|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2007 05:04:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
Conformist and those who do live to please others do care so much. I think. ^_^ |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:10:13 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by MonicaJames:
Originally posted by ursula:
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
Conformist and those who do live to please others do care so much. I think. ^_^ |
THAT is another of my points, Ursula! Thank you for bringing that point out! :)
Getting a higher score in DPC, DEPENDS on being "A Conformist" AND "to please".....the voters, that is.
That's what's necessary to change. None of us should become "A Conformist" lest we become complacent!
Message edited by author 2007-08-16 17:12:10.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:18:38 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
My question was.....is that fair to any of us as both voters or photographers? Are we holding back each other as individual photographers and developing our own styles? |
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
I still like Photography is 1% inspiration and 99% moving furniture
Message edited by author 2007-08-16 17:18:45. |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:21:25 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
My question was.....is that fair to any of us as both voters or photographers? Are we holding back each other as individual photographers and developing our own styles? |
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
I still like Photography is 1% inspiration and 99% moving furniture |
ROFLMAO, Gordon........and, dogs, cats, kids, toys and mountains if necessary! LOL
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:23:50 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
My question was.....is that fair to any of us as both voters or photographers? Are we holding back each other as individual photographers and developing our own styles? |
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
Nice quote Ursula! Love it!
However, when people put not only their time, but their efforts and oftentimes, money into set-ups, editing etc. and whatever else is required to take their shots........I CARE!
I think THEY do too!
Just a thought! :) |
That's caring about something quite different than whether or not it's fair to us as voters and photographers that people tend to gravitate towards those who judge with similar criteria :)
But, out of curiosity, why do you care when you think that people put not only their time, but their efforts and oftentimes, money into set-ups, editing etc. and whatever else is required to take their shots? Related, should a photo be considered "better" because the photographer put more effort into producing it?
[ I'm just having fun :) ] |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:24:27 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
My question was.....is that fair to any of us as both voters or photographers? Are we holding back each other as individual photographers and developing our own styles? |
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
I still like Photography is 1% inspiration and 99% moving furniture |
And here I thought it was the other way around :) |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:26:08 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by MonicaJames:
Originally posted by ursula:
Is it fair? Who cares.
Is it holding us back as individuals? My favourite quote for today, "We squander our personalities in orgies of coexistence." (from Fernando Pessoa's, "The Book of Disquiet")
One way to look at it at least. :) |
Conformist and those who do live to please others do care so much. I think. ^_^ |
THAT is another of my points, Ursula! Thank you for bringing that point out! :)
Getting a higher score in DPC, DEPENDS on being "A Conformist" AND "to please".....the voters, that is.
That's what's necessary to change. None of us should become "A Conformist" lest we become complacent! |
It certainly helps, but it doesn't depend on it. IMO of course :)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:33:30 PM · #58 |
If you are famous/popular people will drool and call you clever and creative no matter what you do to some poor image.
If Librodo wrapped a colorful scarf around a mouldy tuna sandwich and then took a crooked, overexposed photo of it, he'd get 100 glowing comments for it (nothing personal against Librodo, it just illustrates my point).
I'm just poor old me, so I need to try and come up with a "good" photo.
I look at DPC challenges as assignments. The voters are my customers and there is no point arguing over what they want. They are the customer, so they're King, right? If I want to sell a photo to them, I have to give them what THEY want.
I still have my own time, my own website, my own albums where I can do whatever I like. I don't think DPC stifles anybody's creativity, it just channels it in certain directions. ONE website can't be everything to everybody.
