| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2008 12:55:24 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
otherwise you end up as Thomas Kinkade, which is fine if that's where you want to be. But not everyone should aspire to the same end. |
The manager of the Partridge Family? |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:58:21 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anywhere I have ever been where there is such a process of "publicly transparent voting", the end result has been a "social normalizing" of the voting process, where those whose opinions do not coincide with the majority end up marginalized, and sometimes persecuted. |
Thank you Bear. I don't have the grasp of language you exhibit.
This is exactly what I meant about "transparent" voting. |
If I read this right... what you are saying is that you fully support a system where those that dare differ from the masses can be "marginalized and persecuted".
Sorry, but I truly cannot support your proposal.
Ray |
Two thoughts: those that "dare differ" always encounter opposition from the many who don't. Isn't this the nature of the beast? And,
the way I read Bear's statement, "social normalizing" leads to conformity. Ergo, those who "dare differ" are simply painted over and muted.
I have a feeling you and Bear would agree, if the misunderstanding were cleared. |
Sometimes one needs to re-visit a comment to gain a true appreciation of what was said. I did do that and found that upon sober reflection, I DO agree with Bear.
Unfortunately, I did not edit my initial post quickly enough. I do thank you for your insight.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:59:07 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by JMart:
This is all very deep and good. Of course, for newbies like me it's worth reminding that this is a learning site among other things and an important part of learning any art is learning the rules and practicing towards what works. As the Grammy winning Rickie Lee Jones likes to say, "You can't break the rules until you know how to play the game."
|
Absolutely. All very true and I wouldn't disagree at all. Though at some point once you've learned all those rules, it can help to tweak them a little bit, otherwise you end up as Thomas Kinkade, which is fine if that's where you want to be. But not everyone should aspire to the same end. |
Agreed. The music world has Kinkades, we just won't remember their names one generation to the next. :) |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:00:12 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
otherwise you end up as Thomas Kinkade, which is fine if that's where you want to be. But not everyone should aspire to the same end. |
The manager of the Partridge Family? |
That was Rubin. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:16:46 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
If you're here to try and score higher and make the top cut in challenges the smart shooter (with skills) WILL shoot for what the "average viewer" likes. That's not "cheapen"ing your vision, that's playing to win. |
I partly agree. To appeal to the masses you have to dumb down the message. In commercialized work it doesn't cheapen anything since the "message" is the clients not yours. You're simply the manufacturer in the process. Client has square holes to fill so you manufacture a square block and don't even consider anything else.
For any other type of work (i.e. non-commercial) when you dumb down a message/vision you ARE cheapening your work. |
That's also a perfect way to look at it. It's endemic to the site and the voting that people "manufacture" images whereas some people here capture them and there's big difference. Manufactured seems to do extremely well. Even the landscapes, the skies...the waterfalls that are seriously saturated or hyper-contrasted have become a testimony to that.
I find it strange that I believe the average DPCer prefers staged shots over ones of a real scene..in general. The site leans to the commercial side of things. You have to accept that...move on...or try to change things the best way you know how.
Seems like there are two topics being debated here...shooting for mass appeal and dishonest voting patterns. Well, when your playing to the masses you should expect a little everything and that includes botht the best and the worst of human behavior. It's here as much as it's everywhere else.
One more thing...
There are more reasons to enter a contest other than winning. Ask the hundreds of thousands of people who have run The New York Marathon.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 13:44:21. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:30:23 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I find it strange that I believe the average DPCer prefers staged shots over ones of a real scene..in general. It leans o the commercial side of things.
|
I could agree more. That's why I made this comment earlier in this thread:
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.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:35:55 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
otherwise you end up as Thomas Kinkade, which is fine if that's where you want to be. But not everyone should aspire to the same end. |
The manager of the Partridge Family? |
everyone knows that was RUBEN Kincaid!
 |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:38:50 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I find it strange that I believe the average DPCer prefers staged shots over ones of a real scene..in general. It leans o the commercial side of things. |
I could agree more. That's why I made this comment earlier in this thread:
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. |
Many of the challenges lend themselves to created (staged) photo's...
Recent examples:
Staged - Mug Shot Challenge
Non-Staged - Fences II |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 02:57:03 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
That's also a perfect way to look at it. It's endemic to the site and the voting that people "manufacture" images whereas some people here capture them and there's big difference. Manufactured seems to do extremely well. Even the landscapes, the skies...the waterfalls that are seriously saturated or hyper-contrasted have become a testimony to that.
I find it strange that I believe the average DPCer prefers staged shots over ones of a real scene..in general. The site leans to the commercial side of things. You have to accept that...move on...or try to change things the best way you know how. |
I'm having a hard time agreeing with that, as far as it relates to landscape photography at least. The whole history of depicting the natural landscape in art has been to dramatize it. As just one example, look at the Hudson River School of American artists. Look at Bierstadt's paintings of the American west.
