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

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Average User Poll
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 47 of 47, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/25/2004 06:14:30 PM · #26
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
and it was week subject matter too.


Just to pull one bit out, but you seem confused. At first you complain that people focus on subject matter when the photography is important, then you point out that you've given ones, in part because the subject matter was weak.

subject choice does matter.
Composition, lighting and other more photographic aspects, also matter.
 10/25/2004 06:16:50 PM · #27
Originally posted by zeuszen:


We (at DPC) invest much energy on ranking pictures by popular appeal. Yet (IMO) we invest very little effort in making the best pictures popular.


I think this is the most concise and insightful thing I've read in these forums for a long time.
 10/26/2004 01:42:19 PM · #28
Gordon, I agree with your assessment of Zeuszen's observation.

Unfortunately, it's a bit of a chicken and egg proposition: which came first?

How do we raise the bar for ribboning in DPC? Do we raise the quality of the photography, or do we raise the artistic vision of the voters?

In a sense, DPC is a victim of it's own success: the "great unwashed" have joined the ranks, and their "ordinary" vision is reflected in the selection of ribbon winners.

The real BIG question is how to fix it? Another question is does it need fixing? I think the Masters Challenge allows room for the "advanced" folks to play among themselves, and compete on a higher skill level.

Perhaps a way to generate some interest in making beautiful photography is to have a small panel (invite only, rotated weekly) select -- NOT rank -- their individual favorites of a challlenge based on artistic merit. These could be "best-of-show" or whatever title you'd like, as long as it's clear that they weren't voted on by the masses.
 10/26/2004 02:12:34 PM · #29
I'm a member of the great unwashed :) When artists create to please other artists, art loses it's intended audience... Wash us :) Don't flush us :)
 10/26/2004 04:05:02 PM · #30
Originally posted by myqyl:
When artists create to please other artists, art loses it's intended audience...


Couldn't agree more. The sort of self-involved knavel gazing can lead to terrible stuff too.

But I think there is a certain level of visual literacy required to appreciate a lot of good photography. This isn't some poncy suggestion that we all embrace miniscule depth of field, or alternatively shoot everything with an f/128 pin hole camera. But, for example, the creative use of shallow DoF is often regarded as a mistake by the beginner, unfamiliar with the concept that everything doesn't have to be sharp.

There are a lot of similar things : motion blur, non-standard compositions, use of line, emotional impact of colour, tone and so on.

It is somewhat akin to complaining about poetry being difficult because it uses big words.

You have to learn to read, before being able to appreciate or create good literature or poetry. You have to be literate.

Similarly, you have to learn to see, before you can really appreciate or create good photography. You need to be visually literate.

I don't think this is an automatic or inate skill, just as reading isn't automatic or inate.

10/26/2004 04:07:44 PM · #31
I think it's pretty safe to say I do a little bit of both but if I had to choose it would be more towards the art of the picture because if it moves me and it has to do with the subject even just a little then I'm scoring it high...

Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
I am currious. How many people here actually have formal training in photography and apply this knowledge when judging pictures. And how many people judge on subject matter than the art of the picture?
10/26/2004 04:19:49 PM · #32
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
[quote]
This is what I am trying to get at, and the people on this site are just beguining to piss me off more and more. I hate getting comments, and reading coments to other people, about shitty subject matter, when its a beautifully composed shot. Thats what photography is about. Any one can go out and take a picture, but it takes a true photographer to take a good picture. People should start saying what the reasoning for their angles, lighting, and subject matter in the self comments section. People should also state the reason why they vote for things. I remember a picture I gave a one to got first place. There was nothing asteatically pleasing about it, and it was week subject matter too. Thats just my opinion though. Take it for what its worth


I agree for the most part but do wonder what you think could be done to fix this problem. Would you restrict it to only "trained" photographers? I think the site went a long way to answering this complaint with the master's challenge. Maybe it should have been restricted to voting by masters only. Personally I liked looking at it since it taught me more than looking at so many so so pictures in the other challenge.
 10/26/2004 04:37:35 PM · #33
I totally agree with everything thats been said, I think, maybe...perhaps?

I'm confused?

Is it important to be qualified? Okay, I am a certified Village Idiot who has been given a camera...don't worry, it's safe...I just can't have sharp, pointy things. As you can see, give an idiot a camera you get crap photos, but I'm trying...my wife says I'm very trying!

