| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/15/2007 02:51:18 PM · #1301 |
I agree, Don, that ideally people would consider pictures more carefully and try to divine the photographer's purpose. And to the extent you can educate people on that and other things like various photography history and movements, I support you.
But, like Deb just said, I don't know photographic history, I haven't studied art, and in the context of DPC challenges, I vote on what I like and don't like. I don't want to take the time to figure out the purpose if it doesn't occur to me immediately. AND - I've seen some pretty bad photos, meaning, for me, "stuff I think shows someone doesn't really know what they're doing." There ARE images I enjoy exploring at leisure, but not during voting.
I'm not going to assume the photog intended every one of those shots, and I'm going to vote based on what I like. And I'm going to comment to try to help the person bring out his or her vision. But I'm also going to comment to tell the person what I would like better.
And I pretty much assume others will, too. So I don't get upset that someone thinks my subject should be sharper when I intended it to be blurry, I just accept that's what's going on.
In sum: I wish you luck in educating folks, Don. And I truly hope you succeed with some people. You already have with me. But I don't complain about how DPC works. It's just one venue with its own typical participation pattern.
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 15:12:26.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 03:13:52 PM · #1302 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
But in the main forums debates like this tend to become heated and ineffective. |
Amen! No need for heat here. I've got my cooling fans on HIGH.
My own spin on what Rob said: if you look at the Man Ray photo and it means nothing to you, it's my opinion that you have every right to vote low on it. I'm just "railing against" the need to offer advice on how to fix it when you have no idea what the photo is trying to do. It's more useful to write "I don't know why you took this picture" or "I don't get it" or "Huh?" Why is that more useful? Because if you offer advice based on nothing, how is Man Ray supposed to know that it's based on nothing? He might assume that you do understand his purpose and that your advice is to help him achieve it.
It is most unlikely that Man Ray will take your advice, but a struggling young artist trying to find her way? She might be led astray. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 03:21:11 PM · #1303 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
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. |
Deb, I think you are one of the people who sees more than most, and perhaps for you it is so ingrained that it is nearly effortless (not that it doesn't take effort, but that the effort is natural for you). I agree with Jelena, don't change a thing. That said, I believe you could adopt my manifesto and not change a thing that you do.
Originally posted by purpleflutterby:
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. |
:)
Originally posted by levyj413:
But, like Deb just said, I don't know photograpic history, I haven't studied art, and in the context of DPC challenges, I vote on what I like and don't like. I don't want to take the time to figure out the purpose if it doesn't whack me immediately. AND - I've seen some pretty bad photos, defined as "stuff I think shows someone doesn't really know what they're doing."
I'm not going to assume the photog intended every one of those shots ... |
May I ask why not? Just curious what you think it would change about who you are, or how you view the world, if you were to do this (even as an experiment on one challenge).
And yes, I have complained some about voting (here and elsewhere). I'll get over it (I always do). But that's not my real purpose here. I'm just going to articulate a voting philosophy that I hope will make people think about how they vote. But, at the same time, I'm also not asking anyone to "know" anything; one of my friends has the most profound ability to understand great works of art (some of which I look at as no more than pretty pictures), and has no education in it whatsoever. I love going to museums with him, it's such an experience. He can't tell you anything about technique, method, historical context, nothing. But he'll say the most wonderful things that will make me think more deeply about those works than I ever have before. Formal education or knowledge means nothing; he looks at them, and sees them more than I do.
So I'm going to try this!
Best,
Rob |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 03:31:54 PM · #1304 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
But, like Deb just said, I don't know photographic history, I haven't studied art, and in the context of DPC challenges, I vote on what I like and don't like. |
Me, too! I vote on what I like and don't like. And as we grow and learn and study the art form, what we like and don't like changes organically. That's fine. I don't have a lot of time to vote, either! |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 04:01:26 PM · #1305 |
The thoughtfulness of this debate has been very inspiring. I'd like to add something based on Jelena's post as it relates to other ideas suggested here about taking care in evaluating photos.
When a scientist reviews another scientist's paper for publication, they must first summarize the paper and its thrust/main findings in a few sentences - before they start listing critiques and flaws. If it is clear that they misinterpreted the paper's intent, it allows the editors and authors to re-evaluate the critique.
If when you comment on a picture, you first say what you see and how it impacts you, before making any decrees, it will not only help you say something constructive, but it also gives the photographer insight into your impression and provides a basis for your critique. Note: no art degrees required.
