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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Photographic Judging Criteria
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/19/2016 11:50:23 PM · #26
ah well. let's not be over impressed by the pundits. these days basic shelter is at a premium. in fact, I AM rather tempted to say that Falling Water lacks soul.
 11/20/2016 12:02:19 AM · #27
Originally posted by tnun:
ah well. let's not be over impressed by the pundits. these days basic shelter is at a premium. in fact, I AM rather tempted to say that Falling Water lacks soul.

Maybe, but it sure lacks a waterproof roof. FLW's houses seem to incorporate this problem, and Falling Water is no exception.
:)
 11/20/2016 01:31:14 AM · #28
"Falling Water," well yclept.
 11/20/2016 05:36:33 AM · #29
Originally posted by tanguera:
No one ever calls a blur "soulless" or a "fraud".


hah! i could see myself calling a blurry stock photo soulless :P

Message edited by author 2016-11-20 05:44:21.
 11/20/2016 05:37:45 AM · #30
it must be very dark up there
 11/20/2016 10:55:55 AM · #31
I didn't mean to perpetuate the struggle of good vs. evil.

I was trying to point out that there is a technical aspect of photography that can be more craftsmen-like than fine art- based upon the analogy that Allesandro made to Guitar Playing.

Is it not possible to teach a child all about f-stops and metering and formal composition and to learn the camera's manual inside and out and take stunningly technically perfect photos that, well, you get the point...Like a Suzuki Method pre-pubescent child playing immaculately perfect violin- it lacks the soul of one who has not felt romantic love, loss, pain, etc. no? Or does that not even exist? perhaps music is different because there is composition and performance completely separate from one another.

someday I wish to possess technicals, and/or art sense. Until then, there is always monochrome, beautiful, blurry non-technical fraudulent snapshots.
 11/20/2016 12:32:58 PM · #32
Originally posted by blindjustice:
... perhaps music is different because there is composition and performance completely separate from one another.

Not always ...
11/20/2016 01:24:07 PM · #33
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I didn't mean to perpetuate the struggle of good vs. evil.

Doesn't have to be determined.....sometimes it just is.....

I think I have less issue with this topic as it comes up, and ever so frequently as I place no expectations on someone else's interpretation of......whatever.e.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I was trying to point out that there is a technical aspect of photography that can be more craftsmen-like than fine art- based upon the analogy that Allesandro made to Guitar Playing.

I get that. I'm a mechanic. I also restore cars. I work on an old MGB that needs its carbs sorted out completely differently than I do on a Toyota Highlander that needs a timing belt. I am extremely grateful that I have been graced with both the technical ability and the aesthetic sense that allow me to do both reasonably well.

I went to a concert that B.B. King was the headliner. The band that played right before him had this incredible guitar player......the man had incredible skill.

The B.B. came out, sat down on a chair, and started to work with Lucille. There is a complete difference between technical skill, and outright magic.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Is it not possible to teach a child all about f-stops and metering and formal composition and to learn the camera's manual inside and out and take stunningly technically perfect photos that, well, you get the point...Like a Suzuki Method pre-pubescent child playing immaculately perfect violin- it lacks the soul of one who has not felt romantic love, loss, pain, etc. no? Or does that not even exist? perhaps music is different because there is composition and performance completely separate from one another.

There are great differences in how people perceive the world around them, interpret it, and deliver their concept of it to others.

I love that there are so often no rules.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
someday I wish to possess technicals, and/or art sense. Until then, there is always monochrome, beautiful, blurry non-technical fraudulent magical snapshots.

Fixed that for you!

I learned about that specific kind of magic here at DPC. I shot an image, by mistake, that I used on our garage's FB page. It's blurry, and it's perfect. Before I learned how to see things differently here, I wouldn't have given the shot a second glance.

Vive le difference!
 11/20/2016 07:37:07 PM · #34
Excellently put, Jeb.
 11/21/2016 01:57:12 PM · #35
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Originally posted by GeorgesBogaert:
I recently noticed that some DPCers are judging a photo on only 1 criteria. Photoshopped or not.

How can you really say that? You can't possibly know what criteria people use when they are voting.

Art is subjective and trying to assign a number to it is already a bit silly. My criteria for what makes a good image can be completely different to yours, but it's no less right. Using spreadsheets to calculate a number seems completely wrong to me and I'm an accountant who loves spreadsheets and numbers, but not for art.


I'm not an accountant but I do get where you're coming from. As a veteran hairstylist of 46 years I think I qualify as an artist and feel that Georges spreadsheet reminds me of things I should be looking at if I'm planning to make a fair effort at critiquing someone's photo. It helps me to be a little more tactful when making a critique. I would like to be able to make a statement about a photo and not hurt anyone's feelings but help them learn just as others have done for me.
 11/21/2016 03:17:26 PM · #36
All art is technical.

You think Depth of Field doesn't matter to an artist?

