|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2008 09:44:39 AM · #26 |
I guess for me street photography doesn't only entail something taken while you're outside, but capturing a pure (mostly candid)moment or a window into life (un)familiar to us that should mostly stand on its own without too much intervention.
I think that's why I often didn't vote on images which were set up or had too much PP. They were good images and I didn't want my perceptions of Street photography to affect them. Also, I am new to all this and my thoughts on the matter may change a year from now...or I may have more conviction in what it means to me today.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 09:55:24. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 10:09:42 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
I only want to give positive/constructive comments not comments to insult people...like I have seen some do...
..I keep hoping that people will make more comments on what I have "started" out with for my profiles and give me some constructive advice...in both editing and composition....I want to grow and learn... |
Just my  on that...
The main thing to be gained from commenting is NOT for the photographer whose entry you are voting on, but rather for yourself. I have found that making myself analyze why I do or don't like someone else's entry (especially the 4's and 5's) has been part of what has improved my own photography. (Now, if I would learn to quit with the shoehorns, maybe my average score would go up some.) |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:44:03 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Anything that was set up in any way shape or degree isn't in the spirit of Street Photography from what I have taken from my studies on the genre. Even with a broad definition that would be one of the things it is not.
Spontaneity...the "decisive moment" all that little stuff carries BIG weight with me. As far as processing goes, SP ain't pretty...Again, to keep in the true spirit of things. |
It's a weird thing, street photography. Seems to have one of the biggest chips on its shoulders in terms of what it is, or what it isn't. Everyone that does it wants to point and say 'see, I do it properly. Not like them over there'
I'm not picking on you in particular, here, as it is such a well worn and often repeated view.
One thing it isn't is done with an SLR. Certainly not a digital camera. Oh and it can't be colour. Unless you are Martin Parr. Probably to be real street photography, you have to do it in France too. With a rangefinder. Maybe you get to do it in New York. Oh and you can't ever crop. It has to be full frame, unless you are behind the Gare St. Lazare. The subjects can't engage with the camera. Really it has to be a wide angle. Certainly nothing longer than a normal. Oh and homeless people might or might not be fair game.
On and on the list goes, little boxes saying 'what I do is right and what anyone else does isn't pure'
Any idea why this little branch of photography has such an identity crisis and so many feel the need to define and defend it's virginity?
I'm certainly not a purist. In fact, I've been told many times that the portraits I take of strangers on the street aren't street photography. Not allowed to be looked at in that context.
It's mostly amusing. Even for me, I have my boxes of what it is and isn't and how I like to do it or ways I think are cheap or cheating. I try to at least express them as things I like, rather than things that shouldn't ever be done. I don't like candid telephoto shots. I don't like shots that demean the subjects or exploit them. I don't like shots where the photographer feels like a distant voyeur, stealing a moment from someone who is unaware. Engaged candid photography is so hard to practice. Wide angles, up close and personal, candid. Painfully attached. Never been any good at that, myself.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 12:49:24.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:07:00 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It's a weird thing, street photography. Seems to have one of the biggest chips on its shoulders in terms of what it is, or what it isn't. Everyone that does it wants to point and say 'see, I do it properly. Not like them over there'
I don't like shots where the photographer feels like a distant voyeur, stealing a moment from someone who is unaware. Engaged candid photography is so hard to practice. Wide angles, up close and personal, candid. Painfully attached. Never been any good at that, myself. |
I know you weren't picking on me as we've had this discussion or one similar so many times before. It's all good and healthy.
People ask me all the time to describe what I do and I need to be clear and accurate on occasion and for that reason I tend to box things a bit in a certain way. Solely to communicate verbally what I do visually to those that don't have images in front of them.
For what it's worth I don't think I take many images that I myself would consider Street Photography by my own definition. I would call what I shoot and version of envronmental portraiture or Street Portraiture...Candid Portraiture.
I've stated before that I'm in flux and trying to define this for myself but feel that I had come across some fairly universal things common to the thousands of Street images I've been studying over that last 5 years. I'm basing what I write on that. Bewteen HCB, Erwitt, Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Frank I don't recall many...if any of their street work being posed. They took posed images of friends, colleagues on the street and in homes and I assume people lump all their work into the one genre but it's not.