For me just "capturing" a landscape is of very little importance. I can see that attitude being "correct" in street photography, documentary photography in general, but that's not what I'm about. When I am moved enough by a landscape to take the trouble to set up my tripod and make an image of it, that's because it's speaking to me at a very intense, even visceral, level. And my job as a photographer/artist, as I see it, is to try capture that sense of visceral intensity. What I "see" when I capture the image is NOT limited by what/how the camera records; I'm seeing at a different level than that. Almost without exception, my strongest images were previsualized at the time of exposure, and my task was to use my skills to bring that previsualization to life. This, essentially, was how I was taught to work when I was doing large format B/W imaging. It's how I've always worked. It's how I choose to work, and I don't see where this in any way whatsoever cheapens or commercializes what I do.
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 03:15:38 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
That's also a perfect way to look at it. It's endemic to the site and the voting that people "manufacture" images whereas some people here capture them and there's big difference. Manufactured seems to do extremely well. Even the landscapes, the skies...the waterfalls that are seriously saturated or hyper-contrasted have become a testimony to that.
I find it strange that I believe the average DPCer prefers staged shots over ones of a real scene..in general. The site leans to the commercial side of things. You have to accept that...move on...or try to change things the best way you know how. |
I'm having a hard time agreeing with that, as far as it relates to landscape photography at least.
R. |
I was refering to the point where a landscape of Earth looks a lot more like Mars or some other funky planet.
To me it's more like Photoshop slider play than it is art. I won't call that statement fact but it's how it seems to me. How far do you go before a natural scene becomes digital art?
I don't think that National Geographic or any nature mag would dare hit the levels I've seen here (even by half). But if we are talking Digital Art...that's another world, litterally. Again, I think the average voter prefers that to a perfectly simple clean image...landscape or any other.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 16:29:18. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 03:54:05 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
That's also a perfect way to look at it. It's endemic to the site and the voting that people "manufacture" images whereas some people here capture them and there's big difference. Manufactured seems to do extremely well. Even the landscapes, the skies...the waterfalls that are seriously saturated or hyper-contrasted have become a testimony to that.
I find it strange that I believe the average DPCer prefers staged shots over ones of a real scene..in general. The site leans to the commercial side of things. You have to accept that...move on...or try to change things the best way you know how. |
I'm having a hard time agreeing with that, as far as it relates to landscape photography at least.
R. |
I was refering to the point where a lanscape of Earth looks a lot more like Mars or some other funky planet.
To me it's more like Photoshop slider play than it is art. I won't call that staement fact but it's how it seems to me. How far do you go before a natural scene becomes digital art? |
Don't you think that you could go as far as you wanted to portray what your vision of the scene was? I wouldn't consider it less art than non-manipulated images, just different. Just seems unaccepting of other peoples vision or artistic expression b/c it doesn't fit your idea of what is art/photography. What's your cutoff for manipulation of a photo? You readily takeout color of a photo despite the fact that humans see color and thus you have altered the perception of the scene, but you frown upon(it seems maybe not) the changing or saturation of colors in a photo. To me it's the same thing, altering the perception of the photo, just that one adds color while the other subtracts it |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:02:41 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I was refering to the point where a lanscape of Earth looks a lot more like Mars or some other funky planet.
To me it's more like Photoshop slider play than it is art. I won't call that staement fact but it's how it seems to me. How far do you go before a natural scene becomes digital art? |
Don't you think that you could go as far as you wanted to portray what your vision of the scene was? I wouldn't consider it less art than non-manipulated images, just different. Just seems unaccepting of other peoples vision or artistic expression b/c it doesn't fit your idea of what is art/photography. What's your cutoff for manipulation of a photo? You readily takeout color of a photo despite the fact that humans see color and thus you have altered the perception of the scene, but you frown upon(it seems maybe not) the changing or saturation of colors in a photo. To me it's the same thing, altering the perception of the photo, just that one adds color while the other subtracts it |
People can do whatever they please that's for sure but I don't have to love it.
There are a lot of feelings flying around in this thread which are good to air and I twiched a little when I read "...such an image requires obvious superiority" early on in the thread. I'm responding, a little late, mind you to the feeling I had when I saw that sentence and not fully in context to everything else.
Again, people can do whatever. That's not an issue. I was noting that the voter average seems to favor some things that I don't have a great deal of respect for and certainly wouldn't dub superior. So in voicing that opinion I suppose I'm pointing out there's another way of thinking that's valid and in contrast to the norm.
I met a girl who worked for Magnum a few years back and she told that their members fought like dogs constantly over these same exact issues. You name it....they fight about it.
This is pretty average banter. Probably lightweight compared to what they dish out.
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 17:08:11. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:02:58 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yup, I don't think anyone would disagree that what wins here is what's popular.
However, you shouldn't have to vote an image high because you think it might be popular, which seems to be the thrust of the original post. |
I second that...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:07:35 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yup, I don't think anyone would disagree that what wins here is what's popular.
However, you shouldn't have to vote an image high because you think it might be popular, which seems to be the thrust of the original post. |
I second that... |
I took it as more of a caution/warning shot not to cast your vote based soley on the score your picture is recieving at the moment. It's evolved into a more lengthy discussion--but that was my initial take on Shannon's post. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:11:12 PM · #290 |
Wow! A lot of words in this thread? I don't rate any photo better than mine. They are different in interpretation, in location, in imagination. I can't compare any I vote on with mine, they are all unique. So I vote on what I see, what I feel and what hits me between the eyes.