Get as much as you can from the DPC experience (and I'm sure that is plenty), and at the same time find other outlets for what doesn't fit here.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:41:33 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
If Librodo wrapped a colorful scarf around a mouldy tuna sandwich and then took a crooked, overexposed photo of it, he'd get 100 glowing comments for it (nothing personal against Librodo, it just illustrates my point).
|
I doubt it. Peanut-butter and jelly, maybe, maybe, but not a mouldy tuna sandwich. Seriously, I don't think even librodo could get away with something like this. Plus, guys like librodo are way too smart to try something as dumb as this. In other words, popularity at DPC isn't based solely on recognition. I know what you're saying though, it's always very tempting to suck up to "success". |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 05:59:54 PM · #60 |
in all honesty,
i don't like that picture, it does not appeal to me in any sense, and i don't think it has any value or message, i 've been looking at it for as long as this thread was going and i just don't get it.
i don't care if theat was THE BEST PHOTOGRAPHER in the world who took it, i plainly don't like it, i would have voted 3.
is it because i am biased towards stock,NO.
is it because my eye got trained on DPC shots,NO.
my shots that did well here impressed people outside, even photographers. agood picture is a good picture. people complain that it's the same picture that win, perhaps redundacy is a problem , but then again, you have only so much subject to pic from , and so many messages to try to convey, the idea is to do it in a creative way.
so how about this, say for example, i become famous, i have many galleries, then i decide to take a picture of depression, falling into darkness or something like that , and then i show a pic of a black frame, does take guts to showacase something like this , YES.
but is it really art? how creative is it, it's just black, yes here on dpc people voted these shots 1 and 2 , but basically from what i understand we shoul dnot because it conveys a message?
i would say the trick is to convey that message by taking a good shot, a creative one, that's what photography is all about, not taking some under/overexposed, out of focus, badly composed,yada yada yada shot and say oh i did it on purpose i had a vision.
just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 08:15:57 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
[quote=ursula] [quote=PhotoInterest]
Nice quote Ursula! Love it!
However, when people put not only their time, but their efforts and oftentimes, money into set-ups, editing etc. and whatever else is required to take their shots........I CARE!
I think THEY do too!
Just a thought! :) |
That's caring about something quite different than whether or not it's fair to us as voters and photographers that people tend to gravitate towards those who judge with similar criteria :)
But, out of curiosity, why do you care when you think that people put not only their time, but their efforts and oftentimes, money into set-ups, editing etc. and whatever else is required to take their shots? Related, should a photo be considered "better" because the photographer put more effort into producing it?
[ I'm just having fun :) ] |
Well, first things first. :) It was another member that posted the idea that "people tend to gravitate towards those who judge with similar criteria". I do agree with that point for the most part though in this particular site. My point was that there is an "unfairness" in that type of mindset/thinking.
As for your points about effort equaling a better photo, well....everything kind of works hand-in-hand, doesn't it? :) When a photographer puts a great deal of effort into a shot, ie: thinking, set-up, lighting, creativity.....everything that one does in an effort to capture a great shot, is all part and parcel of a potential "good" outcome, isn't it? That outcome is (in the photographer's mind and hopes)a shot that gets some type of good response, be it through comments, scores or both, right? Not too many of us in here go into these challenges without putting at least some effort into their shot, even if it is simply in the editing on a "natural capture". No matter how much or how little "effort" there is in a shot, there is effort of some kind, even if it is only in removing the lens cap and snapping the shot then, entering it.
Some members in this site (as shown in some of the tutorials they have provided on their shots), have gone to not only a great deal of effort in just thinking this entire process out. The setting up, the lighting, building/constructing their props, the time, the editing...you name it...it's been put in! And, more often than not the more effort one puts into a photo, as with anything else in Life, the more chances it stands of being successful.
You've asked, whether more effort equals a better shot. Not necessarily. But, the more effort one puts into a shot, the more likelihood it has of being a better shot. Again, that effort may be in terms of some long periods of editing time or, perhaps, in terms of thought! It may not be in terms of props, lighting, set-ups etc.. One way or another, effort gives one the hope of a better chance of a good outcome as opposed to a shot that was hap-hazardly snapped, resized and stuck up in a challenge, does it not? Oh, yes, some MAY get lucky and not have much of anything to do with a shot....but, more often than not, it's not the case! I've seen a lot of photographers in here, who have explained long hours of set-ups to get the conditions "right", or photographers who have sweated, trying to get animals to sit still and in the right positions. We don't want to get into children!!! *grin*
Now, why do I care what others go through to get a good response or a better score in a challenge or anywhere else that they want their photos? I care because THEY cared enough to go through that much effort!
