| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2002 08:27:34 AM · #26 |
Well, I've had this debate already, and ultimately, it's all just a game anyway, very unimportant in the grand scheme of things : ) .. However, this is a forum for opinions on the topic, and here's mine, take it or leave it : ) .
My of course SUBJECTIVE interpretation of this challenge was that it was supposed to teach you the skill of taking a picture in a reflective surface without showing your camera.
The thing is that it's not EASY to make a reflection of something look nearly as good as the actual something, esp without as good of a reflective surface as an actual mirror. And even harder when you can't show your camera. Those are the 2 'kickers' on the challenge that are supposed to make it an actual "CHALLENGE". Let alone put that reflection in a context that's interesting.
Using two of the same kind of subject will give you a quality 'reflection' that just can't be touched by people catching scenes in car bumpers and water faucets.
And it's a fact that some people don't look hard enough to see that it's two objects - they just assume that it is a real reflection (ie 2nd generation light bounce), just done REALLY REALLY well, and give it a high score. Well, more power to the photographer who does this, but I personally thought it was missing the point of the challenge and is somewhat unfair to all the people that worked within a constraint imposed by a logical reading of the challenge description, who may therefore have a distorted cloudy or troubled reflection, not a "perfect" one made by a faked reflection using two nearly identical objects :).
After all, rather than sweat to get a good reflection that complemented and worked within their picture WITHOUT SHOWING THE CAMERA (this is the "hard part" of this challenge), all of us could have just shot 2 duplicates and bypassed the difficulty entirely.
Doing 'reflection' in the sense of 'contemplation' is a whole different animal entirely. Those people chose a much harder road, and I wish them the best of luck. I think though, that the person who decided to mark everyone else who didn't do that interpretation down, isn't being particularly mature about it. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 08:52:02 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jakking:
Any reasoning along those lines simply does violence to the English language and to logic. the terms of the challenge state "do not use a mirror as your reflective surface..." There cannot be a sensible reading of that that doesn't conclude that there must be a reflective surface producing the reflection, and that a mirror cannot be used to create that surface. But there is enough illogic in this world, I suppose, for even that simple statement to be deliberately misinterpreted.
I am new and you don't know me yet. This is only my 3rd challenge. I believe I am open minded and think "out of the box". (But don't judge that by my "Corner of my World"
entry!) However, as Jakko so aptly put it, since the challenge stated "do not use a mirror as your reflective surface..." I, too, must wonder how that statement could mean anything else but that there would need to be a reflective surface.The implication being, there needs to be a reflective surface... just don't use a mirror. That really doesn't seem that confusing. But I have seen at least one camera in a photo and we know the camera is not supposed to show. So, maybe people don't read the challenge completely, forget, or don't care. But this one is pretty self explanatory, in my opinion.I agree with the person who said if the challenge stated simply "reflections without mirrors: that would leave it completely open for interpretation.
Marsha |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:09:16 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Using two of the same kind of subject will give you a quality 'reflection' that just can't be touched by people catching scenes in car bumpers and water faucets.
If I'm thinking of the same photo you're thinking I gave it high marks for the pure fact that someone has thought outside the box and managed to do it VERY well. Well enough for me to have to look at the photo for about 10-15 minutes before actually understanding it. In all honesty without some help i would have not gotten it unless I was specifically looking for that. Anyway, that's only one specific entry.
Seeing how this is a discussion about challenges and their interpretation, my stand on this is that too many people on this site really don't even try thinking outside the box. It's actually quite sad to see so few creative entries. Do people really lack imagination from watching hours upon hours of TV shows and movies?
I find that photographing things for my own personal enjoyment with the theme of the week in my head (or any general theme) usually helps me explore other avenues of creativity aside from the obvious. A few people mentioned it in this thread...Trying to combine the obvious with the less obvious in the way that people can understand usually yields a better result than either one of the two done separately. For my Fruits & Veggies shot, by removal of one single red grape I could have reduced my score by a few dozen spots. Photography as any other subjective art form is nothing more but a mind game on a greater level. You have some physical result but you will rarely have the thought process of the person taking the photo next to the photo. You are almost always left guessing as to the meaning. I've taken several photos which I showed to people and when they derived their own subjective conclusion I simply nodded and smiled because what they had told me, albeit fitting, was simply not true, but if they enjoyed it...Is there really a difference in opinion?
