| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2008 01:30:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I wonder why ribbon winners scoring 8+ get so many votes of 4 or 5, even though such an image requires obvious superiority. |
Wow I was under the impression we were supposed to vote, as individual dpcer's, on images accoding to what we, as individuals, think an image deserves. Not what we think an image deserves because of some supposed "obvious superiority" that is reflected in the fact that in image gets a ribbon. |
With an entry that scores 8+, meeting the challenge shouldn't even be in doubt, and technical skill is a given. It'd be darn near impossible for an individual to justify how an image like this could possibly deserve a vote below 6.
A vote on the "bad" end of the scale for something like that is just plain dishonest IMO. |
Well someone could say that the harsh light on the tip of the brush is blinding and they couldn't see past it so 4! :D |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:31:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...I WANT to appeal to the masses because, really, what's the point of having a photo that most people aren't interested in seeing? :-/ |
If you do "WANT to appeal to the masses", fair enough, and I can easily see your gripe, but the latter part of the same sentence (above) does not necessarily substantiate your conclusion. One "point of having a photo that most people aren't interested in seeing, is to educate, another to stimulate awareness. Art comes from all kinds of motivations, all of which -ideally anyway- are valid because of their uniqueness. They are valid because these works show that we are human, struggling with paradoxical ways and experiences. Another body of work is not concerned with an intrinsically human experience. It is concerned with aesthetics, an external aesthetic at that, not one born out of ethics or a profound interest in truth.
There should be, IMO, a place for both kinds of being and doing. One has a quantitative appeal, the other a qualitative one. But appeal ain't everything. The job, perhaps, is to know who you are and where you can make a difference or contribute.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 13:35:17. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:35:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I wonder why ribbon winners scoring 8+ get so many votes of 4 or 5, even though such an image requires obvious superiority. |
Wow I was under the impression we were supposed to vote, as individual dpcer's, on images accoding to what we, as individuals, think an image deserves. Not what we think an image deserves because of some supposed "obvious superiority" that is reflected in the fact that in image gets a ribbon. |
With an entry that scores 8+, meeting the challenge shouldn't even be in doubt, and technical skill is a given. It'd be darn near impossible for an individual to justify how an image like this could possibly deserve a vote below 6.
A vote on the "bad" end of the scale for something like that is just plain dishonest IMO. |
201 votes. One is a 3, two are 4's, 11 are 5's, 18 are 6's, it goes up from there. I'd be willing to bet that virtually ALL of the votes under 6 had as a component of the voter's thinking that the hot spot where brush meets "canvas" is *totally blown*. Now I don't agree with that; after all, the challenge is "Painting with Light" and I'd say that excuses the "sin" of blown highlights. The luminosity here is everything, it makes the image. But I wouldn't go so far as to call "dishonest" any voter who downgraded this because his/her personal standards can't abide images where major elements of the composition are *totally blown*...
R. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:36:06 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point is I'm consistent, and I'm thoughtful, and I'm marching to my own particular drummer, as it were. This is OK, right? |
Of course it is. I'm talking about those whose voting scale is limited to their own score, those who vote on an inverse scale (bad photos get high scores and good photos get low scores) or who consistently vote everything "bad," even in a Free Study. We each have different tastes, but none of the aforementioned patterns is really judging the entries on their own merits. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:36:08 PM · #30 |
I'm a bit of a cluster voter-- lots of 5's and 6's with a handful of 4s, 7-8, with a couple of 9-10 votes thrown in for my top pics. It can be hard to divorce a low scoring personal image from its co-contestants while voting in a challenge.
****
Interesting thing, while browsing a book full of the paintings exhibited at the Musee de Orse(sp?) recently I was struck by the correlation between popular photographic subjects and the paintings on exhibit. Loads of "pretty" pictures with a sprinkling of "artistic" pictures. Not to disimilar from DPC... ;) I didn't see any 8+ pictures, but maybe a couple of high 7's. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:37:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I can look at the voting patterns of others and know that there are some regular ribbon winners who never vote any other entry above their own score. |
That never even occurred to me until you said it. But I suppose if you're under the illusion that the average DPC vote has some sort of authority, then it becomes a tempting idea. But emulating an average is almost never a good idea, as illustrated by the poor fellow who tried to have 2.4 kids.