Just as the photographer's intent is not transparent, what seem obvious to you in viewing a photo may not be obvious to the photographer. Each photo and each comment is an attempt at communication. It's a stretch to criticize the grammar if you can't make out the words.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 04:57:09 PM · #1306 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
...Just as the photographer's intent is not transparent, what seem obvious to you in viewing a photo may not be obvious to the photographer. Each photo and each comment is an attempt at communication. It's a stretch to criticize the grammar if you can't make out the words. |
I can attest to that - I've been surprised on any number of occasions by what commenters "see" in my photos, what intent they read in them. Yes, sometimes my reaction is "no, you have it all wrong!", but more times than not I see my photo in a new light and it helps me appreciate it more. Having a commenter include their "reaction" - what the image actually "says" to them - in addition to anything else, is immensely useful and revelatory. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 05:03:59 PM · #1307 |
Rheverly (can't just say Rob 'cause that's meyers, too!): Remember that I don't know who took any given photo. My assumption is that people would like to know when they have spinach between their teeth (figuratively), so if they put in a photo, they want to know that it looks out of focus/badly colored/poorly composed, etc. I'd much rather give those comments assuming the person didn't intend to do those things, which gives them the option of ignoring my suggestions, than leave new folks who really do want help without any clue why I just dropped a 3 on them. And numerous threads on DPC say that those folks do want to hear about it.
For example, look at these shots; don't look at the score or my comments or anything else, just the shots:
 
Was the bright flash on the spoon deliberate? Did I deliberately choose the composition with the spoon in the middle? Did I mean to make the spinning person so blurry? Did I intend for the ground under her to be so dark? You have 5 seconds before you choose how to vote. Go.
You have no way of knowing, and neither do I when voting.
FYI, the answer on the first shot is "no, and I very much appreciated people suggesting fixes" and on the second shot is "yep, so I'll just ignore the comments to the contrary."
But I appreciated all of the commenters taking the time, and everyone had always assumed I carefully chose every aspect of each shot, they wouldn't have suggested how to improve, and I never would've learned enough to choose to make the spinnning shot blurry with a dark background.
Originally posted by skewsme:
If when you comment on a picture, you first say what you see and how it impacts you, before making any decrees, it will not only help you say something constructive, but it also gives the photographer insight into your impression and provides a basis for your critique. Note: no art degrees required. |
Now THAT is genius. I will definitely try to do just that in future comments.
It solves the whole debate: simply by telling them what I see, and what I'm guessing they intended, I give the photographer and others reading my comments context in which to place what I say.
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 17:11:17.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 05:23:56 PM · #1308 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
If when you comment on a picture, you first say what you see and how it impacts you, before making any decrees, it will not only help you say something constructive, but it also gives the photographer insight into your impression and provides a basis for your critique. Note: no art degrees required. |
I totally agree. That would be insightful in so many ways, and gets rid of the frustration of misunderstanding, since you can see where the commenter was coming from even if you don't agree with their comments.
Originally posted by skewsme:
Each photo and each comment is an attempt at communication. |
:) And for our next loaded debate:
Art is just complex communication and nothing else. Discuss. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 05:44:21 PM · #1309 |
On a wholly different subject, I'm pleased to report that:
a) I've received my agency's second-highest honor award along with a team of folks who worked to process and make available hundreds of thousands of environmental measurements in New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
2) As of 20 minutes ago, when my Office Director quit, I'm the Acting Office Director, now responsible for all Web content at //www.epa.gov
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 05:46:53 PM · #1310 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
On a wholly different subject, I'm pleased to report that:
a) I've received my agency's second-highest honor award along with a team of folks who worked to process and make available hundreds of thousands of environmental measurements in New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
2) As of 20 minutes ago, when my Office Director quit, I'm the Acting Office Director, now responsible for all Web content at //www.epa.gov |
Oh, fantastic! Congratulations! :D |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 05:49:36 PM · #1311 |
*Sneaks in*
Congrats Jeff that is awesome!
*Sneaks out* |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 06:24:05 PM · #1312 |
Jeff congratulations! That's wonderful news.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 07:07:01 PM · #1313 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
On a wholly different subject, I'm pleased to report that:
a) I've received my agency's second-highest honor award along with a team of folks who worked to process and make available hundreds of thousands of environmental measurements in New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
2) As of 20 minutes ago, when my Office Director quit, I'm the Acting Office Director, now responsible for all Web content at //www.epa.gov |
Wow, congratulations Jeffery. I have often wondered what you do for the government, but haven't asked, because sometimes gov. people aren't supposed to talk about their jobs. I hope this added responsibility won't keep you too busy to play with us here on DPC.
On another wholly different subject. Here is an amazing film on YouTube.
Women in Art
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 08:51:13 PM · #1314 |
I getting excited about my Pure entry.
Pure...
