| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2002 06:11:51 PM · #76 |
never mind.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 6:10:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:22:43 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
It's simple. SCORE. This is a competition, and any opportunity for YOUR competition to not like YOUR photo is an opportunity :)
Whoops, I almost forgot about that whole score thing :) But I don't think the folks that want your photo to do worse so theirs does better really need a reason not to like it. (I'm using the universal your here, meaning everyone but themselves)
I use to think score was completely irrelevant and I didn't care at all how I scored so long as I enjoyed myself. But this week I broke the '6' barrier for the first time and I have to admit, it mattered more to me than I thought it would or that I think it should :)
But honestly, if you want a good score, I think you need to think in the box... That's where the voters are (for the most part)... But if you are interested in improving your technique, eye, artistic vision, whatever, don't worry about the score... I've learned more from my failures (last week especially) then I ever learned from success.
I hope this one week flash of 'over-6dom' doesn't make me want the score enough to compromise my search for improvement. But in all honesty, it probably will :) It sure feels good to see that score (low though it is by many standards)
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:33:25 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
[i]
I have to wonder why whe feel the need to have our work boung by logic rather than artistic license. To me the challenge should be a springboard for creativity, and not something to be taken so literally. As long as I can see the connection, that's usually enough for me... it doesn't need to be literal. Otherwise, we might as well just have a "drivers license photo" challenge.
-Terry
[/i
Well said. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:51:43 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]It's simple. SCORE. This is a competition, and any opportunity for YOUR competition to not like YOUR photo is an opportunity :)
Whoops, I almost forgot about that whole score thing :) But I don't think the folks that want your photo to do worse so theirs does better really need a reason not to like it. (I'm using the universal your here, meaning everyone but themselves)
I use to think score was completely irrelevant and I didn't care at all how I scored so long as I enjoyed myself. But this week I broke the '6' barrier for the first time and I have to admit, it mattered more to me than I thought it would or that I think it should :)
But honestly, if you want a good score, I think you need to think in the box... That's where the voters are (for the most part)... But if you are interested in improving your technique, eye, artistic vision, whatever, don't worry about the score... I've learned more from my failures (last week especially) then I ever learned from success.
I hope this one week flash of 'over-6dom' doesn't make me want the score enough to compromise my search for improvement. But in all honesty, it probably will :) It sure feels good to see that score (low though it is by many standards)
[/i]
You don't have to think 'in the box' to do well. Your best bet is to think outside the box for your subject but stay well inside the box for the interpretation of the challenge... Unique and creative subjects seem to do rather well here. Left field interpretations of the challenge that are way 'outside the box' rarely do...
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:57:55 PM · #80 |
i'll just re-paste what i said earlier in the thread:
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 if someone shot 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'.... "
I think if a particular technique is prescribed, there should be no latitude. If most people are going to be hobbled by using that technique, then EVERYONE should be, and that should be explicit. Within that constraint, all creativity allowed.
However, if it's a concept challenge, ie blue, red, age, fear, then anything goes, and looser interpretations should be explicitly ENCOURAGED.
it's really about the unfair advantage of not having to work within the same constraint as everyone else. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 07:17:38 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i'll just re-paste what i said earlier in the thread:
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 if someone shot 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'.... "
I think if a particular technique is prescribed, there should be no latitude. If most people are going to be hobbled by using that technique, then EVERYONE should be, and that should be explicit. Within that constraint, all creativity allowed.
However, if it's a concept challenge, ie blue, red, age, fear, then anything goes, and looser interpretations should be explicitly ENCOURAGED.
it's really about the unfair advantage of not having to work within the same constraint as everyone else.
I'd agree, but as we've discussed before, you, yourself, decided
it was a 'technique' challenge. This was mainly based on you recognising
it as a 'very typical photography assignment' from classes/ art school/
whatever.
Maybe it is just because I don't have any experience or any of that
background, but I didn't have the information to infer any technique
specificity within the challenge definition.
Everything that follows from that is correct, its just that initial
assumption that a challenge about reflections is all about technique
that I don't see anywhere in the challenge definition.