It's fun to see the average of how your photo affected a group of people, knowing that it includes a wide spectrum of different viewpoints. Somehow, certain DPCers, particularly those who are validated by often getting high scores, confuse this idea with wanting to be average, with seeking out an average viewpoint and wanting to appeal to it. The most average thingie wins.
Originally posted by "scalvert":
Heck, I wonder why ribbon winners scoring 8+ get so many votes of 4 or 5, even though such an image requires obvious superiority. |
See above. It's not superiority, it's average appeal. The 4s to 6s are part of a spectrum of different, individual, valid reactions. Often a ribbon winner will have more 5s than 10s. Which score is more valid? I don't think there's ever been a front page at DPC that didn't have some photos in my 4 to 6 range.
Originally posted by "scalvert":
I know of some people who almost never vote above 6 in any challenge (even free studies), and I wonder why they're even here if they hold such a low opinion of our work. |
that seems kind of silly to me, too, unless they're romantics who are waiting for that perfect image... "Someday, my prints will come..."
Originally posted by "scalvert":
I'm really getting sick of people railing about how only the "stock" or "eye candy photos" score well here. |
Let's look at your list of attributes for stock photos:
well exposed - "well" according to what standard? Do you mean a full range of light and dark tones?
in focus - everything has some kind of focus. I assume you mean the sharpest focus possible.
good color - "good" according to what standard? Do you mean bright, vivid color?
a clean composition - I suppose you mean simple, since a complex composition is more work for the eyes and mind.
clear communication - I suppose you mean simple, since a complex message would be less clear, more open to diverse interpretations.
The problem is not that this is bad, but that it is limiting to the extreme. All the qualities above are spectrums: the spectrum from light to dark, the spectrum from sharp to blurry, the spectrum from black and white to glaringly colorful, etc. You only allow for a single point on each spectrum, with no regard to what the photo might need to best convey its meaning, or its feeling. So my problem is not with a particular photo, but with an attitude that excludes so many other photos.
Originally posted by "scalver":
I WANT to appeal to the masses because, really, what's the point of having a photo that most people aren't interested in seeing? :-/ |
I assume that's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway. I think it's the difference between a journeyman and an artist. The journeyman wants to improve his photographs to match a well-defined standard. The artist wants to improve the standard itself. In other words, the artist is exploring the many different ways a viewer can enjoy a photograph.
Shannon, I know this is just supposed to be an argument, but I heartily recommend that you take a class or go to a museum, take a look at a particular artistic movement. What happens to me, and what I hope will happen to you, is that you will realize that it is possible for something to be staggeringly beautiful and for you to miss it completely, to look right through it. Once you make that realization about yourself, that you are capable both of missing beauty and learning to see that beauty you missed, then the voice of the masses sounds less like an authoritative proclamation and more like a strangled whisper. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:39:16 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
With an entry that scores 8+, meeting the challenge shouldn't even be in doubt, and technical skill is a given. It'd be darn near impossible for an individual to justify how an image like this could possibly deserve a vote below 6.
A vote on the "bad" end of the scale for something like that is just plain dishonest IMO. |
agree with you, but didn't we just have this discussion? I remember you made this point, and then others argued that voting is subjective and they were tired of people claiming that low votes are necessarily malicious. Or something like that...
As to your original question, yes, I admit when I first had an entry I liked (it has happened) and it got slammed in the voting, my first inclination was to judge other photos accordingly. I now try my best to vote as if my own entry and score is not a factor. Especially on photos that are better than mine!
