| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2004 08:53:15 PM · #26 |
Ok, I see this is an exercise in futility.
You have your artist photographers and you have your cookie cutter photographers. The cookie cutters (for the most part, but Iâve seen some very good shots with high rankings however many 1âs voting it down get ribbons), and those that want to express themselves in art. Thereâs room for everyone, just not with the top percentile.
And to think I laughed at those upset with the trolls before. Perhaps not trolls, just subjectivity. hahahahaha
|
|
|
|
01/05/2004 08:54:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
mk, I don't know why, but you come across very impersonal and sterile. Perhaps thatâs just you and Iâve yet to understand who you are, but thatâs just my perception so far. Nothing personal. |
That's because I'm a robot.
(Welcome back, dequinix.)
|
|
|
|
01/05/2004 09:02:49 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by mk:
That's because I'm a robot. |
HAHAHAHA, I like robots?
I like your earlier creativity better too. Your experience married with your creativity two years ago should make for excellent photos!! Feed me Seymour. :) |
|
|
|
01/05/2004 11:12:22 PM · #29 |
The problem with the artsy stuff is you either got it or you don't. It's a fine line between a great shot and something that looks like it was taken by a 3 year old.
I'm by no means an artist and I don't aspire to be one. I try to capture views that I like rather then create something. I guess I'm just a cookie cutter looking for good dough.
PS: If you ever see me take a shot of a nicely lit spork, that is my sign that I have been rendered incapable of leaving my house and I want someone to put me out of my misery. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 02:26:14 AM · #30 |
Deadwolf,
Thanks for this thread. Now that I have an explanation of this shot, I love it! The color is great, itâs unique and very interesting to look at and has a quality that expresses both the ancient and the futuristic. I really do love it, but so long as I have somebody to explain it to me. This kind of art is esoteric and avant-garde and as such Iâm not sure why you are even questioning why you got so many ones and twos. Itâs bound to have been misunderstood and had it been otherwise, it would have failed in your eyes because it would have appealed to all the spork suckers out thereâ¦lol.
Itâs certainly an intellectual shot, but Iâm not sure itâs an inspirational one and in that respect, not sure it meets the challenge theme. The image is so abstract, that it leaves much to the interpretation of the viewer and the fact that there is no âworldâ to peer at through or peer back at the viewer makes for muddy waters. It can even be interpreted to have a diabolical meaning, as it reminds me of both the computer HAL in 2001 A Space Oddessy or like Big Brother is watching...hardly inspirational! The least you could have done would have been to have shinned (shone? lol) more light on the reflection to give us some footing.
But then again, Iâm a cookie cutterâ¦lol.
Anyway, your picture really did teach me a lot, and thatâs what DPC is all about, so thanks.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 02:53:33 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
Ok, I see this is an exercise in futility.
You have your artist photographers and you have your cookie cutter photographers. The cookie cutters (for the most part, but Iâve seen some very good shots with high rankings however many 1âs voting it down get ribbons), and those that want to express themselves in art. Thereâs room for everyone, just not with the top percentile.
And to think I laughed at those upset with the trolls before. Perhaps not trolls, just subjectivity. hahahahaha |
There are a LOT of very talented artists on this site. To say that, just because they don't see art the same way you do, they are "cookie cutters" and not artists is pretty insulting. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 03:17:52 AM · #32 |
I do think you should choose your words more carefully. "Forcing" someone to do something is coercive, and not something that is possible here, especially if you want people's candid and honest reactions to your photos. It takes all of the anonymity out of voting and puts them on trial. Besides, don't take this so personally, but try to learn exactly what happened, which you seem to know already, and why people didn't like it. Don't view a 1 or a 2 as an insult, just a learning experience.
Originally posted by deafwolf:
Andrew, another reason I think if someone gives a 1 or 2 they should be forced to say why. You're reason is you didn't like it. Well a 1 to most people is an insult, not a sign you didn't like it. If I hate a photo, I give it a 3 or 4 depending on the quality of the shot and how well they pulled it off. But even then, if I hate it, but it was a really decent photo, I give it more. A 10 tells someone that their photo was excelling, a 1 is an insult and slap in the face saying your work is crap. Just because I dislike, or even hate a photo, does not mean I give it a 1. And I know all people that gave it a 1 are not trolls, as mk suggested, but I still think the majority are. Again, just my opinion.