I'll shoot what I shoot and I don't care what people call what I do. I have maybe 10 images in my folder that I would consider Street Photography for the relationships of what's in frame. When I look at what I consider to be great SP relationships that can only occur on the street are what makes them images interesting.
This for example, isn't Street Photography as I define it because this image could have easily been executed in a studio. The light is natural, it was taken in the street but there is NO relationship between my subject and the street itself... I will take another million like this if I'm lucky but I won't call them Street Photographs.
Here we get closer because there is energy that is born from the street. The surrounding and the venue have strength and are important to the shot...
This one has many of the elements I think a Street Photo should have. For starters this could never have been taken in a studio like any portrait, could be or people sitting and talking in any given setting. The street plays a major star role in terms of vibrance, form, light, lines, texture and I see that as being a key and missing element in what many call SP. The little girl and bright sunlight grafitti are the cherries in what once was an Eastern Block alley.
Simply because an image was shot in the street doesn't automatically make it SP.
All for now but I do hope I better explained why and how I define the genre.
eta: I took to heart what you said about the warmth and immediacy of using the wider lens and if you look at ALL my recent work you will see no 70-200. I disagree with the distant voyeur because it holds no meaning if you want to capture candid moment. Who cares about the lens. IMO that's putting the carriage before the horse. I also find more warmth in the tele-compression factor, opposite of what you feel. I like the feel of both but being in the action or away is somewhat irrelevant to the scene itself. A great scene is a great scene either way.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 16:38:19. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:25:24 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'll shoot what I shoot and I don't care what people call what I do. I have maybe 10 images in my folder that I would consider Street Photography for the relationships of what's in frame. When I look at what I consider to be great SP relationships that can only occur on the street are what makes them images interesting.
I disagree with the distant voyeur because it holds no meaning if you want to capture candid moment. Who cares about the lens. IMO that's putting the carriage before the horse. I also find more warmth in the tele-compression factor, opposite of what you feel. I like the feel of both but being in the action or away is somewhat irrelevant to the scene itself. A great scene is a great scene either way. |
Amen!
What I love about Street photography is the attitude. "my stuff is great and if you don't like it, it's because you don't know what street photography is. This attitude helps me shoot for myself.
This I got a week too late!
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:29:10 PM · #31 |
Great discussion going on over here, and I enjoyed reading both  Gordon's and  pawdrix's comments and perspective. Street photography is one of the most inventive genres out there, imho, because it lends itself to many interpretations. I, for one, don't believe you need to include a street or a person in a photo to make it qualify as street photography.
For me, its all about found moments. If I could distill it down to one thing, I would say that the hallmark of a great street photograph for me is it raises a question -- what was happening just before, or what happened just after, the shutter was snapped. There's a timeless quality about it, and a sense of pulling back the curtain and seeing a a frozen moment in time that illuminates something about the world around us. Posed pictures, most shots of homeless folks, and snapshots of strangers on a street don't typically do that for me.
That said, I'm way too self conscious to be any good at that. In walking around the city without a camera, I frequently glimpse moments that I think would make a great photograph if I only had the camera with me. When I do have the camera, however, I hesitate to raise it lest I invade a stranger's privacy or evoke their ire. By the time (if) I can overcome that, the moment is gone. Most of my street photographs are more about shapes and forms and light ... more what I would call urban scapes than true street photography -- though there is plenty of room in the genre for both. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:41:31 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
eta: I took to heart what you said about the warmth and immediacy of using the wider lens and if you look at ALL my recent work you will see no 70-200. I disagree with the distant voyeur because it holds no meaning if you want to capture candid moment. Who cares about the lens. IMO that's putting the carriage before the horse. I also find more warmth in the tele-compression factor, opposite of what you feel. I like the feel of both but being in the action or away is somewhat irrelevant to the scene itself. A great scene is a great scene either way. |
I think why I care about the lens is because I care about how the viewer feels engaged with the scene. The most extreme would be the difference between shooting in the middle of a carnival parade with a 24mm lens compared to telephoto images of someone sunbathing on a beach. The images have a completely different feel, because the viewer has a completely different relationship to the subject - surrounded by it in one case, or looking from afar.