EDIT: Here's that other wonderful thread.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 13:43:08. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:41:08 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
One "point of having a photo that most people aren't interested in seeing, is to educate, another to stimulate awareness. |
How exactly does one stimulate awareness with a photo that few are interesting in looking at? The most profound art in the world is meaningless if it isn't viewed. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:42:03 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
...it is possible for something to be staggeringly beautiful and for you to miss it completely, to look right through it. Once you make that realization about yourself, that you are capable both of missing beauty and learning to see that beauty you missed, then the voice of the masses sounds less like an authoritative proclamation and more like a strangled whisper. |
Gawd, that's beautiful :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 13:44:01. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:44:27 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Regardless of approach, you aren't going to sell a lot of books or score well on DPC unless your work appeals to a lot of people. Not all stock photos are devoid of meaning, and many "deep" photos here would score a heck of a lot higher with better presentation. |
yup. Though again it is probably worth pointing out that 'selling a lot' or 'scoring well' is only one of many possible and potential motivations for taking pictures or writing books.
I do agree that taking pictures that aren't mainly or purely designed to be widely understood and popular and then complaining that they aren't widely understood and popular is a peculiar form of self-abuse, but it takes all sorts. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:46:38 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
How exactly does one stimulate awareness with a photo that few are interesting in looking at? The most profound art in the world is meaningless if it isn't viewed. |
You'd be surprised how few people have been to museum. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:47:11 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you never vote above 6 (and rarely that), then any score above 6 gets dragged down and you're effectively only using the "bad" end of the scale. My point was that if someone thinks all DPC photos are in the "bad" realm over several years, then why is he here? |
To find the good ones in the midst of all that ? To learn to recognise the good from the bad? For the company ?
Why do some people never enter photos and only ever post in the rant forum ? Why are they here ? I don't know, yet here they are. There's nothing in the rules, membership agreements or even guidelines that says a certain percentage of the pictures you see have to be considered really good. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:47:46 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I used to vote in comparison to what mine was currently at. e.g If I am 5.4 and I feel that the picture was not quite as good I would give it a 5. If it was a bit better 6. I then realized that probably the "best" way to vote is on the picture's own merit regardless of how it compares to mine. With this approach I feel that I vote more objectively. I also like the fact that we have our running average for our votes for a given challenge. It helps me recognize if I am getting carried away one way or the other. |
^ What he said ^
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:50:21 PM · #39 |
I think often time they didn't look at them in the first place ... the image was looked at, voted on, and click away faster than it takes to focus.
Originally posted by scalvert:
How exactly does one stimulate awareness with a photo that few are interesting in looking at? |
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:51:10 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
One "point of having a photo that most people aren't interested in seeing, is to educate, another to stimulate awareness. |
How exactly does one stimulate awareness with a photo that few are interesting in looking at? The most profound art in the world is meaningless if it isn't viewed. |
How many have an interest? |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:53:26 PM · #41 |
| I never base my votes on the quality of my entry. I like to be objective when I vote and if I think an entry is a ten, I rate it as such even if my own entry is stuck in the fives. I think its really important that challenge voting should be as honest and objective as possible. There are even times when I will refrain from voting in a challenge I'm entered in. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:55:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
With an entry that scores 8+, meeting the challenge shouldn't even be in doubt, and technical skill is a given. It'd be darn near impossible for an individual to justify how an image like this could possibly deserve a vote below 6.
A vote on the "bad" end of the scale for something like that is just plain dishonest IMO. |
I'm not disowning that photo. I still quite like it as a marker. But in many ways it is probably the most meaningless, lifeless, disconnected and vapid photo I've ever taken. If I voted it on a score of 1- bad , 10-good where bad meant completely devoid of emotion, meaning and connection to the photographer and 10- meant linked in, expressing my own particular view of the world and joy about life, for example, I'd score it a 1 or 2. Absolutely. It is one of the least meaningful and expressive picture I've taken. I've taken a lot like that through the years, so it isn't unique. But it probably sums up pretty well what I'm trying to move away from these days.
At the other end, these images are probably some of my favourites at the moment. On that 1 to 10 scale I just described, those would be up near the top.
They are personal, connected, meaningful to me. A few people might like them. I don't expect them to be particularly popular. Yet those are my current '10s' while that paintbrush would be much more down towards the 1 or 2 level. Technically okay. Emotionally barren. Apparently I still like the blues.
