Team Suck Beachhouse - Leave Your Cares Behind

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/15/2007 01:20:56 AM · #1276

Well, it's offensive to someone other than me, but it still got on my nerves. So away it goes, our lovely, much appreciated SC can deal with it :)

Bruce_the_Robert

Nikon D7000

06/15/2007 02:54:22 AM · #1277

Jeff's recently posted image really got to me this morning; the image touched me, but the reaction to it during voting bothered me. Is anyone interested in thinking through whether there's a way I can put my viewing/voting strategy so that it makes sense and also sends a message to the wider DPC community? For example, one person voted a challenge recently and used the old "technicals" "wow factor" bit, assigning a score for each "part" and simply adding them up. He posted this in the comments box on images he voted.

I like transparency in voting as much as the next person, but this to me sends the wrong message. It says, "I am going to evaluate your image, but I am not going to see it. I am going to critique your image, but I am not going to look at it. I am going to judge your image, but I will not try to understand it."

I am not thinking of a new "scaling" like I've described above; I would almost call it a voting manifesto, but that word has so much baggage it's almost useless. It would maybe have almost the opposites of the message I've outlined. Things like, "I will assume first that an image meets the challenge, and second that if I cannot find the connection, it is my lack of vision and not the photographer's." Or, "I will always look first to really see an image, second to understand it, and only then will I try to evaluate it."

I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling, but when people can take Jeff's image and comment on lighting and nothing else, something is not right. I feel the same about some of the comments on Leroy's "Why" image.

Thoughts? Reactions? Am I more off my rocker than usual?

Best,

Rob

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/15/2007 03:10:39 AM · #1278

Robert it is hard to see a very emotive image being voted on technicals particularly if it is an image that has touched you but technicals are still important. It is helpful for a photog to know if the technicals are letting down the emotional impact of their photo if that's what they're going for. What I think is that we have a good mix of voters in that some are knowledgeable on technicals and judge all images that way and others are purely emotive voters. Both points of view are valid and both can be helpful. Everyone settles into a style of voting that suits them and I think that's important after all it is the general public that we're putting our images to and their reactions will vary. Just my 2 cents.

jackal9

Canon EOS-50D

06/15/2007 04:27:18 AM · #1279

Originally posted by meyers:

Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:

Originally posted by snaffles:
Looks like this is turning out to be a great day for all...

Actually, god, yes, tell me about it. I thought I did something stupid and really messed up a friendship, but I got the loveliest email in the world a couple of hours ago, and it turns out I haven't. And everything else is coming together too - whatever social drama was happening recently seems to have sorted itself out, and life is kind of normal and happy again. I can focus on taking pictures instead :)

Woohoo for resolved drama!

I'm off to Oklahoma for a family reunion tonight, but I should get back on Sunday in time to post up challenge results and maybe even submit an entry for one or more of the challenges. If I'm really lucky I can do the daily trivia thing with what passes for internet access down there.

Being half Korean, my son will be the, um, most racially diverse person in the group. I grew up in the San Francisco area, away from most of my family, and it's still a culture shock for me to be in such a homogenous group.

Where in Okla. are you going?? or from, and no I am from Florida but currently reside in Oklahoma...and though it may be hard to envision we do have at least 1/2 T connections in Oklahoma....

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 04:27:46.

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/15/2007 06:48:03 AM · #1280

bdenny

Sony DSC-H5

06/15/2007 06:52:54 AM · #1281

you guys should put chocolate syrup in your coffee...its yummy :)

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/15/2007 07:02:56 AM · #1282

Originally posted by bdenny:

you guys should put chocolate syrup in your coffee...its yummy :)

Vanilla syrup with chocolate shavings and whipped cream on top doesn't suck either. :-)

bdenny

Sony DSC-H5

06/15/2007 07:12:14 AM · #1283

that's too much effort for me to muster this early

Sounds good though

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 07:12:27.

bdenny

Sony DSC-H5

06/15/2007 07:18:16 AM · #1284

just curious (cup #2)...when did the chocolate syrup bottles do away with the messy top (the one you, well I, had to close with your mouth)? I just noticed that.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/15/2007 08:14:14 AM · #1285

Ooh, what a good idea! *wanders off to get chocolate syrup for much needed coffee*

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

06/15/2007 09:24:48 AM · #1286

Originally posted by bdenny:

just curious (cup #2)...when did the chocolate syrup bottles do away with the messy top (the one you, well I, had to close with your mouth)? I just noticed that.

When did the drugstore soda fountains go?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/15/2007 10:55:09 AM · #1287

Originally posted by Wildcard:

What I think is that we have a good mix of voters in that some are knowledgeable on technicals and judge all images that way and others are purely emotive voters. Both points of view are valid and both can be helpful.