Votes: 82
Views: 137
Avg Vote: 6.5732
Comments: 9
Favorites: 1 |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:58:06 PM · #1315 |
yippee! 10 from  posthumous - I feel good, da da da da da da da....ow! My sucky score doesn't hurt so badly now.
Congratulations, Jeffrey! Hopefully some more compensation comes with it - I'm sure you've got your eye on some lenses for that new Nikon. :) |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:33:28 PM · #1316 |
peeking in from the family reunion..
Wow, so I've missed all kinds of discussions the last day or so. And then today I swam face first (underwater) into the side of the pool, ending up with a big gash across the top of my nose which is now covered by a very unphotogenic band-aid.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:50:09 PM · #1317 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Okay, Jeb, I sat around for long enough that I did crop your barn the way I'd suggested. And yep, I like it better. :) I find my attention driven right to that great window by every line in the shot, whereas in the original my eye kind of wanders past it over the stuff on the right. Yes, the rule of thirds is just a guideline, but sometimes, it really does work for me. |
Dead nuts rule of thirds....it works.
I like it! Nice work, Jeffrey.
It does all end up being guided towards the window.
Composition is one of my weakest points......some days I just don't see things.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:56:47 PM · #1318 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay.....this truly sucks.....I uploaded a 1.8MB file and this is what happened to it.......it's like 78 & change KB. E-Mail me if you want this in a 1.8MB jpeg at whiskeyspringstudios@earthlink.net
|
If you look over at the links on the left side, under where you'd add it to your favorites, there's a link to view it fullsize. It uploaded okay. :)
/me sneaks back out... |
Oh, what a hoot!
I can't believe how often I find out how stupid I am about things that are right under my nose here at DPC!
So, one can just right-click, save it to a file, and then mess with it, and the transfer should bring most of what I had when I uploaded it to PS or whatever to adjust/PP it?
Thanks, MK!
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:04:57 PM · #1319 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
 |
If you haven't already, take a look at this one of Mary's!
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:06:39 PM · #1320 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
the only valid critique comes from really looking at the photo *before* you start looking for rules to apply. |
I love it when you cut right to it!
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:17:49 PM · #1321 |
Originally posted by meyers:
peeking in from the family reunion..
Wow, so I've missed all kinds of discussions the last day or so. And then today I swam face first (underwater) into the side of the pool, ending up with a big gash across the top of my nose which is now covered by a very unphotogenic band-aid. |
Oof! I felt that vicariously as I read it! Sorry! Sending you a (virtual) pair of swim goggles! |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:29:48 PM · #1322 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
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. |
And that ultimately will be affected by the photog's own insecurities and fears as they *do* look to the voters/commenters for constructive, helpful commentary.
I remember getting very bent out of shape over a criticism, not put badly mind you, but for the very thing that I was going for and liked about an entry.
And this will be inevitable given the broad spectrum of tastes and styles here in voters.
Originally posted by Wildcard:
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. |
I disagree......maybe to a certain extent, but it's patently obvious to me in the forums, and TS in particular that the artist/photog after a while will in fact develop their own style and taste, and hopefully flourish with it.
It's been easy, and delightful I might add, to watch each other here at TS as we do exactly that.
Susan's Painting with Light shot is a perfect example of that.....show of hands for that'un being undervoted??????
And she was bitching the whole time it was in for the voting!
Yet to me, that showed a great, brave, and highly fresh departure for her in style.
And an engaging and exciting image IMO.
I could go down the list, but I don't want to miss any of us who have come so far, so let's just say that it just doesn't seem to me that the challenges have to carry so much weight.
I haven't entered one in a while, and it won't be 'til something really tickles my fancy 'cause I am in a spot right now where I'm shooting for myself.
And it's all about where I'm going next with photography. And I get most of my relevant feedback here and in the side projects, not the challenges.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:41:04 PM · #1323 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
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. |
One of the things that puzzles me, and I have yet to work out on so many levels is that I almost have trouble understanding what others see in my photography, 'cause there's no way they can know what it was about the shot that caused me to fall in love with the mental image that inspired me.
And that's one of the reasons that I fear that I'll never be really good because so much of my photography is so subjective. Yeah, I do get some decent shots here and there that stand on their own merits, but even my best ones have special meaning that only I can understand.
So how can I ever translate that into the work? I do manage to get some of it, but never all. I don't think that ultimately that matt ers as I get better at expression with my camera to my own idea of the image, but consequently, I also don't think I'll ever be really good because of this.
I am becoming more at ease with doing it for my own purposes, and I can just quietly enjoy it if the shot catches someone else's eye well.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:45:00 PM · #1324 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
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. |
Amen!
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 23:46:41.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:47:59 PM · #1325 |
Originally posted by purpleflutterby13:
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. |
Amen to this, too!
|
|
