| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2004 11:10:46 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Olympian:
I totally agree with you on this one coolhar! One of the best technical shots of a dandilion I've seen. Just gorgeous to look at. Well done!
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think ellamay's Just Dandy is underrated, it's far better than scrap.
She's my choice for Dandy Queen! |
|
To me this photo looks way to fake. Like they used neatimage. I don't like it.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:27:32 AM · #77 |
| I think this thread might provide an impetus to further refine this site. As was said, there are different types of photography: stock, fine art, photojournalism, etc. I think what would be really interesting (if practical) would be to start issuing challenges based on types of photography, so that those who would like to go into photojournalism could practice their craft and be judged among other photos of the same ilk, rather than against 50 that might be considered stock, 30 that might be considered fine art, etc. This might be more advantageous to us as developing photographers than say a banana challenge (although food photography is a perfectly viable niche). This may also curb the complaints (and inherent apples vs. oranges flaw) of fine art vs. pop being voted on in the same challenge. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:32:04 AM · #78 |
Actually this was probably achieved with a wide open aperture and/or zoom. With good bokeh on your lens you can achieve this blurred background without the need for NI, and with it being shot at ISO100, you have little noise to begin with.
-danny
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by Olympian:
I totally agree with you on this one coolhar! One of the best technical shots of a dandilion I've seen. Just gorgeous to look at. Well done!
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think ellamay's Just Dandy is underrated, it's far better than scrap.
She's my choice for Dandy Queen! |
|
To me this photo looks way to fake. Like they used neatimage. I don't like it. |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:34:38 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by matiscro:
I think this thread might provide an impetus to further refine this site. As was said, there are different types of photography: stock, fine art, photojournalism, etc. I think what would be really interesting (if practical) would be to start issuing challenges based on types of photography, so that those who would like to go into photojournalism could practice their craft and be judged among other photos of the same ilk, rather than against 50 that might be considered stock, 30 that might be considered fine art, etc. This might be more advantageous to us as developing photographers than say a banana challenge (although food photography is a perfectly viable niche). This may also curb the complaints (and inherent apples vs. oranges flaw) of fine art vs. pop being voted on in the same challenge. |
those have all been challenge topics in the past. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:37:36 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by melismatica:
A lot of digital photography buffs seem to favor photos like those wretched duotone images. I think that's the term for the desaturated images with one area of color left in--- cheesy no matter how skillfully it is done. |
Well said, and I agree. I think that selective desaturation and grayscale conversion are overused and overrated techniques. In my opinion, a lot of it is due to amateurs thinking that it will magically turn their boring, lackluster photo into a work of art. Don’t get me wrong, there are many black and white photographs that I would consider great works of art, but I also believe that many of those same photos would have been just as good, if not better, had they been in color. Many of those great works are black and white simply because that was all there was at the time.
I also think that desaturation or grayscale conversion can sometimes make a bad photo somewhat better by removing unfortunate color rendition problems. I recently edited a photo that I think looks somewhat better without color. It was a first for me. However, it was a bad photo to start with. It still is a bad photo; it’s just not quite as bad as the color version. :)
BTW, I hope that you decide to stick around for a while.
--Mick |
I don't know - I kinda like selective desaturation.
Yes, sometimes it's tiresome to see yet another picture that uses that technique, just as it is tiresome to see another toned picture, or another photo of a flag, or another insect. When you get to look at so many pictures all the time (like in the challenges here) you will get tired. But there also are good selective desaturation pictures, good flag, insect, and toned pictures, and I think it's silly to point out one technique or one topic as being particularily "cheesy", amateurish, or overused.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:45:49 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by matiscro:
I think this thread might provide an impetus to further refine this site. As was said, there are different types of photography: stock, fine art, photojournalism, etc. I think what would be really interesting (if practical) would be to start issuing challenges based on types of photography, so that those who would like to go into photojournalism could practice their craft and be judged among other photos of the same ilk, rather than against 50 that might be considered stock, 30 that might be considered fine art, etc. This might be more advantageous to us as developing photographers than say a banana challenge (although food photography is a perfectly viable niche). This may also curb the complaints (and inherent apples vs. oranges flaw) of fine art vs. pop being voted on in the same challenge. |
There are sites that cater to particular styles and embrace those specific images and shun the rest. Here you get a mix of everything and there are specific challenges every so often that cater to a particular style or technique. Unless you are a seasoned pro you have unlikely tried every style and technique and found your niche and so challenges that force you to try something different can be beneficial if you then find out you both enjoy and are good at it.
