| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2008 03:41:04 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
Originally posted by jdannels:
you need to be part of the solution you desire. |
you are correct gandhi. which is why i signed up for paid membership today and started looking at things. i need a little more than an hour to implement what i said i would do. ... |
One "method" I've always found interesting is to scroll through the page of "Recently Commented-on" photos found by going to the menu Photos > Browse link to see what other people have been saying ... I'll often find something to add or remember about a photo I'd never have seen any other way.
BTW: Although I'm a part-time contributor to some stock sites, my portfolio of DPC entries bears scant resemblance to a stock catalogue ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-10-24 15:43:30. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 03:52:29 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: Although I'm a part-time contributor to some stock sites, my portfolio of DPC entries bears scant resemblance to a stock catalogue ... ;-) |
i find it easier to get people's attention and push them into voicing an opinion by making sweeping generalizations. my motives are to push people, not offend them. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 04:02:16 PM · #103 |
| I wasn't offended ... just letting you know that there's a sizable minority of people here who celebrate views divergent from the DPC norm ... and seeing if you found anything interesting there. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 04:07:34 PM · #104 |
| yea ..there's a couple of keepers here and there. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 04:35:50 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i actually almost confused this place as a stock photography joint when first browsing around. |
Welcome to the site. Let me push you back a little and ask why the pictures on your portfolio seem to be along the "stock" genre (ie. simple, uncluttered shots dominated by still life)? Were you doing it because that's what you saw here? or is this your style?
Not jumping on you, just curious... |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 04:58:45 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
i actually almost confused this place as a stock photography joint when first browsing around. |
Welcome to the site. Let me push you back a little and ask why the pictures on your portfolio seem to be along the "stock" genre (ie. simple, uncluttered shots dominated by still life)? Were you doing it because that's what you saw here? or is this your style?
Not jumping on you, just curious... |
which pictures, per se? maybe we have different definitions for stock photography ..."plain or single items, bland-to-monochromatic backgrounds, useful for building upon in a larger project" is my defnitition.
i've been in photography for about 2.5 months; as such my shot's are pretty simple and a reflection of trying to learn new techniques. you also don't see me entering them into contests (the scope of this thread). i, however, am not new to art and i have a good aesthetic and eye for artistic quality.
what do you define as stock? without passing judgment or offense, this is what I consider it to be and see pretty regularly in the challenges: //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=723299
let's continue this open discourse .. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:03:27 PM · #107 |
| to be clear ..i'm not questioning anyone's competency with the gear or technique. i'm challenging the artistic value and wondering what's the point (in the context of challenges) in submitting shots that are lacking. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:10:54 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
to be clear ..i'm not questioning anyone's competency with the gear or technique. i'm challenging the artistic value and wondering what's the point (in the context of challenges) in submitting shots that are lacking. |
Lowest Common Denominator. People strive to please the most people in a very short time, with images that have the greatest appeal.
Unfortunately, this leads to trends becoming stronger than artistic merit (which, you should agree, is different for just about everybody). That's not to say that artistic strength can't become more recognized, it just means harder work is involved in getting it recognized. There are several people on here attempting to do just that. Whether it's with personal, non-official "ribbons", or threads pointing towards such works. Just a matter of looking around and finding such things.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:12:12 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
to be clear ..i'm not questioning anyone's competency with the gear or technique. i'm challenging the artistic value and wondering what's the point (in the context of challenges) in submitting shots that are lacking. |
Can you define lacking?? In a professional or amateur context? How can you say that users and members here are lacking in what they submit, when all are at different levels of competence? |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:15:07 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
to be clear ..i'm not questioning anyone's competency with the gear or technique. i'm challenging the artistic value and wondering what's the point (in the context of challenges) in submitting shots that are lacking. |
Lowest Common Denominator. People strive to please the most people in a very short time, with images that have the greatest appeal.
Unfortunately, this leads to trends becoming stronger than artistic merit (which, you should agree, is different for just about everybody). That's not to say that artistic strength can't become more recognized, it just means harder work is involved in getting it recognized. There are several people on here attempting to do just that. Whether it's with personal, non-official "ribbons", or threads pointing towards such works. Just a matter of looking around and finding such things. |
agreed ...but surely i'm not the only person (michael q. public) browsing along and saying "meh" based on the front 9 images. these are supposed to be the cream of the crop, yet the truly great photos are found in the portfolio's, not contests.
this image is simple, considered immoral by some, yet wholly artistic in my opinion: //www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/698918 |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:19:32 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
to be clear ..i'm not questioning anyone's competency with the gear or technique. i'm challenging the artistic value and wondering what's the point (in the context of challenges) in submitting shots that are lacking. |
Lowest Common Denominator. People strive to please the most people in a very short time, with images that have the greatest appeal.
