pekesty - "I knew we were closed minded around here"

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/11/2010 03:24:47 PM · #151

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
Ya Gotta Love It...!

LOL! That's funny. :-)

This is an honest question and I mean no disrespect with it.... but Why do I care it was on this other website? Do they know something on this website that I don't? Just because it is on this website am I supposed to change my opinion of it and like it more, because someone else told me what/how to think?

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/11/2010 03:28:31 PM · #152

Originally posted by littlegett:

...Perhaps I should refrain from offering my opinion on 330someodd images....

For what it's worth, I appreciated your comment beneath the image. I thought it was articulate and sincere.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 15:29:34.

rooum

01/11/2010 03:36:20 PM · #153

Originally posted by littlegett:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
Ya Gotta Love It...!

LOL! That's funny. :-)

This is an honest question and I mean no disrespect with it.... but Why do I care it was on this other website? Do they know something on this website that I don't? Just because it is on this website am I supposed to change my opinion of it and like it more, because someone else told me what/how to think?

I think the link was posted up because earlier in the thread it was mentioned that somewhere like 1x may be more appreciative about this type of photography and it seemed pertinent to the 6 pages of discussion about the image and 'art' in general. So, don't worry, the link wasn't really directed at you and you are allowed to keep your opinion. :)

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/11/2010 03:46:53 PM · #154

Originally posted by littlegett:

Nobody "told" you "what/how" to think BUT it does state that the image isn't just some farce that a few "artsy" members here are wearing as badge to affect, coolness or some faux-intellectual prowess.

I'll bet this thread made a few people think twice and that makes it worth all five of it's pages.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 15:57:38.

one2one

Olympus E-5

01/11/2010 03:59:26 PM · #155

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps it's a preselection bias, but I rarely see the "artsy crowd" (you know who you are) say "this shot doesn't do much for me. I gave it a 3.".

I never say, but I think it all the time. I routinely hand out low scores to anything that fails to adequately engage me, irrespective of its supposed technical merits (unless those technicals are clearly from someone with some outstanding knowledge of the craft). As an example, I've about had it with stop-motion water drops, no matter how hard they are to capture.

So any water drop shot will be trolled by yourself Louis? You're going to purposely lower what you would normally give it because it's a water drop and you've had it with water drops? Am I reading your statement right?
hmm, I'll do the same with portraits then, why? I've had it with them too no matter who is photographed, they're too alike. They all have people in them with 2 eyes and a nose and mouth, boring boring boring. ;)

01/11/2010 04:02:14 PM · #156

I'll troll'em for a complete lack of originality "no matter how hard they are to capture. "

01/11/2010 04:05:28 PM · #157

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by littlegett:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
Ya Gotta Love It...!

LOL! That's funny. :-)

This is an honest question and I mean no disrespect with it.... but Why do I care it was on this other website? Do they know something on this website that I don't? Just because it is on this website am I supposed to change my opinion of it and like it more, because someone else told me what/how to think?

Nobody "told" you "what/how" to think BUT it does state that the image isn't just some farce that a few "artsy" members here are wearing as badge to affect, coolness or some faux-intellectual prowess.

I'll bet this thread made a few people think twice and that makes it worth all three of it's pages.

So now you are saying a few "artsy" members here, and a few "artsy" members there like the image. Even though your reply to me feel snobby. I have a feeling you should read this comment again...

Originally posted by posthumous:

What I would like to discourage is voting based on how you think you "should" feel about an image. This happens to members of any "camp" or aesthetic. And it's hard if not impossible to completely eradicate from your thinking. More than once on this thread, I have been characterized as having fun at DPC. I'm very happy to be characterized that way. Imagine if all of us had fun voting and commenting in challenges.

Forcing people to think twice based on the idea that because "others feel this way, so should you" is silly. It is putting the exact concept of what

posthumous stated about making a user feel as if they need to vote on the way they 'should' feel instead of how they really do feel.

So someone loves the image, that is fantastic for them. So someone hates the image, that is fantastic for them. So they argue the merits of the image never getting anywhere. Sucks to be them.

Yet this thread is not about the image, it is about how people feel. How because someone does not share your point of view they are closed minded. However, what if they know and understand your point of view and made a different choice for their own personal preferences. That to me is open minded. However to me it is closed minded when they refuse to listen to the other side.

yet it does not seem that way here.... there seems to be other rules. That is ok. You play by yours, I play by mine, and we will continue to see these silly threads discussing silliness.

btw, I still do not understand why that website is so important, is it an elitest website or something? Do they pay people large sums of money to display their images do people pay them?

rooum

01/11/2010 04:15:26 PM · #158

Originally posted by littlegett:

You play by yours, I play by mine, and we will continue to see these silly threads discussing silliness.

