| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2002 02:24:44 PM · #101 |
'Use a single, artificial light source to dramatically light the subject of your choice.'
You can debate the true meaning of this sentance all you want, but in the end it is the voting masses that will make that interpration and most will do that without ever reading this thread.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:29:11 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by daysez:
'Use a single, artificial light source to dramatically light the subject of your choice.'
You can debate the true meaning of this sentance all you want, but in the end it is the voting masses that will make that interpration and most will do that without ever reading this thread.
Well spoken. I'm just explaining the logic driving my 0.3% of the vote.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:30:10 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
or the converse, until people stop trying to jockey for unfair advantage by coming up with ways to cheat or beat everyone else, and just enjoy the exercise for what it obviously is : ) ..
if it was obvious, we wouldn't have entries with the moon or the
sun in them. Therefore it is not obvious.
Is it only an 'unfair advantage' or 'cheating' if it isn't the
obvious interpretation for you or is there scope for other interpretations
within that definition of fair or not cheating ?
See, again we'd be off on the vaguries of the English language.
It is vague. That can't be helped. There is a lot of redundency
and ambiguity in the English language, which rather gives it its charm
in my own personal view.
However, it does mean that these threads are pointless and any claims
of 'cheating' or 'unfair' are only personal opinion that gets voted
upon by the unwashed masses own particular personal opinions. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:32:34 PM · #104 |
lol
i think you're too intelligent to make this argument with any seriousness.
unless of course you're playing devil's advocate.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]or the converse, until people stop trying to jockey for unfair advantage by coming up with ways to cheat or beat everyone else, and just enjoy the exercise for what it obviously is : ) ..
if it was obvious, we wouldn't have entries with the moon or the
sun in them. Therefore it is not obvious.
Is it only an 'unfair advantage' or 'cheating' if it isn't the
obvious interpretation for you or is there scope for other interpretations
within that definition of fair or not cheating ?
See, again we'd be off on the vaguries of the English language.
It is vague. That can't be helped. There is a lot of redundency
and ambiguity in the English language, which rather gives it its charm
in my own personal view.
However, it does mean that these threads are pointless and any claims
of 'cheating' or 'unfair' are only personal opinion that gets voted
upon by the unwashed masses own particular personal opinions.[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 2:31:47 PM. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:38:26 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
lol
i think you're too intelligent to make this argument with any seriousness.
I'm totally serious about this part:
However, it does mean that these threads are pointless and any claims
of 'cheating' or 'unfair' are only personal opinion that gets voted
upon by the unwashed masses own particular personal opinions.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 02:44:22 PM · #106 |
I certainly hope the people who use more than one lightsource dont mark others down who used multiple lightsources....
I betcha that happens... |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 03:07:52 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
'Use a single, artificial light source to dramatically light the subject of your choice. Your photograph must be taken this week (10/14-10/20). Good luck!'
"single, artificial light source" means only one light source, which must be artificial. This can be contrasted with "single artificial light source" (no comma) which means only one light source can be artifical, but other light sources are allowed.
I'm commenting only from a grammatical standpoint.
-Terry
Exactly. This reminds me of a quote by Oscar Wilde: "Ah, I had a busy day. I spent the whole morning putting in a comma and I spent the whole afternoon taking it out". The meeting this challenge criteria hinges therefore whether the photographer/voter spotted the comma or not.
And I very much agree with Gordon's comment above. He suggested that the voter becomes less anal in interpreting the challenge. My contention is that this site stimulates "anality" at the expense of creativity by its rules:
1. During the week of voting pictures cannot be discussed. Unfortunately, by 1 am Monday those pictures are "old news" with the exception of a few posts about "How did you do that". As a result, the score almost becomes "everything". Besides a few helpful, constructive comments one receives, there isn't much feedback. The score tells you whether your picture was in general deemed good/average/sucks. That's it.
2. Because "meeting the challenge" seems to be of paramount importance, discussions of trying to unravel what the challenge wording actually means have pretty much taken over the forums. You really don't learn much about photography from those threads (and i doubt anyone's mind gets changed by them :)
3. The whole image editing rules are, again in my mind, arbitrary and give rise to DQ requests and suspicions of cheating. Cheating? Is this a site that furthers creativity or is this some sort of a gambling den? I am a proponent of allowing unlimited spot editing and if you feel the irresistible urge to submit a stupendous studio portrait to which you apply, say, Polar Coordinates, DO IT! The voters will reward or punish you for your artistic freedom. I found Greenem's image a manipulated image. This is a NOT a criticism on his image, I loved it and found it very creative. Yesterday I brushed out 5-10 annoying pixels from an image (not dpc related)and the result did not look manipulated at all. Yet, THAT would be illegal spot-editing here. I am just wondering how many voters who are so dead-set against unlimited editing (out of the fear of manipulated images polluting the current dpc challenge "purity") voted high on Greenem's image.