Unfortunately, this leads to trends becoming stronger than artistic merit (which, you should agree, is different for just about everybody). That's not to say that artistic strength can't become more recognized, it just means harder work is involved in getting it recognized. There are several people on here attempting to do just that. Whether it's with personal, non-official "ribbons", or threads pointing towards such works. Just a matter of looking around and finding such things. |
agreed ...but surely i'm not the only person (michael q. public) browsing along and saying "meh" based on the front 9 images. these are supposed to be the cream of the crop, yet the truly great photos are found in the portfolio's, not contests.
this image is simple, considered immoral by some, yet wholly artistic in my opinion: //www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/698918 |
Right, but always remember "in my opinion". Put 30 artists in a gallery full of paintings, and you'll get 30 ideas on what is artistically wonderful. Put 30 critics in the same room, and you'll get a unanimous decision that they're all crap ;D
You aren't the only one that is consistently annoyed or disappointed with the front page offerings, but that doesn't make you or me or anyone else right. It just makes us smarter. (I KID!). If you go about it from a pro-active viewpoint, it's much easier. Don't try and convince people you're right by attacking what you don't like, try and persuade people of other ideas by complementing what you do. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:19:58 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
to be clear ..i'm not questioning anyone's competency with the gear or technique. i'm challenging the artistic value and wondering what's the point (in the context of challenges) in submitting shots that are lacking. |
Can you define lacking?? In a professional or amateur context? How can you say that users and members here are lacking in what they submit, when all are at different levels of competence? |
i simply climbed on board the wagon of conversation started (and echoed) by others. if you're going to pick my words apart, make sure you do the same to others.
for the sake of argument: lacking, the general absence of artistic merit. boring.
sure, could argue endlessly on who defines what art is. no one will be wrong, yet if you go to a gallery or museum you'll find the LCD: people absorbing what is in front of them, feeling something, and having an opinion. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:21:57 PM · #113 |
Don't try and convince people you're right by attacking what you don't like, try and persuade people of other ideas by complementing what you do.
Errrr, which is a classic example of "Perhaps you should heed your own advice." lol. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:24:21 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You aren't the only one that is consistently annoyed or disappointed with the front page offerings, but that doesn't make you or me or anyone else right. It just makes us smarter. (I KID!). If you go about it from a pro-active viewpoint, it's much easier. Don't try and convince people you're right by attacking what you don't like, try and persuade people of other ideas by complementing what you do. |
how are people challenged to objectively look at their own offerings if they are constantly patted on the back? "your image is crap ....but nice lighting!" or "nice shot!" ...or "great idea!"
I've only linked to one picture here, and it was to help define what i mean by "stock" ..not pass judgement or critique. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:28:37 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You aren't the only one that is consistently annoyed or disappointed with the front page offerings, but that doesn't make you or me or anyone else right. It just makes us smarter. (I KID!). If you go about it from a pro-active viewpoint, it's much easier. Don't try and convince people you're right by attacking what you don't like, try and persuade people of other ideas by complementing what you do. |
how are people challenged to objectively look at their own offerings if they are constantly patted on the back? "your image is crap ....but nice lighting!" or "nice shot!" ...or "great idea!"
I've only linked to one picture here, and it was to help define what i mean by "stock" ..not pass judgement or critique. |
I wasn't saying that you specifically were attacking/judgmental, just that it's far easier to get your message across by actually being pro-active with it. You're right, it's very hard to be objective, or to grow, or to learn, by constant back-patting. It's a fault of the masses, and I'd love to see it become less of a pattern around here. If it happens, it'll be a long, hard road. Get out there and start making a difference. :)
Message edited by author 2008-10-24 17:28:55. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:35:57 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I wasn't saying that you specifically were attacking/judgmental, just that it's far easier to get your message across by actually being pro-active with it. You're right, it's very hard to be objective, or to grow, or to learn, by constant back-patting. It's a fault of the masses, and I'd love to see it become less of a pattern around here. If it happens, it'll be a long, hard road. Get out there and start making a difference. :) |
agreed. so let's move past the bitch and moan phase and come up with a game plan. what does action look like in this scenario? what are small steps of change that can take place to convince the uneducated, or uncaring, masses? what will be a compromise and enough of a difference to motivate others?