Thanks Andrew. I like your honesty and hold it in high regard.
Cheers
TC |
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 05:46:05 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
So much for doing artistic photos? At any rate, the entry that should have been up, but wasnt ready yet is on my page. I refuse to photograph nicely lit sporks to interest those people that voted me down. hahahahaha |
I was one of the people giving you a 2 on your challenge entry. I now see the modified one in your portfolio and like that one much better.
In your challenge entry I saw a picture of a camera lens and I suspected some form of mixture with a picture of an eye (I realise the comment I left was useless, sorry for that). The title made me realise that there should be something of an eye in there. Main reason for me to give a 2 was the fact that it did not bring across a clear message to me and was not appealing to me at all. Also I find fronts of camera lenses not very artistic or creative, that is my personal subjective judgement, like your own judgement that it is artistic. And I found the "motivational" aspect not very strong.
I like your portfolio entry much more, would probably have given it a 6. More appeal, image better matching the text, clearer message all together, less second guessing.
Some people say images should be rated on their own merit, but I tend to also rank them in relation to each other, to use the full 1 to 10 scale available. In such a very strong challenge at this one, an image like yours looses extra points as result (whether points are of value to you is of course up to you, if you just like comments on your own style of images, fine with me).
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 05:59:51 AM · #34 |
I would have given you a 1 or 2 depening on how I felt that day ;)
As for artistic? Just because a photo isn't crisp or colourful doesn't mean it's artistic. Too many people say that if there image gets between 10-6 it's a great stock image, 5 it's average could have done better, and the 4-1s are missunderstood art rather than a bad photograph.
Would you hang it on your wall? Would you pay to go see it in a gallery? What si art to you? To me it must be either emotive or downright attractive
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 06:11:34 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
Ok, I see this is an exercise in futility.
You have your artist photographers and you have your cookie cutter photographers. The cookie cutters (for the most part, but Iâve seen some very good shots with high rankings however many 1âs voting it down get ribbons), and those that want to express themselves in art. Thereâs room for everyone, just not with the top percentile.
And to think I laughed at those upset with the trolls before. Perhaps not trolls, just subjectivity. hahahahaha |
And there are those who strive for the artistic, but who appreciate the learning potential in taking photos of spoons (for example). Also those who find art in photographs of spoons. Also those who enjoy the challenge of this place, and of trying to shoot in a manner that does well here. Also those who shoot in many different manners, but only submit here thse shots they think will do well ...
etc., etc., and no doubt to be re-hashed in a few weeks time.
;-)
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 07:26:53 AM · #36 |
Well, Iâll not turn this into another argument thread, âus and themâ so to speak. As I mentioned earlier, Iâm not mad or upset, and I do appreciate all those that came on here to tell me why, but no, that was not my intention at all. As far as cookie cutter, I see some too it wrong, again a misinterpretation of my meaning, but Iâll not dwell on it either as itâs still not what the thread was about. And I also believe I mentioned many times since I came to DPC that âthere are many talented photographers and artists on the siteâ.
Still, I appreciate all the feedback.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2004 07:48:19 AM · #37 |
Message edited by author 2004-01-06 07:50:52. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 10:43:45 AM · #38 |
| I'm sorry, but I don't see 37 people all being trolls. When you have a top ten image with one or two ones or twos, those are trolls. 37 people form a concensus... |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 10:53:26 AM · #39 |
I gave you five points in the challenge,mainly because the message didn't come across with the picture.if you had posted the one in your portfolio I would have given you 8, much better,
Just my opinion,
Paul. |
|
|
|
01/06/2004 11:00:56 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
.. and the 4-1s are missunderstood art rather than a bad photograph. |
I was just about to say exactly the same thing. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
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: 10/04/2025 02:04:54 AM EDT.