Maybe an argument like 'well everyone knows that this sort of thing
is a technique challenge when it comes to photography' might be valid,
but I certainly didn't know.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 07:48:52 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Or: "I work all night and sleep all day so for me, day is really 'night-time'.... "
This is quite an interesting and insightful concept for a photo I think. I'd definitely add marks for that.
About halfway down this thread I thought we got close to a possible solution but then everyone seemed to ignore it. So I'm going to try and repeat back what I think some of you came close to agreeing on:
John, I think it was, said he was happy to go either way on single word - totally open creative challenges or fully described restrictive but clearly worded challenges. Mag, I think, was saying something similar. So how about we have 2 types of challenge -
1. Creative challenges - These would be billed as being totally open creatively where the challenge title should be the inspriation for your shot. A good example of this would be challenge title "red" - with no descriptive text.
2. Restricted challenges - These would have some specific, stated restriction that all photos must adhere to. A good example of this would be the "Pencil" challenge where it was stated that the photo MUST contain a pencil.
Personally I'd be happy with either or both approaches. Perhaps we could alternate challenge types.
On a totally unrelated note, though. Did anyone else notice that there were an awful lot of refracted (as opposed to reflected) images this week? Personally as long as I can see some faint relationship to the challenge I dont mark people down. I'm a physicist by training so I found this little niggle hard to ignore. I did ignore it though.
John |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 08:29:07 PM · #83 |
Gordon,
I FULLY understand, and even though it might have seemed like it to you, I'm *really* not trying to single anyone out here
for anything.
I just think we need to do more with our challenge topic descriptions and guidelines. There's a LOT of opportunity for creativity there that we're just not taking advantage of. Maybe even something simple as a 'Requirements' clause. For example:
"Auto Show Photo"
Take your best picture of a car, posed with a hot babe (male or female, your choice :) ). Requirement: At least one car. At least one human model.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion! :)
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
[i]Originally posted by magnetic9999:
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 08:34:21 PM · #84 |
Yep. This is what I've been asking for :). This would be great. For example:
Green: Shoot your interpretation of the color green. Requirements: None. As long as it addresses any possible existing verifiable meaning of green. Wide latitude in interpretation and JUDGING is ENCOURAGED :)
Originally posted by floyd:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
So how about we have 2 types of challenge -
1. Creative challenges - These would be billed as being totally open creatively where the challenge title should be the inspriation for your shot. A good example of this would be challenge title "red" - with no descriptive text.
2. Restricted challenges - These would have some specific, stated restriction that all photos must adhere to. A good example of this would be the "Pencil" challenge where it was stated that the photo MUST contain a pencil.
Personally I'd be happy with either or both approaches. Perhaps we could alternate challenge types.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 8:34:34 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 08:53:39 PM · #85 |
Garbage Submission Deadline: 10/6/2002
'Garbage! Garbage is everywhere. Compose your best photograph of garbage, trash, or waste this week (9/30-10/06).
Requirements: None. Metaphorical interpretations in both submitting and voting are STRONGLY encouraged. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:15:18 PM · #86 |
| What so many seem to miss is the fact that working within a set of restrictions is an ancient method of FREEING the creative spirit. Without some obsticle to be overcome there is no need to be creative. Creative inturpritations of the challange, while supporting my basic thesis, do not serve to answer the problems which the challange itself creates.Which ever way you go, I am ok with it. But you need to decide whether you get more from challangeing the challange, or from meeting the challange. Both can be rewarding. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:43:45 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
What so many seem to miss is the fact that working within a set of restrictions is an ancient method of FREEING the creative spirit. Without some obsticle to be overcome there is no need to be creative. Creative inturpritations of the challange, while supporting my basic thesis, do not serve to answer the problems which the challange itself creates.Which ever way you go, I am ok with it. But you need to decide whether you get more from challangeing the challange, or from meeting the challange. Both can be rewarding.
I think you are missing the fact that I do think I met the challenge.
Others do not. I don't think I 'challenged the challenge' I met the
challenge. I just chose a different way to interpret it and created
a picture that in my opinion and in the minds of a lot of the commenters
presented a novel twist on the challenge concept. I was certainly working
within a set of restrictions and trying to create a picture that at
least on first, second or third glance would make people say 'that's
a reflection' only after some thought or inspection would it become
clear that it isn't actually a physical reflection from a tangable
surface. However, if people look at it and see a reflection, one
exists. I also left a specific element, deliberately within the shot,
both to represent my state of mind while taking the picture and
as a clue to the careful observer on how the image meets the challenge.
