| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/22/2009 02:26:37 PM · #1226 |
rejected
 Sadly, Mr. Lee broke his hip just a few days after I took this picture, and these.
 He is still at the rehab hospital but should be home in a couple of weeks. Does 1x like triptychs?
I hadn't tried for a long time. Weirdly enough, all of my accepted ones were ribbon winners at DPC. They did reject my cow ribbon winner from here, but 1x was going through bovine overload at the time. |
|
|
|
08/22/2009 02:31:33 PM · #1227 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's about time...
Published
I went back into my old files and found a few that have a chance like the one above taken in '07. A few are homeless portraits, that I like but I'm hesitant to show them. 1x seems to like gnarled people. |
From the thumbnail, i thought it was a composite shot of a hound dog wearing a bowler. :) Someone at photo.net does the dog/hat shots. |
|
|
|
08/23/2009 05:37:33 AM · #1228 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's about time...
Published
I went back into my old files and found a few that have a chance like the one above taken in '07. A few are homeless portraits, that I like but I'm hesitant to show them. 1x seems to like gnarled people. |
Sooooo much character.........love the "life statement" on the bag! GReat capture dude! |
|
|
|
08/23/2009 07:11:06 PM · #1229 |
Latest Reject, on reflection It does look a bit dull.....
 |
|
|
|
08/30/2009 02:38:31 PM · #1230 |
| Geez...I've had an image in screening since last Wednesday afternoon. I did have one rejected that took 3 days which seemed like a long time but this is odd. |
|
|
|
08/30/2009 04:14:13 PM · #1231 |
Have had loads and loads rejected - here is one of my most recent (or at least a version of it - slightly different crop which I I submitted from another machine). |
|
|
|
08/30/2009 04:20:05 PM · #1232 |
After a long line of rejections I finally got something published again:
Friends
|
|
|
|
08/31/2009 05:40:43 PM · #1233 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Geez...I've had an image in screening since last Wednesday afternoon. I did have one rejected that took 3 days which seemed like a long time but this is odd. |
I saw your image Steve :). Once I had an image in screening for a whole week. I thought it fell through the cracks and inquired about it, and then it was rejected right away :).
...in the last couple of weeks had one accepted and this old shot rejected
I sort of expected this, but if I was a screener, I would rather keep the second one. But at least it spent a couple of days in screening, whereas this one
was earlier rejected immediately. Oh well. |
|
|
|
09/01/2009 01:29:49 PM · #1234 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Geez...I've had an image in screening since last Wednesday afternoon. I did have one rejected that took 3 days which seemed like a long time but this is odd. |
I saw your image Steve :). Once I had an image in screening for a whole week. I thought it fell through the cracks and inquired about it, and then it was rejected right away :).
...in the last couple of weeks had one accepted and this old shot rejected
I sort of expected this, but if I was a screener, I would rather keep the second one. But at least it spent a couple of days in screening, whereas this one
was earlier rejected immediately. Oh well. |
I like the second one a lot better too. Much less cliche! |
|
|
|
09/03/2009 02:29:29 PM · #1235 |
|
|
|
09/05/2009 12:53:41 AM · #1236 |
Rejected. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 01:43:09 PM · #1237 |
| The only thing I ever got out of 1X.com was a computer virus. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 02:55:21 PM · #1238 |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 03:59:13 PM · #1239 |
I finally uploaded one pic and got rejected..
 |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 06:08:02 PM · #1240 |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 07:07:00 PM · #1241 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Wow! I'm flabberghasted! |
You don't think this is the norm? |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 11:25:52 PM · #1242 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ursula:
Wow! I'm flabberghasted! |
You don't think this is the norm? |
The norm? As in most people have most of their images rejected? Hmmmm. I supposed it is, at least it seems that way for many people. I was more reacting to my own likes and dislikes; I like your pictures, so I was flabberghasted that so many weren't published at 1X. I don't like the word "rejected". |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 01:32:34 AM · #1243 |
| I'm flabbergasted as well - truly an impressive presentation, both individually and as a body of work, Mr Zen. I think it's kind of a sad reflection on that site, really. And yes, Ursula, I think there are only a handful of people there who get images published regularly. The rest - not so much! :-) |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 07:45:28 AM · #1244 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ursula:
Wow! I'm flabberghasted! |
You don't think this is the norm? |
I believe somewhere in this thread you'd posted that 1x doesn't do enough to really recognize or celebrate creativity or originality (if I understood correctly?) and I tend to agree. Most of what they publish is pretty safe and approachable. Even if something is a little more aggressive there's always something the average viewer can latch onto that is quick and clear. I don't recall ever seeing a raw rule-breaker ever getting published...?
