| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2008 11:59:18 PM · #151 |
this says something along the lines of what I'm trying to grope towards.
I care less about how you feel about the pictures I take, than how I feel about the pictures I take. I care even less if they are commercially viable or popular.
I'd like to take something I was satisfied with or did some good.
//georgebarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/meaningful-photographs.html
Message edited by author 2008-03-28 23:59:33. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:09:11 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by undieyatch:
I have no problems voting a picture higher than mine - mad_brewer
I have no issues voting on something better than mine - Hot_Pixel
My averaged score received is not the scale to judge others by. - yospiff
I won't believe anyone who says these things - only the SC knows for sure.
These are photographs, not politics.
There must be a method for member transparency of others votes, (of course after the challenge is tallied)
I vote no shroud. |
The last challenge I voted in (Harsh Environments) I gave 10 votes higher or at mine, including the blue and red ribbon winners. I came in fourth.
In the last FS, I gave 18 higher than mine and 33 votes of 7, where my final score was just a hair above 7. I gave the blue ribbon a 10; had I given it a 6 I would have gotten the blue ribbon.
I can go on, but hopefully by now you can see that some of us can give votes that are deserved. |
Your scores are not visible to me. I still don't believe you. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:11:56 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... "shoot what you admire"...what appeals to you. That's the key IMO. You should study the types and techniques of photos that you admire and figure out what makes them so appealing to you. In doing so, you are going to discover composition, color, depth of field, applied lighting and all those other things that make a photo more intriguing than a novice's snapshot. As it turns out, those also happen to be important considerations for stock photography, and the elements that make photos compelling for you generally turn out to hold appeal for others, too. The net result of this is that the more experienced photographer might THINK he's only working on a technique or personal style for his own personal appeal, but in soliciting feedback he's still trying to figure out what appeals to others, too.
There are, of course, exceptions: groundbreakers like Picasso or Monet who totally break the rules and go off in a completely new direction. They don't care for the opinions of others, and their work is often poorly regarded at first because it's so different...that which appeals most to you is that which marketers targeting your interests would most like to use to sell to you. |
I'd agree with the premise ("shoot what you admire"), although one may admire a painting, a cinematography, a Beethoven sonata, a poem or the way a cross is reflected in the fender of 1949 Buick while pondering such a thing in front of Starbucks at a hideous mall somewhere in Saskatchewan or Ohio which has never been photographed by an uninvested private citizen. The mall, however, is probably as hideous as it is unloved by anyone who doesn't profit from its existence. Imagine a photographer entertaining the idea of shooting it, of showing an interest here, of paying his respects, if you will, to this architecturally and artistically negligible expanse of plaster and press-board? Imagine a wide-angle colour image, harshly lit, unflattering but otherwise a fairly accurate record of the beast, integrated in an equally expansive suburban setting.
Yes, this photographer, still, shoots what he loves or "admires", but probably not in the sense you intended for him (above). What he loves, I speculate, is not so much a subject but an involvement with the very force(s) that prompted him to look at a thing without any thought of profit or advantage. What he loves, I speculate, is the force that drives his "green fuse" or whatever metaphor you want to substitute here.
To be sure, I'm not talking about a stock photo here. I'm not talking about "art for art's" sake either. And whatever technical considerations may go into this shot, they will not be superimposed onto an image to achieve a certain look or appeal, if you will. Being who he is where he is, light, composition, colour, depth of field will likely be dictated to him by whatever crack they came in. And if he knows his tools, he may just be astute enough to land a very unique shot of, potentially, immense appeal to a handful of people.
