DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Confused About Ed's Photo
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 74, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/08/2007 08:56:42 PM · #26
I thought the photo was average. It really didn't grasp my attention. Personally, I think that BW photography is a very particular topic and that it is generally overdone. I've only seen a few photos that really grasps the dynamics exposed with a grayscale. I converted my entry to BW just to see what would happen, and I got quite a few positive comments. I also pulled the contrast range, which people seemed to like. Personally, I don't think my photo deserved a BW conversion.

There was also one photo a couple challenges ago with a man on a pier fishing. A child was at the bottom of the photo, and in a dark range. People comments on the distraction of the child, but for me, it gave a sense of an additional story. I would have given a higher score in the photo that you mentioned if the face was more of a focal point.

I'm also more curious though as to your thoughts and full analysis is on the photo. Your wording suggests that we are all missing something in it.
02/08/2007 09:03:44 PM · #27
Originally posted by zeuszen:

I'll stick with the unicycle idea until someone proves me wrong,


Has to be a bicycle. There's the shadow of a wheel on the wall. But the wheel you can see, is already in shadow and can't be the one casting the shadow on the wall. So the other wheel must be up behind him where you can't see it from this angle.
02/08/2007 09:23:51 PM · #28
Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I'll stick with the unicycle idea until someone proves me wrong,


Has to be a bicycle. There's the shadow of a wheel on the wall. But the wheel you can see, is already in shadow and can't be the one casting the shadow on the wall. So the other wheel must be up behind him where you can't see it from this angle.


...not to mention the shadow of the handlebars and brakes!
02/08/2007 09:44:52 PM · #29
Originally posted by PGerst:

I've only seen a few photos that really grasps the dynamics exposed with a grayscale.


hmmm, I must say I'm left scratching my head over this comment.

As a huge fan of Ed and this type of photography I must say I enjoy this image.
What appeals to me about it so much is that the majority of photographers would see this guy walking down some steps with his bike and at best be thinking to themselves "if only he was doing some tricks or something he may be worth shooting" but Ed captured this scene and presented it to us in a professional interesting manner.

nick
02/08/2007 10:00:11 PM · #30
Originally posted by PGerst:

I'm also more curious though as to your thoughts and full analysis is on the photo. Your wording suggests that we are all missing something in it.


I guess it's only fair. :) As you might ascertain from my comment, I had trouble speaking intelligently about this image. But at the risk of writing what Art is parodying, I'll give it a try. First of all, the composition is strong, with a big diagonal separating light from dark. This diagonal gives a lot of energy to the cyclist. As nick (and maybe art) mentioned, he is captured here in the rather mundane act of carrying his bicycle, which is also a role reversal. All these things add thematic interest for me.

Then we have the perfect way that the cyclist is lit. He is mostly silhouetted, presenting us with a fascinating and complex black shape, but he is highlighted just enough to make him "pop" from the background. The only place he blends is around the area of his feet, which only accentuates his movement down the stairs.

As DrAchoo said, we have the dynamic interplay of the shadows, and as others have said, one wheel is visible, the other wheel is visible as shadow. We also have the huge brick-like shapes on the wall which threaten to visually overwhelm the cyclist. This is not a weakness, it adds to the theme, to the visual poignancy of an image that has no story to give it poignancy.

It is an image that I am pretty sure could easily get published in the "real world." And if DPC does not reflect the "real world," giving a 5.4 to a publishable image, as well as not reflecting my own taste, I question why I am here.

By the way, I am not asking for answers to that question, smarta$$es. :P
02/08/2007 10:07:50 PM · #31
I liked the shadow play and the extraordinary comp. I gave it an eight. Save your energy.... Don't try and figure out the voters. But in their defense many great images don't get the vote they deserve (from me anyway) as I pss through them and vote quickly.
02/08/2007 10:12:22 PM · #32
Originally posted by neophyte:

Save your energy.... Don't try and figure out the voters.


Actually, this has been quite enlightening to me. I don't believe in a monolithic DPC voter. I think an average vote is actually a complex result of a chaotic dynamical system. Hearing how different individuals engaged with this photo on its path to scoring mediocrity is far more edifying than staring blankly at the end result. :)
02/08/2007 10:15:59 PM · #33
It is very eloquent essay about a good but not hugely engaging image. The fact that it evoke such a commentary speaks more about the commenter than about the image. We all know that with sufficient imagination and developed vocabulary one can write an essay just about anything, including an arbitrary crappy snapshot, the latest fad of exhibiting cell-phone pics at art galleries being just one example (I am not equating this photo with those!).

I am sure this image is publishable. But what is NOT publishable in our day and age? :)


02/08/2007 10:23:14 PM · #34
Originally posted by LevT:

I am sure this image is publishable. But what is NOT publishable in our day and age? :)


Actually I'm not really in our day and age. That's another reason for this thread, to see if maybe the standards for photography are different now.
02/08/2007 10:24:03 PM · #35
Originally posted by pekesty:

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I'll stick with the unicycle idea until someone proves me wrong,


Has to be a bicycle. There's the shadow of a wheel on the wall. But the wheel you can see, is already in shadow and can't be the one casting the shadow on the wall. So the other wheel must be up behind him where you can't see it from this angle.


