wrong. I was thinking, since the description said exactly two objects, that I would use two objects and one person, because a person isn't an object. But after seeing my score (in the low 5's) and reading the posts here, I guess people are also being considered objects? I'm bummed because I really liked this photo.
=( |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 04:53:49 PM · #55 |
Hey baghead! Adjust your frigging monitor if you lack contrast with "[entry description deleted]".
Or, unbag and let's discuss...
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed portion of post that may reveal entry. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 05:06:11 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hey baghead! Adjust your frigging monitor if you lack contrast with ""[entry description deleted".
Or, unbag and let's discuss... |
I too got a baghead comment about the contrast between my two items being "disconcerting"
Votes: 57
Views: 110
Avg Vote: 5.2982
Comments: 5
was on a 6+ roll, now 5ish role (if purple can rise to a 5!)
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Edit to quoted post. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 05:30:53 PM · #57 |
Everytime I read these posts I am quite surprise at the persistence of perception to comprehend the simple in a complex manner. While the challenge state two objects it does not limit the existance of more objects, provided they do not directly compete with the main two.
It all depends how limiting your vision is. An example: say you selected a coke and an exposed egg yolk. Two objects, but then the coke is in a glass, three objects and there is ice, wow!, four objects. And wait, the yoke is in a half shell and now the shell counts as a nother object and then what about the eggwhite? And then what if it used a tablecloth?
No matter how you argue, I see the ancillary objects but I focus on the intent of the coke and the yolk. Above this I examine the impact of the image, composition, concept and technique. What point is there to counting what others will overlook when the main objects make themselves felt, no matter what other secondary supporting objects are there.
We tend to limit our understanding of our lives and our surroundings when we parse above and below the meaning and intent of any circumstance and we create havoc where there is none. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 05:49:34 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hey baghead! Adjust your frigging monitor if you lack contrast with "[entry description deleted]".
Or, unbag and let's discuss... |
Sorry about entry description part. It was highly INacurate which was why I included it - but my bad and no prob. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 06:06:15 PM · #59 |
Votes: 66
Views: 110
Avg Vote: 4.5455
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
Well, apparently my entry blows, lol. But it does have only two objects but they must not make sense photographically speaking. Atleast I think its cool. Here's hoping to breaking a five but I am not holding my breath. On to the next challenge...Atleast I got a full house :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 06:16:26 PM · #60 |
I broke 5! Woo hoo!
May not last, though, so I'm celebrating while I can. Hang in there, Joe... anything's possible. :-) |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 06:20:23 PM · #61 |
Votes: 65
Views: 112
Avg Vote: 5.5385
Comments: 4
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 10/02/06 06:19 pm
Part of the problem here seems to be my inability to see what boring drivel I am offering up BEFORE I go and submit it. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 06:54:57 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Votes: 24
Views: 37
Avg Vote: 5.4583
Comments: 2 |
Votes: 66
Views: 111
Avg Vote: 5.8030
Comments: 3
At least I am headed in the right direction. Still a long way off from where I thought I would be. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 07:17:27 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
At least I am headed in the right direction. Still a long way off from where I thought I would be. |
Unfortunately, we all are a long way off from where we think we should be. It's the nature of the DPC beast. No one submits a 5.0 photo, we all submit 6 and 7's, or else we don't play. Really, we all submit 10's
Votes: 70
Views: 113
Avg Vote: 5.7571 (mine should be a 10.0000, right?) LOL!
Comments: 2
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 10/02/06 07:15 pm
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 07:25:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by lesgainous:
No one submits a 5.0 photo, we all submit 6 and 7's, or else we don't play. Really, we all submit 10's
|
I have submitted 5 photos. Knew it was a 5 going in and it was a 5 coming out (sometimes even a 4). I have submitted shots that I really didnt know how it was gonna turn out - 4s and 5s on some, a ribbon on another. This one I had pegged for at least a 6. My wife seems to have a knack at letting me know what my score will be before voting starts. She called my two 7s, my 4s and has been pretty consistent on most of my other recent shots. Not this one though. She is a bit amazed as well. But back to your initial point - I enter to enter. Unfortunately sometimes that means I enter crap. Didnt think this one was crap. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 07:28:21 PM · #65 |
I just finished voting this challenge...didn't enter though. There were some very creative and excellent shots. Good luck to all!