What it boils down to is DPC is a photography competition. As photographers you have two choices: 1) you create something you know (or hope) will win based on what has won on DPC in the past, which to some people are cutesy, unimaginative, three year old-looking greeting card garbage. 2) You put all your angst and brooding into a masterpiece of art with hidden meanings that require several years of childhood abuse to see the pyschological drama that you found while studying in Paris with the greatest artistes that you know wont ribbon but then you can rant about the people who do ribbon because they went the path of number 1!
PS. Arent stereotypes and generalisations just great? :P
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:46:23 AM · #82 |
| "Spot color" is very Nineties. Like a border, it almost always mucks up a shot. Anyhow, the "Centered" voting is really a shame. Two frog shots in the top three?!??! Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:47:48 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
A lot of digital photography buffs seem to favor photos like those wretched duotone images. I think that's the term for the desaturated images with one area of color left in--- cheesy no matter how skillfully it is done. |
Actually the "one color left in" thing is probably more properly called selective desaturation. A duotone is simply a tinted B&W image; something like this:
 |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:49:18 AM · #84 |
| I think what's missing from this challenge was a picture of an old chair with a frog on it. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:16:53 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I don't know - I kinda like selective desaturation.
Yes, sometimes it's tiresome to see yet another picture that uses that technique, just as it is tiresome to see another toned picture, or another photo of a flag, or another insect. When you get to look at so many pictures all the time (like in the challenges here) you will get tired. But there also are good selective desaturation pictures, good flag, insect, and toned pictures, and I think it's silly to point out one technique or one topic as being particularily "cheesy", amateurish, or overused.
Just my opinion. |
Silly? Why I auttaâ€Â¦ Do me a favor and spread your index and middle fingers out like you’re making a peace sign, turn them towards your eyes, and push hard until you say “Owwieeeee!” :)
Seriously, do you mean it is silly because there are so many cheesy, amateurish, or overused techniques and/or topics here, and to single out one is unfair, or am I missing your point entirely?
In my opinion, a lot of the fondness for black and white imagery stems from effete snobbishness--the idea that a photo cannot be “true art” if it is not in black and white. To me, that is even sillier.
--Mick
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:25:45 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Silly? Why I auttaâ€Â¦ Do me a favor and spread your index and middle fingers out like you’re making a peace sign, turn them towards your eyes, and push hard until you say “Owwieeeee!” :)
|
THAT HURTS!!! :))
Originally posted by micknewton:
Seriously, do you mean it is silly because there are so many cheesy, amateurish, or overused techniques and/or topics here, and to single out one is unfair, or am I missing your point entirely?
|
YOU GOT MY POINT JUST RIGHT.
Originally posted by micknewton:
In my opinion, a lot of the fondness for black and white imagery stems from effete snobbishness--the idea that a photo cannot be “true art” if it is not in black and white. To me, that is even sillier.
--Mick |
I TEND TO AGREE.
I didn't know the word "effete", I had to look it up. I LIKE THAT WORD!!! Very useful.
Ursula
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:28:05 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by boomer:
I think what's missing from this challenge was a picture of an old chair with a frog on it. |
HAHAHA. a little levity is just what this thread needs!!! (thank you!)
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:30:43 PM · #88 |
WOw i had no idea my shot was part of a thread. Thanks to those of you who did like it, and I did not use hardly any post processing, cropped to make square, sharpened, adjusted contrast a lil, resized. I was happy with my shot because it caused ME to see something in a simple weed I would not of without my camera. The moisture of the seeds for one, the fine-ness of the flight makers. I do see my shot as something 'revealing something' (hopefully intricacies) yet, I agree with many here, I find this time of macro 'easy' to do with time and patience and the right equipment. It is the kind of 'seeing' I am good at.
I have a much harder time 'seeing' 'scrap' as art. Yet it would of been my choice for blue. It is edgy, artsy, tells a story, stands out to me as having history. One of the few shots where I have liked the post processing and felt it added to the shot. I feel it has emotion and feeling of a history. My shot is more an awe of creation. Both have their place. They are just different, and that is the beauty of the lens can communicate many things. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:35:42 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by drgsoell:
I thought this one would do better. I love how the focus and editing make it look like a toy tree, crisp and clear against the soft focus background. One of my top choices.
drg |
I should like to second this opinion. One of the most subtle photos on the whole site, IMO.
Interesting to note two separate thoughts of 'sad, but true' attached to the american flag shot.
