Ok, complaint and questions - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

08/25/2003 01:29:38 AM · #1

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=34012

How did that manage SEVEN 1's?

There was a really decent article here posted about negative space.
//www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-3/mag1-3mf1.shtml

"Do you see the negative space is actually shapes? These shapes have substance or mass. This is important to remember. Negative space is not just the absence of something. It has weight and mass, and plays an important role in defining your subject."

I'm going to compare this to a shot by someone I'm pretty sure can handle me using him to compare:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=34029

Tim managed zero 1's and zero 2's despite shooting a shot that the negative space was an afterthought - a crop to show off negative space, rather than negative space used to define the image.

I don't leave copy-comments, but I did in this challenge. I think negative space should have a reason - a 'weight' as the author of the above article points out.

Disagree - explain?

And if you gave me a 1, I'd LOVE to know why...

M

Spanish_Grease

Olympus C-4000Z

08/25/2003 01:36:37 AM · #2

Mavrik

I am in complete agreeance with you! Many of the pictures entered in the challenge (despite them being very good photos) did not use negative space in the way the challenge was meant to be. The negative space is supposed to be a main focus of the image, not a device used to enhance the image as Tim did. The challenge description read 'As before, use the surrounding space of your subject to create the wow of the photograph.' I was dissapointed to see that many top scoring images didn't use the negative as the WOW factor in their images, but instead used it as an easy gimmick to enhance the rest of the image!

And the first image should have voted much higher, as it truly demonstrated negative space, and is why I voted a 9 on it!

Lee

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

08/25/2003 01:59:29 AM · #3

Mavrik, you are only partially right. I took the photo clearly with the challenge topic in mind but I did not know at that point precisely how I would crop it for my entry. Cropping can be a tricky excercise so I was careful to allow for different choices of crops for the final image. This challenge, as well as all of the rest, produce a lot of differing opinions on what the challenge topics mean. I believe that is the beauty of this site, different people with different opinions. My take on it was that it was the same as the previous "Negative Space" challenge in that the negative space was to be used to support the main subject. If it is done effectively and creatively than that should produce the "wow" factor. I chose this particular cropping because I was wowed by the expanse of blue sky above the mountain and thought that it would make for an interesting and creative photograph of a fairly popular subject. I may have shown a little too much sky but I wanted to show the deeper blue part of it at the top. Is it right or wrong? Not in this case. It was a fun challenge and I was happy with my creative effort. As for the 1's that some pictures recieve, again it is just different opinions and that's all. You can always be happy with the high scores from those that loved the photos.

And I certainly have no problems with you using me as an example. I enjoy these kinds of discussions.

T

Message edited by author 2003-08-25 02:01:16.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/25/2003 02:00:08 AM · #4

Mavrik - I agree to some extent too, but I think your evaluation of neg space is erratic. I don't know what you voted mine, but you didn't like it much:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=33149

And I think that, if you're standing by this argument: "Do you see the negative space is actually shapes? These shapes have substance or mass. This is important to remember. Negative space is not just the absence of something. It has weight and mass, and plays an important role in defining your subject." then you have missed the point of my entry - and negative space!

Your shot doesn't use space in a way that draws the viewer in - it's more of a backdrop to what is a familiar cliche (the vase/face routine) and relies on its stark contrast to present negative space. You stated that my neg space was "for the sake of the challenge". Well, I'd say of course it was - it was taken for the challenge - but it is totally relevant to the idea behind my shot.

Read that excerpt again while looking at my shot - I'll be interested in your thoughts.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/25/2003 02:01:43 AM · #5

My Dad was climbing Rainier (successfully) right about then. While I believe the route they took is on the other side of the mountain, he might be in that photo!

inspzil

Olympus E-510

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM for Olympus

08/25/2003 07:48:21 AM · #6

Well I think you need to pursue some intentions of the photo as to how negative space is "wrongly" used in the photo. This is my 2nd negative space challenge. I finished a full point over my last one (which admittedly is not impressive in either case). I'd say on the first one, I had no idea what I was doing. It was my 2nd challenge. On this one, I knew exactly what I wanted to do. Basically my picture was going for something like "little kid in the big water". I didn't have as much water as I wanted, just due to some stuff in the background that was better left out. How would that picture look if I cropped it tightly? It would look fine. It would lose 100% of the effect I was trying to give it. But according to Mav, I just used negative space because the challenge asked for that. I'm sure I'm wrong and he's probably right, which makes about 98% of DPC deluded to what negative space is. If there was supposed to be stuff there, methinks they wouldn't call it "space".

