| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2010 05:37:42 PM · #1926 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Basically, all of the so called clutter in the original is adding to the narrative, not detracting from it. |
completely agree with that. And I would prefer more clutter in my scene, not less, just could not find a good location for it in San Diego :) ...and believe me, I am not saying that my rendition is as good as the original... I was just implying that the reasons for its rejection seem to have as much to do with the aesthetics of the site as with the weaknesses of the image per se. I still believe that the original, being a lot better image of course, would probably not make it through the screening process.. |
|
|
|
06/22/2010 06:16:32 PM · #1927 |
Yes...but lets look at it like this:
I can see many things in the scene that make this a good shot.
Some examples:
Let's start with the tree to the front left of the subject male. The tree is chained to a pole that is holding it up allowing it to stand.
Symbolism - the kissers are chained to each other to help each other stand throughout life.
Next: Notice the two cement "barriers" in the foreground. They converge just slightly ahead of the couple.
Symbolism - The kissers are near an important convergence in their lives...possibly an engagement or marriage.
Next: The girl in front out of the frame. Her had is reaching back as she walks. Take this with the image of the "single" man "stuck" behind the barrier. He is looking at her or in her direction.
Symbolism - He is alone and would like to be at the convergence as the kissers are, however the cement barriers are blocking his way to the girl. The same barrier that is bringing the kissers to an important convergence in the kisser's lives is at the same time blocking another from converging with a would be mate.
Well anyway...that's how I see it.
Kenskid
|
|
|
|
06/22/2010 06:22:57 PM · #1928 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by ursula:
I lucked out? No, seriously, I don't think the two pictures have much in common except for both of them being boats on water. Outside of that, not much in common at all. For one, light is very, very different! So is the overall feel.
I agree that Robert's (Bear_Music) picture is good. It worked nicely in the DPC challenge it was made for. However, the subject/situation is very common, as is the light. The treatment applied to the picture is debatable, some might call it artistic, some heavy-handed, whatever; in my view, it stands out too much on its own (as a treatment) to work. It comes down to the question, is the image special in any way? How does it stand out over many others like it? Does the treatment enhance the image for most viewers? Imagine yourself one of crew at 1X ... why would you publish Robert's picture? It's easy to say, it's a good picture. But how is it a good picture? How does it work, what magic does it have, how does it stand out, what makes it a publisheable image? |
Obviously, the folks at 1x love pictures that have been photoshopped to the max. They are not interested in just good photos, they want you to photoshop the crap out of them. I'm not sure of this, since I don't sit on their screening committee, but from the pictures I have seen on there, that's what I have noticed. Hey, to each their own, if thats what they like, I suggest that's what you submit to them. As far as I can see, however, the pic from bear has more to say than the pic from ursula. I'm not saying ursula's is a bad pic, but I would prefer the one bear has hanging on my wall to the other. |
That's fine. I don't mind one bit.
However, Bear's picture is photoshopped a heck of a lot more than mine. Mine hardly is photoshopped at all, his qualifies as photoshopped the crap out of it. So it seems that your taste sort of agrees with 1X's taste! :)
Something else you might want to remember. Those two pictures were taken a few years apart. Things change over time. Many pictures that were accepted in the past may not be accepted today. Many pictures that are accepted now may not have been accepted in the past. That doesn't make any of them bad pictures, they are what they are in their own time. I think it really would be worth it to mostly critique pictures by themselves, without bringing up comparisons to try and bolster or bring down opinions. It is pretty silly to say that one picture is good because it is supposedly "better" than another one, when in reality the pictures have nothing to do with each other. |
Not really. My taste in those 2 photos in particular leads me to like Bears more, and that is because I feel having the second boat in the water gives it more realism. How much each of them have been photoshopped, I don't know. What I do know is that based on looking at the pics on 1x, the majority of the ones I have seen are very much photoshopped. I'm not saying it's a bad thing all the time, but when did the photography go out and the photoshop take over? I mean, even on the home page of 1x is a photo that has been photoshopped so much I can't imagine what the original may have looked like. In your portfolio on 1x, if at least 75% of the pics aren't photoshopped heavily, I would love to see some of the originals of them. Why we are rating photoshop experience over photo experience now I have no idea. But I sure miss the days when a good picture was a good picture, not now when a good picture is a good photoshop job. No offense, you do a great job with photoshop, but why can't we judge a photo on camera experience anymore? There should be two genre's of photos: the photo and the photoshop photo. |
|
|
|
06/22/2010 06:27:24 PM · #1929 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
But I sure miss the days when a good picture was a good picture, not now when a good picture is a good photoshop job. No offense, you do a great job with photoshop, but why can't we judge a photo on camera experience anymore? There should be two genre's of photos: the photo and the photoshop photo. |
On the one hand, you make a legitimate distinction between digital art--i.e., photos that have been Photoshopped (or Topazed or Photomatixed or what have you) beyond recognition as a photo--and more traditional photography, where the outcome has some recognizable relationship to the world we see.