Here's my suggestion:
Have two challenges a week but you can submit to only one of the two. One challenge is like the current challenge and its rule (with the new site the current size limitation will go away and that probably will be considered a blessing by all). If you submit to that challenge, you should be prepared to get critically assessed for "meeting the challenge".
The other challenge's only requirement is that the picture is shot during the challenge week. Anything goes in this challenge:it is a "free" challenge about any subject you want. The image must originate with an image from your camera but you can Photoshop it to death if you so desire. You may do any spot editing. You may submit a "challenge subject" shot there to which you gave a looser interpretation because you feel that resulted in a more creative, aesthetic image. When you are shooting for a challenge, at times you stumble on a shot that has nothing to do with the challenge but you like it a lot better than what you end up submitting. So, this "free" challenge category would be ideal and it recognizes the fact that by defining a challenge it stimulates photographers to go out and do SOMETHING (mission accomplished :)
If you would run simultaneous challenges for a while, you could then assess which challenge category is the most successful and which one photographers and voters find the most gratifying. And take it from there.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 04:21:43 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
I certainly hope the people who use more than one lightsource dont mark others down who used multiple lightsources....
I betcha that happens...
LOL.
I am beginning to wonder how I ever got along without this place |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 06:06:38 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by jimmsp:
Originally posted by marksimms:
[i]I certainly hope the people who use more than one lightsource dont mark others down who used multiple lightsources....
I betcha that happens...
LOL.
I am beginning to wonder how I ever got along without this place[/i]
I agree, as much as this site at times frastrates the hell out of me.. Its damn addictive when you have a picture submitted and one is trying to justify oneself in the forums....
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 07:27:43 PM · #110 |
i dont think it has anything to do with being anal : ) ..
if you, Journey, use only one light and are forced to make some creative decisions based on those limitations, but someone else takes carte blanche and uses all the fill lighting they can muster, is that fair to you? esp if people voting on it, think WOW that person really did such an incredible job with JUST ONE LIGHT (referring to the multi light user's shot).
secondly, who said you can't be creative within constraints? ever heard of sonnets? haiku? it is when you have constraints that you have the GREATEST opportunity to be creative. don't fear minimalism; embrace the challenge!
thirdly, what if u explored the 'one light paradigm' and got practice with it. then one day you had this opportunity to shoot an event and you only had one light at your disposal. you would be set! whereas if you'd blown it off as 'just an inconsequential detail of the contest you'd entered' you wouldn't have gained that valuable experience. (Note that Richard Avedon usually used only one light).
fourthly, pawning off the responsibility for doing it right because the 'unwashed voters' may think this, that, or the other is a cop out, imho :).
Originally posted by Journey:
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 7:35:48 PM. |
|
|
|
10/22/2002 07:47:32 PM · #111 |
Frankly, someone who used good lighting techniques with one or multiple can make it LOOK like a single source. And thus, unless you can tell the difference which probably not most of hte time, then you won't know and assume it is a single source.
BTW, it's not that easy to use two sources to create one dramatically looking light source. Nor is it easy to use a single artificial light source to make it look like natural lightsource. So when I saw a "naturally looking" light source, i assume it's an artificial lightsource but manipulated to look like one, but others may differ on that.
Now, what about people who use REFLECTORS? Sure, it's a single strong light source but after it bounces off several reflectors it can look like multiple sources :) heheheheheheh
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i dont think it has anything to do with being anal : ) ..
if you, Journey, use only one light and are forced to make some creative decisions based on those limitations, but someone else takes carte blanche and uses all the fill lighting they can muster, is that fair to you? esp if people voting on it, think WOW that person really did such an incredible job with JUST ONE LIGHT (referring to the multi light user's shot).
secondly, who said you can't be creative within constraints? ever heard of sonnets? haiku? it is when you have constraints that you have the GREATEST opportunity to be creative. don't fear minimalism; embrace the challenge!
thirdly, what if u explored the 'one light paradigm' and got practice with it. then one day you had this opportunity to shoot an event and you only had one light at your disposal. you would be set! whereas if you'd blown it off as 'just an inconsequential detail of the contest you'd entered' you wouldn't have gained that valuable experience. (Note that Richard Avedon usually used only one light).
fourthly, pawning off the responsibility for doing it right because the 'unwashed voters' may think this, that, or the other is a cop out, imho :).
[b]Originally posted by Journey:[/b
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 08:45:00 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
secondly, who said you can't be creative within constraints? ever heard of sonnets? haiku?
New challenge begins
In the forums, people ask
"What does it all mean?"
-Terry
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 8:43:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2002 09:26:55 PM · #113 |
Magnetic, I'm not sure you fully understood my post or perhaps i don't fully understand your response.