I don't think this thread has been silly at all. I've found it very interesting hearing peoples views on the image, on what 'artsy' may mean and how different people take and view images in different ways. Nobody is telling you what to think.

pekesty has explained what he meant by 'closed minded' in regards to people viewing the image and some people agree with him and some people don't. You seem to be getting a bit upset and melodramatic but i don't think you need to.

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

01/11/2010 04:18:38 PM · #159

Originally posted by littlegett:

Forcing...

"Forcing"..."told"...

Your using strong active words BUT not really to the point. I would say "appreciate" might be a word that serves us better. Nobody's trying to "force" you to like something but to appreciate something is a more tempered way to see it. I don't care if people don't like the image, if they hate it or love it.

1x is a great site and their panel of screeners are pretty astute...certainly not a bunch of "posers". Which reminds me that I haven't been rejected in a while...

eta: I think this is a great thread. Nothing silly about it. Lotta good points being made.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 16:29:54.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/11/2010 04:19:25 PM · #160

Originally posted by littlegett:

btw, I still do not understand why that website is so important, is it an elitest website or something?

I like the site because there is much more than the typical stock photography and the critque threads are excellent.

Granted, there are well used motifs and styles at 1x as well, and I do understand the elitest comment as the rejections are abundant, and sometimes surprising, but it makes for a great collection of photographs.

Originally posted by littlegett:

Do they pay people large sums of money to display their images do people pay them?

Members pay for the pleasure of rejection! ;)

Paul

Leica SL

01/11/2010 04:25:04 PM · #161

Originally posted by littlegett:

btw, I still do not understand why that website is so important, is it an elitest website or something? Do they pay people large sums of money to display their images do people pay them?

I think the website is important in this debate because the argument touched on the image having minority appeal only. 1x.com might be considered as elitist by some but the images are peer reviewed and the viewing numbers are high - the image hasn't been up long and already has 1143 views - it was 1108 when I started typing this message. I think its publication put to bed the notion that this was an image with minority appeal only.

BTW - I value your comments very much.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 16:38:06.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/11/2010 04:29:16 PM · #162

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by Louis:
I never say, but I think it all the time. I routinely hand out low scores to anything that fails to adequately engage me, irrespective of its supposed technical merits (unless those technicals are clearly from someone with some outstanding knowledge of the craft). As an example, I've about had it with stop-motion water drops, no matter how hard they are to capture.

So any water drop shot will be trolled by yourself Louis? You're going to purposely lower what you would normally give it because it's a water drop and you've had it with water drops? Am I reading your statement right?
hmm, I'll do the same with portraits then, why? I've had it with them too no matter who is photographed, they're too alike. They all have people in them with 2 eyes and a nose and mouth, boring boring boring. ;)

That's really taking Louis out of context. The operative part of his statement is "fails to adequately engage me", not "water drops". In his aesthetic world, he requires that an image "speak" to him, "engage" him. He's not interested in technicals for the sake of technicals, he's not interested in what some of us call "plastic" photography, he wants emotion, mystery, something that makes the gut react.

And what's wrong with that? He's not demanding that everyone vote that way, but it makes perfect sense that *he* votes that way. There's no reason in the world why we have to score a technically world-class photo with zero emotional content high, just because it IS technically fantastic. That's just silly, IMO. We all have our different standards, and that's what makes this place interesting.

R.

ETA: In other words, he would "normally give" a technically superior image with zero emotional content a low score, that's the way his aesthetic functions.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 16:30:53.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/11/2010 04:36:48 PM · #163

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by littlegett:

Forcing...

"Forcing"..."told"...

Your using strong active words BUT not really to the point. I would say "appreciate" might be a word that serves us better. Nobody's trying to "force" you to like something but to appreciate something is a more tempered way to see it. I don't care if people don't like the image, if they hate it or love it.

1x is a great site and their panel of screeners are pretty astute...certainly not a bunch of "posers". Which reminds me that I haven't been rejected in a while...

eta: I think this is a great thread. Nothing silly about it. Lotta good points being made.

I like strong words, that is why I use them. I look at it this way. There seems to be more of a push to view certain images certain ways. Not just opinions about the image/s. If stated I Like/dislike XQY because MDB thats cool. But making it a point to say people are closed minded because they don't agree with you is wrong. Perhaps I missed several pages of conversation. It is my freedom to do so and still state my opinion on the OP.

btw I still do not know what 1x is. It is obvious it is a photo/image site of some sorts. No I did not visit and do research I figured someone here could tell me in a few words. Yet, it is not said yet. All you said is in your opinion the screens are 'pretty' astute and are not 'posers' but of course you would say that if you have not been rejected in a while. Rejected for what? post cards? a wall calendar? To have your image printed on the side of someones shoe?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

01/11/2010 04:41:26 PM · #164

Originally posted by paulbtlw:

... I think its publication put to bed the notion that this was an image with minority appeal only. ...

