| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2002 03:31:17 PM · #26 |
the really ironic thing about my picture is that i had a lot of cliche pictures of flowers and things like that. and the pic i ended up submiting i only took one shot and didn't do anything to it in photoshop at all other than resize.
i asked my friends, who are not into photography at all, which they like better and they all said the over exposed one, because it was different. i should have spent more time on making it better, but it was a last second spur of the moment entry. |
|
|
|
05/06/2002 03:36:36 PM · #27 |
| i love how nborton's picture repeatedly got questions about if the picture was purposely overexposed. hahahahaha...laughable, man...that was one of the most original photos in the contest, and everyone here shat on it |
|
|
|
05/06/2002 03:45:57 PM · #28 |
nborton...I was extremely impressed with your transitions photo. Especially since it was done with a 1.2 meg camera? Very nice.
I wouldn't trust your friends and let them have too much influence. Suggestions are good...but you are the artist and it's your vision. My wife has a lot influence for sure but I realize she doesn't look for technical flaws like lighting or cropping etc..just that the photo is appealing or not.
If I listened to my friends too much all my shots would be of Hooters girls and sports..heheh......
|
|
|
|
05/06/2002 04:05:23 PM · #29 |
thanks for the comment on my transitions photo, i tend to be sort of out there with my pics and not along the lines of normal feel good photography.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/6/2002 4:06:43 PM. |
|
|
|
05/06/2002 07:39:58 PM · #30 |
| maybe you shouldn't go out on a limb so much |
|
|
|
05/06/2002 08:32:07 PM · #31 |
Is it possible to seperate what we like from what we consider good regardless of whether we prefer the subject matter or not? I'm not sure but I am pretty sure that that's what accounts for a lot of the extreme differences in voting, whether a person likes the subject matter or not. I've learned that the more I study art and photography the more I appreciate all of the details and subtle nuances that certain images contain and that I consider great even if the subject matter isn't what I would choose. I may get hammered from this statement but I believe it is true that most beginning artists judge most images based on the appeal of the subject matter or colors and as they learn and progress they eventually judge images on all of the other things that make great pictures like composition, values, sharpness and details. Just my 2 cents worth.
Tim |
|
|
|
05/06/2002 08:38:50 PM · #32 |
I try to balance my vote about 50/50 on this... 50% subjective and 50% objective... Use the comments field to tell the photographer what you like and don't like :)
Originally posted by timj351:
Is it possible to seperate what we like from what we consider good regardless of whether we prefer the subject matter or not? I'm not sure but I am pretty sure that that's what accounts for a lot of the extreme differences in voting, whether a person likes the subject matter or not. I've learned that the more I study art and photography the more I appreciate all of the details and subtle nuances that certain images contain and that I consider great even if the subject matter isn't what I would choose. I may get hammered from this statement but I believe it is true that most beginning artists judge most images based on the appeal of the subject matter or colors and as they learn and progress they eventually judge images on all of the other things that make great pictures like composition, values, sharpness and details. Just my 2 cents worth.
Tim
|
|
|
|
05/06/2002 08:46:39 PM · #33 |
| Clay was robbed. We may not like some of the things he says or WHAT he submits but you should admit---he has a heck of an imagination and execution. I'll bet chuckie was EXACTLY like he wanted. That shot was PERFECT. Washed out whites and all. Good job Clay! |
|
|
|
05/06/2002 09:33:46 PM · #34 |
If you go into a country western bar, strap on your 6 string and start to whail on it like Steve Vai and the guys boo you off the stage were you treated unfairly or were you just in the wrong bar?
There is a wide range of opinions here and experience levels, if you're looking for some justice or verification of your talent I think most will be sorely disappointed.
I like clays ideas myself but even I find myself wanting more from a photo like the blood spewing. I find myself wanting a lot from every thing I see. Vomit, blood, removal of body parts... there is nothing I have not seen and shock counts for nothing for me. I would love to see a challenge where the challenge is shock.
Go to rotten.com for some truly cool/rotten stuff..enjoy :-) |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 05:45:15 AM · #35 |
It's really bizarre that you would applaud this photo, yet you would get totally bent out of shape about an obviously humorous signature line alluding to glue sniffing. i would suggest a re-examination of priorities, because something is out of whack here.