The only thing i really like about the challenges is that it stimulates me to think outside of the box. Outside the challenges i tend to shoot what i like and had never said "hey, let's do some shots of a pencil" until the pencil challenge. Since then, i am looking more at humdrum, uninteresting subjects (is that why i'm taking all these self-portraits recently? :)
When voting on pictures foremost i think "does this do anything for me? does it have any impact for me?" If it doesn't, why would i care how well or not it meets a certain challenge? If i like it, down the line i will also consider somewhat whether it meets the challenge (i admit that i used to be much more anal about that in my early days of voting). A lot of shots are merely taken to meet a challenge. The Negative Space one stands out in my mind in that regard. I found a lot of pictures there not very interesting; lots of negative space and very little positive space (i don't even agree with that definition of negative space). I found myself wondering whether the photographer would have bothered taken the shot if it hadn't been for the challenge.
With the light challenge, i have not once closely scrutinized any picture to see whether, oh shame!!!, oh sinner!!!!, someone might not have read the comma in the challenge and used multiple light sources or reflectors (the latter is like starting to write a Haiku but then don't quite follow the format because it's so confining). Frankly, i don't care. There were some interesting light features in some of the shots and i'll be interested in reading what light and how it was used. I am not rewarding the picture that has met the challenge the most or the best; just the pictures that do something for me.
I am not saying that there isn't room for sonnet/haiku strictness (how many sonnets have you written recently, magnetic? :) That's why i suggested multiple challenges but allowing submission to only one during any one week.
Just did some googling and saw this nice Haiku. I'm not a Haiku expert but if you want to be really strict about it isn't a "good" Haiku because Haiku structure is so difficult to follow in English. Therefore, you should give it a 1 for not meeting the challenge of being a Haiku (hehe):
Faceless, just numbered.
Lone pixel in the bitmap-
I, anonymous.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 9:28:28 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/22/2002 9:32:55 PM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:03:32 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by smshats:
I just wanted to say that this challenge is going to be very hard to vote on... I just scrolled through the pictures and I see nothing but 10's!!!!!! GREAT JOB EVERYONE!!!!!
I don't see how anyone can possibly say that. If you give something a 10 it means that it simply can't get any better. And it's only fair to spread your votes out over the entire scale. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:21:32 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by Antithesis:
Originally posted by smshats:
[i]I just wanted to say that this challenge is going to be very hard to vote on... I just scrolled through the pictures and I see nothing but 10's!!!!!! GREAT JOB EVERYONE!!!!!
I don't see how anyone can possibly say that. If you give something a 10 it means that it simply can't get any better. And it's only fair to spread your votes out over the entire scale.[/i]
You have LOADS of catching up to do antithesis!!!
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:37:22 AM · #116 |
Let's try to keep something in mind, please. This is a learning site for most people and there are a great number of new photographers here that are enjoying this site. In attempting to meet the challenges many of these people are going to produce what some of us might consider average or boring photos. Most of the photos, however, are not average or boring to those photographers. I'm not implying that we go easy on people in are voting because I think that meeting the challenge and producing a superb photo is still the goal, I just wish this would be more understood from many people here who have been involved with photography for a long time.
T
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:39:43 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
You have LOADS of catching up to do antithesis!!!
Please explain. What do I have to "catch up" on?
.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 07:44:52 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by Antithesis:
Originally posted by marksimms:
[i]
You have LOADS of catching up to do antithesis!!!
Please explain. What do I have to "catch up" on?
.
[/i]
I think he means on the thread. ;-)
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:06:21 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Let's try to keep something in mind, please. This is a learning site for most people and there are a great number of new photographers here that are enjoying this site. In attempting to meet the challenges many of these people are going to produce what some of us might consider average or boring photos. Most of the photos, however, are not average or boring to those photographers. I'm not implying that we go easy on people in are voting because I think that meeting the challenge and producing a superb photo is still the goal, I just wish this would be more understood from many people here who have been involved with photography for a long time.
T
I think I may well be guilty of that particular trait sometimes.. The only problem is that sometimes you can view 5 or 6 absolutly outstanding photos in a row, then up pops a 'beginners' photo, sometimes its hard to be open minded in those situations.. Although I usually find any harsh votes I made in my initial round of voting usually gets up when I have time to go through those I voted low.. I know what it is like to be a beginner, I have only had my camera since August and lookig back at my first attempts at "arty" it makes me cringe now, but at the time I felt like David Bailey..
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:10:36 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
I know what it is like to
be a beginner, I have only had my camera since August and lookig back
at my first attempts at "arty" it makes me cringe now, but at the time I felt like David Bailey..
lets see them ! :) Maybe we should have a voluntary hall of shame. We
can all post our most cringeworthy 'self-important' shots. It might
help people learn from our embarassment. I'll let you know when I
get past the current stage I'm in to realise which ones fall into the
bad category.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:28:57 AM · #121 |
hmmmm a complementary forum to "How do they do that" = "Things you don't want to do." lol.
Remember my Fear intry? Blackout |
|
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: 07/18/2025 01:21:33 AM EDT.