You're making distinctions that don't exist.
 11/21/2016 03:46:12 PM · #37
if people put half as much effort into their photography than they do worrying about how others properly respond to it...
 11/21/2016 06:41:57 PM · #38
Originally posted by Mike:
if people put half as much effort into their photography than they do worrying about how others properly respond to it...


We would have less snarky observations. But seriously, you are right.
 11/22/2016 12:10:08 AM · #39
I may be making distinctions that don't exist to you but they do to me. Yes, I shoot in manual mode and I have to know dof and all that but when it comes right down to it, isn't the feeling you get from the very composition itself that's important? You can photoshop something to death but if there is no feeling to the photo and all you're doing is taking a photo with perfect numbers and there is no feeling to it that is a snapshot and not art. It all depends on what you are doing with your photography. Back to the critique part, I do want to know how I should make a real critique and I know most people would like help but in a nice way not a harsh way like: (You stupid idiot this is what you should have done.) I've had plenty of critiques that have helped me immeasurably and they were made in a nice way even the one that said they were giving me a low score because I depended too much on a certain program for processing. :)
 11/22/2016 02:08:41 AM · #40
To achieve the image you want you have to know certain skills but to appreciate another image it's not necessary to know any. I greatly enjoy looking at paintings, I know nothing of the art of painting but i have my own preferences, would these change if I was judging them on a skill factor ? I think they would and that would be a shame.
 11/22/2016 08:01:00 AM · #41
Originally posted by jagar:
To achieve the image you want you have to know certain skills but to appreciate another image it's not necessary to know any. I greatly enjoy looking at paintings, I know nothing of the art of painting but i have my own preferences, would these change if I was judging them on a skill factor ? I think they would and that would be a shame.


anyone can luck into a great shot. luck its just being able to capitalize on an opportunity and skill just gives you more opportunities. you shouldn't be judged on skill you should be judged on what you created, not how you did.
 11/22/2016 10:27:05 AM · #42
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
I may be making distinctions that don't exist to you but they do to me.

In my opinion, you could grow as an artist if you stop making those distinctions. see below.

Originally posted by Cyrilda:
Yes, I shoot in manual mode and I have to know dof and all that but when it comes right down to it, isn't the feeling you get from the very composition itself that's important? You can photoshop something to death but if there is no feeling to the photo and all you're doing is taking a photo with perfect numbers and there is no feeling to it that is a snapshot and not art.


Your knowledge of DOF and other techniques can be put in service to feeling. That's what I'm trying to say. There are no such thing as "perfect numbers." All numbers are equal. The *perfect* DOF is the DOF that adds to the feeling of the shot. So it is with the perfect shutter speed, the perfect aperture, the perfect exposure. I'm nowhere near this ideal. My technique is mainly to take a lot of pictures and hope one comes out good... but I am slowly learning a couple of things, and I use techniques to make a lucky outcome more likely.

I am not on the side of touchy-feely easy-breezy. Here is the contradiction that I live by, and am most misunderstood about:

Art is a happy accident... but that doesn't mean that the artist should be a drunk driver.

If you want to be thought of as an artist... well, I don't care about that.

If you want to pursue the creation of art, then there is plenty of hard work you can do to facilitate those happy accidents. You can learn everything about your instruments and the history of your art form. You can get out there and practice, practice, practice. Get the art into your muscles. You can meditate on how to contrive a shot, or dedicate yourself to capturing spontaneous moments that you can't control. It's all good work, the good fight.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether art is better than stock photography. Obviously, people have different goals and why would I begrudge anyone working towards their goals? My point is that art is also technical, also involves work.

Don't let your art be defined by people who hate art.

Message edited by author 2016-11-22 10:27:53.
 11/22/2016 10:28:39 AM · #43
Please read my ramblings as being from the $0.50 opinion category.....that is: My opinion, and $0.50 will get you a cup of coffee some places....
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
I may be making distinctions that don't exist to you but they do to me.

Then go with that. This is *your* photographic journey. Take what you need and scrap the rest.
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
Yes, I shoot in manual mode and I have to know dof and all that but when it comes right down to it, isn't the feeling you get from the very composition itself that's important?

Point 1: Shooting in full manual mose is, IMNSHO, overly emphasized. You have a very sophisticated tool that can be programmed to a good semi-automatic default mode that will allow you to concentrate on just shooting. I only use full manual when I am doing something predominantly static, and for a specific purpose. My semi-auto default mode enables me to just grab my camera and shoot at those opportune moments where I don't necessarily have time or inclination to fiddle with settings. Again, what works for you may be different but if you have a fallback mode, you're ready most of the time.

Point 2: It's not just composition, but also figuring out your own strong and weak points as a photographer. Developing the strong points and trying to work out, or work around your weak points is how you get better......and by that I mean being able to get what you want when you shoot.
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
You can photoshop something to death but if there is no feeling to the photo and all you're doing is taking a photo with perfect numbers and there is no feeling to it that is a snapshot and not art.