It IS an image with minority appeal - at DPChallenge at least...and that's the context this conversation started in.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/11/2010 04:47:55 PM · #165

Originally posted by RKT:

...There will always be a divide, no doubt about it. But many people do "cross over", so to speak. What is that thing that nudges someone from being a voracious eater of eye candy, to a more finicky sort of viewer...

Most of us, I think, habitually look for a subject when we look at a photograph, i.e. "this is a picture of a cat", that "a picture of a tree". Someone, somewhere in this thread went out of his way to stress the importance he places on a subject when considering the value of a photo. Of course, we see what we look for. Since most photographs are pictures of more or less tangible things, creatures and events, identifying and considering their subjects is a popular and obvious diversion.

If, however, for a moment, we could imagine pictures themselves as objects, the way, say, a rock is until it is abused for some road or wall or the way a piece of wood is what and how it is, wherever it's is found or scattered, that rough shape and weight, then it should not be much of a stretch to also recognize a photograph as intrinsically fresh, unique and equal to other objects in nature, without having to surrender any sense of imitation, dilution or memento.

There are images that will not benefit from such an exercise. These are the kind of "painted wonders" Bear (

Bear_Music) is talking about, usually photographs that borrow inspiration and manner from a familiar or given aesthetic, such as gorgeous landscapes, solemn still lives or images celebrating the human form. In these images, the subject clearly dictates approach, treatment and manner of processing, while allowing for some degree of diversity of opportunity, skill and experience among their respective authors.

The image here, at the root of this lengthly discussion, is clearly not one of these "painted wonders". It has, by the look and sound of the comments that followed it, pleased some and agitated others. It is and, apparently, remains inaccessible to a share of viewers. To quote one of the comments: "No idea what the concept of this is. No idea what the title says much less means. All I see is an upside down image, from my perspective. That being said, I don't think this really is anything. For me it does not say anything do anything and makes no sense. I would pass by this every day and never notice it once".

My response can only be this: There is and never was any preconceived idea that motivated or came into the making of this shot. My wife put up a sheet of plastic in front of a drafty window to block the snide North wind from blowing down her neck. I had previously sealed that window, but, apparently, to no avail. Being who I am, the plastic tacked to our fine cedar-framed window bothered me to no end. Since I wasn't inclined to jeopardize my marriage over a sheet of plastic, there was nothing else I could do but photograph it. The resulting image appears upside-down, because the poly was hung upside-down; no deliberation in this fact.

So, yes, the subject (if we're talking about a tangible, material subject outside of the image) is transparent enough, and, yes, it isn't much compared to the sight of an active volcano at night or the breasts of the Medusa. It certainly is mundane enough to ignore it, but I chose not to ignore it but to use, use, use it to make it into what it is now. The fact that one would pass something "every day and not notice it once", was in no small way what alerted me to the possibility of an interest sufficient to warrant a photograph in its own right. I am quite happy, actually, to have managed to show you something some of us would otherwise not ever have noticed.

Don't get me wrong, I truly value this comment. It sounds compellingly sincere to me, if not a little perplexed and, well, near-angry. Suffice to say, a viewer's frustration with an image, or a particular kind of image, can hardly be better articulated.

I'm afraid I cannot do much to alleviate the irritation. What I can do, however, is offer a little insight into how one thing can lead to another until something mysteriously appears at your doorstep and, if you should find yourself challenged by the packaging, into what tools are available to open the box.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 16:51:57.

Paul

Leica SL

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

01/11/2010 04:48:33 PM · #166

Originally posted by glad2badad:

It IS an image with minority appeal - at DPChallenge at least...and that's the context this conversation started in.

Yep - good point.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/11/2010 05:18:40 PM · #167

Originally posted by zeuszen:

....snip

I am quite happy, actually, to have managed to show you something some of us would otherwise not ever have noticed.

This is something extremely important. Most times then not an image will receive a higher vote if it is something the viewer is not subjected to on such a basis the simple concept or idea of it becomes mundane.

As much as I try not to put weight on the 'subject' of an image it happens. Though what happens is, is if I have seen it so many times before I want to hold it to a higher standard. I expect more each new time I see the same subject.

Though, for me I also look for a connection. Something that draws me in. Something that holds me. Something I can relate to within the image.

