DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Photography versus Photographs
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 106, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/02/2011 12:24:26 PM · #51
Originally posted by ubique:

However (and I'm not sure about this example but Don will know) someone like Jackson Pollock very likely could not draw or paint a convincing horse nor do a formal family portrait that the family would care to hang. He'd surely fail most people's Art Skills 101. And yet he created the most sublimely beautiful things, things that we had never seen before and surely will never tire of seeing. But he wasn't neglecting Art Skills 101 because he'd paid his dues painting calendar scenes and family groups, and could now move on to doing 'looser' things: that conventional view of basic skills is simply irrelevant to his work. Might even be counter-productive.


Pollock did have years of study in art school, but he was not technically proficient, had trouble drawing things well. You are correct to contrast him to Picasso.

It's significant that he was a generation or two later than Picasso, when rigorous traditional training was no longer a requirement for an artist. If he had been born earlier he never would have gotten through school, would have been laughed out. But he worked during the blossoming of abstract expressionism, during a period when intense emotional expression and access to the unconscious was highly valued.
 12/02/2011 12:47:23 PM · #52
Originally posted by Neat:
I'd much rather a shot be taken in natural light, than a strobe, prefer black and white to colour ...

I find this interesting because, unless you have a very rare form of color-blindness or are a vampire (only active during the night-time hours), it is very UN-natural to see things in black and white ...
 12/02/2011 01:24:51 PM · #53
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ubique:

However (and I'm not sure about this example but Don will know) someone like Jackson Pollock very likely could not draw or paint a convincing horse nor do a formal family portrait that the family would care to hang. He'd surely fail most people's Art Skills 101. And yet he created the most sublimely beautiful things, things that we had never seen before and surely will never tire of seeing. But he wasn't neglecting Art Skills 101 because he'd paid his dues painting calendar scenes and family groups, and could now move on to doing 'looser' things: that conventional view of basic skills is simply irrelevant to his work. Might even be counter-productive.


Pollock did have years of study in art school, but he was not technically proficient, had trouble drawing things well. You are correct to contrast him to Picasso.

It's significant that he was a generation or two later than Picasso, when rigorous traditional training was no longer a requirement for an artist. If he had been born earlier he never would have gotten through school, would have been laughed out. But he worked during the blossoming of abstract expressionism, during a period when intense emotional expression and access to the unconscious was highly valued.


all true. But I would argue that his use of drip paint was not random, it was a technique. A new technique that he had to invent to express himself on canvas. It was very deliberate. And his use of colors, lines, and forms - maybe he was a bad drawer, but I am sure his years at art school were not wasted.

...Pollock is one of my all-time favorites, here is the proof :)
12/02/2011 05:23:01 PM · #54
I agree, Lev. Pollock did distance himself from the earlier generation of Surrealists and their randomizing techniques. He wanted full credit for every drip and spatter.

But he was not intellectual about why he did things. It was all about the feeling of the piece.
 12/02/2011 05:24:36 PM · #55
p.s. I don't want to underestimate Pollock's drawing skill. He drew better than most people, just didn't excel.
 12/02/2011 06:06:21 PM · #56
I just looked through this thread, and while I appreciate the conversation has moved on, I would like to raise a point:

I continually see these threads about how different this or that person votes, how they appreciate the blurry, the more "artistic", and vote down the cliché, tak sharp, stock photos. And indeed, that is your entitlement, I have no problem how anyone votes, buy why persist with DPC?

Why stick around a community that favours the sharp, values the colourful and adores the stock? Why not spend your time on another site where people share your interest in the more abstract type of work?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting anyone leaves, I'm just wondering why they stay, and then spend time proclaiming how different they are and how dull they find most of the photos here.
12/02/2011 06:11:51 PM · #57
Originally posted by posthumous:
I agree, Lev. Pollock did distance himself from the earlier generation of Surrealists and their randomizing techniques. He wanted full credit for every drip and spatter.

But he was not intellectual about why he did things. It was all about the feeling of the piece.


What I find most striking about Pollock--and what makes his work unique--is that his spatters are not random; there's a strong internal order to his at-first-glance wild splashes on canvas. His works exhibit a fractal-like quality of self-similarity down to a remarkably low scale.

