Advertisement Challenge - DPChallenge Forums

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

05/06/2002 01:29:36 AM · #4

I have to agree with you guys this is a great bunch of shots. Also I am kinda shocked to see only 83 entries that is way down from the last few weeks.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

05/06/2002 03:30:09 AM · #5

Originally posted by Corey:
I have to agree with you guys this is a great bunch of shots. Also I am kinda shocked to see only 83 entries that is way down from the last few weeks.

That's probably because this challenge was deceptively tricky, since most real-world adverts rely on compositing and text. That and the fact that some people would just not have had the time to set up a good shot properly. It makes life a bit easier for voting/commenting though! :o)

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

05/06/2002 03:56:15 AM · #6

Hrrm... I only signed up here recently, and the 'ground up' challenge was the first I rated on. I was really surprised by the results, and now I'm again surprised that you guys think the entries for the advertising challenge seem great! I looked at the thumbnails and shuddered.

It seems like this site emphasises form over content to me, and people who try to capture something unique and imaginitive are penalised because people don't like to be surprised. The winner of the 'ground up challenge' typifies this to me. I don't think I could bring myself to rate all the photos in the advertising challenge because people seem to not only have strived to be as mediocre and unoriginal as possible, they've tried to imitate advertising (of course, i'm not saying that's wrong when it was what the challenge was about) which for the most part epitomises mediocrity, rewards cliche and avoids risks and surprises at all costs. There seem to be a handful of unique photos there, like the robot one, but most are a long way from it.

This site is really interesting, I'm not criticising it. It has just made me realise how differently I approach photography to 90% of the people here... that doesn't make me right and you guys wrong, it just makes me a freak :) Oh well, that's my life in a nutshell.

langdon

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/06/2002 05:42:36 AM · #7

Originally posted by rjhawkin:
I dod find one bad thing. when previewing two seperate images of the same exact thing.

Yea, that's a bug that we just haven't ironed out yet. People love to double click buttons that require only a single click. It seems like we fixed it once, but it's back. :) Thanks bringing it to our attention.

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

05/06/2002 07:26:35 AM · #8

Originally posted by lisae:
Hrrm...

...It seems like this site emphasises form over content to me, and people who try to capture something unique and imaginitive are penalised because people don't like to be surprised. The winner of the 'ground up challenge' typifies this to me. I don't think I could bring myself to rate all the photos in the advertising challenge because people seem to not only have strived to be as mediocre and unoriginal as possible, they've tried to imitate advertising (of course, i'm not saying that's wrong when it was what the challenge was about) which for the most part epitomises mediocrity, rewards cliche and avoids risks and surprises at all costs. There seem to be a handful of unique photos there, like the robot one, but most are a long way from it.

This site is really interesting, I'm not criticising it. It has just made me realise how differently I approach photography to 90% of the people here... that doesn't make me right and you guys wrong, it just makes me a freak :) Oh well, that's my life in a nutshell.

I will say that I tend to agree with your point....to a point.

But I will say something else to. As an older radical (I was doing cr@p to my body long before it was vogue) that style over substance is EXACTLY what advertising is all about.

Substance is for photo journalism or photo's as art. Style, pop culture-ism, humor, 1 second gratification is where advertising is at. To get a message to someone as fast as possible, with little wiggle room for losing the message. Art and subtle meaning come second and if you can get that in after doing the message..you are ready for 5th avenue.

Plus, remember.. this is a learning site. There are a lot of folks (and I am new to digital so I fall in to this category in a way here) that need to experience the old and cliched and get that right before moving on to new and more challenging stuff.

It's like learning painting. Jackson Pollock (one of my favorite artists) got the color and the texture right before moving on to a new art form. He even considered his early work cliched and trodden until he fell upon his ultimate style. But he needed to walk before he could run.

So I agree, this site tends to be aimed more at form but..I see that as it's goal.

* This message has been edited by the author on 5/6/2002 7:29:40 AM.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

05/06/2002 07:32:29 AM · #9

then again, some of the challenges, like 'transitions' or 'red' I think were more about substance. yes, no?

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

05/06/2002 08:21:46 AM · #10

Originally posted by hokie:
Plus, remember.. this is a learning site. There are a lot of folks (and I am new to digital so I fall in to this category in a way here) that need to experience the old and cliched and get that right before moving on to new and more challenging stuff.

...

So I agree, this site tends to be aimed more at form but..I see that as it's goal.

Yeah, I had this conversation with manic before (who I know from www.half-empty.org). I've been doing photography since I was a kid, off and on, and a few years ago decided to change from a career as an astrophysicist to one in 3d computer animation... yeah, a bit weird :). To me, anyone can learn the technical side of a medium. It's harder though to unlock a passion or a desire to express oneself through the images one creates, I think. I don't know that the rating system here encourages this at all. Your evening star photo is one that typifies this, I think. I gave it 8, thinking that if it had been a bit more abstract and edgy it would have been worth 10 :). A lot of the comments on it, though, suggest that many people would have been happier if the star was centred and the whole thing was framed within the photo!

