| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2011 07:59:23 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I was hired to do some family portraits in a client's back yard. I spent the time ignoring the family, and photographing a butterfly in their garden instead.
When I gave them the prints of the butterfly, they refused to pay.
Absurd and presumptuous. An inexcusable, myopic vanity. |
LIKE |
+1 |
|
|
|
10/27/2011 08:00:31 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Yawwwwn. How about let voters vote the way they see fit and you (collective you) present images the way you see fit and let the chips fall where they may. If the topic is irrelevant to you, stick with just entering free studies. Think of the irony of calling people out as "myopically vain" because they don't agree with your opinion on the importance of the topic relevance. |
...and another +1! |
|
|
|
10/27/2011 08:24:09 PM · #78 |
There are basically three ways of approaching a challenge topic:
1. You can tackle it head-on. This is the "approved" approach, and virtually all the "winners" approach the challenge this way.
2. You can ignore the topic, not even paying it lip service, and go your merry way. These entries will get hammered.
3. You can come at the topic obliquely, make a sneak attack on it, as it were. For some of us, that's "creativity". For others of us, that's "shoehorning". I don't like the term, myself, because I think it's unfairly applied and it has wildly negative connotations. A lot of the time, people who call a particular image "shoehorned" are just telegraphing to the community that they haven't taken the time to understand the artist's approach to the challenge.
Look, I fully accept that the oblique, tangential approach is rarely going to generate high scores. There's no way it CAN generate consistently high scores. But I think it's horrible when people dismiss this sort of work out of hand because it's not *obvious* enough. You miss out on so much interesting input if you go through life like that :-(
R.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2011 08:52:00 PM · #79 |
I give credit for even the faintest challenge connection and to me it's a checkbox kinda thing. If I can't check that box, the voting scale switches to 1 - 5 and I rate the image on it's merits that way. But again, everyone sees things differently and that is more than ok by me.
Message edited by author 2011-10-27 20:52:23. |
|
|
|
10/27/2011 08:58:29 PM · #80 |
| This thread itself shows how much a bland and restrictive term, DNMC, can and is interpreted intelligently, artistically, logically, comically, critically, dogmatically, etc ad nauseam. Everyone accepts each of us has a differing slant, so why not apply that to our voting. We are all photographers that distinguish ourselves as those peculiar and particular people who can *see* and *interpret* more what non photographers do. We amaze and or horrify each other, as photographers, with different perspectives of similar subjects and objects, so why not apply that to our voting. Don't allow liturgy and lethargy rule, otherwise this will just be a stock photo site. |
|
|
|
10/27/2011 09:00:46 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I was hired to do some family portraits in a client's back yard. I spent the time ignoring the family, and photographing a butterfly in their garden instead.
When I gave them the prints of the butterfly, they refused to pay.
Absurd and presumptuous. An inexcusable, myopic vanity. |
LIKE |
+1 |
Oh!!! Hold on!!! They saw the light!!! They get it!!! They're going to pay me ten times my fee!!!
Oh f*** off dumbass, just kidding.
Message edited by Manic - edited for language, keep it clean please. |
|
|
|
10/27/2011 09:02:42 PM · #82 |
bear wrote
"Look, I fully accept that the oblique, tangential approach is rarely going to generate high scores. There's no way it CAN generate consistently high scores. But I think it's horrible when people dismiss this sort of work out of hand because it's not *obvious* enough. You miss out on so much interesting input if you go through life like that :-( "
yes. |
|
|
|
10/27/2011 09:04:09 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by tnun:
bear wrote
"Look, I fully accept that the oblique, tangential approach is rarely going to generate high scores. There's no way it CAN generate consistently high scores. But I think it's horrible when people dismiss this sort of work out of hand because it's not *obvious* enough. You miss out on so much interesting input if you go through life like that :-( "
yes. |
He is so deep, he just hit Narnia.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2011 09:47:11 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by tnun:
bear wrote
"Look, I fully accept that the oblique, tangential approach is rarely going to generate high scores. There's no way it CAN generate consistently high scores. But I think it's horrible when people dismiss this sort of work out of hand because it's not *obvious* enough. You miss out on so much interesting input if you go through life like that :-( "
yes. |
He is so deep, he just hit Narnia. |
Is that the same as "nadir"?
R.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2011 11:11:16 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are basically three ways of approaching a challenge topic:
1. You can tackle it head-on. This is the "approved" approach, and virtually all the "winners" approach the challenge this way.
2. You can ignore the topic, not even paying it lip service, and go your merry way. These entries will get hammered.
3. You can come at the topic obliquely, make a sneak attack on it, as it were.... |
4. You can shoot the exact opposite of the topic and still run away with the blue ribbon out of sheer awesomeness. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 12:19:38 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
1. You can tackle it head-on. This is the "approved" approach, and virtually all the "winners" approach the challenge this way. |
Having lived in the box myself a few times, there are few more frustrating experiences than coming up with what you thought was a great idea, and on rollover finding out that there are six other people who had the same idea. It means that you will get a week of comments that consist of "how un-original, there are six others just like this, and I like theirs better". Well it was original before I saw the other six! IMHO the in the box shots fill up the lower half of the front page, and a good part of the second page, the ribbons are often on the edge of the box. If you are too far on the opposite side of the DNMC, you get dinged too. |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 12:38:40 AM · #87 |
[quote=BrennanOB]
.... the ribbons are often on the edge of the box.