If you take the balance of colors (or darks and lights) of a Pollock piece on the whole and make that a ratio--say, 40% black, 20% white, 40% red--you can zoom in remarkably far (that is, take a remarkably small crop) at the same aspect ratio, and the balance of colors remains the same.

There was a fascinating article in Scientific American about Pollock several years ago that explained this self-similarity in his work. It also pointed out that the easiest way to distinguish fakes is to analyze their degree of self-similarity, and fakes simply never achieve what Pollock did.

I did a Google search with terms [scientific american article pollock self similarity fractal], which turns up some interesting stuff, but a quick look didn't reveal the article I remember reading.
 12/02/2011 06:18:53 PM · #58
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
Why stick around a community that favours the sharp, values the colourful and adores the stock? Why not spend your time on another site where people share your interest in the more abstract type of work?

I hope it's because they do find enough like-minded individuals who share their vision, and they do have some altruistic sense that encourages them to share their vision with those of us who are willing to be interested, and *do* learn to see what it is they see in their work.

They also help create a balance, such that there isn't a stale, cookie-cutter style, that over time could become downright boring. Hey, this thread has certainly become lively, and provoked thought and participation......mission accomplished, eh? LOL!!!
 12/02/2011 06:30:14 PM · #59
Originally posted by LevT:
Photography (especially street photography, if you agree that it is an art form) is an interesting special case, because the photographer does not have full control over his "artwork", he is to a large degree at the mercy of chance, moreover, random stuff within the frame almost invariably makes the photo more engaging.

It is indeed an art form, especially in the sense that it's the visceral impact on the photog at that special, precise instant that a great image is captured. That's something that is a gift in itself, and to be able to capture that is the thing about good street photogs that appeals to me.

Originally posted by LevT:
Still, a photographer's ability to see, anticipate, and capture the "decisive moment" in the strongest way is an acquired technical skill.

I'd also have to say that though experience, as in regards to being in a good place for a type of shot, and good skills with your camera and settings are a definite edge, there's also something to be said for the type of innate talent that good street photogs have.......in that vein I mean being almost prescient about being in the right place at the right time. That's something that can't be taught, or learned for the most part.
 12/02/2011 06:34:59 PM · #60
Originally posted by mycelium:
I did a Google search with terms [scientific american article pollock self similarity fractal], which turns up some interesting stuff, but a quick look didn't reveal the article I remember reading.


How about this? Discover Magazine on Pollock and fractals, 2001

R.

ETA: New Scientist talks anbout the forgery-revealing aspect, but you have to register to read the whole article, which I did not.

Message edited by author 2011-12-02 19:12:49.
 12/02/2011 07:09:32 PM · #61
Originally posted by posthumous:

Don't forget, however, that there is already a pressure on this site to give up your "inner vision" and go along with the pack.

Is there? You feel this pressure?
 12/02/2011 07:49:30 PM · #62
Originally posted by posthumous:
Don't forget, however, that there is already a pressure on this site to give up your "inner vision" and go along with the pack.

Originally posted by bohemka:
Is there? You feel this pressure?

Not bloody likely...

Don doesn't march to the beat of a different drummer...he *is* the different drummer!
 12/02/2011 10:18:59 PM · #63
This is directed at Paul, and I'm afraid that it might come off sounding a little sarcastic. I'm not trying to be. I really liked the post, but I wish you could take it to the next level.

I found your original post fascinating, extremely useful, and then completely and totally useless.

Simply because I don't know your vote.

This is the type of feedback that I would love to have. I know that my style, subjects, processing, are not your taste. But it's what I love to do. But I agree completely that "normal" pictures--even extremely nicely done pictures--can be without consequence.

I started DPC with the desire to learn how to get better. According to voting, I've gotten better, but according to what I was looking for, I'm not sure I have. I thought that my main desire was to figure out how to be more creative. I still really want to learn that. But it's not me. Nature photography is me. But how can I take my "normal" pictures and come up with something of consequence?

You actually did like one of my pictures, once. I remember getting a comment from you. But I would find it useful to know if my stuff is a 3 or a 5. And if it's a 5, is it possible to take that 5 and turn it to something else within the limitations of my genre: nature photography. Or can that only be done with extremely lucky captures or unnatural setups?