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 07:47:36 PM · #66 |
| I'll disagree on one point, Tim - just because it doesn't score a high 6 or a 7 doesn't mean it's "crap". None of my entries has ever been a high 6 or a 7 and I don't think they're all crap. :-) |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 07:50:14 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'll disagree on one point, Tim - just because it doesn't score a high 6 or a 7 doesn't mean it's "crap". None of my entries has ever been a high 6 or a 7 and I don't think they're all crap. :-) |
I will agree with you there Deb. Just feeling a little frustrated on this one. I think I may be a bit spoiled as well with my recent run of scores. My expectations may be a bit high. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:30:25 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Everytime I read these posts I am quite surprise at the persistence of perception to comprehend the simple in a complex manner. While the challenge state two objects it does not limit the existance of more objects, provided they do not directly compete with the main two.
It all depends how limiting your vision is. An example: say you selected a coke and an exposed egg yolk. Two objects, but then the coke is in a glass, three objects and there is ice, wow!, four objects. And wait, the yoke is in a half shell and now the shell counts as a nother object and then what about the eggwhite? And then what if it used a tablecloth?
No matter how you argue, I see the ancillary objects but I focus on the intent of the coke and the yolk. Above this I examine the impact of the image, composition, concept and technique. What point is there to counting what others will overlook when the main objects make themselves felt, no matter what other secondary supporting objects are there.
We tend to limit our understanding of our lives and our surroundings when we parse above and below the meaning and intent of any circumstance and we create havoc where there is none. Just my two cents. |
Here here, Dan!!! Well said. I do still believe though that there are many that have the coke, the yolk, a rock, a foot, some glasses and a pile of leaves. (figuratively speaking of course)
Votes: 68
Views: 112
Avg Vote: 5.3088
Comments: 1
Mine definitely has 2 distinct subjects but maybe they don't get how they tie together,yet remain unrelated - or they do and it pisses them off. ;~p
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 21:30:46.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:35:39 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Everytime I read these posts I am quite surprise at the persistence of perception to comprehend the simple in a complex manner. |
The challenge description said 'gather exactly two objects' not two subjects. Failure to follow simple instructions is certainly indicative of something, and creativity is not it.
The inability to comprehend that an object is something made of component parts yet identified as a whole (eg, rubber wheel on a rim secured by nuts = tire) is further proof of this condition. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 10:07:49 PM · #70 |
| My closing words on this subject is that those that adhere too strictly to the challenge guidelines will never rise above a 5.00 average vote cast nor will they produce anything outside the box. Challenge guidelines are just that. There are so many variables that lend themselves to interpretation and artistic license. There is also the element of plural, the sheer duplication like an arm being photrograph in different stages of a swing. Are we to count each impression as an object? You show a pea going from point a to point b in stop motion and showing the same pea in 5 different positions are they one object or five? What about the age old artist trick of including a viewer in the image to help the observer identify with its wonder? I am sorry, it is all in creative interpretation and those that feel otherwise are welcome to vote just how they please but believe me, there is a wider scope available then meets the eye. Even those that describe a challenge are surprise how wide the interpretation expands. Look at the challenge archives. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 10:23:09 PM · #71 |
Votes: 76
Views: 125
Avg Vote: 4.5263
Comments: 4
Still hangin' out in the mid 4's... but I don't care... :-)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 10:25:07 PM · #72 |
Votes: 76
Views: 107
Avg Vote: 5.0000
Comments: 3
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
I have to admit I'm surprised at this one. I worked very hard, and created what I think is my strongest image yet.
Oh well. I won't let the votes sway me. I still love the photo.
Good luck everybody! |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 04:27:34 AM · #73 |
Votes: 75
Views: 140
Avg Vote: 5.9200
Comments: 8
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 10/03/06 04:10 am
Not too bad, considering 5 of 8 commenters said DNMC. Yes, i know I'm an idiot, but it looks much better with four objects...
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 04:28:51 AM · #74 |
Voters are starting to relate to my photo!
Votes: 87
Views: 156
Avg Vote: 6.2184
Comments: 3
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 10/03/06 04:16 am
Up from 5.8 earlier today. Although the low comments is not a good sign.
Message edited by author 2006-10-03 04:30:06.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 04:47:37 AM · #75 |
Votes: 79
Views: 125
Avg Vote: 4.3924
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!! CALL 911!!!!!!!!!!!
::picks up knitting needles and prepares to commit Seppuku::
Note to self: Learn the purpose of the UNSUBMIT button.
|
|
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: 06/23/2025 05:05:29 PM EDT.