Does that make it worthy of a better score? Again, not necessarily. But, I can tell you one thing. I see value in a shot where someone has made the seemingly, "impossible" seem "possible" through their efforts. I value that far more than I value a shot where someone got really "lucky" because they had an opportunistic shot and had to put in far less effort to get it! It takes far more "effort" for someone to have to do a "studio style" set-up for a shot than someone who say, is lukcky enough to live near beautiful, picturesque, Icelandic mountains. The "props" for the Icelandic mountain shots persay, are already there, set up, whereas, the "Studio Photographer" has had to "create" and set up their "props" AND shoot it! Is that going to make the studio photographer's shot a better shot than the Icelandic Mountain photographer's shot? Not necessarily, however, it certainly makes me think! It certainly grabs my attention! It certainly makes me value the "effort" that the "Studio Photographer" has had to put into their shot.
(And, btw...I'm just having some fun discussing too! We're on the same page! :))
|
|
|
|
08/17/2007 08:30:14 AM · #62 |
So if your OOB creativity meets Technical Superiority, and some luck it Does-Meet-The-Challenge (DMTC), you've brewed up the Perfect Storm.
As Roosevelt said something like, Success is where efforts meets opportunity.
Yes, when I had a cheaper camera, I was more spontaneously creative. I had less technicalities to worry about. So, once the technical aspects are learned, throw them in the back of your mind, and jump into Creative mode.
I think you're a teacher. I'm sure students don't get A+, just for creativity alone and not following direction for that particular project, or when not using the technical skills taught. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 10:58:09 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
So if your OOB creativity meets Technical Superiority, and some luck it Does-Meet-The-Challenge (DMTC), you've brewed up the Perfect Storm.
As Roosevelt said something like, Success is where efforts meets opportunity.
Yes, when I had a cheaper camera, I was more spontaneously creative. I had less technicalities to worry about. So, once the technical aspects are learned, throw them in the back of your mind, and jump into Creative mode.
I think you're a teacher. I'm sure students don't get A+, just for creativity alone and not following direction for that particular project, or when not using the technical skills taught. |
Hi Just......yes, I know what you mean about a newer and fancier camera! You do kind of lose that "creativity" to some degree. Although the camera is capable of so much more, learning to use those functions takes a lot of "effort" in and of themselves, don't they? I just got another camera (second hand)....my first DSLR and I'm thrilled, BUT it certainly has taken a lot of creativity out of my shots in worrying about which button changes the aperture size and shutter speeds! LOL
Certainly, one has to apply technical knowledge and applications properly before one can truly achieve a proper result. I just hope that everyone's creativity doesn't get hampered by getting bogged down in technical issues. What truly makes a great shot is the creativity, isn't it? One can have one heck of a marvelous shot technically, but if it lacks creativity, all of that fussing, nit-picking and effort in the technical aspects are still not going to have the desired effect.
I agree with you, learn the technical aspects to some degree or another (we're always still learning, aren't we?) but, don't forget the creativity! It goes the same way in voting....look at the technical to some degree, but also give credit for the creativity.