Ed
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:37:54 PM · #90 |
| i liked the tree shot, I didnt score it REALLY high, because IMO the sky is too white and a distraction, perhaps a UV filter would have warmed it up a little. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:48:24 PM · #91 |
Maybe this is clearer: A macro records an existing creationand its beauty.
An 'artsy' shot creates its own beauty where it may or may not have been |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 12:48:48 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by daisy77:
Originally posted by boomer:
I think what's missing from this challenge was a picture of an old chair with a frog on it. |
HAHAHA. a little levity is just what this thread needs!!! (thank you!) |
Agreed! Humor please!
But perhaps some people would be happier with a picture of an old frog with a chair on it! |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:24:19 PM · #93 |
I was going to write a long opinion on "scrap", but after reading this thread I have decided to comment on the "Community" instead.
If the photographers on dpchallenge are to grow, they need input from critics/teachers/editors as well as from the general public. We can clearly see comments from everybody, but I think it would help to add a statistic for Average Vote per Critics. In this case Critics could be people in the critique club, which would make implementation relatively simple.
The goal is to give dpchallenges one more perspective on their entries.
I posted to Web Site Suggestions, here.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:26:14 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
In my opinion, a lot of the fondness for black and white imagery stems from effete snobbishness--the idea that a photo cannot be “true art” if it is not in black and white. To me, that is even sillier.
--Mick |
I understand what your saying and agree with it wholeheartedly.
However, I do feel that if by converting your image you give it more impact..then that`s a different matter.
I decided to desaturate my "Four elements" submission for that very reason.The effect I wanted to convey (floating on air)was much more powerfully rendered in B/W.
My "Centred" submission (Camouflaged)was desaturated to enhance the "camouflage" effect of the Black and white cow standing in the doorway of an old building.
In each case there was no intention to make the images appear "arty" or to appeal to voters of that persuasion..just simply to try to increase the impact of the image.
Gordon |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:31:06 PM · #95 |
LOL!! awesome ... well put
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by matiscro:
I think this thread might provide an impetus to further refine this site. As was said, there are different types of photography: stock, fine art, photojournalism, etc. I think what would be really interesting (if practical) would be to start issuing challenges based on types of photography, so that those who would like to go into photojournalism could practice their craft and be judged among other photos of the same ilk, rather than against 50 that might be considered stock, 30 that might be considered fine art, etc. This might be more advantageous to us as developing photographers than say a banana challenge (although food photography is a perfectly viable niche). This may also curb the complaints (and inherent apples vs. oranges flaw) of fine art vs. pop being voted on in the same challenge. |
There are sites that cater to particular styles and embrace those specific images and shun the rest. Here you get a mix of everything and there are specific challenges every so often that cater to a particular style or technique. Unless you are a seasoned pro you have unlikely tried every style and technique and found your niche and so challenges that force you to try something different can be beneficial if you then find out you both enjoy and are good at it.
What it boils down to is DPC is a photography competition. As photographers you have two choices: 1) you create something you know (or hope) will win based on what has won on DPC in the past, which to some people are cutesy, unimaginative, three year old-looking greeting card garbage. 2) You put all your angst and brooding into a masterpiece of art with hidden meanings that require several years of childhood abuse to see the pyschological drama that you found while studying in Paris with the greatest artistes that you know wont ribbon but then you can rant about the people who do ribbon because they went the path of number 1!
PS. Arent stereotypes and generalisations just great? :P |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:55:52 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by hopper:
LOL!! awesome ... well put
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by matiscro:
I think this thread might provide an impetus to further refine this site. As was said, there are different types of photography: stock, fine art, photojournalism, etc. I think what would be really interesting (if practical) would be to start issuing challenges based on types of photography, so that those who would like to go into photojournalism could practice their craft and be judged among other photos of the same ilk, rather than against 50 that might be considered stock, 30 that might be considered fine art, etc. This might be more advantageous to us as developing photographers than say a banana challenge (although food photography is a perfectly viable niche). This may also curb the complaints (and inherent apples vs. oranges flaw) of fine art vs. pop being voted on in the same challenge. |
There are sites that cater to particular styles and embrace those specific images and shun the rest. Here you get a mix of everything and there are specific challenges every so often that cater to a particular style or technique. Unless you are a seasoned pro you have unlikely tried every style and technique and found your niche and so challenges that force you to try something different can be beneficial if you then find out you both enjoy and are good at it.