Well, it's getting late and I just got started... but I'll send you this a thousand miles in mid-thought, as is and for now... |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:12:26 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'd bet an old camera strap that the three people who gave that paintbrush image a 3 or 4 had both a stake in the challenge and a very "interesting" voting pattern. My only interest is that people vote images fairly, and if they genuinely feel that an entry deserves a low vote (even this one), then I won't object. I doubt that's the case in this instance though. |
Have to ask the question. In reviewing these voting patterns, have you observed any activity as you've described that had any real impact on the outcome of the challenge? If the results of a challenge would have changed that's a much bigger subject. If the impact is only a minor change in the score, the S/C should inquire directly to the members whose conduct appears to be intentionally unfair. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:20:01 AM · #155 |
You know Shannon I am completely stunned that you are talking about how people voting only because the things you said to me when I started a thread about voted. All you had to do was jump on board and we could have changed some of my original thoughts and then ask others to jump on board also. It all starts with one thought. You of all people should already know that you can’t change how people voteâ€Â¦right? Well you have to push them weather they like it or not. Eventually they would get used to it and wouldn’t even think twice about it. Oh well
|
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:22:40 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In other words, an image that an "accomplished" photographer finds particularly compelling is likely to appeal to others as well, and thus hold mass appeal. |
These are found particularly compelling by many accomplished photographers. Is there mass appeal ? So are these images. Is there mass appeal ? |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:34:20 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I care less about how you feel about the pictures I take, than how I feel about the pictures I take. I care even less if they are commercially viable or popular.
I'd like to take something I was satisfied with or did some good. |
But you do still care.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'd rather have one person really, really love a picture, enough to want to buy it, frame it, live with it, get joy from it, than have 50 people like it and forget it 5 minutes later. |
|
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:35:09 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by bfox2:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm really getting sick of people railing about how only the "stock" or "eye candy photos" score well here. Stock photos are generally well exposed and in focus, with good color, a clean composition and clear communication. If that's bad, please let me be horrible. 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? :-/ |
That sort of depends on which masses you're gunning for. I would say that a lot of artists are trying to create more deep or complex statements with their photos (or other work). The DPC masses, and really much of the internet community in general, are fairly unanimous in what they want to see. The ribbon winners embody this on a consistent basis. The pictures, while technically perfect in the way you describe, are rarely have a deep or complex message and don't ask for much thought or interpretation. I can look at them and see they're pretty but that's usually as far as my interest goes.
To use you as an example: while I enjoy your work and an always impressed with your creativity and execution when I look at your work I'm not struck with any deep message. Your shots WOULD work well as stock for commercial/advertising purposes and as that seems your style I wouldn't dispute it. Like I said I like your work, and I would look at it for creative or technical inspiration, but it doesn't really speak to me.
From my experience a lot of photographic art isn't anywhere close the realm of mainstream internet photography and I think that is what people refer to when they bash stock/eye-candy photographs. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not bashing your work or trying to say that my photos have deep and complex messages.
The fact is that the stock and eye-candy photographs DO score well here because that is what people here like. There's nothing wrong with that. People come here, I'm sure, with their own options of their own work which may have done well in other venues but if it is not in keeping with the DPC-line it won't do well. Anyone who pisses and bemoans that fact is clearly in the wrong place. |
I agree, so let's have a "Deep Complex Statement" challenge and see how the voting goes. : )
I feel that the range of entries and the voting results would be very interesting, and could possibly give us some added insight into the mindset of the DPC voters.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:36:05 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is there mass appeal ? |
Absolutely. Many of those images look very much like stock shots I've seen. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:36:28 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
But you do still care. |
Yup. Never said I didn't care. It just isn't the main focus or motivation. I'm not the one saying that the only reason anyone ever takes a picture is for mass appeal though. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:37:11 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is there mass appeal ? |
Absolutely. Many of those images look very much like stock shots I've seen. |
That's fine then. Just redefine 'stock' to mean any picture you've ever seen. Makes perfect sense.
By that argument people railing about how only the "stock" or "eye candy photos" score well here. is true. Most every image is a stock image, so only stock images can by definition do well here.
So what's the problem ? Its only stock images that do well here.
Message edited by author 2008-03-29 00:38:40. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:39:37 AM · #162 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm not the one saying that the only reason anyone ever takes a picture is for mass appeal though. |
Nor have you offered a reason for taking photos for a purpose OTHER than having people look at them. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:41:16 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Just redefine 'stock' to mean any picture you've ever seen. Makes perfect sense. |
That such images exist as stock (in entire collections with labels like Roadside America and Nostalgia) is not a redefinition. They simply do.