Take this with a grain of salt the size of my head - Bob

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

08/25/2003 07:53:01 AM · #7

Mavrik,

I respect the attempt. This is a shot that I've seen done before and I think its a good composition to try and replicate (I'm not even to the point of trying this shot yet as I have a lot more to learn about lighting). For this reason I wanted to score this shot as a moderately high submission but having just read through the last Negative Space challenge and seeing the same shot done perhaps a little more cleanly I chose to mark your entry as a 6. I'd be interested to see the silhouette version that you mentioned just for comparison.

This image could have been more dependant on the negative space with a looser crop at the top. I'd like to see more of the white space above the heads; I know that's probably not traditional for this shot but with the definition on the faces and the intermittent light in the hair at the forehead, the solid white above the heads might have helped build more of a story with the negative space.

Congrats for trying this shot. The technique seems to be a useful one to master to produce impressive photographic pieces of art that compel viewers. If you learned anything at all about light and shadows from this experience I'd think that this was not only a good shot for you but a beneficial experience. At least you're at a place where you are composing shots rather than just looking for them.

Kevin

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

08/25/2003 10:41:18 AM · #8

@Tim - I know the deep blue sky is what you wanted, but I think half that space would have shown practically the same shot. I love your shot, don't get me wrong. The mountain is beautiful and you went on the perfect day to get such a wonderfully clean sky. My only 'complaint' as it were - is that I do NOT believe you would have cropped this exact image this way if not to meet the challenge with lots of empty "negative space."

@Jon - you've had a 'problem' with my interpretation of your last couple shots. I'm not sure why. Anyways - my thoughts on your picture are that the white space at the top is about an inch too large. That's a lot. I DO see shapes and you did get one of my higher scores this week. However, there's a line in your photo - it's about 1/4 to 1/3 the way down. Looks like a power wire. Nothing above that adds to your photo. You can say it does, but look at your photo WITHOUT it. The shapes are stronger. They play with the subject more without it. There's enough white at the top to show that it's 'empty' but not so much it looks like it's an afterthought.

As for mine, I don't think you can see the photo without seeing the shape it evokes. Sure, it's a cliche shape, but then every photo of a flower, baby, butterfly and chess set should get 1s, too (as my post was why it got so many 1s, not why it didn't win a ribbon). The "reason" for the negative space in my shot is to highlight the portrait - to set the features apart from the background. And yes, even get a chuckle.

@Bob - you're right, either Michael Fulks is wrong or DPC is. He has been on the board of directors of two arts councils, Chairman of the Board of one, and Executive Director, a job which involved overseeing an art gallery. He teaches art classes. We have sold a few prints to family members. I don't know who's judgment to trust here. It's a tossup. He says "Negative Space is not just the absense of something."

He was right. Michael said in the first line of that article "This article will make someone mad. I guarantee it. I am going to challenge what many of you learned in photography about composition. Do you still want to continue?"

I challenged what a lot of you knew about negative space and I got two hostile responses to my question.

The answer is what I thought and feared it was "you got a 1 because you made snarky comments and people were retaliating." If I hadn't used a familiar model, I could have made any midweek comments I wanted and gotten away with it?

Seriously now - I'll go back to my little hut pretending I was in the wrong and DPC can continue to stagnate because everyone thinks they already know everything.

M

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

08/25/2003 10:46:06 AM · #9

I got two 1s, but its not the end of the world. Just let voters vote like voters and let it be. You can't change anything now.