I think I'd better go now, before they come and knock on the door...
 10/26/2004 04:41:44 PM · #34
Perhaps there could be two sets of judges: The membership as it is presently and then also a panel of the 'prewashed' judging on specified criteria for artistic or technical value.
Think of the elation when someone wins from both sets!
 10/26/2004 04:49:49 PM · #35
When I took a class in college about film, one of the most interesting parts was the discussion of the auteur sense. The director, the screenplay, and the audience all were a factor in the greatness of the work. I think it could be said that all art is that way. There is no real "art for the artist": art has to be for an audience. As such, I vote just as much on subject matter (particularly in its relevance to the challenge at hand) as I do on technical merit.

To Gordon: I consider myself, first and only, as an artist. I'm not terrible good at photography yet, but it is a relatively new medium for me. I am primarily a poet. I feel that poetry and photography are the same coin in two different countries. Poetry doesn't have to use big words. The best ones, don't. Simply, big words don't communicate to the audience very well. Same thing with some people's photos here. I'm sure the photos have great personal meaning, and probably very good technical merit. But a lot of them don't communicate anything to the audience.
 10/26/2004 04:59:51 PM · #36
Brave post.

Thanks...
 10/26/2004 05:09:08 PM · #37
Originally posted by vontom:

To Gordon: I consider myself, first and only, as an artist. I'm not terrible good at photography yet, but it is a relatively new medium for me. I am primarily a poet. I feel that poetry and photography are the same coin in two different countries. Poetry doesn't have to use big words. The best ones, don't. Simply, big words don't communicate to the audience very well. Same thing with some people's photos here. I'm sure the photos have great personal meaning, and probably very good technical merit. But a lot of them don't communicate anything to the audience.


I knew, at the time I wrote it, that someone would make this argument.
However, the best poetry also does not exclusively use kindergarten vocabulary.

My point still stands, if you can't read, poetry is just meaningless scratches on a page.
If you don't understand visual communication, no matter how well an image communicates, you won't understand it.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 17:10:54.
 10/26/2004 05:48:32 PM · #38
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by vontom:

To Gordon: I consider myself, first and only, as an artist. I'm not terrible good at photography yet, but it is a relatively new medium for me. I am primarily a poet. I feel that poetry and photography are the same coin in two different countries. Poetry doesn't have to use big words. The best ones, don't. Simply, big words don't communicate to the audience very well. Same thing with some people's photos here. I'm sure the photos have great personal meaning, and probably very good technical merit. But a lot of them don't communicate anything to the audience.


I knew, at the time I wrote it, that someone would make this argument.
However, the best poetry also does not exclusively use kindergarten vocabulary.

My point still stands, if you can't read, poetry is just meaningless scratches on a page.
If you don't understand visual communication, no matter how well an image communicates, you won't understand it.


If you're talking about communicating: I believe that both forms (poetry and photography) can only communicate whatever it is intended to be communicated to the viewer, depending on the 'experience' of the viewer. In other words, the audience finds something within them that they can 'identify' with. Do you agree?
 10/26/2004 05:50:26 PM · #39
"The best ones, don't. Simply, big words don't communicate to the audience very well. Same thing with some people's photos here. I'm sure the photos have great personal meaning, and probably very good technical merit. But a lot of them don't communicate anything to the audience."

I am an amateur photographer. I bought a cp775 a few years ago and my friends always told me how great I was at taking photos... no thought, point and shoot, just taking pictures of things that interested me. This got me interested and I started learning more about photography etc. I find some of the best photos I've taken and the ones that most "appealed" to the people I know are the photos I took before I started to stress on what other people thought was a "technically" good photo. Just because an artist can appreciate another artists "methods" of creating art, doesn't mean the "audience" or in our case "viewer" needs to appreciate or have any idea about them. I think the best person to rate your photo would be a person who knows less about photography.... because they are the people you are shooting for.

think of it like a car.... its importent whats under the hood, but most people just care what it looks like ;)
 10/26/2004 05:59:40 PM · #40
Gordon, I agree. The best poems do not use kindergarten language. Most of those that do, suck. Suck horribly. The use of language has to be pitched to boht author and audience. I use the language people use. It is senseless to talk about quotidian events, when most "everyday" people don't know what those are. Same thing with photography. It may be the technically greatest thing in the world with fantastic artistic merit, but unless, as DianaB and Edison_Watts (clever :)) pointed out, if no one gets it, it still sucks.
 10/26/2004 08:50:15 PM · #41
I'm not actually talking about any 'technical' aspects of photography in this respect - i.e., in terms of this, I could care less about sharpening, JPEG compression, curves, levels, post processing, lens sharpness or any other of the vast array of technical aspects that get in the way of camera enthusiasts from taking pictures.