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:31:13 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jakking:
Any reasoning along those lines simply does violence to the English language and to logic. the terms of the challenge state "do not use a mirror as your reflective surface..." There cannot be a sensible reading of that that doesn't conclude that there must be a reflective surface producing the reflection, and that a mirror cannot be used to create that surface. But there is enough illogic in this world, I suppose, for even that simple statement to be deliberately misinterpreted.
However, my biggest disappointment is that the person setting this challenge doesn't stop all this bandwidth wastage by coming out and clarifying what was meant. This seems to be a conscious act of omission on their part.
Personally I'm really glad they don't. I'd really rather not have
what is supposed to be an artistic challenge bolted down to the n-th
degree. The fact that you believe it says something that it doesnt,
and you have just inferred from a single negative statement, is actually
in the 'face of all logic'
"Do not use a mirror as a reflective surface, "
is not the same as, and does not imply,
'you must use something other than a mirror as a reflective surface'
This is just basic logic. What it does say is 'do not use a
mirror'
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:39:22 AM · #30 |
It does NOT say "do not use a mirror as a reflective surface." It says "do not use a mirror as YOUR reflective surface." In other words, you are to have a reflective surface but a mirror cannot be it.
Please read what is ACTUALLY there not what you would LIKE to be there.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:54:07 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by jakking:
It does NOT say "do not use a mirror as a reflective surface." It says "do not use a mirror as YOUR reflective surface." In other words, you are to have a reflective surface but a mirror cannot be it.
Please read what is ACTUALLY there not what you would LIKE to be there.
That's still the same argument
'Do not use a mirror as your reflective surface'
still, no matter how much you want it to, does not say
'You must use a reflective surface'
It may imply it, or you might be able to infer it from it, but
that does not mean it is a hard and fast requirement from the
challenge definition, but something you've extrapolated from the
text to reach.
I still maintain that this is a creative, artistic challenge and
this sort of legalise and nit-picking is contrary to the whole
point of the site. Looser interpretations of the challenge than
your own personal one are not automatically in violation of the
spirt or letter of the challenge.
All of the ones that people are debating have attempted to artistically
represent a reflection, either using or not using a reflective
physical surface. Its not like these people didn't try to make
an image that looked like a reflection existed within it, they just
used a different approach to creating the mirror image.
They didn't enter a baby picture, or a picture of their dog
and call it 'dog reflection #1' in the hope that that would be
close enough. They used their imagination to create an image
inspired by the theme of a reflection, without a mirror, not
showing a camera.
I personally find it discouraging that there are so many people on
this site so willing to decry anything that appears slightly off
the most obvious, literal meaning of the challenges. It isn't
a homework assignment.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 9:57:11 AM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:02:22 AM · #32 |
I assume, with only this example as evidence, that you are not one who works professionally with words. As a full time professional writer and editor, I can assure you that the change from "a" to "your" changes this sentence completely.
Look at the next sentence. Is is OK to have a camera in the shot so long as it is not yours? Of course. But had it said "a camera" rather than "your camera" then NO cameras would be allowed. Once again, the difference between "a" and "your" is paramount in the understanding of the sentence.
Anyway, this has become English 101 and I can't be bothered to do that any more. As I mentioned above, I now support the idea that challenges should be a single word (or word phrase) with NO explication. That will get us out of these discussions AND allow complete creativity.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 10:01:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 11:01:21 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by jakking:
[i]It does NOT say "do not use a mirror as a reflective surface." It says "do not use a mirror as YOUR reflective surface." In other words, you are to have a reflective surface but a mirror cannot be it.
Please read what is ACTUALLY there not what you would LIKE to be there.