I disagree. Both points of view are only valid when they're used *together*. A purely emotional reaction too often depends on the subject rather than the photograph. A purely technical reaction is useless because the standards used might have nothing to do with the photograph in question. What good is telling Diane Arbus that she should use a narrower DOF and crop closer to the subject? What good is telling Man Ray that his focus is soft?

This comes up in poetry forums, too. "Critics" come up with a list of "rules" not realizing that these are just guidelines for specific cases, specific intentions. Take for example, "too many modifiers." I hear that all the time in poetry workshops. It works in many cases, but not all. As Rob implied, the only valid critique comes from really looking at the photo *before* you start looking for rules to apply.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

06/15/2007 11:14:57 AM · #1288

I can see your point but are all voters able to vote technically and emotionally, some are more comfortable with one than the other and while the occasional photo might edge them out of their comfort zone they can be set in their voting style. Does it help the artist to rail against the unfairness of that or is it more beneficial to take all comments as they come and see the image through the voters eyes. If someone comments that Man Rays photo is too soft that's one persons opinion and it is valid but it is up to Man Ray to ultimately decide if he achieved his vision or if a little more sharpness might be worth trying.

And face it some voters won't "get" some images even if you print them huge hang them in a gallery and stand there and explain it to them.
That's art, in that case if they're prepared to vote and comment on technicals then so be it.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

06/15/2007 11:32:06 AM · #1289

The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/15/2007 11:35:26 AM · #1290

Originally posted by Wildcard:

Does it help the artist to rail against the unfairness of that or is it more beneficial to take all comments as they come and see the image through the voters eyes.

It is VERY beneficial to see the image through the voters' eyes, but only if the voters are actually seeing the image.

Originally posted by Wildcard:

If someone comments that Man Rays photo is too soft that's one persons opinion and it is valid but it is up to Man Ray to ultimately decide if he achieved his vision or if a little more sharpness might be worth trying.

No, it's not valid. If every comment you could possibly make is valid, then what good are comments? An invalid comment needs to be disregarded not only by Man Ray but by every viewer who sees the comment, and the person who made the comment. Otherwise, its falsity spreads into other wrong ideas.

The next question becomes, who is the judge of what is valid? There is no such judge, not definitively, but that doesn't mean you just give up trying.

Originally posted by Wildcard:

That's art, in that case if they're prepared to vote and comment on technicals then so be it.

I think the term "technicals" is misused at DPC. Sharp focus is not a "technical." The "technical" is to get the proper amount of focus required by the shot. In Man Ray's case, soft focus would be his "technical." Therefore, you should vote him higher for the "technical" of soft focus.

So the voter you describe is not voting on "technicals," he is voting on arbitrary image qualities that have nothing to do with the image that is sitting right in front of him.

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 11:36:30.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/15/2007 12:17:33 PM · #1291

Originally posted by posthumous:

It is VERY beneficial to see the image through the voters' eyes, but only if the voters are actually seeing the image.

If voters are voting on up to 600 images they're going to see very few of them. Personal preference also plays a part in seeing most people are drawn to what they like, the familiar, the comfortable.

The art gallery has a painting that I love, I've been visiting it for 20 years now, it's huge and has a whole wall to itself. Whenever I talk to someone that has been to the gallery I ask them if they've seen it, so far no one has. I wondered for a long time how they could miss it but I think the subject just doesn't interest them so it doesn't register. I've even taken people to see it and they still don't see it the way I do. We all bring our personal preferences to the table.

No, it's not valid. If every comment you could possibly make is valid, then what good are comments? An invalid comment needs to be disregarded not only by Man Ray but by every viewer who sees the comment, and the person who made the comment. Otherwise, its falsity spreads into other wrong ideas.

The next question becomes, who is the judge of what is valid? There is no such judge, not definitively, but that doesn't mean you just give up trying.

Are only the comments that we like valid? I think everyone is entitled to make up their own mind what they think about an artwork and the very nature of art and humanity is that the comments will vary wildly. Ultimately it's up to the artist/photog to decide what is valid, what they will take on and what they will ignore.

I think the term "technicals" is misused at DPC. Sharp focus is not a "technical." The "technical" is to get the proper amount of focus required by the shot. In Man Ray's case, soft focus would be his "technical." Therefore, you should vote him higher for the "technical" of soft focus.

So the voter you describe is not voting on "technicals," he is voting on arbitrary image qualities that have nothing to do with the image that is sitting right in front of him.

I agree that the range of technicals accepted at DPC is limited, it's well known that the voters like a certain look they also tend to follow the latest "in" thing. But they are the judges, ultimately it's up to them to judge an image as they see fit. Certainly I think the voters can be educated into accepting a more diverse range of styles but I don't think that will be achieved by railing against them in the forums.It's very difficult to tell people how to see it's much more effective to show them and allow them time to become familiar with something new so it seems to me the thing to do is what we do best at Team Suck, create the images we love and create them well, only by exposing people to new ideas will they learn to appreciate and see a wider variety of images.