But on the other hand, to the extent that you're putting a premium on photographs without work being done in some kind of post-processing, I vehemently disagree. A photo straight out of a digital camera is rarely a finished product; it's akin to the negative that you get from film. It's just one part of the process.
Any premium that might be placed on having a putative light touch in post-processing gets further eroded when you head out of photorealism and into abstraction. At that point, the camera is merely a tool for creating a kind of art that's based on an exposure, but an abstract isn't trying to be a landscape or a portrait; it's its own genre, and there's no reason to limit it by what a camera--a mechanical device--produces.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2010 06:48:12 PM · #1930 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
But on the other hand, to the extent that you're putting a premium on photographs without work being done in some kind of post-processing, I vehemently disagree. A photo straight out of a digital camera is rarely a finished product; it's akin to the negative that you get from film. It's just one part of the process. |
Precisely. This 'Photoshop is not Photography' argument doesn't hold up at all in my opinion. It's just a tool really and can be used well or badly. I'd be interested to know if you've spent much time in a wet darkroom  rugman1969? And if so are aware of the multitude of creative processes you can do there that are similar to what can be done in PS. Texturerd layers for example. When i was in college in the early 90s we used to rip up all sorts of stuff to experiment with in the darkroom, lace, tissue paper, cloth, painted glass etc. Now i'll take a photo of a texture i've found or made and layer it in Photoshop. Same thing as far as i'm concerned. It's the end image that counts for me. Some of it may not be to your taste but it is no less photography for that. |
|
|
|
06/22/2010 08:05:22 PM · #1931 |
*In Screening* -since this morning - now the wait begins!
|
|
|
|
06/22/2010 08:21:34 PM · #1932 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
What I do know is that based on looking at the pics on 1x, the majority of the ones I have seen are very much photoshopped.... |
If that's the big 1x thing that's jumping out at you...I'd suggest you look a lot deeper. It's probably no more a cornerstone there than anywhere else on the internet and in a good deal of cases...even less so. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I'm there because of the clean work they publish and the stuff that IS more heavily edited, is done tastefully, effectively and more creatively than what I've found in other places. FWIW, there are about 7 images on the front page right now that are pretty clean...darn close to squeaky, for that matter. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:51:02 AM · #1933 |
I'm in... New edit of this:
ETA: I'm 'in' on this rejection game... I'm not (yet) in 1x.. I'm sure I'll suffer massive, multiple rejection just like everyone else :)
Message edited by author 2010-06-23 00:58:51. |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:52:12 AM · #1934 |
You made it in to 1x ?
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'm in... New edit of this: |
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:56:17 AM · #1935 |
YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY:-):-):-)
Originally posted by kenskid:
You made it in to 1x ?
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'm in... New edit of this: |
|
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 12:57:02 AM · #1936 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
You made it in to 1x ?
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'm in... New edit of this: |
|
Oh hell no... I'm in on this rejection game... I doubt that gets into 1x.. We'll see though.. :) |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 01:20:05 PM · #1937 |
|
|
|
06/23/2010 01:22:51 PM · #1938 |
Well where is it?
Originally posted by JustCaree:
rejected fast LOL |
|
|
|
|
06/23/2010 11:52:41 PM · #1939 |
This one got through screening? REALLY? What story does this one tell? How engaging is this capture? More of these and 1X will start looking like Flickr. Sheesh!
//imghost.1x.com/34544.jpg
Message edited by Manic - please keep images under 500px and 30kb, or post links or thumbs instead. |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 02:52:12 AM · #1940 |
Originally posted by Prash:
This one got through screening? REALLY? What story does this one tell? How engaging is this capture? More of these and 1X will start looking like Flickr. Sheesh!
|
It tells me a story... One of wet-wipes and an attempt to wipe birds**t off that nice 70-200 f/2.8L... |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 02:52:59 AM · #1941 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Prash:
This one got through screening? REALLY? What story does this one tell? How engaging is this capture? More of these and 1X will start looking like Flickr. Sheesh!
|
It tells me a story... One of wet-wipes and an attempt to wipe birds**t off that nice 70-200 f/2.8L... |
;-) |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 03:59:25 AM · #1942 |
I just joined 1x this afternoon and uploaded my first photograph...It's still awaiting screening, so I don't know yet if I'm going to be joining the Reject club or not LOL.
//www.redbubble.com/people/frozenmoments/art/3275072-3-illuminated - this is what I uploaded...dunno if it's something 1x will like or not :S Guess I'll find out soon enough. |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 10:04:48 AM · #1943 |
Hmmmm I would say it is a "different" take on a popular photo theme. Whereas most of these heart/book shots are colorful and smooth, yours is black/white and sharp/gritty....you never know!