The old....."Polishing a turd" syndrome. A processing program cannot fix a bad image.
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
It all depends on what you are doing with your photography.

Exactly.....though just because an image didn't work out exactly as you planned doesn't mean it may not have merit......just possibly not for its original intent.
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
Back to the critique part, I do want to know how I should make a real critique and I know most people would like help but in a nice way not a harsh way.

You know the basics......giving your impression, studying what it is about the image that works for you, and what doesn't, is what you should convey. As long as you communicate that in your comment(s), then the creator has something to work with.
Originally posted by Cyrilda:
I've had plenty of critiques that have helped me immeasurably and they were made in a nice way even the one that said they were giving me a low score because I depended too much on a certain program for processing. :)

Bear the same thing in mind......a comment/critique offered is the viewer's impression. Does that match up with what you wanted to convey through your image?

Hope this is of some use.......YMMV!
 11/22/2016 11:56:05 AM · #44
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm not interested in arguing about whether art is better than stock photography. Obviously, people have different goals and why would I begrudge anyone working towards their goals? My point is that art is also technical, also involves work.


Yes.
 11/22/2016 12:17:42 PM · #45
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
To achieve the image you want you have to know certain skills but to appreciate another image it's not necessary to know any. I greatly enjoy looking at paintings, I know nothing of the art of painting but i have my own preferences, would these change if I was judging them on a skill factor ? I think they would and that would be a shame.


anyone can luck into a great shot. luck its just being able to capitalize on an opportunity and skill just gives you more opportunities. you shouldn't be judged on skill you should be judged on what you created, not how you did.


Well that is what I meant. Skill helps you create your vision but it shouldn't be necessary to judge another's.
 11/22/2016 03:49:10 PM · #46
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
To achieve the image you want you have to know certain skills but to appreciate another image it's not necessary to know any. I greatly enjoy looking at paintings, I know nothing of the art of painting but i have my own preferences, would these change if I was judging them on a skill factor ? I think they would and that would be a shame.


anyone can luck into a great shot. luck its just being able to capitalize on an opportunity and skill just gives you more opportunities. you shouldn't be judged on skill you should be judged on what you created, not how you did.


Well that is what I meant. Skill helps you create your vision but it shouldn't be necessary to judge another's.


Exactly. maybe my point was it is easier to get lucky at photography with a basic understanding of the science than it would be to get lucky at violin with a basic understanding, or oil painting, and there is no "photoshop" equivalent in those awkwardly non-analogous mediums, only perhaps in audio editing. of course that will piss people off, like on that Cheers episode where Norm and Cliff start fighting and saying each other's jobs are stupid. So Cliff has a chimp dressed like a painter come in, and Norm has a chimp mailman deliver the mail. Chimps walking around pressing shutters(not in manual mode) I love to see that museum collection!

The reason why we express opinions is that, like the OP, we feel people allow, disallow, or favor a certain style or technique or alteration(heavy p-shop), or we spot a trend that we'd like to influence or change.(like too many long shutter landscapes, dog photos, etc.)

I for one think the new expert free study is a success in that, not all, but some of the images look more "natural" than I would have expected- people using their power for good and not evil...
 11/22/2016 04:20:56 PM · #47


Originally posted by blindjustice:
... there is no "photoshop" equivalent in those awkwardly non-analogous mediums, only perhaps in audio editing.

Auto-tune. Pro Tools.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Chimps walking around pressing shutters(not in manual mode) I love to see that museum collection!

Not your average wildlife shoot
 11/22/2016 04:21:30 PM · #48
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Chimps walking around pressing shutters(not in manual mode) I love to see that museum collection!

They mostly do selfies, it seems :-)



ETA: And yes, I know that's not a Chimpanzee :-)

Message edited by author 2016-11-22 16:22:08.
 11/22/2016 08:28:47 PM · #49
Elephants can paint an abstract with a paintbrush. Cats can paint with their paws and do sculpture with their claws. Look it up!
 11/23/2016 10:14:35 AM · #50
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The reason why we express opinions is that, like the OP, we feel people allow, disallow, or favor a certain style or technique or alteration(heavy p-shop), or we spot a trend that we'd like to influence or change.(like too many long shutter landscapes, dog photos, etc.)

I guess I don't understand why some folks seem to feel like a style or technique is like a personal affront. The expression "This isn't in the spirit of......" completely escapes me. If something doesn't work for you, okay......move on.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I for one think the new expert free study is a success in that, not all, but some of the images look more "natural" than I would have expected- people using their power for good and not evil...

Despite the grumbling, it sure seems to me that this site has something for everyone in one form or another. I'm constantly amazed, especially after being here for ten years and 500 challenges, at how much is available to me to participate in as far as challenges, community, and to learn.

Like life, DPC is what you make of it, and like life, the possibilities seem limitless.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 12:48:13 PM

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: 08/27/2025 12:48:13 PM EDT.