It's worth bearing in mind that many of out voters have probably learned all they know about photography here so if they've been taught through the voting process that sharpness in an image is important then that's how they will vote and they will pass that on to the next newcomer.

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 12:35:24.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

06/15/2007 12:45:53 PM · #1292

Don, something you said struck me: technical perfection occurs when the photographer achieves the desired purpose.

The problem is that there's no way to know the photographer's purpose in the current DPC voting setup. So that leaves you with voting based on what you like to see. That IS perfectly valid, IMO.

Similarly, I do think all comments are valid. But "valid" to me, in this context, means a legitimate means for someone to share an opinion. It's then up to everyone who reads it to decide whether they agree.

Furthermore, I do reserve the right to tell Man Ray, Cartier-Bresson, or anyone else that I think a given photo should be sharper, softer, lighter, darker, cropped differently, etc. That's my opinion, and it might differ with 20 million others, but it's still my opinion. The art world produces loads of stuff I think isn't worth looking at, but that doesn't mean the art world is objectively right.

Which is just fine. How boring it would be if we all liked the same things!

A DPC vote is one type of feedback, a juried critique is another, a "reaction" in the sense of the reaction club is a third, and my grandfather asking for a print of a shot of my daughter is a fourth. All are legit, but all serve different purposes. And as a photographer, I have to decide which audience I want most to please on any given shot.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/15/2007 12:52:03 PM · #1293

Oops - outside of our discussion of comments and voting, I meant to say two things:
1) Thanks for the thoughtful comments on my Why entry.
2) Kelly, I'm delighted to hear your new camera arrived! :)

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

06/15/2007 01:34:02 PM · #1294

There is nothing wrong with railing against thoughtlessness. Attempting to understand the context will almost always improve the quality of an evaluation. And you can take that out of context.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/15/2007 01:35:11 PM · #1295

Sorry to be debating so relentlessly, but you(Wildcard) and Jeffrey have very eloquently presented what I consider to be the standard DPC position on voting, and it is a position I disagree with.

I agree that whining and moaning doesn't solve anything, but it is unfair to characterize rheverly's post and my posts as "railing against" voters. I think there are other ways of educating voters besides simply slipping more photographs into their meat grinder. I might start some tutorial threads. I have already posted my views here and there. Then there are the OOBIE awards which show that different criteria for excellence are possible. And the YAPPIE awards which reward people for looking carefully and commenting thoughtfully.

Jeffrey, I tried to avoid talking about the photographer's purpose, but I did use the word "intentions" once so I opened myself up to your argument. I agree that as viewers we have a right to come up with our own "purpose" for the picture. But I would go further and say we have a responsibility to do so, before we presume to judge it. This is critical: we must begin by looking at the photo without judging it, assuming every aspect of it to be intentional, or a blessed accident. We must give it a chance to work on its own terms before we suggest new ones.

Jeffrey: "How boring it would be if we all liked the same things!"

It is ignorance, not education, that breeds conformity.

Big picture: the game here has two parts, the photos and the votes. The culture is gung-ho about improving photos but hostile to the idea of improving votes. What happens in this case is that instead of people improving their photos, they modify their photos to appeal to the unnurtured, unexamined, floundering voters. For their to be real improvement, real growth, both sides of the equation should be improving. Team Suck has made some small steps in that direction, but I think more should be done (not necessarily under the auspices of Team Suck).

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 13:43:29.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/15/2007 01:44:45 PM · #1296

Don I love a good debate but I must to bed it's after 3.30am. I want to very quickly clear up one thing though when I was talking about railing in the threads I didn't at all have in mind the discussion we're having. I don't see either yours or rheverly's post in that light. But in the main forums debates like this tend to become heated and ineffective. I'll answer the rest tomorrow if that's OK.

Bruce_the_Robert

Nikon D7000

06/15/2007 02:25:18 PM · #1297

Sorry for not re-weighing in sooner, but I was watching this develop, and then my two-year-old decided she was tired and grumpy after waking up from a two and a half hour nap. Anyway . . .

As you might have guessed from the tone of my first post, I'm with Don on this (though I wasn't aware of how closely we thought on this until now). I do want to clarify something, though: this would be a voting strategy for me, publicized by me as applying when I vote (and actually applied by me when I vote). It would be on my profile, and whenever interesting voting debates come up in the forum I would point to it.

Why? This is exactly what I'm talking about, put in words much better than I ever could:

Originally posted by posthumous:

[A]s viewers we have a right to come up with our own "purpose" for the picture. But I would go further and say we have a responsibility to do so, before we presume to judge it. This is critical: we must begin by looking at the photo without judging it, assuming every aspect of it to be intentional, or a blessed accident. We must give it a chance to work on its own terms before we suggest new ones.