I'm very glad that there are people with different visions here. But since there are, I would like to learn from them. If they keep silent by only issuing an anonymous vote, then I learn nothing. If there were comments, I could probably learn a lot.
 12/02/2011 10:36:04 PM · #64
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Don't forget, however, that there is already a pressure on this site to give up your "inner vision" and go along with the pack.

Originally posted by bohemka:
Is there? You feel this pressure?

Not bloody likely...

Don doesn't march to the beat of a different drummer...he *is* the different drummer!


You're too kind, Jeb. I feel the pressure. I enjoy the validation of a high score.

12/02/2011 10:45:20 PM · #65
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
I just looked through this thread, and while I appreciate the conversation has moved on, I would like to raise a point:

I continually see these threads about how different this or that person votes, how they appreciate the blurry, the more "artistic", and vote down the cliché, tak sharp, stock photos. And indeed, that is your entitlement, I have no problem how anyone votes, buy why persist with DPC?

Why stick around a community that favours the sharp, values the colourful and adores the stock? Why not spend your time on another site where people share your interest in the more abstract type of work?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting anyone leaves, I'm just wondering why they stay, and then spend time proclaiming how different they are and how dull they find most of the photos here.


I don't know if I'm one of the straw men you're referring to, but I don't see how my voting experience is significantly different than anyone else's. In (almost) every challenge I see a handful of photos that I really love and give the highest scores to. Why should I run away from the site just because my picks don't get high average scores? I enjoy letting those photographers know that I appreciated their work.

I get a lot of love from this site, even though I don't hold majority opinions. Imagine that!
 12/02/2011 10:59:23 PM · #66
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm very glad that there are people with different visions here. But since there are, I would like to learn from them. If they keep silent by only issuing an anonymous vote, then I learn nothing. If there were comments, I could probably learn a lot.


Why should the comment box fulfill any level of expectation regarding anyone's education?

Why is the comment box considered the "instruction" box?

Message edited by author 2011-12-02 23:39:07.
 12/02/2011 11:54:59 PM · #67
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
I just looked through this thread, and while I appreciate the conversation has moved on, I would like to raise a point:

I continually see these threads about how different this or that person votes, how they appreciate the blurry, the more "artistic", and vote down the cliché, tak sharp, stock photos. And indeed, that is your entitlement, I have no problem how anyone votes, buy why persist with DPC?

Why stick around a community that favours the sharp, values the colourful and adores the stock? Why not spend your time on another site where people share your interest in the more abstract type of work?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting anyone leaves, I'm just wondering why they stay, and then spend time proclaiming how different they are and how dull they find most of the photos here.


The short answer is that most things are advanced – are animated – by tension, not by consensus. A thing, a movement, a community, is always better for having some ragged edges.

I don't want to be somewhere where everyone shares my views, because then my views would never change. Besides, most 'artistic' types are boring wankers, and a room filled with them, to the exclusion of all others, would be intolerable. DPC is much nicer.

12/03/2011 12:25:11 AM · #68
ah groucho. I don't want to join a club that would admit me as a member.
 12/03/2011 12:27:04 AM · #69
Originally posted by vawendy:
This is directed at Paul, and I'm afraid that it might come off sounding a little sarcastic. I'm not trying to be. I really liked the post, but I wish you could take it to the next level.

I found your original post fascinating, extremely useful, and then completely and totally useless.

Simply because I don't know your vote.

This is the type of feedback that I would love to have. I know that my style, subjects, processing, are not your taste. But it's what I love to do. But I agree completely that "normal" pictures--even extremely nicely done pictures--can be without consequence.

I started DPC with the desire to learn how to get better. According to voting, I've gotten better, but according to what I was looking for, I'm not sure I have. I thought that my main desire was to figure out how to be more creative. I still really want to learn that. But it's not me. Nature photography is me. But how can I take my "normal" pictures and come up with something of consequence?