...not to mention the shadow of the handlebars and brakes!


I feel tricked.
02/08/2007 11:02:19 PM · #36
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by LevT:

I am sure this image is publishable. But what is NOT publishable in our day and age? :)


Actually I'm not really in our day and age. That's another reason for this thread, to see if maybe the standards for photography are different now.


perhaps you are not published, but I am sure you are publishable. The trick is to find the publisher :P.
02/08/2007 11:05:07 PM · #37
Originally posted by LevT:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by LevT:

I am sure this image is publishable. But what is NOT publishable in our day and age? :)


Actually I'm not really in our day and age. That's another reason for this thread, to see if maybe the standards for photography are different now.


perhaps you are not published, but I am sure you are publishable. The trick is to find the publisher :P.


Are you talking about MY photographs? I'm just a dilletante. I was talking about my taste, not my work.
02/08/2007 11:48:44 PM · #38
First, thanks for your insight. Second, its really important to look at the distribution of the scores. They are normal, meaning they are normalized to a gaussian shape. Often, this is representative of the "real world". What this truely shows is that there is a number of people who see a lot in it and it appeals to them. Then, there are a number of people who see something else, and it doesn't appeal to them.

As long as a scoring is relatively normal, its a good approximation to the "real world". As to publishability, who is to say that a 1, a 5, or a 10, wouldn't be published?

Ultimately, the distribution is normal across the voting range. There was nothing wrong with the photo. There almost never is. This photo was a good capture of what the world likes.

Sorry to get all statistical....

Originally posted by posthumous:

.t is an image that I am pretty sure could easily get published in the "real world." And if DPC does not reflect the "real world," giving a 5.4 to a publishable image, as well as not reflecting my own taste, I question why I am here.
02/09/2007 12:10:38 AM · #39
Some people need to get out more often if they think dpchallenge represents "the real world".
02/09/2007 01:56:37 AM · #40
I wonder also if there could be slight cultural influences at play? I instantly recognised the photo as British - or at least that I imagined it to be taken in Britain. There are a couple of reasons for this - the environment itself; the steps are clearly part of a large metropolitan square, such as can be found in any of major cities - the give away here is the shadow of the ballustrade and statue to the left, which to my view adds imeasurably to the total effect; secondly, the style of photography is one that is popular in photo galleries. I gave this a 7, and was primarily drawn to the sparse balance - every single element is essential to the photos success (to me).
02/09/2007 02:40:06 AM · #41
I agree with Sara. This image is perhaps falling towards the "fine art" side of photography.

To shift the normal distribution of votes up the scale, a photo must be beautiful and engaging, and instantly so. This image is neither. It takes work from the viewer to enjoy. If you go to an art gallery and go through it with the same rapidity as going through voting 300 images at DPC, I guarantee you will really have missed out on the experience. This is the problem with voting (or trying to vote for) 300+ images per challenge.

I gave it a 7 too but then my taste does not always conform with most others here. That puts me in the "loony fringe" of the normal distribution curve I suppose!
02/09/2007 03:18:29 AM · #42
Just had to chime in here again...

I had assumed that the title was referring to the photographer's trick of making us think we were looking at a trick bicycle (unicycle)...but perhaps i was reading too far into it. :)

I suppose what I admire about this kind of image is that it is what it is. It is hard to imagine that many other people have a similar photograph where as hundreds of the top scoring photos here are beautiful, marketable, and, for those reasons, often repeated. I guess it comes down to why we are photographers. Some people shoot stock, some people shoot to wow people with the amazing things that they have had the provilege of seeing, and others attempt to give you a sense of how they see the world around them and the neverending realm of subtleties that humanbeings bring to the landscapes and cityscapes around them.

And for the record I do not subscribe to any magazines or have much of a historical perspective on photography but if anyone wants to buy me subscriptions to any interesting publications I would be happy to accept the offer. :)

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 03:19:02.
02/09/2007 07:24:48 AM · #43
Originally posted by posthumous:

It is an image that I am pretty sure could easily get published in the "real world." And if DPC does not reflect the "real world," giving a 5.4 to a publishable image, as well as not reflecting my own taste, I question why I am here.



In your "Real World" I'd bet 54% of the people who viewed this supposed "Published" image wherever it might or may have been published would have the same exact thoughts as our "sample" does here.

I guess you would then have to question why you are in the "Real World" at all. ;-)
02/09/2007 08:21:25 AM · #44
i didn't vote, and would likely not have voted too high. a 6 likely. it's not the photo itself that makes it lack to me. it's the action that is captured. if he were a true 'trick' cyclist he'd be riding down the steps. i've done it many times over, and it isn't really that difficult. so it comes off to me as just a guy carrying his bike. yes the technicals are there, and the lighting is fine, but that only goes so far if the subject of the image doesn't grab you.


02/09/2007 08:37:49 AM · #45
Originally posted by soup:

i didn't vote, and would likely not have voted too high. a 6 likely. it's not the photo itself that makes it lack to me. it's the action that is captured. if he were a true 'trick' cyclist he'd be riding down the steps. i've done it many times over, and it isn't really that difficult. so it comes off to me as just a guy carrying his bike. yes the technicals are there, and the lighting is fine, but that only goes so far if the subject of the image doesn't grab you.