I have changed my way of thinking over the course of the years. Specially with how I perceive images. Being as interested in ALL arts as I am, from traditional drawing/painting, sculpture, music, dance to digital drawing/painting, animation and such. I love the arts, it is a huge part of my life. Yet I want to make it more.... I digress...

I give people the benefit of the doubt... with this free study, my average score given for 330some odd images was 5.3something. Which is something up from the average on my profile of 4.9 which I have been slowly rising. yet, with the free study, it is called 'FREE STUDY' So no matter what the image was a 5. I went through scored the images on my first view through. Then when commenting on all of the images I took a second longer look. Some images received a bump up, but none down. I left my opinion on each image.

I understand how people have different views, and I stated as much on several images. How perhaps group XCD would really enjoy this image because CDD, but for me, being outside of XCD it does nothing for me. It is important to say what you feel and why. Why. That is what adds value in my opinion. If the Why is left out, there is a loss of value. Sure I appreciate people saying they like my work. But it would be worth more if they said why. Same if they said they didn't. As long as they did it in a respectable manner. To many people are disrespectful when they say they don't like a piece. If I ever appear that way, it is not my intention. Though some have thinner skin then others. I used to, so I know. But I won't pad negative news.

Anyway, showing me something I would not normally see is a grand thing. Having the story of the creation is awesome. Yet the connection was lost to me. Just not my thing I suppose.

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/11/2010 05:19:49 PM · #168

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by RKT:
...There will always be a divide, no doubt about it. But many people do "cross over", so to speak. What is that thing that nudges someone from being a voracious eater of eye candy, to a more finicky sort of viewer...

Most of us, I think, habitually look for a subject when we look at a photograph, i.e. "this is a picture of a cat", that "a picture of a tree". Someone, somewhere in this thread went out of his way to stress the importance he places on a subject when considering the value of a photo. Of course, we see what we look for. Since most photographs are pictures of more or less tangible things, creatures and events, identifying and considering their subjects is a popular and obvious diversion.

If, however, for a moment, we could imagine pictures themselves as objects, the way, say, a rock is until it is abused for some road or wall or the way a piece of wood is what and how it is, wherever it's is found or scattered, that rough shape and weight, then it should not be much of a stretch to also recognize a photograph as intrinsically fresh, unique and equal to other objects in nature, without having to surrender any sense of imitation, dilution or memento.

There are images that will not benefit from such an exercise. These are the kind of "painted wonders" Bear ( Bear_Music) is talking about, usually photographs that borrow inspiration and manner from a familiar or given aesthetic, such as gorgeous landscapes, solemn still lives or images celebrating the human form. In these images, the subject clearly dictates approach, treatment and manner of processing, while allowing for some degree of diversity of opportunity, skill and experience among their respective authors.

The image here, at the root of this lengthly discussion, is clearly not one of these "painted wonders". It has, by the look and sound of the comments that followed it, pleased some and agitated others. It is and, apparently, remains inaccessible to a share of viewers. To quote one of the comments: "No idea what the concept of this is. No idea what the title says much less means. All I see is an upside down image, from my perspective. That being said, I don't think this really is anything. For me it does not say anything do anything and makes no sense. I would pass by this every day and never notice it once".

My response can only be this: There is and never was any preconceived idea that motivated or came into the making of this shot. My wife put up a sheet of plastic in front of a drafty window to block the snide North wind from blowing down her neck. I had previously sealed that window, but, apparently, to no avail. Being who I am, the plastic tacked to our fine cedar-framed window bothered me to no end. Since I wasn't inclined to jeopardize my marriage over a sheet of plastic, there was nothing else I could do but photograph it. The resulting image appears upside-down, because the poly was hung upside-down; no deliberation in this fact.

So, yes, the subject (if we're talking about a tangible, material subject outside of the image) is transparent enough, and, yes, it isn't much compared to the sight of an active volcano at night or the breasts of the Medusa. It certainly is mundane enough to ignore it, but I chose not to ignore it but to use, use, use it to make it into what it is now. The fact that one would pass something "every day and not notice it once", was in no small way what alerted me to the possibility of an interest sufficient to warrant a photograph in its own right. I am quite happy, actually, to have managed to show you something some of us would otherwise not ever have noticed.

Don't get me wrong, I truly value this comment. It sounds compellingly sincere to me, if not a little perplexed and, well, near-angry. Suffice to say, a viewer's frustration with an image, or a particular kind of image, can hardly be better articulated.

I'm afraid I cannot do much to alleviate the irritation. What I can do, however, is offer a little insight into how one thing can lead to another until something mysteriously appears at your doorstep and, if you should find yourself challenged by the packaging, into what tools are available to open the box.

Awesome!