|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2011 02:45:19 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I think people are just pissed that they thought it was real and that somehow getting fooled by a good photo diminishes them.
Fooling people with photography is nothing new people. Just vote the image ... |
Isn't being "fooled" a measure of the excellence of the photographer's vision and skill?
Every photograph, by virtue of presenting a restricted two-dimensional representation of a much broader three-dimensional scene, "fools" the viewer to a greater or lesser extent. Forensic photographers must take great pains to make photos which minimize such distortion of reality. Not to mention that the equipment cannot capture what the human eye can see in the first place -- neither of these truly represents what I saw at the time:
Unadjusted resized original:  Final edited version:  |
Not a good analogy unless you're saying those trees, clouds and water aren't real. The viewer knows what something looks like when it's underexposed or overexposed so there's no deception there. If I watch a magic show on TV my expectations are that I will be tricked but that the tricks will be good. If I find out later that the tricks was just video editing then that would be disappointing. Same thing when you pass something off as real in photography. If you are going to shoot wild life, landscapes, portraiture, etc and presented it as such there's going to be an expectation that it's the genuine article and when it's not you better have done something extraordinary with it. In the photo in question that wasn't the case. The light, composition, processing (i.e. what's left to judge) are all average at best. |
|
|
|
06/20/2011 02:57:10 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Every photograph, by virtue of presenting a restricted two-dimensional representation of a much broader three-dimensional scene, "fools" the viewer to a greater or lesser extent. |
Not a good analogy unless you're saying those trees, clouds and water aren't real. The viewer knows what something looks like when it's underexposed or overexposed so there's no deception there. |
I posted those only to back up the point that every photo "fools" the voter -- fails to represent "objective reality" -- to a greater or lesser degree. The original image is darker than what my eyes saw, and the edited version considerably brighter and more saturated. If the viewer thinks the latter image is what they would have seen had they stood next to me when I took the picture, then they are being "fooled." |
|
|
|
06/20/2011 03:09:50 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I think people are just pissed that they thought it was real and that somehow getting fooled by a good photo diminishes them.
Fooling people with photography is nothing new people. Just vote the image ... |
Isn't being "fooled" a measure of the excellence of the photographer's vision and skill?
Every photograph, by virtue of presenting a restricted two-dimensional representation of a much broader three-dimensional scene, "fools" the viewer to a greater or lesser extent. Forensic photographers must take great pains to make photos which minimize such distortion of reality. Not to mention that the equipment cannot capture what the human eye can see in the first place -- neither of these truly represents what I saw at the time:
Unadjusted resized original: Final edited version: |
Not a good analogy unless you're saying those trees, clouds and water aren't real. The viewer knows what something looks like when it's underexposed or overexposed so there's no deception there. If I watch a magic show on TV my expectations are that I will be tricked but that the tricks will be good. If I find out later that the tricks was just video editing then that would be disappointing. Same thing when you pass something off as real in photography. If you are going to shoot wild life, landscapes, portraiture, etc and presented it as such there's going to be an expectation that it's the genuine article and when it's not you better have done something extraordinary with it. In the photo in question that wasn't the case. The light, composition, processing (i.e. what's left to judge) are all average at best. |
Was the challenge "Real Living Breathing Wildlife at Night in Silhouette"? NO?
YOU (and many others, evidently) looked at the image and decided, all on your own, that those were live animals and that elevated the image in your mind. Now you're all upset that you were wrong.
Message edited by author 2011-06-20 15:11:41. |
|
|
|
06/20/2011 03:17:52 PM · #104 |
My two cents about why people *might* be a bit angry-
Everyone here for the most part knows what a technically good photograph is. 99% of the challenge entries are this way. They have good exposure, sharpness, etc. If we voted off of this factor alone, There would be no challenge. So as voters, we create our own subjective ruling system. Does it have a story? Are they trying to say something else with the photograph? Does it use composition in the best way possible? -- but also, was it a difficult shot to achieve?
I think the reason people might be upset is that they voted thinking that this was in fact a once in a lifetime capture -a rare photographic opportunity- when in fact it was not.
Is it a valid photograph? -- Sure.
Does it depict something real? -- No. And that's where the drama came in, people thought it was real, became connected to the subject matter, and then became disappointed when they found out it was a statue.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2011 04:00:22 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I think people are just pissed that they thought it was real and that somehow getting fooled by a good photo diminishes them.