If I were to put on a show of my best work, I don't think I'd put that paintbrush in it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 13:57:01. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:58:47 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I do agree that taking pictures that aren't mainly or purely designed to be widely understood and popular and then complaining that they aren't widely understood and popular is a peculiar form of self-abuse, but it takes all sorts. |
Well that's it in a nutshell (the appeal part anyway). The "average" voter here isn't quite the same as the average voter on the street, as we're all photographers at some stage of learning. DPC ain't the Louvre, and nobody is ever going to win a Pulitzer for a "deep" photo posted on this site. I find it both amusing and sad when an "art snob" here votes low on a high placing image and then holds up some low scoring shot from a newbie as an example of artistic genius. More often than not, it's a decent idea with poor execution and the snob is rewarding the [sometimes imagined] concept over the photo on a photography site. Not that I have a problem with people giving high scores for creative ideas, mind you... |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 01:59:38 PM · #44 |
good point you've brought up, scalvert. i've wondered the same myself. i always vote depending on what i think the photo is worth, not what i think mine is worth (or how i'm scoring in a challenge). even if there is an entry similar to mine, if it's better, it's better.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:05:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
I vote based off of my entry. If I think the shot is better than my entry it gets a higher vote, equal about a 5, worse about a 4. However, this is based on the image I enter. ........ |
I vote each picture based on its own merits. I learned a long time ago (and it was a hard lesson) that I am emotionally attached to my own images for a while. I go back and look at some of my stuff that I haven't in a while (months/years) and lo and behold what do I find? I find that images I really liked when I shot them aren't that great after all and images that I didn't like at the time are actually much better that I gave it credit for.
I spent a lot of time wondering why and the answer I came up with is I was too emotionally attached to the stuff I once liked. My rating of that image at the time had as much to do with the feeling I was feeling at the moment I took it, not it's technical or visual merit. Use time to strip that feeling away and â€Â¢poofâ€Â¢ it's an ordinary photo after all, nothing that special about it. Composition, lighting, subject=boring. Hence, I try not to rate images based on what I think my entry is worth.
That said, I have found that participating in DPC challenges does help me REALLY look at my images and try to separate its actual merit from the feeling of the moment when it was shot. Very good training for judgement when I cull from photos I take for work. (although I NEVER throw anything away cause you never know!) |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:11:56 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
good color - "good" according to what standard? Do you mean bright, vivid color? |
Pulling one bit out of your excellent and entertaining post. I'm quite good at bright vivid colour. It seems to float my boat. I'm drawn to it, find it in a lot of my images and have a rudimentary handle on using complimentary colours, similar tones etc. I think I have a bit of a nack in that vivid colour space.
But I just don't get tertiary colour palettes. I struggle a bit to even use secondary colour palettes. They don't fire my imagination, lift my senses or excite me. So its all primary colours, strong saturation (at the time of taking the picture usually) I go out of my way to find those sorts of things in front of my lens.
I've recently been paying attention to people working those secondary or tertiary colour palettes to good effect. I'm starting to at least intellectually grasp how they work and what it can do, but I don't yet shoot that way. It's a different aesthetic, a different meaning, a different style. Talking in whispers rather than yelling. You have to pay more attention to hear what's being said, but when it is used well, it can rock your world.
So what's good colour, again ?
 
Originally posted by posthumous:
I heartily recommend that you take a class or go to a museum, take a look at a particular artistic movement. What happens to me, and what I hope will happen to you, is that you will realize that it is possible for something to be staggeringly beautiful and for you to miss it completely, to look right through it. Once you make that realization about yourself, that you are capable both of missing beauty and learning to see that beauty you missed, then the voice of the masses sounds less like an authoritative proclamation and more like a strangled whisper. |
and this is probably the most useful advice I've seen on this particular site. it might also help to accept that people aren't being 'snobbish' when they see something different than you currently see. Maybe they really are seeing something different? Sometimes it requires a bit of effort to see something/read something/ understand what's in front of you. Learning to understand visual communication and meaning is a lot like learning to read, yet we have teachers and years of education to learn to read - should we just be able to 'read' every picture without any real education?