Davenit

Canon EOS-1D

08/25/2003 10:49:09 AM · #10

Images like this rely solely on symmetry. Yours isn't correct. The body parts don't line up. I know no two faces are the same but in order to get this to work they must be a lot closer. Also the tonality in the faces is not right. Either open em up or close em down. Maybe not a 1. But I would have marked it pretty low... Sorry... Dave

08/25/2003 10:52:57 AM · #11

Originally posted by Konador:

I got two 1s, but its not the end of the world. Just let voters vote like voters and let it be. You can't change anything now.

That's educational. I didnt say it was the end of the world. I said that I'd like to UNDERSTAND it.

Question - why are some people so easily led to "oh it doesn't matter" as the answer to everything? I've seen that on lots of threads lately. If it DOESNT MATTER, DONT PARTICIPATE. It 'matters' to me that I don't waste my time here and that I'm learning something.

Two 1s fits your bell curve. 7 is a curve like Dr. Jones or Setz gets. I don't believe those SEVEN people thought this shot was a 1. I believe those SEVEN people recognized me, got my comment on their pictures, were offended, and voted me down. I was waiting for someone to prove me wrong and it just didn't happen.

As far as the end of the world - who said it was?

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/25/2003 10:55:27 AM · #12

Originally posted by Davenit:

Thanks for the comment. Don't be sorry - I'd rather understand. :)

As for the symmetry - TRUST ME, I tried. :) With a model of any kind, it would have been perfect. As my own model, I took probably 100 shots and this was as close as I could get it. I wish it was more perfect too.

For the tonality - I wanted just a touch of detail so that it was clear the photo wasn't of the vase. I will post that silhouetted version today.

Thanks again for the comment,
M

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

08/25/2003 10:58:07 AM · #13

mav, please dont hate me for saying this but the vase shape in your pic wasn't too clear or evident.

part of the prob is the faces weren't too symettrical.

the other prob is they weren't dark enough to not 'get in the way' of the illusion.

i think the execution is what brought you down on this one. this is just my opinion. take it for what it's worth.

kollin

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

08/25/2003 11:03:11 AM · #14

dave et al posted same time as me so i just read your responses about the symmettry.

unfortunately, how hard we try doesnt really play into the final evaluation ..

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

08/25/2003 11:03:37 AM · #15

Originally posted by mavrik:

I didnt say it was the end of the world. I said that I'd like to UNDERSTAND it.

What I got from your first sentence, "How did that manage SEVEN 1's?" was both anger and big-headedness. If you were angry about getting seven 1s, perhaps take a moment to calm down, and accept your photo wasnt up to par in the opinions of the voters. Theres no point arguing with it. Maybe you thought your photo was better than it really was, because everyone takes pride in their own work and sometimes they don't see the bad points as easily as other voters do.

As for "oh it doesnt matter" comment you made, I'm not saying you can't learn from your results, but complaining about them won't get you anywhere.

Message edited by author 2003-08-25 11:04:53.

lionelm

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/25/2003 11:14:50 AM · #16

.

Message edited by author 2003-08-25 11:23:15.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

08/25/2003 11:16:28 AM · #17

Mav,

I gave you a 6. I liked your shot from the thumbnail, but I can see details of the face which really detracted from the idea. Still, a 6 isn't bad.

As for Tim's shot, I gave it a 10. If he had cropped any more off the top, I would have scored it lower. Every bit of that sky was necessary to his shot. Just because he may have cropped it differently without the challenge doesn't mean that his negative space use isn't very impressive. I was hoping for a ribbon for Tim. I think the mild noise in the sky did him in.

joanns

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

08/25/2003 11:21:49 AM · #18

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

My Dad was climbing Rainier (successfully) right about then. While I believe the route they took is on the other side of the mountain, he might be in that photo!

Congratulations to your dad! That is a very funny coincedence!

inspzil

Olympus E-510

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM for Olympus

08/25/2003 11:24:29 AM · #19

Originally posted by mavrik:

@Bob - you're right, either Michael Fulks is wrong or DPC is. He has been on the board of directors of two arts councils, Chairman of the Board of one, and Executive Director, a job which involved overseeing an art gallery. He teaches art classes. We have sold a few prints to family members. I don't know who's judgment to trust here. It's a tossup. He says "Negative Space is not just the absense of something."