That's still the same argument
'Do not use a mirror as your reflective surface'
still, no matter how much you want it to, does not say
'You must use a reflective surface'
It may imply it, or you might be able to infer it from it, but
that does not mean it is a hard and fast requirement from the
challenge definition, but something you've extrapolated from the
text to reach.
[/i]
to that, that is exactly the same thing - you cannot extrapolate something unless the underlying "truth/meaning/intent" is already there
as JAK says, the phrase "YOUR reflective surface" is pretty strong wording - if we were to add a postscript to the entries that said what OUR reflective surface was, would those that said "I don't have one" meet the challenge?
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:02:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by jakking:
Anyway, this has become English 101 and I can't be bothered to do that any more. As I mentioned above, I now support the idea that challenges should be a single word (or word phrase) with NO explication. That will get us out of these discussions AND allow complete creativity.
Complete creativity is allowed now. It's only the minds of some voters that vote with their dictionary in their hands instead of with open minds that limits anyones creativity.
Someone that thinks outside the box and finds a unique perspective on the challenge will always be rewarded for it by a select few understanding and appreciating their work and the vast majority saying, in one way or another, "doesn't meet the challange = 1". It's been this way throughout history, I doubt we will change it here. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:24:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by jakking:
I assume, with only this example as evidence, that you are not one who works professionally with words. As a full time professional writer and editor, I can assure you that the change from "a" to "your" changes this sentence completely.
No, I'm someone who works professionally with logic. I find it a whole
lot less messy than the English language for imparting a clear meaning.
It would be interesting to get Drew's opinion on this, as, even
ignoring all this active second guessing that is going on, or weight
that is being added to his words, only he knew what he really was meaning
when he put that particular sentence together. I seriously doubt
he had given as much thought to the precise implication of each word
he chose as is given each week in the forums.
I also do not think single word or single phrase challenges will change
this. It is a particular mindset that looks at the challenge definition
and uses this to narrow the scope as much as possible. It is a different
mindset that looks at the challenge and tries to think where it might
be possible to creatively take it. I think much of this debate sparks
from the meeting of these two different approaches to the same challenge
definition, and I doubt we can come to a sensible resolution.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:26:35 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
as JAK says, the phrase "YOUR reflective surface" is pretty strong wording - if we were to add a postscript to the entries that said what OUR reflective surface was, would those that said "I don't have one" meet the challenge?
If I said my reflective surface was 'the imagination of the viewer and the
creative juxtaposition of elements within the photograph' would that meet
the challenge ? Or are we now arguing that 'YOUR reflective surface' implies
a physical, tangible surface, again not implied in the wording. We can
go off and look up various definitions of surface now if you like,
but I hope someone, somewhere gets the point that this pernickety
approach is, at least to me, the antithesis of what such a challenge is
about.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 12:28:14 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:54:47 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
No, I'm someone who works professionally with logic. I find it a whole
lot less messy than the English language for imparting a clear meaning.
It would be interesting to get Drew's opinion on this, as, even
ignoring all this active second guessing that is going on, or weight
that is being added to his words, only he knew what he really was meaning
when he put that particular sentence together. I seriously doubt
he had given as much thought to the precise implication of each word
he chose as is given each week in the forums.
I also do not think single word or single phrase challenges will change
this. It is a particular mindset that looks at the challenge definition
and uses this to narrow the scope as much as possible. It is a different
mindset that looks at the challenge and tries to think where it might
be possible to creatively take it. I think much of this debate sparks
from the meeting of these two different approaches to the same challenge
definition, and I doubt we can come to a sensible resolution.
I agree here 100%.
I am an Ad Director and work with words, images, market analysis, psycho-babble all day long ( as well as making sure bills are paid on time sometimes or keeping my papers from getting sued so I knwo some legalize as well).
I think these incredible literal interpretations are hamstringing a lot of creativity here and taking a lot of the beauty and joy from the creation of photography.
I like the challenges as a general guideline to aim folks as a group. But not like a thread through an eye of a needle.