You actually did like one of my pictures, once. I remember getting a comment from you. But I would find it useful to know if my stuff is a 3 or a 5. And if it's a 5, is it possible to take that 5 and turn it to something else within the limitations of my genre: nature photography. Or can that only be done with extremely lucky captures or unnatural setups?

I'm very glad that there are people with different visions here. But since there are, I would like to learn from them. If they keep silent by only issuing an anonymous vote, then I learn nothing. If there were comments, I could probably learn a lot.


I'm struggling to know how to pick up this very sensible gauntlet you've thrown down, Wendy.

I don't believe I could teach anybody anything worth knowing about photography. I know hardly anything at all about it. So in terms of practical advice, I've got nothing. Really.

I never look at a picture and think, "This would be better if 'this' or 'that' was different, or closer, or absent, or sharper, or blurrier, or whatever". Firstly because I really wouldn't know anyway, and secondly because I'm appreciating and judging the photograph that's there in front of me, and not some imaginary photograph that I think I'd prefer to have seen instead.

And anyway, following any advice I did give by way of a comment would by definition be a retrograde step. My highest picks in voting very seldom do very well in the overall challenge results. The Surgeon-General warns that listening to Paul's opinions is seriously injurious to your scores.

But, I'd be mad enough to accept your challenge anyway I guess, at least as a test for both of us. Nominate one challenge, encourage those interested in my comments to begin their entry title with a hash mark, and I'll promise to comment on every hashed entry (pun not intended) including the score I gave it and my reasoning. After that I suppose I'll have to find another site or do a "Rose" and re-join DPC under another name.

Finally, just to reiterate: I am quite serious when I say that my comments on anything other than my 7s and above will be useful to nobody. If someone was rash enough to want to incorporate pleasing me into their photographic goals, they'd do far better considering my comments on the pictures I like, rather than those I don't. But it's a poisoned chalice.
 12/03/2011 12:29:19 AM · #70
Originally posted by ubique:
I don't want to be somewhere where everyone shares my views, because then my views would never change. Besides, most 'artistic' types are boring wankers, and a room filled with them, to the exclusion of all others, would be intolerable. DPC is much nicer.


Amen to that!

R.
 12/03/2011 12:46:36 AM · #71
I prefer posting to Facebook these days. By comparison, I'm pretty good there. People are kinda impressed sometimes. They tell me I must have a really good camera.

Other than that, though, photography is depressing me a lot lately. Well, not YOUR photography - just mine. I still enjoy visting here, voting, and commenting. So I guess I'll stay a bit longer.

But if anyone finds a site which celebrates the lowly snapshot, please do let me know!

Message edited by author 2011-12-03 00:47:05.
 12/03/2011 12:49:30 AM · #72
I've read thoughtfully all the comments here and have come up with one conclusion. We all see things differently, and no matter how much we wish we could get someone to see things the same way as we do it's never going to happen. Vice versa is true we can never really see something the way someone else does. Not that we can't try, but really, I will always look at a photograph with a technical mind I can't help it. Technical perfection speaks to me it is beautiful to me it is art to me. Obviously Paul looks at things through more of an emotional eye, forget technical perfection, does it speak to him. Something I might give a 3 or 4 to is speaks to him, is beautiful to him and is art. I don't know if him explaining why he gave me a 3 on one of my images is going to be particularly helpful to me because my first instinct would be to defend what I think is beautiful. I think the same would be true of me explaining why I gave a blurry grainy photo a 3. I could explain that it is blurry and I can't see what they were trying to do, and that it doesn't fit the challenge, but how does that help them? I think it is why groups of like minded photographers group themselves together, then they can get the feedback they are really desiring.

Honestly I don't care too much about the 1 and 3's I get on an image anymore, it used to bend me all out of shape but now honestly I don't even notice them unless someone points them out. I turned off my vote tracker many months ago and haven't missed it (sorry Niall) and I tend to ignore the 5 and under votes and look more at how many 6 and above votes I got. That tells me more about how I did than stressing about a handful of low votes. Honestly I think it's the 5 votes that bother my the most.
 12/03/2011 05:55:33 AM · #73
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm very glad that there are people with different visions here. But since there are, I would like to learn from them. If they keep silent by only issuing an anonymous vote, then I learn nothing. If there were comments, I could probably learn a lot.