He was right. Michael said in the first line of that article "This article will make someone mad. I guarantee it. I am going to challenge what many of you learned in photography about composition. Do you still want to continue?"

I challenged what a lot of you knew about negative space and I got two hostile responses to my question.

Seriously now - I'll go back to my little hut pretending I was in the wrong and DPC can continue to stagnate because everyone thinks they already know everything.

M

I think this is a matter of what one person says challenging the "masses" as to what or what isn't negative space. By my own admission, I'm just a little ways past beginner. Everything I know about photography pretty much came from DPC. I'm not being "hostile" if you were referring to me. Lets be real... I can in no way shape or form say that I'm any kind of authority of anything, more or less something I've been doing for exactly one year.

I guess if Michael Fulks was voting, I'd have gotten another 1. He's entitled to his opinion just like every other person here. He's entitled to say what he wants, this is America right? I respect that. But you (not you personally Mav) can't expect to change the minds of the masses, regarding something that has been understood to be this way for quite some time, because someone else said its wrong. That's preposterous on any level. Its sorta like when they said Pluto is not really a planet.

It doesn't make Michael Fulks wrong, but it doesn't make him right. I reckon its interpretive to the voters. If the score mattered that much to you, methinks you'd have played to the masses.

Whatever the case, I'm done with it here. I see your point. What most of the people used in this challenge was negative space, even as defined by Mr. Fulks. Its not just the absence of something, but it certainly could be the absence of something. Its just not limited to that, as far as I can tell from the context of the quote you provided.

Anyway, you're probably right Mav. Have a great day and good luck with your challenge pictures. - Bob

08/25/2003 11:30:16 AM · #20

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

unfortunately, how hard we try doesnt really play into the final evaluation ..

I completely 100% agree.

As for the darkness, blame frisca. ;) I had a total silhouette, she said it wasn't much of a photo, I didn't submit it. So the detail in the faces - all hers. lol

@bob - I agree most people used "negative space" - I only argue that it should have meaning and theirs (in some cases) did not.

@ben - it wasn't big-headedness. I didn't think it would (or possibly even 'should') win a ribbon. I perhaps AM angry at the 7 1's. I will, however, chalk it up to people knowing who the photographer was and given my comments this week, to the sensitive artist in all of us.

M

08/25/2003 11:31:31 AM · #21

Oh - and Bob, I didn't give you a 1. So if Michael Fulks was voting, he may or may not give you one - but I didn't.

M

bob1love

Fujifilm FinePix S304

08/25/2003 11:57:05 AM · #22

Now now girls arent the challenges just a bit of fun?? You guys take things too serious!! Chill out.......

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

08/25/2003 11:57:54 AM · #23

mavrik- I feel your fustration. My shot was not shot specifically for the challenge, so I guess I understand why it didn't do that well. Technically I thought it was a strong photo.
I also disagree with many about the use of negative space. I think my use of DOF in fact made the image what it was. isn't that using the negative space? Why should I have to stick it in a corner to have negative space.?
I don't think mine deserved to win, but was disappointed with the 2-4 range votes. I've come to the conclusion that I will never understand or like the voters here....
here's mine
BTW if someone could tell me why it indeed deserved the low scores i would like to hear it.

I purposely submitted the same type of shot as my original negative space shot. Looking back, that one was not good at all, yet it scored higher...why?
old shot

Message edited by author 2003-08-25 12:14:40.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

08/25/2003 12:12:48 PM · #24

It certainly beats you over the head with a very literal example of negative space - no argument there.

But after the extreme adherence to the challenge topic, what are you left with ?

Is the picture aesthetically interesting ?

Is it technically well shot, exposed ?

Does it show creativity or just replicating an often seen image ?

Meeting the challenge for many people is considered a '+1' score - some even just assume that it must meet the challenge. These weekly 'why did I get a one' threads always come about but if you scored all 3s, or all 2's it would be a similar message. Many voters didn't find the picture appealing, or interesting and voted it low. It isn't as if everyone has a formula that gets applied, nor are they required to. They just didn't like it. Maybe it is the strong homoerotic subtext that turned people off too - who knows. About all you can take from it is that several voters didn't like your image for one reason or another.