Simple, maybe...but then I see things simple. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:14:06 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Gordon:
you shouldn't have to vote an image high because you think it might be popular, which seems to be the thrust of the original post. |
I took it as more of a caution/warning shot not to cast your vote based soley on the score your picture is recieving at the moment. It's evolved into a more lengthy discussion--but that was my initial take on Shannon's post. |
Yep. I don't care what your personal tastes are, just that they shouldn't "coincidentally" reverse when you have an entry in competition. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:21:40 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by JMart:
This is all very deep and good. Of course, for newbies like me it's worth reminding that this is a learning site among other things and an important part of learning any art is learning the rules and practicing towards what works. As the Grammy winning Rickie Lee Jones likes to say, "You can't break the rules until you know how to play the game."
|
Absolutely. All very true and I wouldn't disagree at all. Though at some point once you've learned all those rules, it can help to tweak them a little bit, otherwise you end up as Thomas Kinkade, which is fine if that's where you want to be. But not everyone should aspire to the same end. |
Agreed. The music world has Kinkades, we just won't remember their names one generation to the next. :) |
Adding to that, who remembers the popular painters of the French Académie des Beaux-Arts (where we get the derogatory term, academic painter) and thier annual French Salon during the 1860's and 1870's? Nobody.
The artists who were rejected from that group, with the funding of the French Gov., fromed thier own Salon group the Salon des Refusés,(Salon of the Refused). Which included artists whose work is still as awe inspiring and important as it was at that time, Works by artists such as Manet, Monet and whistler were included.
So what is considered status quo will probably be forgotten, maybe not in name but at least in content. The artists/photographers who are remembered are the ones who broke all the molds...
I guess that doesn't matter, I already forgot what was on the front page of this site last week...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2008 05:52:28 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
People can do whatever they please that's for sure but I don't have to love it. |
I completely agree, I don't have to like what others have created but I don't feel that makes it less than art( not implying that is what you intended), just art that I don't care for or have missed the beauty that lies within. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:27:59 PM · #294 |
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. |
truer words have never been spoken. well put.
in my opinion, a 1-4 is an image that didn't meet the challenge and shows a somewhat lack of superior photographic skill. nothing wrong with that, whatsoever, so please don't take that offensively. if it's clearly a great picture, and meets the challenge, having a 1-4, or even 5 sometimes is unbelievably..."trollish" if you will. i just don't get how anyone could vote a 1 or 2, 3 or 4 for a marvelous image, quality wise, everything...and not consider that to be an abuse. of course this will be debated as me taking on my opinion and forcing it to everyone else...but on a great image that ribbons...the majority vote doesn't lie, but the lower votes tell a lot. again, "trollish"
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:36:10 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by jerowe:
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. |
truer words have never been spoken. well put.
in my opinion, a 1-4 is an image that didn't meet the challenge and shows a somewhat lack of superior photographic skill. nothing wrong with that, whatsoever, so please don't take that offensively. if it's clearly a great picture, and meets the challenge, having a 1-4, or even 5 sometimes is unbelievably..."trollish" if you will. i just don't get how anyone could vote a 1 or 2, 3 or 4 for a marvelous image, quality wise, everything...and not consider that to be an abuse. of course this will be debated as me taking on my opinion and forcing it to everyone else...but on a great image that ribbons...the majority vote doesn't lie, but the lower votes tell a lot. again, "trollish" |
Except if that (GORGEOUS) image were submitted to, say, the current Cowboy category.
Many here would consider that DNMC and would vote it very low. It's not "trollish" at all to vote that one the low end of the scale.
Again, whoever did that -- VERY NICE...
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:36:53 PM · #296 |
...  |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:43:36 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... |
Look, you don't have to be nasty. I kept it quite simple, but fair. Not everyone agrees that great photos not coming anywhere close to the challenge should be rewarded. Why do you want everyone to do it your way?
jerowe made some blanket and WRONG statements that anyone who voted such an image low NO MATTER WHAT was a troll. That statement in and of itself was trolling.
Enough said on this. But this thread resurfaced after months so the next person to read it should not get the wrong impression about their method of voting.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:43:51 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... |
lmao
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:54:05 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... |
Look, you don't have to be nasty. I kept it quite simple, but fair. Not everyone agrees that great photos not coming anywhere close to the challenge should be rewarded. Why do you want everyone to do it your way? ... |
Time out there partner. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Why do you think I was responding to your post personally?
I wasn't. No quotes, no ref's, etc... just a simple sigh meaning "here we go again", and settling in for the fireworks display. :-) |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 04:54:56 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... |
Look, you don't have to be nasty. I kept it quite simple, but fair. Not everyone agrees that great photos not coming anywhere close to the challenge should be rewarded. Why do you want everyone to do it your way? ... |
Time out there partner. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Why do you think I was responding to your post personally?
I wasn't. No quotes, no ref's, etc... just a simple sigh meaning "here we go again", and settling in for the fireworks display. :-) |
Little did you know that you would be part of those fireworks, now pass that popcorn since you don't need it anymore:)
|
|
