| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2004 11:54:33 PM · #26 |
| The nice thing about those random variables is that they tend to cancel themselves out - there are some people who might rate something higher because they agree with it - but that necessarily means an approximately equal number of people might rate it lower because they disagree with it. I agree that to some extent we should be as impartial as possible with regards to religious or political themes - but at the same time, the most powerful photography should have the capacity to inspire emotion - whether it be faith in a Christian god, another god, a political leader, or the overwhelming beauty of nature, sympathy for a person, or awe of architecture...it's tough to decide where to draw the line...which emotions you are supposed to listen to when voting, and which ones not. I believe that in general, simply conveying that emotion is a good thing in a picture - whether or not a like or agree with the emotion - but at the same time there's a very strong tendency to simply 'vote for something you like'...perhaps not the tendency we should aspire to, but undoubtedly one we have to deal with when hoping to get high votes. :) |
|
|
|
06/02/2004 11:59:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Featured religious symbols, especially familiar Christian paraphernalia, without the support of a prolifererating aesthetic I'd also likely vote low, unless a photographer can perceivably demonstrate an appropiate stance either toward the object in its familiar context or a controversy raised by the image itself. |
I like to substitute {any subject} in the place of {featured religious symbols, without the support of a proliferating aesthetic} in this statement. I would also substitute {specific interest} in the place of {controversy}. |
Which would be fine, if the initiating post had not addressed a very specific topic, i.e. ...how other people felt about religious content in images [emphasis mine].
Surely, I can't be alone in thinking (and feeling) that an image with explicit religious content carries a different charge than a picture of a flower (to use your example) and that the former one connotes a particular 'sensitivity', not a general one.
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 00:24:12.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:18:31 AM · #28 |
| I'm a Christian, but I actually remember voting your image higher than most because of the creative interpretation of the challenge. I LIKE creative interpretations (unlike some people apparently) as long as they are not cheesy or obvious. (However, they can't be totally obscure so I don't get it either.) Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I would never vote an image low or high because I "agreed" or "disagreed" with some of it's content. That's not the point for me. Simply, a) is it a good image? and b) is it a strong and creative interpretation of the theme. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:24:00 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by seanami:
I actually remember voting your image higher than most because of the creative interpretation of the challenge. I LIKE creative interpretations (unlike some people apparently) as long as they are not cheesy or obvious. |
i agree, i voted this decently high because i liked the interpretation of what the challenge was asking for |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:56:19 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Surely, I can't be alone in thinking (and feeling) that an image with explicit religious content carries a different charge than a picture of a flower (to use your example) and that the former one connotes a particular 'sensitivity', not a general one. |
Absolutely correct... I was just making a comparison between your specific criteria and my general one. Subjectivity is highly important. If someone photographs something that can be emotionally stirring, it will likely manipulate the votes, and the manipulation can go either way.
I don't have any preconceived notions about what I do and don't like about certain subjects until I see the photo. When it comes to religion, I am very open minded. I am a Christain, but I accept the fact that my religion is not the only religion. When I see images representing other forms of religion, I look at them and evaluate them as I would any other photograph. If I find it offensive in some way, I generally would not give it a great score. If I found it inspiring in some way, even if it had an agenda pushing some other religion, I would score it well.
The only thing I don't like about religion in general is that there are participants in about every faith that will tell me how my beliefs are wrong. Christians are as guilty of this as anyone. Faith is a personal thing. Trying to change someone's beliefs and faith is not a good thing. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:05:41 AM · #31 |
| I donno about others but if I see a well taken shot, that represents let's say rape, or murder, or anything, gets a 10 from me, and that doesn't mean I'm a murderer or a rapest. Also I would never asume the photographer is one. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:32:32 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Surely, I can't be alone in thinking (and feeling) that an image with explicit religious content carries a different charge than a picture of a flower (to use your example) and that the former one connotes a particular 'sensitivity', not a general one. |
Absolutely correct... I was just making a comparison between your specific criteria and my general one. Subjectivity is highly important. If someone photographs something that can be emotionally stirring, it will likely manipulate the votes, and the manipulation can go either way.