Beautiful photography does not survive on technical brilliance alone. *grin*
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 12:14:54 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I know what you mean about a newer and fancier camera! You do kind of lose that "creativity" to some degree. Although the camera is capable of so much more, learning to use those functions takes a lot of "effort" in and of themselves, don't they? I just got another camera (second hand)....my first DSLR and I'm thrilled, BUT it certainly has taken a lot of creativity out of my shots in worrying about which button changes the aperture size and shutter speeds! LOL |
Funny.....I wouldn't think for one second that this could be a valid concern. It seems more to me to be a right/left brain kind of thing. Apples and oranges.....I know that my photography got better with a DSLR simply because for me it speeded up and actually enhanced the learning curve and the ability to put into effect what I'd learn from my efforts simply by not having to wait for many hours or even days to get my film developed with so much life going on between shot and finished product. It meant that I had the chance to review what I had right on the spot or at most, in a small time lapse between shot and when I pulled it up on my computer screen.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Certainly, one has to apply technical knowledge and applications properly before one can truly achieve a proper result. I just hope that everyone's creativity doesn't get hampered by getting bogged down in technical issues. What truly makes a great shot is the creativity, isn't it? One can have one heck of a marvelous shot technically, but if it lacks creativity, all of that fussing, nit-picking and effort in the technical aspects are still not going to have the desired effect. |
For me the exact opposite is true. All of my technical expertise, if you wanna call what I know that, is empirical, to the extent that it's not very encompassing, and it's been completely trial and error, mostly error, to achieve what *I* want, to ultimately create what I believe to be an engaging shot. I've had my DSLR for a little over a year now and I still have no idea what better than half of the features are. I generally stumble onto them unknowing, or I become aware of them just doinking around with it, or looking it up in the manual when someone mentions a feature, or trick, that I can reference in my manual. Same goes for my CS2. I have a shot that's doing particularly well right now in voting that's because I found a feature that is a popular PP technique.......found it kinda by accident, recognize it from works I've seen that do well and that I like as well. It's looking like it'll end up in my top 3 ever, possibly a personal best.
I do pander to the voter from time to time, and the funny thing about that is that I get it wrong so often. Yet sometimes when I say to Hell with it, and do what *I* want, it scores well. My best work here has not been what I did for the voters.......it's been shots that I knew were good and that met the voters' criteria at the time as well. I've also had shots that I knew were good, that the voters panned, often much to my tremendous frustration. Others that got panned, I didn't really care about 'cause the shots were for me and were a message I was trying to convey. Often, those shots, although not doing well in a challenge, were cathartic and/or *really* reached someone else out there *EXACTLY* as the shot was intended......in which case, damn the masses. (Iwas amused to find my photograph that most exemplifies this as a subject in this thread.....and that this thread referenced in another!)
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I agree with you, learn the technical aspects to some degree or another (we're always still learning, aren't we?) but, don't forget the creativity! It goes the same way in voting....look at the technical to some degree, but also give credit for the creativity. |
I almost don't understand how it would be possible to take a shot purely with technical aspects in mind. Isn't the subject ultimately the shot? Some one made the "Polished Turd" analogy here once, and it sure stuck in my mind. (If you polish a turd and take a picture of it, no matter how technically correct, it's still a picture of a polished turd.)
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Beautiful photography does not survive on technical brilliance alone. *grin* |
I'm thinkin' that's kind of a given!
Love this thread!
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 12:22:41 AM · #65 |
Oh, BTW  PhotoInterest, our man  Gordon IMNSHO, has a really intuitive way of getting to the heart of an issue. He made a comment in a thread similar to this a while back that I actually made into my signature line for a while.
I don't remember it exactly, I'm sure, but the crux of it was: "If a photographer creates an image that the voter perceives to meet the challenge, then it meets the challenge, reality be damned."
I think that is so straight up to the point and true!
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 12:59:59 AM · #66 |
I caught myself voting images based on what I thought other people might be voting them on the urban landscapes challenge. The first night, I voted on about half and they were all honest votes. The next day, I was trying to get through the rest of them. Instead of really taking notice of how the photograph looks and what it represents (if anything), I was thinking more like... "this one looks like a five. this one's probably 6...". Just trying to get through them. After I realised that I was actually doing something I'm against, I went back through and re-voted all of those images.
Am I the only one who has done this and caught themselves? I think alot of people might do it to improve their profile statistics and not to actually take a good look at the shots and give them an honest vote. I know alot of people give comments just to increase their "comments given" or whatever, since so many comments consist of one or two words. I think people also do it to improve other profile statistics. But, why give comments at all if there is no real comment being made? Why cast votes on as many of the images as you can if you aren't really looking at them?
Instead of taking a quick look at hundreds of images, it would be better to take a long look at a few dozen. Enough so your votes count, but not so much that you can't give each photo the individual attention it deserves. I know I'll be sure not to do what I caught myself doing in the urban landscapes challenge again. And screw it if I have way more votes recieved than votes given, and comments recieved than comments given. At least I'll know that all of mine meant something.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 06:21:50 AM · #67 |
Man that comment on Irving Penn's work had me crying with laughter. I bet Irving didn't bother sending the original to that guy to 'FIX' it photoshop for him.. Thanks for the laugh dude that shit was funny BIGTIME!