I personally like the feel of the engagement - it isn't to say one or the other is right or wrong. Just a personal like or dislike.
I think I don't rightly do street photography at all - what I tend to do is street portraiture. I use my camera as a means to connect and meet new people, out on the street. As a result, I deliberately practice a form of engaged, not posed (no instructions on what to do, how to be etc), but not candid portraiture. I guess it is more of a conversation with a camera in between, that I try to achieve.
Used to be I'd walk around the city with a camera and see people that I thought would make great photographs, if only I'd ask them. Now I mostly ask them.
I realise this is quite far from the form of street photography practiced by HCB et al. I'm quite comfortable with that. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:51:11 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
For me, its all about found moments. |
I'll go with that but I think there also needs to be some set of relationships or interaction as HCB said between shapes, form, light, movement etc.
I guess that's why I was dissapointed in the results a little. First because posed or set-up moments aren't found but created. Second because I put in some effort to get out a few times to find a genuine moment and even though my results were ok it didn't matter anyway.
Here's the real way I'm presenting my entry, as part of a triptych. It has elements that I believe make it a street photo but the center image alone wasn't very strong. The three together have some/more power.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think why I care about the lens is because I care about how the viewer feels engaged with the scene. The most extreme would be the difference between shooting in the middle of a carnival parade with a 24mm lens compared to telephoto images of someone sunbathing on a beach. The images have a completely different feel, because the viewer has a completely different relationship to the subject - surrounded by it in one case, or looking from afar.
|
I certainly agree with you there and that's why I've been exploring the wider lens...in the scene approach. I was moreso refering to simple people, candid scenes where the the vibrance and bg play less of a role in the image. -Cheers
You know I'm not scared to get in the center of a scene. I enjoy that, it's exhillerating but I also like to mix things up. I used a 50mm with the D700 and had fun but it's tough working around barriers and trying not to get hit by a cars or buses. lol
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 17:09:34. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 04:56:06 PM · #34 |
I don't really understand all the labels applied in photography or art?
I try to capture a moment in time. Sometimes it tells a story, other times a just captures an image, a memory jogger. But, with Street, it involves a different approach to capture that instant. Do you just blast away or do you engage with the person/people involved. To engage loses that feeling of spontenaity. Once a person knows he/she is being photographed their whole persona changes, they become stiffer and more posed.
I am no expert and would never profess to be, but I enjoy the thrill of getting a shot or two before the subject realises what I am doing. I try not to encroach on personal moments or 'nose picking', but want to get a real feel for the person.
That's my thoughts:)) |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 05:28:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I don't really understand all the labels applied in photography or art?
That's my thoughts:)) |
So in a Street Photography Challenge there could be Bug Macros, Empty Beaches and Beautiful Sunsets, Studio Nudes, Mountains and Lakes...?
Same way musical genres are defined. Barbara Streisand isn't Reggae and Harry Connick Jr isn't Speed Metal. Rock and Roll is Rock and Roll...very wide open...very wide but it ain't Baroque.
One point I guess I can make with that analogy, is that I can't exactly tell you what R&R is but I can almost certainly tell you what it isn't. I feel the same way about Street Photography, of course this isn't a science but maybe you catch my drift?
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 17:30:17. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:09:39 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
One point I guess I can make with that analogy, is that I can't exactly tell you what R&R is but I can almost certainly tell you what it isn't. I feel the same way about Street Photography, of course this isn't a science but maybe you catch my drift? |
Sounds like what a Supreme Court Justice said when considering the definition of pornography in 1964 in Jacobellis v. Ohio, a case involving attempts to ban a French film called The Lovers:
Originally posted by Potter Stewart:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:46:01 PM · #37 |
i pretty much agree with what everyone is saying, especially the what the guy said about how he made 114 comments and only received 6 in return....i used to comment on everyone and tell why i gave them that score but since I haven't gotten the same in return, I have resorted to only commenting on 20 percent(the ones I give the highest scores to) so that my votes will count
I am still relatively new to the site and this is only my second challenge, and its sort of disheartening that people(who probably don't know what a good picture is) will come on here and give you a crappy vote without having the &*^%^%$ common decency to tell you why. I thought this site was supposed to be an outlet to learn and become better photographers, but it has turned into something else. They need to make it where your votes only count if you comment on every picture.