Originally posted by FrozenMoments:
I just joined 1x this afternoon and uploaded my first photograph...It's still awaiting screening, so I don't know yet if I'm going to be joining the Reject club or not LOL.
//www.redbubble.com/people/frozenmoments/art/3275072-3-illuminated - this is what I uploaded...dunno if it's something 1x will like or not :S Guess I'll find out soon enough. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2010 10:33:31 AM · #1944 |
Disclaimer so I don't get jumped by 1x lovers:
Personally I think most photos on 1x are GREAT. NO OTHER SITE COMPARES to the GREAT photos on 1x. I would LOVE my photos to appear on 1x. In fact, I AM VERY ENVIOUS of all the GREAT photographers on 1x.
Now for my comment. While the photo in question is good, it just doesn't seem GREAT for some reason. However, the photog has three other GREAT nature images accepted on 1x. His "lens/bird" shot was the latest. IMO by looking over the site... once you break into getting a photo published on 1x it seems it may be a LITTLE easier to get other shots past the screeners.
Of course there is NO WAY to prove this. The ONLY possible way is if all entries were anonomous to the judges.
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Prash:
This one got through screening? REALLY? What story does this one tell? How engaging is this capture? More of these and 1X will start looking like Flickr. Sheesh!
|
It tells me a story... One of wet-wipes and an attempt to wipe birds**t off that nice 70-200 f/2.8L... |
;-) |
Message edited by author 2010-06-24 10:34:36. |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 10:44:31 AM · #1945 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Disclaimer so I don't get jumped by 1x lovers:
Personally I think most photos on 1x are GREAT. NO OTHER SITE COMPARES to the GREAT photos on 1x. I would LOVE my photos to appear on 1x. In fact, I AM VERY ENVIOUS of all the GREAT photographers on 1x.
Now for my comment. While the photo in question is good, it just doesn't seem GREAT for some reason. However, the photog has three other GREAT nature images accepted on 1x. His "lens/bird" shot was the latest. IMO by looking over the site... once you break into getting a photo published on 1x it seems it may be a LITTLE easier to get other shots past the screeners.
Of course there is NO WAY to prove this. The ONLY possible way is if all entries were anonomous to the judges.
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Prash:
This one got through screening? REALLY? What story does this one tell? How engaging is this capture? More of these and 1X will start looking like Flickr. Sheesh!
|
It tells me a story... One of wet-wipes and an attempt to wipe birds**t off that nice 70-200 f/2.8L... |
;-) |
|
The image was published in the "humour" section of the site. There aren't too many photos in that category, and the site is always trying to find new pictures for categories with few pictures. The picture works kinda nicely for a humour photo. At least, if you're a photographer, you might get it :P
|
|
|
|
06/24/2010 10:47:30 AM · #1946 |
Yes...it is funny. Even funnier now that the previous posts spoke about cleaning "poop" off the lens !
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Disclaimer so I don't get jumped by 1x lovers:
Personally I think most photos on 1x are GREAT. NO OTHER SITE COMPARES to the GREAT photos on 1x. I would LOVE my photos to appear on 1x. In fact, I AM VERY ENVIOUS of all the GREAT photographers on 1x.
Now for my comment. While the photo in question is good, it just doesn't seem GREAT for some reason. However, the photog has three other GREAT nature images accepted on 1x. His "lens/bird" shot was the latest. IMO by looking over the site... once you break into getting a photo published on 1x it seems it may be a LITTLE easier to get other shots past the screeners.
Of course there is NO WAY to prove this. The ONLY possible way is if all entries were anonomous to the judges.
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Prash:
This one got through screening? REALLY? What story does this one tell? How engaging is this capture? More of these and 1X will start looking like Flickr. Sheesh!
|
It tells me a story... One of wet-wipes and an attempt to wipe birds**t off that nice 70-200 f/2.8L... |
;-) |
|
The image was published in the "humour" section of the site. There aren't too many photos in that category, and the site is always trying to find new pictures for categories with few pictures. The picture works kinda nicely for a humour photo. At least, if you're a photographer, you might get it :P |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2010 12:17:20 PM · #1947 |
Oh well, didn't make it...
Message edited by author 2010-06-24 12:22:36. |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 01:41:37 PM · #1948 |
Excellent... Now I'm rejected :)
|
|
|
|
06/24/2010 05:36:56 PM · #1949 |
not good enough for 1x... |
|
|
|
06/24/2010 06:02:41 PM · #1950 |
Originally posted by LevT:
not good enough for 1x... |
Did it get any comments?
|
|
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: 07/18/2025 01:17:48 PM EDT.