This is the big thing. It's a balancing act, sometimes a very fine line between original/creative and DNMC. I always try to see and appreciate the out-of-box shots. But often no matter how hard I try I can't see a connection to the challenge. I don't think that every challenge should be a free study, so if I can't connect an image to the challenge - in spite of thought and consideration - then I give a lower vote.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2011 06:12:20 AM · #88 |
Well, that seems to be about it for this thread (this time around).
Thank you all for the thoughtful contributions. One set of usual suspects said what they usually say; another set of usual suspects said what they usually say; and a just a few others dipped an inquisitive toe into both pools. Some (Art, the General, kirbic) counseled the common sense KISS approach as usual. A few folks said nothing at all (also, alas, as usual). Yanko yanko'ed, and long may he do so. And Slippy provided, again as usual, the comic punctuation marks in Zapf Dingbats (without which the site would be much diminished).
The question of challenge topicality & relevance remains, as it should, unresolved. So many things are best advanced by being terminally unresolved!
But my own view remains unchanged. The categorical pronouncement via a comment of 'DNMC' is like dealing with a foreign culture by shouting very slowly in your own native language. I've been lucky enough to experience quite a few foreign cultures at first hand, and it's my experience that shouting very slowly never seems to really advance understanding and mutual regard. It only seems that way to the undiscriminating interlocutor.
But the thread has prompted me to renew my membership, and I thank you all (incl Slippy) for that as well.
Cheers! |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 06:57:57 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by tnun:
bear wrote
"Look, I fully accept that the oblique, tangential approach is rarely going to generate high scores. There's no way it CAN generate consistently high scores. But I think it's horrible when people dismiss this sort of work out of hand because it's not *obvious* enough. You miss out on so much interesting input if you go through life like that :-( "
yes. |
He is so deep, he just hit Narnia. |
Is that the same as "nadir"?
R. |
Nadir has lawyers. It's better to take your frustrations out on Narnia. |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 06:58:20 AM · #90 |
| Announcement: Slippy has been promoted to Minister of Retention. |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 07:29:04 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by ubique:
But the thread has prompted me to renew my membership... |
Great news! My morning just got better. And might I further recommend the Ubique Reading Club (private joke). |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 08:31:42 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Yawwwwn. How about let voters vote the way they see fit and you (collective you) present images the way you see fit and let the chips fall where they may. If the topic is irrelevant to you, stick with just entering free studies. Think of the irony of calling people out as "myopically vain" because they don't agree with your opinion on the importance of the topic relevance. |
Agree 100% with Ken's observation
|
|
|
|
10/28/2011 08:53:24 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Announcement: Slippy has been promoted to Minister of Retention. |
The wife calls me retentive, so it must be true.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2011 08:55:26 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by ubique:
But the thread has prompted me to renew my membership, and I thank you all (incl Slippy) for that as well. |
Good to know you are sticking around. I don't think horse is dead yet, however. We need some more bullets. A machine gun might actually be needed for this one.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2011 10:23:22 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by ubique:
But my own view remains unchanged. The categorical pronouncement via a comment of 'DNMC' is like dealing with a foreign culture by shouting very slowly in your own native language. I've been lucky enough to experience quite a few foreign cultures at first hand, and it's my experience that shouting very slowly never seems to really advance understanding and mutual regard. It only seems that way to the undiscriminating interlocutor. |
The paragraph of the year! Gotta love this man, don'tcha? I know I do. Paul, I'm glad you're hanging around after all :-) We wouldn't be as rich without you.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2011 10:40:13 AM · #96 |
| What this site needs is a 'DNMC Challenge' to get it all out of our systems. |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 10:45:39 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by ubique:
But the thread has prompted me to renew my membership, and I thank you all (incl Slippy) for that as well.
Cheers! |
Terrific! I owe Slippy a drink! And I won't spit in it this time. |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 11:06:56 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by acg83:
What this site needs is a 'DNMC Challenge' to get it all out of our systems. |
That would have to be "DNMC II" DNMC Challenge
|
|
|
|
10/28/2011 11:47:38 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by ubique:
But the thread has prompted me to renew my membership, and I thank you all (incl Slippy) for that as well.
Cheers! |
Sensing a cat among the pigeons...
::promptly faints::
The best of news, Paul...::beams:: |
|
|
|
10/28/2011 11:56:17 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a bat.
I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.
I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs here penalized for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate. If I consider the photo remarkable (artistically interesting), I may just decide to award the highest mark possible in the faint hope to compensate for a predictably overall devaluation. |
Simple things I have enjoyed-exploring a theme and seeing if people who can find in your work, the intuitive impulse, the creative surge.
I don't find this discussion to be unique to this site...the concept of feeding the masses vs the imagination.
My daughter recently handed in a picture she drew, the teacher handed it back telling her to redo the sky because she had put shades of purple in it. She told my daughter"everyone knows the sky is blue". I asked my daughter what she thought, and she said "I see lots of colours in the sky, but I knew what she wanted so I did it her way."
She continues to colour her skies with beautiful hues, her landscapes with delightful surprises. I am so proud she is able to be herself. |
|
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: 07/28/2025 06:10:19 AM EDT.