And I think Drew may not get as involved here in these kinds of threads because he LIKES ambiguity to a certain degree...that can be seen by his own submissions at times. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:02:45 PM · #38 |
for me, this particular debate has ZERO to do with literality and more to do with gaining an unfair advantage in image quality :) ..
It would be like shooting a 'Night' challenge by day. Everyone else's shot would have hot pixels and grain but those shot by day would have these clear, crisp images.
"But it was the Night of my Soul..." the person says. "That's why I shot it by day."
Or: "I work all night and sleep all day so for me, day is really 'night-time'.... "
Etc.
This is a perfect example of how some specific wording can get everyone on a similar page. Once everyone is operating within the same constraints, they are then entitled to as infinite creativity as they can muster.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 1:02:01 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:05:56 PM · #39 |
Meeting the challenge is incredibly difficult in cases where the viewer has a narrow view of what the challenge means. I still think that the one-word or one-phrase challenge topic with no qualification statement following it would be useful.
I believe that it IS impossible to create a challenge where eveyrone will understand and agree upon its meaning. "Qualifying" the challenge only muddies the water. THAT is where the literal thinking comes from. Less qualification of the challenge topic should automatically reduce the number of literal interpretations that are possible. For instance:
Challenge Topic: BLUE
Qualification: Photograph something blue and use your best photography skills and composition techniques to WOW the voters.
In this topic, I could literally interpret this that I'm supposed to find a BLUE subject and photograph it. I think this would be a common response to something like this.
Challenge Topic: BLUE
Qualification: Use your imagination...
Now... I could try to photograph BLUE as a blue object, an emotion, or whatever I like. I could also desaturate an image of my choice and add blue tint... I could make an interesting photograph of the word BLUE as it is displayed somewhere....
It would be a LOT more difficult to NOT meet this challenge...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 1:05:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:08:44 PM · #40 |
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 1:10:28 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:10:25 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
for me, this particular debate has ZERO to do with literality and more to do with gaining an unfair advantage in image quality :) ..
It would be like shooting a 'Night' challenge by day. Everyone else's shot would have hot pixels and grain but those shot by day would have these clear, crisp images.
"But it was the Night of my Soul..." the person says. "That's why I shot it by day."
Or: "I work all night and sleep all day so for me, day is really 'night-time'.... "
Etc.
This is a perfect example of how some specific wording can get everyone on a similar page. Once everyone is operating within the same constraints, they are then entitled to as infinite creativity as they can muster
I see your point you are trying to make mag..and I agree to a point.
My photo was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT...like a backflip with a 3-1/2 twist off the highboard. That doesn't make it great artistically or anything....I was just fascinated by the part of the challenge that stated "without showing your camera" and wanted to try to develope a skill to deal with this...I had never really attempted this before.
Folks who went with a "faked" reflection or other types may have had had an easier time of it..but ..so?? Difficulty or lack therof of the photo is not a gaurantee of DP Challenge success or failure :-)
I won't go into more detail for fear of losing my anonymity of my photo...but it is a fascinating "How-to" for sure.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:11:44 PM · #42 |
Sure.
What about a one word challenge like 'macro'?
Does anything go there?
And when 'anything goes', where is the 'challenge' anymore?
WHy even have challenges per se? WHy not just have 'open shooting' every week ? :)
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
Meeting the challenge is incredibly difficult in cases where the viewer has a narrow view of what the challenge means. I still think that the one-word or one-phrase challenge topic with no qualification statement following it would be useful.
I believe that it IS impossible to create a challenge where eveyrone will understand and agree upon its meaning. "Qualifying" the challenge only muddies the water. THAT is where the literal thinking comes from. Less qualification of the challenge topic should automatically reduce the number of literal interpretations that are possible. For instance:
Challenge Topic: BLUE
Qualification: Photograph something blue and use your best photography skills and composition techniques to WOW the voters.
In this topic, I could literally interpret this that I'm supposed to find a BLUE subject and photograph it. I think this would be a common response to something like this.
Challenge Topic: BLUE
Qualification: Use your imagination...