Originally posted by hihosilver:
Why should the comment box fulfill any level of expectation regarding anyone's education?

Why is the comment box considered the "instruction" box?

I don't get that, either.....

I want comments that state what the commenter saw and felt. All too often, I get comments regarding, "You should", and I didn't on purpose, or "Didn't like your use of layers", and again, I didn't. Don't tell me how to "fix" my image......tell me what you thought and felt when it popped up on the screen in front of you....
 12/03/2011 06:10:44 AM · #74
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't know if I'm one of the straw men you're referring to, but I don't see how my voting experience is significantly different than anyone else's. In (almost) every challenge I see a handful of photos that I really love and give the highest scores to. Why should I run away from the site just because my picks don't get high average scores? I enjoy letting those photographers know that I appreciated their work.

I get a lot of love from this site, even though I don't hold majority opinions. Imagine that!


You had crossed my mind when I was writing the post :) ,however I wasn't suggesting you run away, or leave in any fashion. In fact, I enjoy your opinions and the other alternative views expressed around here, ESPECIALLY since they often differ from my own. How would we ever expand our horizons when we are only subjected to what we already know and like.

But when I try and look at it from your side (and those with similar viewpoints), it seems to me that you have already decided that you don't like or agree with most of what is presented to you here, so you don't have the same opportunity.

You and Paul have however answered my orignal question, this post was merely to elaborate on it as I see how you could perceive it as ill intended.
 12/03/2011 06:30:04 AM · #75
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm very glad that there are people with different visions here. But since there are, I would like to learn from them. If they keep silent by only issuing an anonymous vote, then I learn nothing. If there were comments, I could probably learn a lot.

Originally posted by hihosilver:
Why should the comment box fulfill any level of expectation regarding anyone's education?

Why is the comment box considered the "instruction" box?

I don't get that, either.....

I want comments that state what the commenter saw and felt. All too often, I get comments regarding, "You should", and I didn't on purpose, or "Didn't like your use of layers", and again, I didn't. Don't tell me how to "fix" my image......tell me what you thought and felt when it popped up on the screen in front of you....


I want to respond to Paul's longer post, but I have to run, so quick response on this one, longer one later. :)

As far as comments go, they are an instructional tool. You have very clearly stated your voting criteria, and it intrigues me. Many times I look at my photos and love them. But when I look later, they seem to fall into the "normal -- of no consequence" category. But I don't quite know why. Your voting pattern is the feedback for which I'm looking. I'd like to know which of my photographs actually inspire an emotional response, not just technical quality. I'm not getting that information from the voting.

I'm not saying that I'll agree with your reaction, I'll probably think: "What in the world is he thinking!!??" But I'm part of DPC because I want to not just please myself, but I seriously want to create things that resonate with people. Any feedback that helps that process is greatly appreciated.

There seems to be many people who think that mentoring, feedback from others, etc., is a bad idea, because then you're not finding your own vision, you're using someone else's. Perhaps that's true if you have an artistic background. However, I don't. I wouldn't know a pollock work if it bit me. I had never heard of Weston, I could probably name 10 pieces of art, and that's about it. Coming up with your own vision without knowledge of what's possible leaves a lot of holes. I think the best way of coming up with your vision is to gather as much information as possible -- look at other things, figure out what you like and don't like, learn all you can, and then craft your own ideals.

Then I'll come up with things that please me.

But if I want to make an impact with someone other than myself, why wouldn't I want to collect information about what touches others? All comments are useful. Technical ones -- the "how to fix my image" I find very helpful, because I'm still learning photoshop. Emotional responses are helpful because I can get an idea of what types of things really reach people. Even if someone just puts "3" in the comment box allows me to look at that person's profile, figure out what types of things intrigue him/her, and get an idea of why, perhaps, they don't like the photo. An anonymous vote tells me nothing. Is it just a troll trying to lower my score (yes, I do believe in trolls. :), or is it a serious vote?

I learn from (almost) every comment I receive.

(If this is the short answer, you should be worried about my long answer to the other posts :)

Message edited by author 2011-12-03 06:32:49.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 07:44:39 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/04/2025 07:44:39 AM EDT.