I combined that with a more veiled reference in the title of the
submission, both to my state of mind and to the clue within the image
that the reflection was only mental, rather than a physical manifestation.
Hopefully that still doesn't actually give away which of the 'fakes'
are mine. But my point is, I put a great deal of effort both
technically, physically and mentally into crafting an image that _does_
meet the challenge. I worked within the bounds, spirit and letter of
the challenge, so I find it quite demotivating that people then try
to nit-pick the scope back so that they can justify giving my entry
a low score 'because'
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:20:14 PM · #88 |
Gordon --
So far our entries sound similar in spirit and execution (and results), if not specific subject. This is the first of these challenges I really feel inclined to "argue" about.
jakking --
Why should any photographer be penalized for taking advantage of what you deem an unacceptable degree of ambiguity on the part of the challenge publishers. I would think you would want to vote all those "outside the box" entries a automatic 10, regardless of artistic content or technical merit, to protest such administrative slovenliness.
Voting those photos down provides no incentive for the admins to improve the quality of the challenge guidelines, unless their intent WAS to have have people stretch the bounds of light and language (that is, THEY think they should have been 10s), and they find they'll have to include this (suggsted) disclaimer specifically and explicitly on every challenge:
"This is a site devoted to improving people's ability to use digital photography as a means of artistic expession. In all challenges, creative interpetation of the stated topic is encouraged."
I would think that, this being a site of devoted artists, that statement would "go without saying," but apparently I am mistaken. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 11:07:48 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...Voting those photos down provides no incentive for the admins to improve the quality of the challenge guidelines...
on the contrary, the admins wouldn't have to listen to complaints about "low votes from people who didn't get it" --- if the votes were elevated, no complaining - and the admins get an extra hour of sleep
(this is a response to that specific statement - it is not intended to align myself on either side of this conflict :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 12:24:17 AM · #90 |
Just one person's thoughts --
1 -- I'm in the "There must be a REAL REFLECTION" camp.
2 -- I don't think that "technically accurate" photos of some good reflective artwork are winners, unless they make great use of lighting, or some other "artsy" feature. Without more, these photos seem to be riding on the work of another artist (and not even a photographer!).
3 -- Is there anyone else who is disappointed by pictures that they have to study for a few minutes until they find evidence that there's actually a "reflection"? In my humble opinion, I should like the photo (in part) BECAUASE of the reflection. It shouldn't be a two-step process -- (A) I like the picture, and then (B) I have to study the picture to make sure that it fits the category.
4 -- I'll give a "mid-level" score to "postcard shots" of tree-lined ponds, but not more.
5 -- I have to wonder about any picture that looks like it uses a mirror, but comes with a note saying "THIS IS NOT A MIRROR". It may be eligible, but (at least for me) the "near mirror" look is something of a distraction. IMHO, "the picture should speak for itself". At least for me, pictures that carry obvious (and especially, surprising) evidence that you aren't looking at a mirror really add something.
Sorry to sound so critical -- I have given out a 9 and several 8s, all of which were gorgeous, in my humble opinion. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:23:36 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
[i]What so many seem to miss is the fact that working within a set of restrictions is an ancient method of FREEING the creative spirit. Without some obsticle to be overcome there is no need to be creative. Creative inturpritations of the challange, while supporting my basic thesis, do not serve to answer the problems which the challange itself creates.Which ever way you go, I am ok with it. But you need to decide whether you get more from challangeing the challange, or from meeting the challange. Both can be rewarding.
I think you are missing the fact that I do think I met the challenge.
Others do not. I don't think I 'challenged the challenge' I met the
challenge. I just chose a different way to interpret it and created
a picture that in my opinion and in the minds of a lot of the commenters
presented a novel twist on the challenge concept. I was certainly working
within a set of restrictions and trying to create a picture that at
least on first, second or third glance would make people say 'that's
a reflection' only after some thought or inspection would it become
clear that it isn't actually a physical reflection from a tangable
surface. However, if people look at it and see a reflection, one
exists. I also left a specific element, deliberately within the shot,
both to represent my state of mind while taking the picture and
as a clue to the careful observer on how the image meets the challenge.