I'm talking about the visual language and means of communication that are used in photographs. To me this is entirely orthogonal to the technical aspects of photography and much, much more important.

I think it can be a lot harder to take a picture that says something. You have to start with having something to say.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 20:52:41.
 10/26/2004 09:39:24 PM · #42
This is an age old arguments that goes back to the painters. The arguments goes: does subject trump technique. It even extends to music. We know the old piece as twinkle, twinkle little star, a simple folk melody yet Mozart took this and did his famous variations and raised it to concert level.

I think the heart of the argument is be found more in the artist, his capabilities and his vision. You are in effect seeing things through his eyes. As you all know, the artist goes through changes and often he loses part of his dedicated followers.

Both sides have merit. Subject matter is very important to many people while visual presentation even if not so desirable subjects has a solid following. Of course, popular subject matter presented with great visual impact is apt to win the popularity contest, but then there are the sub-cultures that steer of the mainstream.

You will note that some artist are more interested in delivering a faithful concept with good technique, while others are more consumed with a unique angle, a peculiar revelation of the properties of light and shadow, unique perspective twist and those image that at first glance appear incomprehensible and then we smile and say, Wow. You see, these images blow the mind because at the start we are not even aware of the subject matter. Here we see the world according to the artist. Of course, we can say that any photograph is according to the eye of the photographer, but not all are artist.

Another way to say it is that good subject matter can be murdered by bad technique and not so popular can be made palatable by great technique and vision.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 21:50:03.
 10/26/2004 09:55:47 PM · #43
It seems that we are talking about "language" vs "enunciation" and "diction" Some people think the "language" of photography is important. What is "said" the "visual language and means of communication that are used in photographs". Yes, this is very important. Whether the subject is known and liked, or new and unknown, or downright loathed, is irrelevant.

The adeptitude with language, those elements of visual "enunciation" and "diction", those technical aspects you don't care for, Gordon, are also important. Would a Dali painting have been good if he could not produce the quality of images he did?

I think most people would prefer a decent subject that was taken extremely well and post-processed to bring out its beauty, than one with a great subject and amazing communication, but was very poor (fuzzy, lacking contrast, etc.). "Sunday on the Island of La Grande Jatte" (sp?) by Seurat is an extremely ordinary subject, but the way in which he did, the technique he used, brings it to life. Not the composition. Not the colors, but the technique. The "sharpening, JPEG compression, curves, levels, post processing, lens sharpness or any other of the vast array of technical aspects that get in the way of camera enthusiasts from taking pictures."

It is impossible to seperate the concept from the execution, and, as such, it would be irresponsible for us to ignore one, or the other.
I think, following the same reasoning, we can't seperate the artist from the audience. Not everyone cares for Dali, or seurat but would go wild for Gaugin. Not every one would say Ansel Adams was fantastically great, but Maplethorpe... The actual subject, the base reality from which we extract the photograph, is irrelevant. It is how we portray it, that makes it art.
 10/26/2004 09:59:22 PM · #44
After reading a few of the other answers I came to a decision on what I do when judging the photos. I have no Formal training in anything actually. I look at the photo and decide whether things are placed right or set up so that you get the most or the very least without wrecking it. Look at the design of what is going on and try to think what the picture is trying to display. And then I judge it on the what challenge it happens to be. So if one of these is off it is a bad picture in my book. I have given 10s for good pictures that don't really meet the challenge. And 10s for picture that meet the challenge but have no set up. Ok that last sentence is a lie it has to be composed. I think I set up ok but my pictures are no where near any of these others.
 10/26/2004 10:12:47 PM · #45
Originally posted by vontom:
It seems that we are talking about "language" vs "enunciation" and "diction" Some people think the "language" of photography is important. What is "said" the "visual language and means of communication that are used in photographs". Yes, this is very important. Whether the subject is known and liked, or new and unknown, or downright loathed, is irrelevant.

The adeptitude with language, those elements of visual "enunciation" and "diction", those technical aspects you don't care for, Gordon, are also important. Would a Dali painting have been good if he could not produce the quality of images he did?

I think most people would prefer a decent subject that was taken extremely well and post-processed to bring out its beauty, than one with a great subject and amazing communication, but was very poor (fuzzy, lacking contrast, etc.). "Sunday on the Island of La Grande Jatte" (sp?) by Seurat is an extremely ordinary subject, but the way in which he did, the technique he used, brings it to life. Not the composition. Not the colors, but the technique. The "sharpening, JPEG compression, curves, levels, post processing, lens sharpness or any other of the vast array of technical aspects that get in the way of camera enthusiasts from taking pictures."