I mean, in the current challenge, Money II, my current score is 4.977, which is pretty good for only my second challenge, and I probably could have put more thought into the setup of my shot, but I was expecting a solid 5.5 or 6, then I look and see that 270 people have viewed my pic, and only 170 have voted, with 5 comments. If you are going to vote on someone picture, you should tell them why you gave them a good, or bad score.
HAVE SOME DECENCY PEOPLE!!!! |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:57:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I don't really understand all the labels applied in photography or art?
That's my thoughts:)) |
|
I mean, when it comes to your own art, you don't need to define it, you can just do what you do.
But in the interest of learning and keeping with the spirit of the website... there is such a genre as "street photography", and that is characterized by certain attributes and that's what the entries should be.
I don't think certain categories like this can be 'interpreted' to mean whatever you want. I remember in Art Class back in school, my teacher had us make pieces in the style of all the different art movements so that we could learn something new and try out different things, see what we were good at.
That's what this site is great for, going out and doing new things. IMO you're doing yourself a disservice and it goes against the spirit of the site to shoehorn your 'specialty' into challenges just for the score.
Having said all that, Im sure i'm guilty of that myself sometimes ;) |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 07:07:08 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Physics_McG:
i pretty much agree with what everyone is saying, especially the what the guy said about how he made 114 comments and only received 6 in return....i used to comment on everyone and tell why i gave them that score but since I haven't gotten the same in return, I have resorted to only commenting on 20 percent(the ones I give the highest scores to) so that my votes will count
I am still relatively new to the site and this is only my second challenge, and its sort of disheartening that people(who probably don't know what a good picture is) will come on here and give you a crappy vote without having the &*^%^%$ common decency to tell you why. I thought this site was supposed to be an outlet to learn and become better photographers, but it has turned into something else. They need to make it where your votes only count if you comment on every picture.
I mean, in the current challenge, Money II, my current score is 4.977, which is pretty good for only my second challenge, and I probably could have put more thought into the setup of my shot, but I was expecting a solid 5.5 or 6, then I look and see that 270 people have viewed my pic, and only 170 have voted, with 5 comments. If you are going to vote on someone picture, you should tell them why you gave them a good, or bad score.
HAVE SOME DECENCY PEOPLE!!!! |
I equate this place like any old school. Most of the people here are the students from all groups, think of it as a K-Graduate school (defines peoples level of skill/knowledge). But like any school there aren't a lot of teachers. So if you want to learn, people need to go out and ask. Trust me, people will help just PM them or post a question on a forum! You'll get responses. Ask questions, not just what is wrong with this picture. Plus there are a ton of tutorials available on this site. The challenges are akin to exams, they are there to test your knowledge not necessarily to learn...
Anyone can be a mentor if they want, but most just like passing through the grade levels.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 07:28:40 PM · #40 |
I think you need to temper your expectations from this site. People don't leave comments for any number of reasons, including not wanting to offend, and lack of time. You'll very seldom get a whole lot of comments, unless you have a stand-out photo.
Best bet is to do what Jayson said and post your shots and ask for a critique, people will be very helpful.
btw i left a comment on one of your entries
Originally posted by Physics_McG:
I am still relatively new to the site and this is only my second challenge, and its sort of disheartening that people(who probably don't know what a good picture is) will come on here and give you a crappy vote without having the &*^%^%$ common decency to tell you why. I thought this site was supposed to be an outlet to learn and become better photographers, but it has turned into something else. They need to make it where your votes only count if you comment on every picture.
I mean, in the current challenge, Money II, my current score is 4.977, which is pretty good for only my second challenge, and I probably could have put more thought into the setup of my shot, but I was expecting a solid 5.5 or 6, then I look and see that 270 people have viewed my pic, and only 170 have voted, with 5 comments. If you are going to vote on someone picture, you should tell them why you gave them a good, or bad score.
HAVE SOME DECENCY PEOPLE!!!! |
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 03:01:54 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I don't really understand all the labels applied in photography or art?