Message edited by author 2007-08-18 06:22:36.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 06:29:42 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I look at DPC challenges as assignments. The voters are my customers and there is no point arguing over what they want. They are the customer, so they're King, right? If I want to sell a photo to them, I have to give them what THEY want. |
When i first saw this I was reminded of a great statement by the brilliant author, Philip Pullman. He said the public don't know what they want, does the public sit there and say "we want a Harry Potter Book!!! Why wont someone write a Harry Potter Book?!?!" No they don't, but give it to them and they love it. The same is true with photography, and I think this is why Scalvert's stuff wins so often- he does the unexpected and not the cliched, and the public/voters are suddenly aware that that is what they wanted all the time. You can't trust the public, they don't know what they want until you've given it to them.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 09:30:16 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Tez:
Originally posted by Beetle:
I look at DPC challenges as assignments. The voters are my customers and there is no point arguing over what they want. They are the customer, so they're King, right? If I want to sell a photo to them, I have to give them what THEY want. |
When i first saw this I was reminded of a great statement by the brilliant author, Philip Pullman. He said the public don't know what they want, does the public sit there and say "we want a Harry Potter Book!!! Why wont someone write a Harry Potter Book?!?!" No they don't, but give it to them and they love it. The same is true with photography, and I think this is why Scalvert's stuff wins so often- he does the unexpected and not the cliched, and the public/voters are suddenly aware that that is what they wanted all the time. You can't trust the public, they don't know what they want until you've given it to them. |
Having gotten their first Harry Potter book, the public certainly sits there and says "we want another Harry Potter book!". While the initial offering was more creative genius on the part of the author, everything after that was dishing out more of the same because it was found to be extremely popular with consumers.
Same mechanisms work here. |
|
|
|
08/18/2007 11:22:46 AM · #70 |
We did have the 'Ansel Adams' challenge. In which Ansel Adams came 11th, and was then DQ'd;
 |
|
|
|
08/18/2007 05:24:31 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I know what you mean about a newer and fancier camera! You do kind of lose that "creativity" to some degree. Although the camera is capable of so much more, learning to use those functions takes a lot of "effort" in and of themselves, don't they? I just got another camera (second hand)....my first DSLR and I'm thrilled, BUT it certainly has taken a lot of creativity out of my shots in worrying about which button changes the aperture size and shutter speeds! LOL |
Funny.....I wouldn't think for one second that this could be a valid concern. It seems more to me to be a right/left brain kind of thing. Apples and oranges.....I know that my photography got better with a DSLR simply because for me it speeded up and actually enhanced the learning curve and the ability to put into effect what I'd learn from my efforts simply by not having to wait for many hours or even days to get my film developed with so much life going on between shot and finished product. It meant that I had the chance to review what I had right on the spot or at most, in a small time lapse between shot and when I pulled it up on my computer screen.
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Certainly, one has to apply technical knowledge and applications properly before one can truly achieve a proper result. I just hope that everyone's creativity doesn't get hampered by getting bogged down in technical issues. What truly makes a great shot is the creativity, isn't it? One can have one heck of a marvelous shot technically, but if it lacks creativity, all of that fussing, nit-picking and effort in the technical aspects are still not going to have the desired effect. |
For me the exact opposite is true. All of my technical expertise, if you wanna call what I know that, is empirical, to the extent that it's not very encompassing, and it's been completely trial and error, mostly error, to achieve what *I* want, to ultimately create what I believe to be an engaging shot. I've had my DSLR for a little over a year now and I still have no idea what better than half of the features are. I generally stumble onto them unknowing, or I become aware of them just doinking around with it, or looking it up in the manual when someone mentions a feature, or trick, that I can reference in my manual. Same goes for my CS2. I have a shot that's doing particularly well right now in voting that's because I found a feature that is a popular PP technique.......found it kinda by accident, recognize it from works I've seen that do well and that I like as well. It's looking like it'll end up in my top 3 ever, possibly a personal best.