Message edited by author 2008-03-29 00:43:26. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:43:54 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm not the one saying that the only reason anyone ever takes a picture is for mass appeal though. |
Nor have you offered a reason for taking photos for a purpose OTHER than having people look at them. |
Emotional connection to a place or subject. The joy of the process of taking images. To work through emotional issues. To empower the participant. To help approach fears or widen your experiences. To overcome shyness. To meet people. To see more. As a reason to travel. To hang on the wall. To remember an event. To remember a person. To have fun?
Do you really only have a camera to show other people the pictures you take ? Is that the only pleasure and joy you take from making a picture ? Its a reason, but it seems then that the only joy you could get from a camera is dependent on the approval of others. I know that isn't true for me. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:44:49 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Just redefine 'stock' to mean any picture you've ever seen. Makes perfect sense. |
That such images exist as stock (in entire collections with labels like Roadside America and Nostalgia) is not a redefinition. They simply do. |
I might suggest that if that's all you see in those particular images, then you aren't seeing them particularly clearly. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:52:38 AM · #166 |
| In a similar vein, 'art is a verb' is well worth reading. Particularly if you feel the only value in photography is in having people viewing the images and them being popular or commercially viable. A lot of the writing of Freeman Patterson is also relevant. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 12:59:53 AM · #167 |
| I am impressed just by the number of great links contained in this thread! Please do keep this conversation going... =) |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:00:51 AM · #168 |
as is the 'cameras for healing' project worth reading about as another reason to take pictures, for some people.
Henri says the camera acts as a therapeutic tool, which empowers the individuals with their own instrument of communication and self-expression. Sure, they probably want people to see the pictures, but that isn't the only reason for taking them.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:05:12 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Emotional connection to a place or subject. The joy of the process of taking images. To work through emotional issues. To empower the participant. To help approach fears or widen your experiences. To overcome shyness. To meet people. To see more. As a reason to travel. To hang on the wall. To remember an event. To remember a person. To have fun? |
Well sure, but other than those? ;-P Your photo blog doesn't bespeak one who doesn't care what others think.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
That such images exist as stock (in entire collections with labels like Roadside America and Nostalgia) is not a redefinition. They simply do. |
I might suggest that if that's all you see in those particular images, then you aren't seeing them particularly clearly. |
I might suggest that what's intriguing about such images isn't the exclusive domain of highbrow artists, and that there exists a market for them. You seem intent on proving that "artistic" photos can't have mass appeal, which doesn't strike me as any more valid a belief that they do. All I was trying to express in the OP was that stock photos aren't necessarily bad. Mass appeal by definition means that many people like it, and continually expressing disdain for what many people like is annoying, particularly when the offered alternative carries many of the same attributes as the offending material.
Message edited by author 2008-03-29 01:05:45. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:10:25 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm not the one saying that the only reason anyone ever takes a picture is for mass appeal though. |
Nor have you offered a reason for taking photos for a purpose OTHER than having people look at them. |
Well... I've taken plenty of pictures and the only person who's ever seen them is me. Some of them are even pretty important to me. A few have been worked over in post until they were perfect to me, and yet I'm still the only one who's ever seen them. I'm your guy sitting in the closet looking at his own stuff I guess. I usually intend to post them, and occassionally they find there way here or elsewhere, but most times not. I'm not being disingenuous when I say that it's really not the most important thing for me to have them validated or even sincerely critiqued by others. (That's not the same as saying I find no value in genuine critique - I adore honest criticism.)