It is impossible to seperate the concept from the execution, and, as such, it would be irresponsible for us to ignore one, or the other.
I think, following the same reasoning, we can't seperate the artist from the audience. Not everyone cares for Dali, or seurat but would go wild for Gaugin. Not every one would say Ansel Adams was fantastically great, but Maplethorpe... The actual subject, the base reality from which we extract the photograph, is irrelevant. It is how we portray it, that makes it art.


These seems to be an exercise in misunderstanding, today.

Nowhere did I say that technique is not important. I said, that in relation to this discussion, that I was not talking about technique and was not talking about 'techincal' aspects which appeared from the various responses, what people assumed I was bringing up.

Visual communication also has very little to do with the subject choice. Yes that has a part in it, but again, it really isn't much to do with what I was talking about.

To repeat what I said
I'm talking about the visual language and means of communication that are used in photographs. To me this is entirely orthogonal to the technical aspects of photography and much, much more important.

Subject choice is also largely orthogonal to this as well. You can pick a great subject and still say nothing with it. Subject choice is important. Technical aspects are important. Neither have very much at all to do with what I was posting about. Very few people appear to consider the meaning and message, or the impact of their composition on what they are trying to say. Often I think it might be because they don't really know what they are trying to say in the first place, or it certainly isn't conciously considered during the picture taking process.

It gets lost in a search for an interesting subject, or an obsession about technique.

At its heart, photography is about communication. You are taking a picture to show someone, to pass on something. What is it ? Why are
you doing it ? Are you communicating as effectively as you can ?

These are the things you should consider - maybe more importantly than is this lens bitingly sharp at f5.6 or f4, or is this the perfectly greenest apple in the box. What you are trying to show and how it all comes together are a whole lot more important.

There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea, to paraphrase Adams.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 22:21:59.
 10/26/2004 10:27:21 PM · #46
I'm likely repeating something that is already said here. One of the reasons I joined, and paid my $ to see more challenges, and other such features, was because of the broad range of voters. From fully paid pro's, to point and shooters that are just trying to explore their eye a bit more. That's a pretty well balanced group.

This includes all people, including those that only care about subject matter, ranging all the way to those who see an out of focus image, and rate it a 2.

I fall somewhere in between all of that, and hopefully, will lend a fair opinion of what I think is good.

That being said.. and slightly off topic, can one of you possibly explain to me the differences between the types of education here, maybe in a PM or email to me

Originally posted by PerezDesignGroup:
To answer this question, I need to know what "formal training" means.

Does it mean an actual college or university degree in Photography (AA, BA), a few classes in college/high school, lots of reading, NYIP, an existing career in photography, working as an apprentice, etc?
10/27/2004 12:20:35 AM · #47
Originally posted by Gordon:
...At its heart, photography is about communication. You are taking a picture to show someone, to pass on something. What is it ? Why are you doing it ? Are you communicating as effectively as you can ?...


It's about communication and language, language in the widest sense (rather than just a 'visual' one). -And it makes perfect sense to me to follow this with questions, questions, questions. ;-)

To give an example: when someone has spent a lifetime dedicated to working with horses, people familiar with both the nature of the work and horses may say that such a person has learnt their language. By this an insider would specifically refer to neurological data resonating between the spinal column of the horse and that of his mount. On an outsider these specifics would be entirely lost.

When we become fully absorbed in the taking of a photograph, we 'communicate' with a subject or several subjects. It can, probably, also be said that we communicate with ourselves (as objects of nature) or, even, with an entity that lies beyond ourselves and beyond a subject. Whatever it is, and it may be all of these, the 'language' we use to communicate, IMHO and according to my own experience, is the most intangible thing of all.

The only thing I can coherently say that it seems to 'flow' (it knows its own way) via complete immersion in a subject, although the subject may only be 'sensed' or physically 'felt' as opposed to consciously known and understood. Technical, even aesthetical considerations during the making of the photograph appear to be dictated by the subjects themselves.

Of course, it is immensely helpful to be able to aid the process by interfering as little as possible, via fiddling with uncertainty (not having sufficient technical skill to operate the camera effectively) or by questioning the ratio of the whole thing (the ego, my friends, the ego).

It is about communication alright, but not necessarily and so indirectly as about communication with an audience. The part that's interesting, IMO, where the heat is, where the photo is born, is best had directly and immediately, right here, inside a split-second of unrepeatable communion.

Message edited by author 2004-10-27 00:24:25.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:12:12 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: 08/03/2025 04:12:12 PM EDT.