That's my thoughts:)) |
|
I mean, when it comes to your own art, you don't need to define it, you can just do what you do.
But in the interest of learning and keeping with the spirit of the website... there is such a genre as "street photography", and that is characterized by certain attributes and that's what the entries should be.
I don't think certain categories like this can be 'interpreted' to mean whatever you want. I remember in Art Class back in school, my teacher had us make pieces in the style of all the different art movements so that we could learn something new and try out different things, see what we were good at.
That's what this site is great for, going out and doing new things. IMO you're doing yourself a disservice and it goes against the spirit of the site to shoehorn your 'specialty' into challenges just for the score.
Having said all that, Im sure i'm guilty of that myself sometimes ;) |
I think you have misread my post, I never suggested I shoehorn any photos, I merely stated that I didn't understand all the labels. Just read through the threads that start everytime there is a challenge announced, always someone asking for clarification of the meaning of a certain genre. Being pretty well educated in the English Language, I don't usually have a problem with challenge definitions.
Even this thread has varying opinions on just what constitutes Street Photography, this is the label I was referring to and explained my take on Street Photography. Take a look at my entry, does it comply with the challenge? Is it a shoehorn? Perhaps it should have been B&W? Although that would have lost the impact:)) |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 03:25:39 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I think you have misread my post, I never suggested I shoehorn any photos, I merely stated that I didn't understand all the labels. Just read through the threads that start everytime there is a challenge announced, always someone asking for clarification of the meaning of a certain genre. Being pretty well educated in the English Language, I don't usually have a problem with challenge definitions.
Even this thread has varying opinions on just what constitutes Street Photography, this is the label I was referring to and explained my take on Street Photography. Take a look at my entry, does it comply with the challenge? Is it a shoehorn? Perhaps it should have been B&W? Although that would have lost the impact:)) |
]
I'm reasonably certain he wasn't refering to you in his post, specifically or you shoehorning anything. At least I didn't read it that way whatsoever.
I've seen plenty of Challenges get mangled based on the descriptions or how they were interpreted...missinterpreted(?). That's my opinion and I'm sure plenty of people thought those Challenges went off swimmingly.
As for me defining...
I get asked all the time to describe what Street Photography is and I can't very well answer "anything goes" or "just go out in the street, snap away and you'll have a Street Photo" I need to say something and I try to distill what I've seen and in the most general terms come to some understanding. If you reread my posts you'll see that within my general ideas there are millions of possibilities.
Now, there may be some exceptions but of the insane amount of time I spend studying Street Photography, I can't say that SP images are set-up or posed. Again...there may be some exceptions but none that I'm aware of and I would say for myself that a posed image goes against the spirit of the genre. So I'm going out on a limb and saying posed doesn't cut it for me.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 15:26:57. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 03:46:12 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Now, there may be some exceptions but of the insane amount of time I spend studying Street Photography, I can't say that SP images are set-up or posed. Again...there may be some exceptions but none that I'm aware of and I would say for myself that a posed image goes against the spirit of the genre. So I'm going out on a limb and saying posed doesn't cut it for me. |
well, I know of at least one famous exception. One of the most iconic street photos of all time, Robert Doisneau's "Kiss at City Hall" was staged. But it was certainly not obvious to a casual person, and only revealed because of a law suit. So this exception confirms the general rule - a good street photo better be not-staged and at the very least should not look staged.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 04:02:55 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Now, there may be some exceptions but of the insane amount of time I spend studying Street Photography, I can't say that SP images are set-up or posed. Again...there may be some exceptions but none that I'm aware of and I would say for myself that a posed image goes against the spirit of the genre. So I'm going out on a limb and saying posed doesn't cut it for me. |
well, I know of at least one famous exception. One of the most iconic street photos of all time, Robert Doisneau's "Kiss at City Hall" was staged. But it was certainly not obvious to a casual person, and only revealed because of a law suit. So this exception confirms the general rule - a good street photo better be not-staged and at the very least should not look staged. |
He caught hell for that and I think it really tarnished his star. I was beond dissapointed when I found out that that image was posed. Bib Bummer!
I guess that supports my point, quite perfectly.