I do pander to the voter from time to time, and the funny thing about that is that I get it wrong so often. Yet sometimes when I say to Hell with it, and do what *I* want, it scores well. My best work here has not been what I did for the voters.......it's been shots that I knew were good and that met the voters' criteria at the time as well. I've also had shots that I knew were good, that the voters panned, often much to my tremendous frustration. Others that got panned, I didn't really care about 'cause the shots were for me and were a message I was trying to convey. Often, those shots, although not doing well in a challenge, were cathartic and/or *really* reached someone else out there *EXACTLY* as the shot was intended......in which case, damn the masses. (Iwas amused to find my photograph that most exemplifies this as a subject in this thread.....and that this thread referenced in another!)
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
I agree with you, learn the technical aspects to some degree or another (we're always still learning, aren't we?) but, don't forget the creativity! It goes the same way in voting....look at the technical to some degree, but also give credit for the creativity. |
I almost don't understand how it would be possible to take a shot purely with technical aspects in mind. Isn't the subject ultimately the shot? Some one made the "Polished Turd" analogy here once, and it sure stuck in my mind. (If you polish a turd and take a picture of it, no matter how technically correct, it's still a picture of a polished turd.)
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Beautiful photography does not survive on technical brilliance alone. *grin* |
I'm thinkin' that's kind of a given!
Love this thread! |
I like this thread too and where it has gone! I certainly think that it's opened up some really great points and dialogue to think about for us all! It gives us all some "perspective" about where other, fellow members are coming from.
You've raised some really great points here! (And, you are NEARLY as long-winded as I am! *wink, grin* I still take the cake on that one!)
I think that the point of being hampered by "technical issues" is one that's very individual. I'm not one to sit down with a manual and devour it. I am much like you....stumbling on uses but, also going back to look up certain things as I need to. I also, shoot and try to use the functions to achieve the outcome that I want to see but, that can be SO frustrating, can't it?! I often tell myself...."just go look it up!" and I stubbornly resist going to grab the manual and "look it up" LOL when I KNOW that others are achieving better results simply because they KNOW how to use the features on their cameras and other equipment so well. That feels to me like it's leaving me with a "handicap" and also taking far more time than it should!
I DO tend to get caught up in "technicals" even though I may have a brilliant idea..or, at least....what I thought may be one! *grin* That really hampers the creative aspect for me. I know that all of the brilliant and creative shots in the world, won't do well in these types of challenges, unless....the technical aspects are also great! So, I struggle to balance the two.
As for "The Polished Turd".....hey, my bet is that if you printed it and framed it.....technically correct, creative or not........
IT WOULD SELL ON EBAY!!!! ;)
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 05:28:42 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Tez:
Originally posted by Beetle:
I look at DPC challenges as assignments. The voters are my customers and there is no point arguing over what they want. They are the customer, so they're King, right? If I want to sell a photo to them, I have to give them what THEY want. |
When i first saw this I was reminded of a great statement by the brilliant author, Philip Pullman. He said the public don't know what they want, does the public sit there and say "we want a Harry Potter Book!!! Why wont someone write a Harry Potter Book?!?!" No they don't, but give it to them and they love it. The same is true with photography, and I think this is why Scalvert's stuff wins so often- he does the unexpected and not the cliched, and the public/voters are suddenly aware that that is what they wanted all the time. You can't trust the public, they don't know what they want until you've given it to them. |
So, true Beetle! And, Scalvert knows HOW to use both the creative and technical skills to a "fine balance"....just bordering enough on both to win people over. I think that's the real challenge!
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 05:32:10 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
We did have the 'Ansel Adams' challenge. In which Ansel Adams came 11th, and was then DQ'd;
|
I SAW that one!