I sort of get the feeling that you are uncomfortable with the notion that photography is "art", or that "art" is a deeply personal experience for the artist and may be an end in itself. Or that what you do might somehow be misconstrued as art. Or that art is for artsy types with their head in the clouds. Or something. I don't have much to go on. The best thing I can say and speaking personally is that photography is the medium, but the process is the end, the goal. If a couple people come along for the ride and get it, wow, cool. If not, the goal has already been achieved anyway. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:21:22 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I sort of get the feeling that you are uncomfortable with the notion that photography is "art", or that "art" is a deeply personal experience for the artist and may be an end in itself. Or that what you do might somehow be misconstrued as art. |
Nah, I was an artist long before I was a photographer. I don't hold any contempt toward art, but take exception to the notion that all images labeled "stock" or "eye candy" inherently lack emotion or meaning. That's the generalization that prompted my post. Photos CAN appeal to the masses and still be profound, and "deep" photos can still hold mass appeal. They're not distinct categories. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:34:56 AM · #172 |
I agree with you and I think a lot of people try to cheat. I always give pictures the highest score if they deserve it. I am very disappointed of some scores. A lot of pictures should not get the ribbon. I see a lot of great shots finishing worst then 20 and some shots better then 10 which should not be here. I thing the whole system of voting should change. Something that of course doesn't take a lot of time. I made a few suggestions, but did not go through. I thing it should be a system like on EBay with stars where lets say you have 10 stars in different categories. Lets say you have these categories originality, quality, uniqueness, composition, technicality, overall look, etc., and you give stars for each category and the final result will be calculated depending on how each category does and with space if some one wants to leave a note or comment as well. I want know everyones opinion on this one. Maybe I am crazy, but I think it would really improved.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2008 02:07:20 AM · #173 |
Ken mentioned earlier that it's hard not to learn here - I'll agree with that, but for some (me in particular), it's VERY hard to learn how to do "popular". The pictures that appeal to me most aren't always those that are in the top ten, and yet those are the ones I want to learn from. Oh, and I hereby request the continued ability to bemoan a bad score - take that away and you lose half the fun of the place. :-)
I know a bit of what Gordon and Louis mention about taking pictures for the process. I'm normally disappointed with scores here - probably all but the top 2-3% of partipicants here are disappointed with scores for the most part. Yet every weekend whether I have a challenge to shoot for or not (and though they may not reflect it, my challenge entries ARE shot specifically for challenges for the most part) I look forward to going out with my camera. I enjoy seeing things through the lens. I enjoy loading the card and sorting through the day's "take" to see what I have. I'm not particularly artistically inclined so I've yet to truly see the possibilities in post processing, by my usual "levels, curves, sharpen" routine is still enjoyable to me to see what the basic image becomes. And yes, I enjoy sharing them with others, to get feedback and to just share what I saw and how I saw it. All the better if someone likes it, but in the long run I've still enjoyed the process of getting there.
I won't ever be one of the "big guns" here, nor will I ever make a fortune off of stock. I do not bemoan images which appeal to the masses - they are what sells. It's what makes the world go 'round, no question. I do think after one has been here awhile repetition becomes an issue. Once you've seen a couple hundred (insert oft repeated shot here), it isn't quite as appealing. I may give the umpteenth well done version of (insert oft repeated shot here) a 7 when it probably really deserved an 8 (according to whom, though?) only because I've seen it so many times before. I still quite often spend time with those images, to try to determine how to do them right. I'm not making a lot of progress in that arena, however. :-)
And my one voting flaw is that I don't use the full scale. I very rarely give 1s or 2s; I rarely give 10s and I'm a bit stingy with 9s. I do not wish to see the ability to vote in challenges in which we are entered taken away from us. My interest in voting a challenge is higher if I've invested the time and effort of entering. Some will say I could simply wait and go through the challenge results at the end of voting, but at that point the challenge is "tainted" by the outcome, if that makes sense. Others have suggested I could just go through and comment but not vote - and I have done that in the past - but if I'm taking the time to go through all the entries, shouldn't I vote while I'm there? And if I were to only vote lower than my score in a challenge, the pattern would be VERY apparent to SC, because everything would be 4 or lower. :-) |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 03:52:18 AM · #174 |
I am an instinctual voter. I don't have a fancy grading scheme or rules for voting.I look at a picture and I know what score it should get. I also don't get strange, biased urges to vote down picturs better then mine(?!) I more often then not vote on challenges I enter, purely for my own benefit. I tend to exponentially enjoy voting on them heck of a lot more. The anonomity of the voting helps me compare ideas, execution, relevance to the challenge and feel of the picture without spoiling my first impression with other comments or picture details. I don't care whether I like the artsy meaningful stuff or the eyecandy. If I like it, I like. I also don't give my preferences labels.
Message edited by author 2008-03-29 03:53:02. |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 04:58:10 AM · #175 |
|