You'll never catch anything on the front page that is pure left field. I do wish they would challenge their viewers more with things that they wouldn't get at first glance.
Like the way the posthumous Ribbon ribbon thread brings images to light showing you interesting or creative perspectives from the viewers, 1x could do better at going out on a limb. I'm sure they reject great images that would leave many people scratching their heads but given a few seconds more and the fact that it was published, they might come around. It would be great if people didn't like things at first and then after reading some comments said "...you know, that really is damn good...now I get it". Again, the posthumous thread is a great model.
It would be interesting if they published images that NOT everybody instantly liked and challenged the norms more.
eta: They do publish shots like this one...
Although like images, that are published usually have richer conversions or more contrast (?). Having said that...I wouldn't change a single thing.
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 08:58:12. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 10:59:59 AM · #1245 |
Thanks for sharing your body of unpublished 1x work Zeus. It is truly fabulous! I think what it does is give us all perspective on how difficult it is to get anything published on 1x anymore. There was a time when I really didn't like a large part of what got published there. For my tastes, it was too dark and grainy, too "always black and white", and too pointless (in my opinion), so I understood that my work wasn't often a good fit. But I will say that lately, the work I see published there pretty much takes my breath away most times, so I'm a little more understanding now about why my stuff isn't up to par. I don't submit much to them because I know most of my pics aren't quite 1x calibre -- but of the stuff I think might have a chance, I'm still wrong too often to feel very good about it :(
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 02:08:33 PM · #1246 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
...Although like images, that are published usually have richer conversions or more contrast (?)... |
I've drawn these images from my DPC port, of course. Their 1x counterparts are produced from print-ready TIFFs; the chromas are punchier; the monos should reveal an extended tonality (which is the one thing I'm usually after), and all should be of significantly better quality, in addition to the increased resolution. I don't quite think, iq/colour vibrancy are the issue.
I appreciate much of the imagery selected to be shown on 1x, especially that at variance with my own aesthetic, which, naturally, is due to both my own perception and an inability to render particular shots in a fashion foreign to me. The same applies to genres, which are not always the result of choice but of inclination and opportunity.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ 1x monotones, as I relate them, appear to be elected with some preference for a nostalgic noire, not always in content but certainly in effect: much film grain, blocked shadows, mystery by enigma and ambiguity.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ The patently spectacular. Period -and no surprise.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ By subject and sentiment. (No surprise here either).
Colour images, in contrast, appear to enjoy a broader representation of styles and temperament. They are, to my eye, less filtered/screened to fit any preconception or bias. What appears to be absent here, however, are the very bright (widescreen and oversized) contemporary chromas the Germans and French are so fond of.
I wonder if the screeners talk with one another about such things. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 03:03:03 PM · #1247 |
What gets published at 1X is a combination of what is posted for potential publishing and the likes/dislikes of screeners and crew. Everybody knows that.
I disagree that they never publish anything left field. For one, as one that gets a fair bit of my work published at 1X (but I am quite selective in what I send in for potential publishing), it is a bit insulting to hear that I am just middle of the road compositionally (which may be true, but it hurts anyway). For another, I simply think it's not true that they never publish anything left field. Most of what is sent in for potential publishing is "safe", just because most people play it safe, don't even know how to not play it safe. So most of what will be published will be safe. Also, with "left field" images (e.g. the stuff posthumous promotes), some of it is truly worthwhile, but other times it is simply left field and not much more.