This is not about *what* you shoot, it's about *how* you shoot it. Ed's talent is in photographing everyday life subjects (often without any wowy story) in a beautiful and engaging way. To me, *this* is what photography is about. Ed is among the few photographers that make me actually enjoy the DPC. When voting, I always look forward to seeing a shot like his.

Photography should not really be about photographing *subjects*, but more about photographing *compositions*.

I am usually not very fascinated to see or photograph people doing their *regular* stuff (like, for instance, shooting a trick cyclist doing the tricks). I like to see a moment of transition, like in this shot, a semantic contrast between parts of the composition.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 08:39:52.
02/09/2007 08:42:05 AM · #46
Originally posted by JPR:

I guess it comes down to why we are photographers. Some people shoot stock, some people shoot to wow people with the amazing things that they have had the provilege of seeing, and others attempt to give you a sense of how they see the world around them and the neverending realm of subtleties that humanbeings bring to the landscapes and cityscapes around them.

And for the record I do not subscribe to any magazines or have much of a historical perspective on photography but if anyone wants to buy me subscriptions to any interesting publications I would be happy to accept the offer. :)


For anyone willing to buy JPR a subscription may I recommend LensWork.

J-Well said...but I think it boils down to another thing and that is speed voting. Great, enduring images that truly stand the test of time require more than a 5 second look.

I believe that if you can't give an image a fair look then you CAN'T give it a fair judgment and I would propose that people only vote on images that they've actually looked at.

Is there a need, a rule or merit in voting on EVERY image in a Challenge if you haven't given the time accurately judge the content. What is that vote really worth? Nothing, IMO. That, I think explains why most of what we see on the front page has pop but little substance.

If you have the time to vote...PARTY!!! If not...do your best but make it a quality vote.
02/09/2007 09:02:24 AM · #47
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Is there a need, a rule or merit in voting on EVERY image in a Challenge if you haven't given the time accurately judge the content. What is that vote really worth? Nothing, IMO. That, I think explains why most of what we see on the front page has pop but little substance.


Having a world stuck in Fast Forward does not bode well for the future of a site like this. This is why pretty (empty) images triumph most often. Look at celebrities and musicians - same story. There are fat ugly actors but you can count them on 1 hand. Then again there are a lot of actors of substance but they have to be stunning looking too.

Another problem is having so many mediocre images in a challenge. You want to immediately skip over each one to get onto the good stuff, and in the process you might miss a good subtle image that has some substance. I am afraid most votes must then be classed as worthless.

Will this site do anything about the situation? Unlikely as it makes its money out of those "poppy" pics on the front page. Sorry I am a bit cynical...
02/09/2007 09:24:07 AM · #48
Originally posted by craigester:

Will this site do anything about the situation? Unlikely as it makes its money out of those "poppy" pics on the front page. Sorry I am a bit cynical...


The site doesn't make any money out of the winning photos, and I can't really think of anything the site can do to "help" the "situation". It can't change what the majority of people like and as with any competition like this, majority opinion is the one that matters as far as winning is concerned. That is why a lot of members don't aim to win, they aim to get recognition in other ways, such as having threads made to praise their photos, much like this one :)
02/09/2007 09:27:41 AM · #49
I enjoy this style of photography. I'm a fan of B&W. I'm a cyclist and British, so understand the cultural context. I love interesting interplays of shadows and light and a well timed exposure.

Intellectually I can see that this photo has all those elements. The exposure is subtle, with good shadow detail and it has everything that should make it a great shot.

But it doesn't work for me. It looks like a shot trying hard to be that style, rather than a shot that just is. Somehow it feels a bit too contrived or trying too hard. I can't put my finger on what doesn't work about it, but it doesn't read for me.

Edit: thought about this some more. I think what is missing for me is depth. I don't mean technically, I mean depth of interest. It is all occurring on just a couple of layers, more layering of 'stuff' in the image would tend to give your eye more to explore. For this style of street shooting, this is almost too simple to be interesting. Perhaps if the wall fell away to reveal a more out of focus 'something' behind, or something. If it is to be worth slowing down to explore, there has to be something worth exploring or enjoying.

It ends up being a subtle, simple image that is almost too quick to read. It has aspects of the 'wow' image - simple forms, easy to comprehend, while appearing like an image that doesn't have that initial wow, but then needs something to savour - and falls down between those two extremes.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 10:19:26.
02/09/2007 09:44:57 AM · #50
i really like the photo, actually, and looking at it alone (as opposed to looking at while looking at 400 other photos) it deserves more than a 5 (which is what i gave it). i guess that's the kicker.....while voting so many photos, gems get lost. but look at them alone and ya wonder why it scored so low. i shouldn't have given it a 5, because it is compositionally excellent, and i love the shadows and tone... but i guess with the flood of free study photos to vote on, thissun just got lost in the deluge. sorry, ed!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 01:15:26 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/27/2025 01:15:26 AM EDT.