I don't know whether it would be a "real laugh" or a "crime" to have a famous photographer, come in here under a nick, put up their work, unrecognized, and have us tear it to shreds! LOL
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 05:47:59 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Atropos:
I caught myself voting images based on what I thought other people might be voting them on the urban landscapes challenge. The first night, I voted on about half and they were all honest votes. The next day, I was trying to get through the rest of them. Instead of really taking notice of how the photograph looks and what it represents (if anything), I was thinking more like... "this one looks like a five. this one's probably 6...". Just trying to get through them. After I realised that I was actually doing something I'm against, I went back through and re-voted all of those images.
Am I the only one who has done this and caught themselves? I think alot of people might do it to improve their profile statistics and not to actually take a good look at the shots and give them an honest vote. I know alot of people give comments just to increase their "comments given" or whatever, since so many comments consist of one or two words. I think people also do it to improve other profile statistics. But, why give comments at all if there is no real comment being made? Why cast votes on as many of the images as you can if you aren't really looking at them?
Instead of taking a quick look at hundreds of images, it would be better to take a long look at a few dozen. Enough so your votes count, but not so much that you can't give each photo the individual attention it deserves. I know I'll be sure not to do what I caught myself doing in the urban landscapes challenge again. And screw it if I have way more votes recieved than votes given, and comments recieved than comments given. At least I'll know that all of mine meant something.
|
Actually, that is also something that I've struggled with myself in voting! I try to get to as many as I can and in doing so, I find myself becoming tired and unable to be objective anymore. I recognized that it wasn't fair to the photographer's hard work.
What I have changed in my voting now are two main things:
First of all, I am now looking BEYOND simply "technical merit". If it emotes something from me.....a smile....a tear....a deeper thought...or, even something along the lines of an "I never thought of it that way before"....anything other than a "technically well done"...only THEN, will I look at the technical aspects and vote on them according to all combined. If I've seen it done a thousand times....doesn't matter how technically well done it is. I guess I'm into the "wow factor" now to some degree, but more than anything...I, personally, am looking at photos now that make me feel something or think something. If it doesn't do that....I don't care how technically well done it is, it's going to score lower with me than something that has emoted something from me creatively.
I also have just made it a personal rule NOT to vote in a challenge in which I'm entered. I don't feel that I, personally, can be as objective as I normally would be in voting when I'm watching my score getting low scores when I've hoped for better and if my shot is doing well, I have to admit that being human (as we all are), I find that I have this tad bit of "protectiveness" and subconsciously become more critical of others' work. I had to be honest with myself in the "fairness" of that type of voting. It doesn't work for me so, I have vowed NOT to vote in any challenge that I have an entry in any longer.
And, lastly, I've discovered that for me, it's better to carefully go over 20% of the shots well, than to go over them all scantily and quickly. I won't get to vote on all of the shots in a challenge, but I certainly don't want to harm anyone either! And, then, if I have the time and the patience, I'll go back in later and vote on however many more I can objectively vote and comment on.
But, that's my personal "discoveries". :) Even if others aren't seemingly being fair to me, I feel that I'm doing the right thing by being fair to others. It DOES take time and effort for people to capture their shots in one fashion or another as I've said earlier in this thread and I feel THAT is worthy of my efforts and value towards their efforts. :)
|
|
|
|
08/18/2007 05:55:22 PM · #75 |
And, for gawd sakes......I HATE those Trolls who just LOVE to come by and give out their 1's and 2's for a wonderful shot! As mad as I get by seeing that happen to my shots, I equally hate seeing it happen to some very wonderful shots in here!
In light of a recent discovery of 8 or so "ghost accounts" with 8 or 9 people voting 212 votes each in the "Toy Challenge).....I hope SC will think about some measures such as having new members perhaps, having to meet some criteria such as having to have a certain number of portfolio items and perhaps, 1 or 2 challenge entries under their belts BEFORE they can vote in a challenge. For those who are "vote only's", I would hope that THEIR "given scores" could be watched so that too many 1's 2's and 3's etc., aren't given out as possible "Troll Votes". All "Buddy Voting" does is balance out the Troll Votes LOL! ;)
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 01:50:39 PM  |
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: 08/06/2025 01:50:39 PM EDT.
|