I especially like the "assuming every aspect of it to be intentional."

My purpose is to simply make the point through example to some of those "techincally comfortable" voters that, in my opinion, they're doing the wrong thing. I'm not saying vote with your heart only, but I am saying, start with your heart, see the image, and take a moment to try to understand the image. Then evaluate. If you look at a Man Ray, and you don't get it, and you have no idea what it's about, then no, I don't think you should judge it. It should be like that physics theory that you never understood or that advanced calculus equation you could never quite get your head around. Did you say those were wrong? Or they were only worth a "4" because you couldn't understand them? No, you left them there, in their own place, without judgment, because you couldn't judge them.

I'm not going quite that far here; art is not science or math; everyone is in fact allowed to have an opinion. But you know what they say about opinions; they're like, well, um, hearts: everybody's got one (of course, that's not the body part used, but you get the idea).

So, I won't say everyone can't have their own opinion. They can. But I am going so far as to say that each voter should at least be trying to see, understand (within the limits shown by Don and Jeff), and then evaluate. Evaluating first is putting the ass before the cart.

One final note: this would not make every image a 10, or an 8, or even a 6. It does not make every image a Man Ray. I have some images that say very little, and don't say even what they say very well. They are pedantic and simplistic. But I think I have a couple of others that seem at first glance to fit that mold, but have something more to them. I hope the viewers see them before they move on.

So, is this phrase from my first post a good manifesto (maybe I'll try to reclaim that word for the good ;) )?

"I will always look first to really see an image, second to understand it, and only then will I try to evaluate it."

Very interesting discussion, everyone, thanks for giving me lots of food for thought.

Best,

Rob

Message edited by author 2007-06-15 14:30:48.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/15/2007 02:36:09 PM · #1298

I fear I am hopelessly simple. I don't always follow the discussion points here and I don't "know" art. I like looking at pictures and seeing what is there. I may not see what the photographer saw in his mind's eye or when he looks at the photograph, but I see something. It may not move me. Or it may. Sometimes I do comment on technicals as well - usually as it relates to how I see the picture. I'll probably continue to do so because I'm an anal retentive engineer and I just can't seem to help myself. :-) I will generally spend a lot more time with a picture than the average voter, though.

06/15/2007 02:45:33 PM · #1299

Heh, ok, this is gonna seem so tangential, but I can't help it anyway...

See, there's this book I've been reading recently, which doesn't have a single mention of the words 'photography' or 'art', but I can't help but see strong parallels between it and the discussion you're having. So I'll try and explain it and see where it goes - feel free to tell me it's unconnected, I'm talking nonsense, etc., it hasn't really been thought through properly.

So the book I'm reading is on listening to people. Sort of counselling style, how do you hold back your own interests and opinions for a bit in order to really hear what someone is telling you, and actually understand them. It's a necessary form of human interaction, we die slowly in strange ways without it, but it's actually very difficult.

And the parallel is this: what the book points out is that what people are often eager to do is to reform the person they're speaking to, give them advice, talk at length about their own opinions, without ever really bothering to genuinely try and understand the other person's point of view before they do so. They might be keen to show off, or might want to come across as helpful, or might desire attention more than they're willing to give it to other people. And it's not that they're bad people, but if you do this, the 'conversation' you're having isn't really communication, and the advice is fruitless because noone is really that keen to be reformed by people who don't take the time to get to know them first.

And to link it back to the actual discussion at hand... I don't think anyone in this thread actually objects to other people having and expressing opinions they disagree with. What people do universally object to, however, and not just in photography either, is being preached to using arbitrary socially accepted criteria without the other person taking them seriously enough to try and understand them before they judge them. There may or may not be validity to the judgement, but it's dehumanising nonetheless. And photography isn't that different - we do, after all, put a lot of ourselves into our photos (just look at Jeffrey's Why entry for an immediate example). So I do agree with Don that it is our responsibility to give an image a chance to work before we judge it.

However, to defend the voters a bit - I think this responsibility is proportional to the level of intent present in the picture, and how much of themselves the photographer puts into it. With a very strong, personal message, the responsibility is obvious. However, with somebody's first submitted snapshots, it's reasonable to not try to read complex religious and literary references into it, but instead gently point out that "maybe you should use a tripod, and look out for accidental elements, like that tree sticking out of the model's head." And because there are so many pictures out there, and really getting into a picture takes a considerable investment of concentration and emotional energy, it seems reasonable to make quick judgments on whether the photo you're looking at belongs to the former or latter category (in fact, to a beginner photographer, the tripod comment may well be more helpful than one trying to figure the photo's non-existent connection to Eastern religions).

For the advanced artist, who intentionally deviates from the rules, this is frustrating, because they get mistaken for a beginner, and regularly not taken seriously. But it's not an unnatural thing to occur either.

Anyway, that's my essay on the topic :)