The screeners/crew likes/dislikes part is trickier. We all think that we are right somehow in our perception of which images work, and why, in our perception of what is common and what is out of the ordinary. And yet, when it comes down to it, most of what ends up on the front-page (here and at 1X) stands out. Here because it fits a theme and sells that theme, there because it fits the gallery and sells the gallery.
I like Zeus' work. I am sad that not more of his pictures are published at 1X. I think they would fit beautifully in the gallery there. But I'm probably just showing my personal preferences. More than anything, since I suffer from constant self-doubt, it makes me wonder if my published work is just common junk or what. But I like my own work too, it is my way of expressing my world, my feelings. So, who cares in the end :)
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 15:05:05. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 04:28:06 PM · #1248 |
Ursula, there is nothing. . .I mean NOTHING. . by anyone's standard common or "junk-like" about your work. Matter of fact, I believe that your work has been very influential in changing the "look" of 1x photography for the better. Where there used to be so little color and classic beauty, now there is "ursula-type-beauty" all over the front page every day. To me, it seems there's been a shift from dark, brooding, "ya-gotta-be-a-moody-artist-to-appreciate" kind of stuff -- to now there's gorgeous nature photos -- in color -- and more straight on classic landscapes like Brin's work, and portraits in color.
That's the good news. The bad news for us mere photographic mortals is that "Ursula-Calibre" work is the bar there and not many of us can hit it very often. Sigh. But for me, its the bar I need to always be reaching for.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 05:24:03 PM · #1249 |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 08:52:04 PM · #1250 |
Originally posted by ursula:
...I disagree that they never publish anything left field. For one, as one that gets a fair bit of my work published at 1X (but I am quite selective in what I send in for potential publishing), it is a bit insulting to hear that I am just middle of the road compositionally (which may be true, but it hurts anyway)...Most of what is sent in for potential publishing is "safe", just because most people play it safe, don't even know how to not play it safe. So most of what will be published will be safe. Also, with "left field" images (e.g. the stuff posthumous promotes), some of it is truly worthwhile, but other times it is simply left field and not much more... |
Even though Steve ( pawdrix) paraphrases what he recollects from an earlier post I made in this thread, these were my actual words: I had my share of rejections with 1x. Fine. If I was their screener, the images they did accept would definitely not have made it past my scrutiny. Some of the rejections would have enjoyed priority. But I don't screen for 1x. I have no idea what they're doing there.
I've got a pretty good idea why they're doing what they're doing, and I'm ok with how they're doing it. I wouldn't do it that way, but it's easier to improve something that already works reasonably well than making it better to start with.
If I did screen or had any editorial input, I'd invite, at least, three submissions at a time, so as to be able detect some coherence between several entries and to steer any member critiques in the same direction. Of course, when you submit a single entry, a subtle aesthetic or a quirky composition can easily go unrecognized, which, IMO, is a shame when the overall (site-) ambition is to assemble excellence.
This is less critical for an challenge-based social environment like DPC. For 1x and sites with a like purpose, it is, the way I see it so far, somewhat regrettable -and this despite the fact that much fabulous and exciting photography is showcased there. Just to assuage any speculations as to what Steve was referring to.
I'm with Steve when it comes to going out on a limb for an inspiring photo, a breach of the peace versus a pretty view. I agree with you that left field, as any other category, does not make a picture.
I'd be ill-at-ease to categorize your own filigree tour de force as mainstream or anything else, the fact that much of what you do or show is more universally embraced than work with very different concerns is, IMO, as natural as the senses your images arouse.
Now, a rose is a rose is a rose, but a mere picture of a rose is thus secondary and inconsequential in as late an age as ours. Depiction adds nothing worthwhile but quantity. The rose must be made new, and the only way this can be done is by commoting (which, unfortunately, is not a word yet) the issue. This, I think, you do (and see) very well, and, possibly, if you keep it up, to nature's envy. :-D
This is very different from copying a sunset to the sensor and then saturating the experience with all the sentiment we can squeeze out of a tube.
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 20:54:26. |
|
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: 07/20/2025 01:33:40 PM EDT.