I combined that with a more veiled reference in the title of the
submission, both to my state of mind and to the clue within the image
that the reflection was only mental, rather than a physical manifestation.
Hopefully that still doesn't actually give away which of the 'fakes'
are mine. But my point is, I put a great deal of effort both
technically, physically and mentally into crafting an image that _does_
meet the challenge. I worked within the bounds, spirit and letter of
the challenge, so I find it quite demotivating that people then try
to nit-pick the scope back so that they can justify giving my entry
a low score 'because'
[/i]
Too much time spent in highschool literature class, disecting poetry. But as long as you are having fun with you poetic camera....... |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:33:12 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by rapsiii3:
Too much time spent in highschool literature class, disecting poetry. But as long as you are having fun with you poetic camera.......
Never went to high-school, so I don't know what you mean ;)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 1:31:41 AM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:35:39 AM · #93 |
This is how it works:
There is a challenge.
You submit a photo that you want to be voted on with respect to that challenge.
The voters cast their votes.
There isn't a right or wrong, there is only your own set of goals to work with. The way the voters interpret the challenge and either rate people up or down depending on how well people met the challenge is really all over the shop. The photos that get into the top 10-20 are the ones in which all those disparate interpretations converge. If you want the higest score possible, try to address EVERY possible interpretation of the challenge in one photo. In other words, go universal, and keep it conservative.
If you just want to provoke some interesting comments and share your work with people and don't care about the score, it doesn't matter how you interpret the challenge, and it never will.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:40:56 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by lisae:
If you just want to provoke some interesting comments and share your work with people and don't care about the score, it doesn't matter how you interpret the challenge, and it never will.
And if you fall into this last camp, wouldn't the best thing to do be to talk about
it endlessly in the forums ? :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:52:12 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by lisae:
And if you fall into this last camp, wouldn't the best thing to do be to talk about
it endlessly in the forums ? :)
These conversations can be really interesting and useful when they stick to exploring interpretations of the challenge and don't turn into metadiscussions about how the site should or shouldn't run challenges in the future. But every week it turns into a debate over the site instead of the challenge. It's kind of weird.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 06:05:02 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
they'll have to include this (suggsted) disclaimer specifically and explicitly on every challenge:
"This is a site devoted to improving people's ability to use digital photography as a means of artistic expession. In all challenges, creative interpetation of the stated topic is encouraged."
I would think that, this being a site of devoted artists, that statement would "go without saying," but apparently I am mistaken.
This reminds me of "Warning - contents may be hot" printed on the packaging of a McDonalds Hot Apple Pie.
This reminds me of "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear" printed on car wing mirrors.
This reminds me of "Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands" printed on a chainsaw.
This reminds me of "Suitable for vegetarians" printed on a bottle of Sainsbury's mineral water.
John |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:13:08 AM · #97 |
You cannot micro-manage the voters.
I mean that no matter how hard you try..you are not going to control, direct or otherwise influence such a wide and diverse group of people that vote here with a sentence or two in the challenge description.
Spend time at DP Challenge and if doing well here is very important to you..cater to the bulk of the voters. There is no other way.
Endlessly debating semantic differences of opinion or artistic views is interesting in its own pretzle logic kind of way but it will never change the fact that there is a middle voter we all must reach to do well here.
As distastefull as this may sound you must be the Michael Jackson of or the N'Sync of DP Challenge to score highly. >:-D |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:15:08 AM · #98 |
Just for the record: Billy Jean is not my lover. She's just a girl ...
Originally posted by hokie:
As distastefull as this may sound you must be the Michael Jackson of or the N'Sync of DP Challenge to score highly. >:-D
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:47:37 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by hokie:
As distastefull as this may sound you must be the Michael Jackson of or the N'Sync of DP Challenge to score highly. >:-D
Hmmmm... interetsing analogy, but I take offense to it... :(
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:48:12 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by hokie:
As distasteful as this may sound you must be the Michael Jackson of or the N'Sync of DP Challenge to score highly. >:-D
I don't think I'll be able to look at John in quite the same light ever again :)
|
|