Prash-I wouldn't say it's cheating just not a genuine. If SP tries to be anything...real may very well top the list.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 16:10:45. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 04:04:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Now, there may be some exceptions but of the insane amount of time I spend studying Street Photography, I can't say that SP images are set-up or posed. Again...there may be some exceptions but none that I'm aware of and I would say for myself that a posed image goes against the spirit of the genre. So I'm going out on a limb and saying posed doesn't cut it for me. |
well, I know of at least one famous exception. One of the most iconic street photos of all time, Robert Doisneau's "Kiss at City Hall" was staged. But it was certainly not obvious to a casual person, and only revealed because of a law suit. So this exception confirms the general rule - a good street photo better be not-staged and at the very least should not look staged. |
I have been following this thread for a while. In short, it boils down to just one thing: a posed or staged shot is NOT candid. Its cheating - plain and solid.
If the authors admit it is staged, and still submit it, ok I will give them benefit of honesty. But if they sit silent after winning a mass vote, it is straight up cheating. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 04:47:14 PM · #46 |
.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 16:52:19. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 04:50:56 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Prash:
I have been following this thread for a while. In short, it boils down to just one thing: a posed or staged shot is NOT candid. Its cheating - plain and solid.
If the authors admit it is staged, and still submit it, ok I will give them benefit of honesty. But if they sit silent after winning a mass vote, it is straight up cheating. |
huh?
I'd agree, maybe, if this was the 'candid image' challenge theme or something. Otherwise, not so much. Which rule did they break? How did they cheat? The challenge description mentions that street photographs usually feature people in candid situations. Not 'thou must enter a candid picture'
Cheating is quite a strong thing to be accusing people of who have a different perspective on the definition of a genre.
One of the most interesting images I saw was the 4th place one - which was pretty obviously staged, but still more interesting than most symbolically.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 16:52:05. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 05:07:58 PM · #48 |
yeah, I agree with Gordon, I think Prash is asking for too much. There was no requirement for a candid shot, so posed photos is not cheating in any way. They just feel fake, especially when they are obviously staged. What we talking about here is the feel and spirit of street photograph as it is defined and practiced by the leaders of this genre.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 17:12:01.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 05:11:16 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Cheating is quite a strong thing to be accusing people of who have a different perspective on the definition of a genre.
One of the most interesting images I saw was the 4th place one - which was pretty obviously staged, but still more interesting than most symbolically. |
I thought the 4th place image was a great shot and it had a lot of elements that I find in a lot of SP BUT the posed aspect knocked it solidly out of the genre and into a different place. You don't have to agree. Coley does use the word set-up in his description and the "Death" model is his wife.
Great shot very cool. Call it what you want or don't call it anything at all but I wouldn't call it SP, that's for sure.
"thou must enter a candid picture"
It's pointless to enter or compete in a Challenge if the decriptions or criteria are skirted and it doesn't seem to matter in the slightest. Waste of time imo.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 17:46:34. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 05:35:20 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Prash:
I have been following this thread for a while. In short, it boils down to just one thing: a posed or staged shot is NOT candid. Its cheating - plain and solid.
If the authors admit it is staged, and still submit it, ok I will give them benefit of honesty. But if they sit silent after winning a mass vote, it is straight up cheating. |
huh?
I'd agree, maybe, if this was the 'candid image' challenge theme or something. Otherwise, not so much. Which rule did they break? How did they cheat? The challenge description mentions that street photographs usually feature people in candid situations. Not 'thou must enter a candid picture'
Cheating is quite a strong thing to be accusing people of who have a different perspective on the definition of a genre.
|
Ok I admit I have used a strong word there. I re-read the challenge description, and it really doesnt not say it 'must' be a candid shot.. it said thats what it *usually* is. So if it counts, I would call that word back, and put 'mildly unethical' instead.
I think the culprit here would be the ones who suggest the challenges...actually the ones that fill in the challenge descriptions. Clearer (unambiguous) descriptions would avoid many such discussions. Especially when you call it a 'challenge'.
But then again, if everything was perfectly set, these forums would become boring. Wont they? ;-) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 06:46:39 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 06:46:39 PM EDT.
|
on that...