I don't have any preconceived notions about what I do and don't like about certain subjects until I see the photo. When it comes to religion, I am very open minded. I am a Christain, but I accept the fact that my religion is not the only religion. When I see images representing other forms of religion, I look at them and evaluate them as I would any other photograph. If I find it offensive in some way, I generally would not give it a great score. If I found it inspiring in some way, even if it had an agenda pushing some other religion, I would score it well.
The only thing I don't like about religion in general is that there are participants in about every faith that will tell me how my beliefs are wrong. Christians are as guilty of this as anyone. Faith is a personal thing. Trying to change someone's beliefs and faith is not a good thing. |
i feel pretty much the same way. i'm a Christian, but i would no more automatically vote a 1 on a photo that was contrary to my beliefs than i would automatically vote a 10 on a photo of a Christian symbol...regardless of any seeming agenda. i respect that there are many that don't share my beliefs but i could never, in good conscience, punish them with a low vote simply because they felt strongly enough to photograph something that didn't adhere to my faith.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:35:04 AM · #33 |
| Hanna I think if you enter this photo in one of the many other photography contests it will do well. For as many different voters, you will find as many different reasons of why they awarded you their score. You have some exceptional talent, stay with it. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:43:41 AM · #34 |
Rape, murder, suicide and other subjects along those lines will get a very low score from me, probably a 1. This is a decision I came to after a recent challenge where there was several dark and powerful images in this area.
Prior to that, I hadn't thought too much about this, and voted as frumoaznicul suggests. After that contest, I realized that my young kids spend time browsing this site, looking over my shoulder as I vote, and just generally being curious. Having them see images like that is not something I want to encourage.
If I could somehow block the kids from seeing them, I would be in agreement with frumoaznicul, as I am all for artistic freedom. But, we don't have such a mechanism. Just as we prevent our children from seeing violent movies when they are young, excessively dark images are also a problem.
Apologize for sticking this response in this thread, I've been meaning to post since that competition and got distracted.
As for religious symbols: be they my reliogion or a different religion, I vote them on the basis of whether I like the image or not.
I will admit that images that support my beliefs tend to get higher scores from me because they generally move me more than flowers, cats, motorcycles, or bananas.
Bill
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:53:18 AM · #35 |
I agree with you, if I'd have kids probably I would feel the same, but I don't so for me it's all a matter of good picture or bad picture. It's not the story of it that's important to me, it is how well the image tells me that story.
But I agree since this site is brosable by kids any age could be an ideea to add an "adult content" checkbox when we submit pictures, and those shots to be hidden from children. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 02:00:13 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I think Christians vote honestly as to what we see in a photo. |
I doubt you would find any realistic difference between christians and the rest of the world as far as honest voting goes.
People are people, regardless of religion, and will vote honestly or not.
I don't think anyone could say any group was more honest than any other, as if so it would be the whole "we are better than you because ...." sort of mentality, which can seldom be applied at group level.
I also think, using religious images, if people do vote up or down if it is religious, it probably balances out overall and makes stuff all diference to the final score.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 09:56:01 AM · #37 |
I tend to vote photos with overtly religious tones down. its kinda like shock value. taking a picture of a bible or a crucifix without any artistic merit forces a layer of association on the viewer that can't achieved any other way, its a handicap for the photographer.
Now, i'm not saying that all religious subjects are null and viod, it just has to surpass the context of the religious content for it to be any good. if your picture is dependant on the religious (and i'm going to add evangelical) connotations for it to be good, then its not really a good picture.
cs |
|
|
|
06/04/2004 10:05:21 AM · #38 |
Why does an artistic photography site have to adhere to 'child safe' measures? Art galleries don't...