Originally posted by David Ey:
Clay was robbed. We may not like some of the things he says or WHAT he submits but you should admit---he has a heck of an imagination and execution. I'll bet chuckie was EXACTLY like he wanted. That shot was PERFECT. Washed out whites and all. Good job Clay!
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 05:50:19 AM · #36 |
honestly, to me, there is nothing original about "the dark side". Why? Because it's too easy.
I could take a picture of road kill or my bathroom drain, or my poopoo in the toilet, or my bunghole or whatever. gross stuff is everywhere. and it packs a 'punch' just by virtue of what it is. it takes no special effort to give it 'juice'. it's IMO a LOT harder to make something beautiful. that's why i don't think this stuff is that incredible. been there, done that.
the only reason i think it hits people on this site is because it's out of place amongs the flowers and doggies. out in the rest of the world where people are more jaded, you gotta do a lot more than just show me your toidy to make me think you're a great and original artist.
Originally posted by David Ey:
Clay was robbed. We may not like some of the things he says or WHAT he submits but you should admit---he has a heck of an imagination and execution. I'll bet chuckie was EXACTLY like he wanted. That shot was PERFECT. Washed out whites and all. Good job Clay!
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 08:30:11 AM · #37 |
Yeah, I'm kind of on the same page there mag. While I get a kick out of some of Clays ludicrous comments and some of the images he and his friends submit, I enjoy them simply because they are a change of pace form the puppies and flowers (one of which, uuuhmm, I submitted). But just because they hold some shock value doesnt make them great. I might chuckle a little, but I rate them appropriately, and move on.
Like you said, shock != quality.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 08:44:50 AM · #38 |
I see, subject matter is judged here more than photo quality.
And yes, I do see this quite diferent than a support of substance abuse.
Upchucking is not quite the same as looking at your bunghole either.
Don't misunderstand, I ain't no darkside fan,but that was a good entry for ground up and didn't deserve ones-threes. Sick? Yes. Well done? Absolutely! Promoting drug use? I don't think so.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/7/2002 9:09:13 AM. |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 08:45:29 AM · #39 |
I used to be a big shock fan. Then, as I became more exposed to the world (by my own volition or by chance) I became "jaded" maybe. I probably am like most people in that respect. Nothing shocks me anymore.
Well, I take that back. Show me someone who will go totally out of their way to care what someone else thinks on the internet enough to take time out of their day to help that person...that will shock me or at least cause me to take pause.
Guys..when you stand in a delivery room watching your kid pop into the world..there is nothing weirder. That Aliens chest popping thing was such a ripoff of moms everywhere! :-)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 09:37:26 AM · #40 |
Maybe there should be a window popup when you vote that asks if you think the shot meets the challenge, and if so, allow you to vote. If you say no, it doesn't mmet the challenge, it goes on to the next photo. That way, you accept the photo as meeting the challenge before you can vote on it.
Just a thought!?!?!
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 09:43:54 AM · #41 |
seems a strangely arbitrary line to draw.
simulated gory violence - fine.
simulated exhortation to inhale household products - evil.
Originally posted by David Ey:
I see, subject matter is judged here more than photo quality.
And yes, I do see this quite diferent than a support of substance abuse.
Upchucking is not quite the same as looking at your bunghole either.
Don't misunderstand, I ain't no darkside fan,but that was a good entry for ground up and didn't deserve ones-threes. Sick? Yes. Well done? Absolutely! Promoting drug use? I don't think so
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 09:48:51 AM · #42 |
don't get me wrong. i ain't for censorship on any level. and this is just my opinion. which is just because something's nasty don't make it great, or original.
everyone can post whatever they want - the admins can decide if the boundary is being pushed too far.
and for the record, i do also get a kick out of some of said person's comments.
oh and another interesting point or discussion topic: why is it most likely that if someone posted a pic of simulated sex or nudity, it wouldnt be ok, but simulated gore would? arbitrary standards.