Now... I could try to photograph BLUE as a blue object, an emotion, or whatever I like. I could also desaturate an image of my choice and add blue tint... I could make an interesting photograph of the word BLUE as it is displayed somewhere....
It would be a LOT more difficult to NOT meet this challenge...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:15:47 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Sure.
What about a one word challenge like 'macro'?
Does anything go there?
And when 'anything goes', where is the 'challenge' anymore?
WHy even have challenges per se? WHy not just have 'open shooting' every week ? :)
I agree with both magnetic and John here. I like the open ended creativity but I like a general group idea.
The "Challenge" is the competition for voters hearts and minds :-D
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:16:58 PM · #44 |
I think maybe I have lost site of the discussion? I thought literal and narrow minded interpretations of the challenges were a bad thing... I must have misunderstood...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:18:15 PM · #45 |
MACRO is not a subject. It's a style of photography... Just like black and white, landscape, portrait, etc. MACRO as a challenge topic does not define your subject or your idea.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:28:19 PM · #46 |
I posted this because I have gotten 20 comments so far on my first submission. (Long time listener, first time caller :P ) 75% of the comments said, "Great picture, but didn't meet the challenge, I gave it a 1" Or 3, or whatever.
Although I don't think my picture is a great one, or even a good example for this argument, it seems that many of the people here are concerned with the letter of the rules, and not creating art. Kind of like how it is in...art school. When the rules are more important than the finished piece, it seems that dpc has strayed from what it used to do--namely promote creativity within a wide range of very different people.
When you mark someone a 1 because you don't think they conformed to your interpretation of the challenge, who are you helping other than yourself? What positive effect does it have other than to stifle creativity, and have all of the winners each week look like they came from Martha Stewart? Do you want all of the people on here to be just like you? Don't you ever get bored? |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:34:30 PM · #47 |
Well, I wouldn't call it a style so much as a technique but I think we mean the same thing : ) ...
Since we agree on that, is a huge panoramic image of the Serengeti Plain a macro?
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
MACRO is not a subject. It's a style of photography... Just like black and white, landscape, portrait, etc. MACRO as a challenge topic does not define your subject or your idea.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:36:27 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Well, I wouldn't call it a style so much as a technique but I think we mean the same thing : ) ...
Since we agree on that, is a huge panoramic image of the Serengeti Plain a macro?
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]MACRO is not a subject. It's a style of photography... Just like black and white, landscape, portrait, etc. MACRO as a challenge topic does not define your subject or your idea.
[/i]
It could be... if you photographed a postcard view of that plain from close range, it would definitely be a macro :)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:37:46 PM · #49 |
for me, this particular debate has ZERO to do with literality and more to do with gaining an unfair advantage in image quality :) ..
It would be like shooting a 'Night' challenge by day. Everyone else's shot would have hot pixels and grain but those shot by day would have these clear, crisp images.
"But it was the Night of my Soul..." the person says. "That's why I shot it by day."
Or: "I work all night and sleep all day so for me, day is really 'night-time'.... "
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
I think maybe I have lost site of the discussion? I thought literal and narrow minded interpretations of the challenges were a bad thing... I must have misunderstood...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:37:54 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by lina:
I posted this because I have gotten 20 comments so far on my first submission. (Long time listener, first time caller :P ) 75% of the comments said, "Great picture, but didn't meet the challenge, I gave it a 1" Or 3, or whatever.
Although I don't think my picture is a great one, or even a good example for this argument, it seems that many of the people here are concerned with the letter of the rules, and not creating art. Kind of like how it is in...art school. When the rules are more important than the finished piece, it seems that dpc has strayed from what it used to do--namely promote creativity within a wide range of very different people.
When you mark someone a 1 because you don't think they conformed to your interpretation of the challenge, who are you helping other than yourself? What positive effect does it have other than to stifle creativity, and have all of the winners each week look like they came from Martha Stewart? Do you want all of the people on here to be just like you? Don't you ever get bored?
Lina,
Part of the fun of this site is doing both at the same time.. you create an artistic interpretation of the challenge topic and use any guidelines set by the challenge as well.
|
|