It's all a matter of taste, I know, but pushing boundaries is not rewarded here. Even in advertising I think that those who are the most effective are usually at least a little bit subversive.

To the site admins - Could there perhaps be some way that ratings could be broken down to reflect different aspects of the photos? Could we have one rating for technicality and another one for artistic merit? I think that would make things more interesting :)

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/06/2002 08:42:10 AM · #11

Originally posted by lisae:
To the site admins - Could there perhaps be some way that ratings could be broken down to reflect different aspects of the photos? Could we have one rating for technicality and another one for artistic merit? I think that would make things more interesting :)

It might make things more interesting, but it would definitely make it take longer to vote... and it's already too long. Use the rating system however you like. If you think an image is technically perfect but creatively wrong, nobody's going to argue with you for giving it a 5.

Now, my other question is one that inevitably comes of people putting down others' work... Where's your entry? Your camera? I'm certainly anxious to see this unlocked expression.

Drew

* This message has been edited by the author on 5/6/2002 8:42:29 AM.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/06/2002 08:49:02 AM · #12

Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by lisae:
[i]To the site admins - Could there perhaps be some way that ratings could be broken down to reflect different aspects of the photos? Could we have one rating for technicality and another one for artistic merit? I think that would make things more interesting :)

It might make things more interesting, but it would definitely make it take longer to vote... and it's already too long. Use the rating system however you like. If you think an image is technically perfect but creatively wrong, nobody's going to argue with you for giving it a 5.

Dre[/i]

I think it would take LESS time to, for example, rate a photo who's IDEA I really like but which has a significant technical flaw a score of, say, 8/3, than to give it a 4, 5, 6, or 7, and give tho photographer no clue about my true feelings (unless I write a significant comment -- again, I think taking more time).
However, I know what a pain programming and maintaining this site can be and understand wanting to get things stabilized for a while...

05/06/2002 08:53:55 AM · #13

lisae..

I agree 100% about the emotion, the reaching ..etc ..etc...

Just to pick on my star..cause I'm a big boy and can take it ;-)

I took about 20 shots. They all sucked in color. They were technically o.k. (framed right, focus, angle..blah, blah , blah) but they lacked energy.

I was so mad I just pushed the color out..the detail out..everyting out..out ..out.

Then I saw the silouhette. Silouhettes are hard. They are usually cliche shots of naked women or some such crap.

But this silouhette of the star hit me right. Yeah I lost the detail of the sign in front (something I needed for my article I am writing) but the image came at me.

Could it be better? Definitely. I didn't know I wanted a silohuette until I sat in front of my computer after the shoot so if I had known this going into the shoot I would have taken shots to help the silouhette out like getting the bottom cleaner.

Anyway, my latest entry is so cliche, so typical so...well..you get the idea... it begs for a ripping but that was my goal because there is more to it.

But to finish my point from before and another thread. Technical control comes first. Always. Great artists in any media know their tools and make the most of em. If art was about monkeys getting lucky with their passion we would all have pictures of squished banana's and red asses on our walls. (this was a quote from my college art teacher) :-)

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

05/06/2002 09:02:03 AM · #14

Originally posted by drewmedia:
Now, my other question is one that inevitably comes of people putting down others' work... Where's your entry? Your camera? I'm certainly anxious to see this unlocked expression.

Unfortunately, the only digital camera I have currently is pretty crappy, otherwise I'd love to participate. I've only registered as a voter for now.

I've posted some black and white photos (not digital), a while ago, at //www.half-empty.org/servlet/LoadPage?pageID=idea&ideaid=2392. I'm not going to claim they're awesome, in fact I'm far more critical of my own work than of anyone else's.

I knew this question would come up, but it's one that bugs me a bit. A guy called Ruairi Robinson was asked something similar on the CG-CHAR mailing list (for character animation) when he dared to criticise ILM's animation in Star Wars ep 1. This year his short film, Fifty Per Cent Grey, was nominated for an academy award... Just don't be so quick to ask it, for your own sake :)

Even still, nothing I said was a criticism of other people's photos, it was more about the way the rating system here works, and the type of photography that is rewarded. They're two different things.

05/06/2002 09:11:07 AM · #15

I think what drewmedia was getting at lisae is that the more you invest of yourself into a site the more merit people will give your comments.

The week I registered I knew if I were to participate here beyond a simple vote (meaning forums, learn my new digital camera, meet some others) I needed to allow others to swing at me.

Maybe a better personal description in your profile with a link to those b&w photos would be a step forward.

Crappy camera or not, give it a swing. I think your black and white stuff is good and you would do well in the challenges. :-)

* This message has been edited by the author on 5/6/2002 9:13:04 AM.