What it boils down to is DPC is a photography competition. As photographers you have two choices: 1) you create something you know (or hope) will win based on what has won on DPC in the past, which to some people are cutesy, unimaginative, three year old-looking greeting card garbage. 2) You put all your angst and brooding into a masterpiece of art with hidden meanings that require several years of childhood abuse to see the pyschological drama that you found while studying in Paris with the greatest artistes that you know wont ribbon but then you can rant about the people who do ribbon because they went the path of number 1!
PS. Arent stereotypes and generalisations just great? :P |
|
Rats!!!
Now I need to figure out how to go back in time and get my parents to cooperate and give me a bad childhood experience.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:17:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by bobdaveant:
Can anyone tell me why photo receieved 9 - 1 votes, I didnt expect a ribbon, but why all the low scores?
 |
Well...
First the disclaimer that I am not personally responsible for your resultant score -- I simply did not have time to vote in all of the last few challenges.
That said, I would have given this a 5. My reasoning is that while it is in focus and sharp, with primary colors that stand out against a more nuetral background, the flag is not the center of attention. The leading lines of the image lead the eye around the balconies under the flag, while the secondary leading lines, the skylight support, lead the eye to the same place ... but the flag is in the way and becomes nothing more than a distraction in an otherwise well composed shot. This distraction is compounded by the minor technical errors -- the whole thing is slightly tilted and not perfectly symetrical as you do not seem to be standing along the center line of the scene. Composing around these technical problems caused the flag to not be perfectly centered, but while I would have noticed it during voting I would not have counted off specifically for that as it is already accounted for with the lopsidednes of the composition. If you could retake the shot without the flag (and the bright banner just under the flag on the balcony in the back), but make certain you are dead center, the image would be supperb. If you still wanted it as a centered image, get a bit higher before taking it or including the ground may even be better, but it would kill the vaultedness of the ceiling. Having the leading lines in the composition drawing the eye toward the center is much better than just having something bright and colorful there.
Any flag placed there would have likely been a distraction to the scene; sure there are those that vote down anything that to them symbolizes something they disagree with, just as there are those that vote down any image with nudity, but they are in a very small minority so I would not be concerned with them. It is a shame the hung that flag there as it destroys the scene the designers worked so hard to achieve.
David |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 02:34:25 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Rats!!!
Now I need to figure out how to go back in time and get my parents to cooperate and give me a bad childhood experience. |
I was thinking the same think as I read this thread. Maybe I need to become more apathetic about life, society and the state of man in order to apprecitate 'art' -- but then I wouldn't have so much fun taking pictures anymore! :)
---
To the general readers:
I thought this site was for the purpose of learning to take great photos, not necessarily to take a photo that fits within someone elses idea of a genre. The technical aspects of photography that all photography hold in common are sufficiently complex to warrant a site like this. What purpose these technical aspects are put to use toward are, for the most part, irrelevant to the purpose of the site as I understand it.
Oh, and I quite disagree with any statement that the technical aspects of photography are easily learned by a child (not picking on you frumoaznicul as I understand in the translation you were merely trying to indicate its simplicity). But any of the photos posted here can be improved by a more precise understanding and application of these technical aspects. Sure they are the basic tools of the trade, but they make the details, and the details in turn make a masterpiece what it is.
David |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 03:04:36 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
I thought this site was for the purpose of learning to take great photos, not necessarily to take a photo that fits within someone elses idea of a genre. The technical aspects of photography that all photography hold in common are sufficiently complex to warrant a site like this. What purpose these technical aspects are put to use toward are, for the most part, irrelevant to the purpose of the site as I understand it.
Oh, and I quite disagree with any statement that the technical aspects of photography are easily learned by a child (not picking on you frumoaznicul as I understand in the translation you were merely trying to indicate its simplicity). But any of the photos posted here can be improved by a more precise understanding and application of these technical aspects. Sure they are the basic tools of the trade, but they make the details, and the details in turn make a masterpiece what it is.
David |
This post is a masterpiece (standing at my desk clapping) |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 03:39:40 PM · #100 |
Not sure I believe this. I took some shots of some dandilions and they had quite a bit of detail. Neat image tends to smooth the grain but also take some detail with it. I could be wrong though.
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Actually this was probably achieved with a wide open aperture and/or zoom. With good bokeh on your lens you can achieve this blurred background without the need for NI, and with it being shot at ISO100, you have little noise to begin with.
-danny
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by Olympian:
I totally agree with you on this one coolhar! One of the best technical shots of a dandilion I've seen. Just gorgeous to look at. Well done!
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think ellamay's Just Dandy is underrated, it's far better than scrap.
She's my choice for Dandy Queen! |
|
To me this photo looks way to fake. Like they used neatimage. I don't like it. |
|
|
|