Originally posted by Moondoggie:
Yeah, I'm kind of on the same page there mag. While I get a kick out of some of Clays ludicrous comments and some of the images he and his friends submit, I enjoy them simply because they are a change of pace form the puppies and flowers (one of which, uuuhmm, I submitted). But just because they hold some shock value doesnt make them great. I might chuckle a little, but I rate them appropriately, and move on.
Like you said, shock != quality.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 09:51:30 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by pnicholls:
Maybe there should be a window popup when you vote that asks if you think the shot meets the challenge, and if so, allow you to vote. If you say no, it doesn't mmet the challenge, it goes on to the next photo. That way, you accept the photo as meeting the challenge before you can vote on it.
Just a thought!?!?!
Not a bad idea but aren't we just trying to automate a process and break down what should be reflected in the vote?
I mean, when I vote the first time on a photo it's based on the way the photo affects me. Does it hit me. Quite frankly, I don't care how well you met the challenge if the photo just sucks. Color, contrast, interesting angles, good technique, subject matter all work to grab me the first time.
Then, after having all the photos in a neat little division I go back and look at each group. The photos sorta work on each other that way. I take into account the challenge at this time.
Later in the week I go back and look at em again just to make sure my sugar levels, caffeine, time constraints, weather..whatever may have had an effect on me and see if my attitude changes. Plus, I start to look for subtleties that I may have missed on the first part of the week when I was just trying to part the wheat and chaff.
In other words, I really, really ..REALLY look at em, especially the top half of my picks and even a lot of my not so favorites.
I would soon leave the voting up to the individual quirks of each voter rather than give them some kind of decision tree to follow. |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 11:35:54 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
simulated gory violence - fine.
simulated exhortation to inhale household products - evil.
That wasn't gory violence for pete's sake. He was throwing up according to the title.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 12:11:12 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I see, subject matter is judged here more than photo quality.
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I am not saying that I judge a photo solely on it's content. But the content does play some part in my evaluation process. How can it not? The whole point of a photo is to create a reaction in the viewer, and the subject of the photo goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal, whatever it is - Pleasure, tranquility, sadnesss, and yes, even disgust. The sum total of a successful photo extends beyond it's mere technical merits. In the case of that upchukie photo, it rated higher than I might normally be inclined to because of the effect that it generated in me. It made me laugh, and so, on that level, it was successful.
However, my perception of it's technical merits seems to differ a bit from yours, but so be it.
My original point being that you cant rely on mere shock value for a photo to be completely successful. Certainly that plays a part in the overall evaluation process, but technical and aesthetic components guide my rating of photos more than simple shock value, and while a picture of someone spewing blood into a toilet may be amusing to me, it's not something I would choose to gaze at for any great length of time. *For me*, it's just not terribly intruiging on an enduring level. But to each their own, and thats why we all got to vote.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/7/2002 12:12:33 PM. |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 12:15:03 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pnicholls:
Maybe there should be a window popup when you vote that asks if you think the shot meets the challenge, and if so, allow you to vote. If you say no, it doesn't mmet the challenge, it goes on to the next photo. That way, you accept the photo as meeting the challenge before you can vote on it.
Just a thought!?!?!
My 2 cents... I think the current system is just fine.
Personally, I think some are a bit too wrapped up in whether or not a photo meets the challenge criteria.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2002 01:33:59 PM · #47 |
| Moondoggie, I agree on both points. My origional comment to Clay was that I hoped we didn't have to look at it all week. I just didn't understand the 1 votes. |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 02:23:19 PM · #48 |
I too agree on both points. With the admins taking the disqualification issue away, maybe we can just start looking at the quality of the photo as it is presented without judging whether or not it qualifies.
I don't like the idea of a pop up menu. |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 02:23:51 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
05/07/2002 03:19:05 PM · #50 |
I don't think this was the point... I think the point of removing the DQ for not meeting the challenge is so that the voters are left to decide if the photo meets the challenge or not. It is left up to the voter to factor into the vote whether the challenge was met.
Originally posted by shortredneck:
I too agree on both points. With the admins taking the disqualification issue away, maybe we can just start looking at the quality of the photo as it is presented without judging whether or not it qualifies.
I don't like the idea of a pop up menu.
|
|
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 10:43:05 AM EDT.
