|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/01/2011 01:16:07 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ubique:
What can't be forgiven, rationalised or excused is giving it a 'ho-hum' rating of 5 or 6. That's intellectual laziness, and is really indefensible. |
While recognizing the quaintness of a grainy, blurry picture, even one taken with such an antiquated technology such as with a 'pinhole' technique, I did not feel this one excelled enough in quality to elicit any heightened emotional response. Specifically, while enjoying the texture of the background, I found a strain put on my eyes while trying to focus on the subject, both because of the lack of focus and my eyes inherent tenancy towards adjusting any image towards a better focus, and that there is noise banding apparent in vertical stripes across the image and not uniform or random graininess. With this kind of banding being a quality seen specifically in digital images, I felt it too anachronistic to work together with the pinhole technique.
What do you know? Rationale. I stand by my 6. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 01:40:07 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ubique:
What can't be forgiven, rationalised or excused is giving it a 'ho-hum' rating of 5 or 6. That's intellectual laziness, and is really indefensible. |
While a 5 can be a ho hum vote, it can also be the median between a 1 and a 9. If I love the processing, but hate the composition, it might get a five, not because it is dull, but because it is both brilliant and deeply flawed.
The intentional crudeness of digital pinhole photography is off-putting for many because it is such a contradiction, a very sophisticated technology used as crudely as possible, a perverse intellectual conceit of the first water. The fact that the noise is linear, does not give the same feeling for me as organic grain from film. I find its binary imposition as comforting as auto-tuned music. The fact that such noise is a natural outgrowth of an artificial technology keeps it from feeling natural to me. Is it a valid exploration of the art form? Sure. The fact that I can understand it as an intellectual puzzle, and even like it for some images, does not mean I still mostly find it as grating as most forms of atonal music.
So I can see a score of 5 or 6, the thumbnail is lovely and sets up an expectation of a certain style, and then the full image is an aggressive use of a style some people don't much care for.
There, that's my defense of the indefensible. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 01:54:54 PM · #28 |
A vote is a measure of popular appeal, not a measure of artistic merit.
Van Gogh sold exactly one painting out of the hundreds he made during his lifetime. Yet today, those same paintings are priceless treasures. |
|
|
|
07/01/2011 02:12:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
A vote is a measure of popular appeal, not a measure of artistic merit. |
Exactly. Which is why it is so important to evaluate your entry based on more than just the average vote. You need to look at what those votes were, what the comments were, who those comments were from, and weigh it all together against what you wanted to achieve. I have some low and mediocre averaging shots that I consider to be far more successful than some 6+ entries, because they pulled in a reaction from the sort of folks I was hoping they would appeal to.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2011 11:32:26 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
A vote is a measure of popular appeal, not a measure of artistic merit.
Van Gogh sold exactly one painting out of the hundreds he made during his lifetime. Yet today, those same paintings are priceless treasures. |
Maybe I'm misunderstaning you but, when I vote, I use the scale to measure artistic merit - ie: a vote of one from me means no art is evident (and upwards from there). This photo not only got a vote high up on the scale from me but also got a fave.
And, so as not to get questioned, of course I use other measures when voting as well, technical merit, topicality, etc - but for me, art comes first.
The measure of popular appeal comes at rollover when we see how the photo placed overall. Maybe that's what you meant.
Just the fact that this thread exists is evidence that popular appeal can change. It's exciting, actually.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:40:40 AM  |
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: 08/07/2025 03:40:40 AM EDT.
|