if i'm going to go through the effort of highlighting problems, i will most certainly put in the elbow grease to be part of the solution. my photography skills will grow as a result, thus allowing my artistic nature to be less restricted by newness to the medium. sounds like a win-win. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:45:19 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
[quote=K10DGuy]
agreed. so let's move past the bitch and moan phase and come up with a game plan. what does action look like in this scenario? what are small steps of change that can take place to convince the uneducated, or uncaring, masses? what will be a compromise and enough of a difference to motivate others?
if i'm going to go through the effort of highlighting problems, i will most certainly put in the elbow grease to be part of the solution. my photography skills will grow as a result, thus allowing my artistic nature to be less restricted by newness to the medium. sounds like a win-win. |
Critique Club
Reaction Club thread
Comments
Sometimes the best teachers are not the best photographers, and likewise I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:47:06 PM · #118 |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:47:08 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I wasn't saying that you specifically were attacking/judgmental, just that it's far easier to get your message across by actually being pro-active with it. You're right, it's very hard to be objective, or to grow, or to learn, by constant back-patting. It's a fault of the masses, and I'd love to see it become less of a pattern around here. If it happens, it'll be a long, hard road. Get out there and start making a difference. :) |
agreed. so let's move past the bitch and moan phase and come up with a game plan. what does action look like in this scenario? what are small steps of change that can take place to convince the uneducated, or uncaring, masses? what will be a compromise and enough of a difference to motivate others?
if i'm going to go through the effort of highlighting problems, i will most certainly put in the elbow grease to be part of the solution. my photography skills will grow as a result, thus allowing my artistic nature to be less restricted by newness to the medium. sounds like a win-win. |
Most of the solutions have already been given. Look around the site, keep your eyes open, go through challenges, browse the galleries. Find images that appeal to you and comment favorably on them. Make suggestions. Counter "Great shot!" comments with reasons how you believe it could actually be bettered. Find links/write-ups/tutorials/etc. on methods and photographs that you feel embody what you're trying to get across and share them. Send private messages.
Simply get involved.
One of the best things to remember though, is to always strive to word anything you say in a way that makes it clear that it is merely your own interpretation or opinion. Without this, the knee-jerk reaction to be offended is strong. Some people will be offended regardless, but it's always best to try and lessen it when you can.
Be creative, be a voice, have a thick skin, contribute positively, have fun. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:48:53 PM · #120 |
critique club = special rights of passage.
reaction club thread = have to dig down and find it..and that's after just finding out it exists.
comments = only useful if you read them all.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:51:32 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
critique club = special rights of passage. |
Huh? Ask and you will receive; request inclusion into CC and they will grant it.
R. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:52:48 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
you need to be part of the solution you desire. |
(I know this went back a page or two, but you guys are typing too fast for me to keep up!) |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:53:14 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
which pictures, per se? maybe we have different definitions for stock photography ..."plain or single items, bland-to-monochromatic backgrounds, useful for building upon in a larger project" is my defnitition. |
  
These three pics look like they could be product shots. I'm not saying they are bad, and the B&W is an attempt at making it more about the lines and geometry, but they are still single items with a monochromatic background. I'm not saying they are purly "stock", but I think they'd actually have some success as stock pictures.
You could explain what you were going for in the shots. I'm sure you didn't shoot with "stock" in mind, but what was the intent? |
gotcha, makes sense. unfortunately many of my shots are happy accidents still. i'm stuck waste deep in apertures, lighting, dof, shutterspeeds, etc ..while still trying to figure out what i enjoy shooting. some of it is becoming second nature, and my progress (largely unpublished) indicates this. thanks for taking the time to explain what you mean. |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:53:43 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
critique club = special rights of passage. |
Huh? Ask and you will receive; request inclusion into CC and they will grant it.
R. |
then what's the point of having to ask? |
|
|
|
10/24/2008 05:56:19 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith:
critique club = special rights of passage. |
Huh? Ask and you will receive; request inclusion into CC and they will grant it.
R. |
then what's the point of having to ask? |
I'm not sure; that's just the way it is. It's a subset of DPC, so you have to be marked into the subset to access the queue. I suppose it is conceivable that they might "deny" some requests for inclusion for whatever reason, but I have not heard of it happening. Once you are in, you can click on a link and be "assigned" an image to critique. I suppose the reason for specific inclusion is so that if fly-bys click the link, get an image, and fail to critique it they can be culled from the list... I may be wrong.
R. |
|