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 14:19:08. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:22:15 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
well exposed - "well" according to what standard? Do you mean a full range of light and dark tones?
in focus - everything has some kind of focus. I assume you mean the sharpest focus possible.
good color - "good" according to what standard? Do you mean bright, vivid color?
a clean composition - I suppose you mean simple, since a complex composition is more work for the eyes and mind.
clear communication - I suppose you mean simple, since a complex message would be less clear, more open to diverse interpretations. |
It's a lot more basic than that. Generally what I would consider "good" photography...
well exposed - not poorly exposed: I can see the subject and it's not completely blown out
in focus - not out of focus: any blur or DOF is at least put to good use
good color - some sense of competence: WB and saturation that look pleasing or at least intentional
a clean composition - something that guides the eye without a ton of unrelated distractions
clear communication - The viewer has some idea of what you're trying to express
You know... like THIS (nice stock photos Gordon)
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 14:24:18. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:27:12 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's a lot more basic than that. Generally what I would consider "good" photography...
well exposed - not poorly exposed: I can see the subject and it's not completely blown out
in focus - not out of focus: any blur or DOF is at least put to good use
good color - some sense of competence: WB and saturation that look pleasing or at least intentional
a clean composition - something that guides the eye without a ton of unrelated distractions
clear communication - The viewer has some idea of what you're trying to express |
I think that's the point. I can think of plenty of pictures in each category that I consider not just good but great, that are completely at odds with your definitions.
I want to start a 'war on the use of the word distraction'
Most cliched, meaningless word in photographic critique on line.
As to 'clear communication' how quickly does the viewer have to be able to understand the idea ? How educated does the viewer need to be ? Do they have to have all the same cultural clues and background you have ? For example your Dr Seuss/ cat in the hat pictures have no context for me - I don't understand them at all. Does that mean they don't communicate well, or I just don't know enough ? Seriously - I've never read a Dr Seuss book. Never heard of them growing up. So those images (and that entire challenge) are effectively contextless and meaningless to me - unless I went and educated myself. Even then, I don't know what those books would be like as a child, so I'll never really understand. Is that your fault that your pictures don't communicate well ?
What your list really describes is what would be considered great graphic design. Something perfect for a commercial client looking to buy images to sell a product. Easy to read message. Clean lines. Simple. Pleasing colour palette. Nothing complex or confusing or requiring thought. Communicates with the majority of viewers. Good for an advert. Commercially viable. It is certainly a valid and popular style of image making. Just not the only one.
On the flip side, something that appeals to most everyone isn't liable to really connect with anyone. Everyone can agree that it is tastefully done, didn't offend anyone and makes its point. But it isn't liable to change anyone's mind about something, or communicate a beautiful idea or even express a real emotion, felt by the real photographer. It communicates, but it doesn't really have anything to say.
A classic coke bottle has all those clean lines, good colour and a easily understood message.
It's hard to understand what the Mona Lisa is thinking. All the edges are blurry. The colour is a bit muddy.
I think the difficulty in coming up with a list like the one above is that it describes what would be consider averagely good. Almost everything that might be considered fantastically great will break with those conventions in one way or another - and be fantastically great, largely because of that. The trap people sometimes fall into is that they think to be fantastically great, they have to break conventions, just for the sake of it. Fantastically crap also lies in that direction. But you don't get to be amazingly great by shooting for average week in, week out.
All of Monet's pictures are out of focus.
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 14:38:39. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:31:37 PM · #49 |
Same as it ever was...
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Yet another reason I think there should be a forum section for bitching about voting and commenting. This is getting ridiculous.
SC should automatically lock every thread on the subject. |
... because he's not here to say it for himself. |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 02:32:58 PM · #50 |
I'm going to throw in my .02 worth.
The shots that Shannon called "Eye Candy" in my opinion are very nice shots that get your attention immediately. They grab hold of you right from the start. In my opinion, the don't hold on long though. After you look at it a few times, it becomes boring. JMO.
This shot however scored a 5.1 and I think that's appalling. I can never tire of looking at this image. It's the type of photo that keeps drawing you back over and over. Once again, JMO.
In my opinion, MANY of the eye candy shots are not based on how good of a photographer you are, but how well you can physically create the effect that you're trying to photograph. Sorry, but that's just how I look at it.
I feel that this image is simply the best shot ever put on this site! It wasn't in a challenge but it grabs hold and never ever lets go.
 |
|