Fooling people with photography is nothing new people. Just vote the image ... |
Isn't being "fooled" a measure of the excellence of the photographer's vision and skill?
Every photograph, by virtue of presenting a restricted two-dimensional representation of a much broader three-dimensional scene, "fools" the viewer to a greater or lesser extent. Forensic photographers must take great pains to make photos which minimize such distortion of reality. Not to mention that the equipment cannot capture what the human eye can see in the first place -- neither of these truly represents what I saw at the time:
Unadjusted resized original: Final edited version: |
Not a good analogy unless you're saying those trees, clouds and water aren't real. The viewer knows what something looks like when it's underexposed or overexposed so there's no deception there. If I watch a magic show on TV my expectations are that I will be tricked but that the tricks will be good. If I find out later that the tricks was just video editing then that would be disappointing. Same thing when you pass something off as real in photography. If you are going to shoot wild life, landscapes, portraiture, etc and presented it as such there's going to be an expectation that it's the genuine article and when it's not you better have done something extraordinary with it. In the photo in question that wasn't the case. The light, composition, processing (i.e. what's left to judge) are all average at best. |
Was the challenge "Real Living Breathing Wildlife at Night in Silhouette"? NO?
YOU (and many others, evidently) looked at the image and decided, all on your own, that those were live animals and that elevated the image in your mind. Now you're all upset that you were wrong. |
Nobody is talking about the challenge theme. Get past that. Some people here actually care about the end results (i.e. the photography) and not school assignments.
Message edited by author 2011-06-20 16:00:49. |
|
|
|
06/20/2011 04:18:26 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I think people are just pissed that they thought it was real and that somehow getting fooled by a good photo diminishes them.
Fooling people with photography is nothing new people. Just vote the image ... |
Isn't being "fooled" a measure of the excellence of the photographer's vision and skill?
Every photograph, by virtue of presenting a restricted two-dimensional representation of a much broader three-dimensional scene, "fools" the viewer to a greater or lesser extent. Forensic photographers must take great pains to make photos which minimize such distortion of reality. Not to mention that the equipment cannot capture what the human eye can see in the first place -- neither of these truly represents what I saw at the time:
Unadjusted resized original: Final edited version: |
Not a good analogy unless you're saying those trees, clouds and water aren't real. The viewer knows what something looks like when it's underexposed or overexposed so there's no deception there. If I watch a magic show on TV my expectations are that I will be tricked but that the tricks will be good. If I find out later that the tricks was just video editing then that would be disappointing. Same thing when you pass something off as real in photography. If you are going to shoot wild life, landscapes, portraiture, etc and presented it as such there's going to be an expectation that it's the genuine article and when it's not you better have done something extraordinary with it. In the photo in question that wasn't the case. The light, composition, processing (i.e. what's left to judge) are all average at best. |
Was the challenge "Real Living Breathing Wildlife at Night in Silhouette"? NO?
YOU (and many others, evidently) looked at the image and decided, all on your own, that those were live animals and that elevated the image in your mind. Now you're all upset that you were wrong. |
Nobody is talking about the challenge theme. Get past that. Some people here actually care about the end results (i.e. the photography) and not school assignments. |
I see, you're less concerned with the resulting image and more so with the process and story behind it.
Got it. |
|
|
|
12/24/2011 08:56:23 AM · #107 |
I read every single post, rare for me, and I have the following conclusions.
- we have stumbled upon the crack in photography's reality. As GeneralE said,.its all 2Dimensional fakery. Asking what is an illegal portrayal of existing art makes us confront the truth about photography- we are capturing light not creating anything.
It is inherently incorrect to say, "that is a great statue not a great picture of it. Its a great sunset, lucky you were there, not a great picture of it, a 5 year old could have hit the shutter button. Same will countless architectural shots. You did nothing but capture.
- or, am I wrong, are there subtle nuances to lighting and angle that make every single shot ever taken different?
So if the challenge was to photograph the mona lisa, it must fill the frame, could there still be different interpretations of lighting, color temp angle, etc.? No?
If you answered "no" you are kidding yourself about photography. Because, whether you rationalize or kick and scream "no!" You are not creating, you are "taking" a picture, "capturing" an image no matter what the subject.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 04:13:14 PM  |
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 04:13:14 PM EDT.
|