I hate seeing posts like this... "I don't feel comfortable with my children seeing images on this site." Bahhh... do the right thing then.. Keep them off this site. This is not Mr. Roger's Neighborhood... nor is it Hustler.
It's your responsibility as a parent to govern what your child sees. Please censor what they see by not allowing them into places that contain materials that you find offensive. Don't do it by trying to censor the people who produce things you don't want your kids to see.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 10:17:22 AM · #39 |
subjects in a photograph, or in any piece of art for that matter, shouldn't be treated like its bad or something. people who put stuff up here and on other sites have a very strong deliberate sense about what they are doing and have artistic reasons for doing so. whether those artistic reasons come out in the technical aspects of the shot or the subject aesthetic, some are good and some are bad.
it is my opinion that you should sit down with your kids and say "hey, this is how different people in the world are" or "this is why this picture was submitted or this is why its not good." kids are smart and they see a lot more graphic images every day than i've ever seen here. i got my undergrad from a sounthern baptist university and it amazes me how uninformed my peers were about the realityies of the world they live in. when you protect your child by eliminating thier access to something and not talking to them about it, they'll eventually get exposed to it and make up thier own values for it without you being around. sit down with your kid and talk about the good and bad aspects of photos that are graphic and shocking to you. this way they won't see it as more of the inflamatory garbage that exists everywhere else, they can view it with a critical eye.
cs |
|
|
|
06/04/2004 10:32:47 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's your responsibility as a parent to govern what your child sees. Please censor what they see by not allowing them into places that contain materials that you find offensive. Don't do it by trying to censor the people who produce things you don't want your kids to see. |
This parent agrees with you. :) |
|
|
|
06/04/2004 11:13:30 AM · #41 |
We should probably move the child senistivity topic to another thread, but, I'll leave that up to the admins.
FWIW: while I agree kids are smart, a first or second grader simply isn't ready to draw informed conclusions about suicide, murder, or a variety of other topics that someone in college, perhaps high school or middle school, might be able to deal with effectively.
So, while I agree with the idea of preparing our children to deal with the realities of the world, and work harder at that than my post probably leads you to believe, I very much want to do that at appropriate times in their development, not when some random image flashes across the computer screen.
Second, to jmsetzler's point about censoring the authors of the material we are talking about, I'm not sure that DPC should be any different than the real world. When a television station or art gallery runs things that I find are dangerous to my kids, I actively work to not support the advertisers or gallery.
In the real world, it is through my purchasing decisions, or, recomendations to friends and acquaintences to skip a particular exhibit. Here at DPC, it is through my voting choices.
In neither case am I arguing against the rights of authors or artists to present what they want, just that I can make an active decision not to consume it, and even that I have the right to try not to experience it again.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 11:31:35 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by bill_hk2002:
...In neither case am I arguing against the rights of authors or artists to present what they want, just that I can make an active decision not to consume it, and even that I have the right to try not to experience it again. |
I can easily embrace and support this assessment.
On the other hand, a very good case can and, IMHO, should be made more often and with enthusiasm for artistic licence, i.e. re. the benefits that can be had from it, which go beyond the individual needs of artists and are the very source and stimulus for a heritage of works we enjoy today, not to mention a culture who'd be poorer without it.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2004 03:26:32 PM · #43 |
| I didn't see the starburst in the center until you mentioned it in a thread. It may be washed out on some monitors as it appears to be in mine. I think it wouls be a different picture if thta light were bright |
|
|
|
06/04/2004 05:31:47 PM · #44 |
I try to be objective when grading any photo, but once in a long while, a picture is presented that seems to be 'preaching'.
Those images will nearly always get a lower score from me because I feel that DP Challenge is an inappropriate venue for proselytizing on any subject.
But I will always provide a comment to that affect along with the lower score. All that said, if it is an exceptional photo, preaching or not, it will get a good score.
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 04:23:05 PM EDT.
