| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2004 07:58:58 PM · #1 |
| This one stinks. I am getting low marks because many voters expect to see something minature along with something normal sized. I had one comment that said since there was no reference, he/she couldnt be for sure that what he/she was looking at was not acutal size. I used plastic toys that are obviously not real! Especially when one considers what they are doing. Give me a break. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:03:43 PM · #2 |
completely agree with you. this was not the "Scale" or "Perspecitve" challenge, this was the miniature challenge. photographing something that is obviously miniature in an interesting composition certainly qualifies in my book.
no reference point should be needed, as long as you can tell the object is miniature. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:04:47 PM · #3 |
Miniature
Votes: 229
Views: 462
Avg Vote: 3.9956
Comments: 39
I think you should remember to have fun with this. Hundreds of people are looking at your photography good or bad. If you can't have fun and appreciate the feedback you get, don't submit.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:14:15 PM · #4 |
hey, don't get me wrong, love it here and certainly appreciate the feedback (of all opinions) but if you're marking down plastic toys because you can't tell they're not miniature...
unless of course these were life size plastic toys... ;-) |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:16:25 PM · #5 |
Mine hasn't done well either for an obvious reason that I can't mention without giving away what it is. I knew that and submitted it anyway thinking I might get away with it. Nope. Haven't gone higher than 4.65.
S'ok. It's one of those pictures that has lots of meaning to me. Just not something with wide appeal I guess. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:31:31 PM · #6 |
Hey, jazz:
I'd say larger than lifesize. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:40:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jazzmik:
hey, don't get me wrong, love it here and certainly appreciate the feedback (of all opinions) but if you're marking down plastic toys because you can't tell they're not miniature...
unless of course these were life size plastic toys... ;-) |
If many people are marking them down, they either
1. Have a different interpretation of the challenge than the photographer
2. Are tired of pictures of plastic toys
3. Are in the same wave length but didn't think the photo was that good. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 08:48:42 PM · #8 |
Compose and photograph something "miniature" in such a way that it conveys to the viewer that the subject of your photo is a tinier version of something that is normally larger.
Clearly it states that there should be a size reference to compair the object to. It doesn't have to be a larger version of the said object. I made comments like described, and I wasn't trying to offend or upset anyone. I was merely trying to say that the challenge entry could have better shown the size of the objects claimed to be miniature. Following the instructions is not something to throw away. Or you can perhaps blame the fact that I, and possibly some others here are obsessive-compulsive and need such rules to be followed closer than you think you need to. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 09:00:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Hey, jazz:
I'd say larger than lifesize. |
nice. try to get that into your studio to photograph it...
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Clearly it states that there should be a size reference to compair the object to.
|
actually it says no such thing. one can convey to the viewer that the photo subject is a tinier version of something that is normally larger without using to scale to demonstrate it. I could identify, for example, a miniature liquor bottle by its shape and texture and font size. I don't need to see it compared to a regular bottle. I could identify a HotWheels car from its construction materials.
Certainly not true for every object. My point is that I don't believe that a size reference is necessary, unless it's necessary. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 09:05:29 PM · #10 |
| I dont mind getting low marks, but I hate getting them for a difference of opinion on the wording of the challenge. The ones who marked me low (and left a comment) only stated that they had done so because of their interpretation of the challenge and nothing else. If I am way out of line on the challenge, let me know... bu this is an argument over the wording of the challenge. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 09:47:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by pottersclay75:
I dont mind getting low marks, but I hate getting them for a difference of opinion on the wording of the challenge. The ones who marked me low (and left a comment) only stated that they had done so because of their interpretation of the challenge and nothing else. If I am way out of line on the challenge, let me know... bu this is an argument over the wording of the challenge. |
I know I made a comment like that, too. Photography is subjective, and one of MY biggest complaints about this site is that people who give me low scores don't tell me why. Well, if I gave lower marks AND recognized what I didn't like in the photo, I tried to leave a comment. If anyone doesn't agree with my comments, well I'm just one person with an opinion, and in the end one person's score/opinion doesn't count for much anyway... my opinions could be different from everyone else's opinions-- and you can disregard them with the morning trash. :) I apologize if it was me. Never meant to offend or cause controversy, just trying to follow the challenge rules as I interpreted them.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 12:28:50 PM · #12 |
| I have learned a tremendous amount from this site. The criticism I have received has greatly improved my pics. I think that is the point of the site. But, I think too may folks get wrapped up in the interpretation of each challenge. Like I said, if I missed it completely, let me know. But, if it is just a difference of opinion on challenge wording, let it go! My pic was obviously something miniature that represented something larger. It was obviously not actual size. I'd prefer more constructive criticism and votes based on my picture's technical and emotion qualities than little quibbles over the intentions of DPC's wording of a challenge. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 01:23:29 PM · #13 |
Here's how I see it...
While an image of a miniature toy soldier, or miniature house, or small version of almost anything can be presented in such a way that it's obvious the item is a miniature, the point here (IMHO) is to feature the size of the object in relation to its normally larger counterpart. The phrase "creative juxtaposition" might better describe what I'm trying to say...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 01:28:19 PM · #14 |
I gave a few low marks on this challenge, because I felt that some people missed the point of the challange...it was to make something that usually looks larger look smaller.I believe and a lot of the things that I saw was just a toy placed to the real thing i don't think that this was the meaning of the challenge although a lot of the photos were technically outstanding. Another thing that I saw was a lot of macro shots. Maybe I am the one that missed the point of the challenge. I am new to photography so I guess maybe I am one of the stupid voters.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 13:30:47. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 01:33:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Anni:
Maybe I am the one that missed the point of the challenge. |
Maybe (or not, I see that you've edited your post). The object was to shoot something that appears much smaller than normal.
Message edited by author 2004-08-09 13:33:51. |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 02:19:07 PM · #16 |
Challenge definitions could be more accurate, but anyway people will still disagree in the definitions (like we disagree in our artist values)...
I do not see how this problem can be avoided in a challenge community like this.
The magic is that the ribbon always goes to a great picture :) |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 02:28:24 PM · #17 |
If I can't tell it's a toy car/bottle/plane/whatever, then you didn't convey that it was miniature.
It's that simple.
I gave people the benefit of the doubt that the item *was* miniature, since they entered the challenge, but if I couldn't tell it was miniature any other way, then they got low marks for not meeting the challenge.
I know at least one photo I could not tell if the item was the real deal or a miniature at all.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 02:36:50 PM · #18 |
It's a two part challenge.
1. subject is miniature.
2. obviously show the subject is miniature.
Just because it's shiny plastic, I'm not going to assume it's a small toy. That 50 foot lady in a swimsuit is shiny and plastic.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2004 02:51:54 PM · #19 |
I had something in mine that was obviously minature, and obviously shown to be it's true mini size in my photo and I STILL had a couple critical comments saying "what's miniature here?" Seriousy so obvious I can't believe someone didn't get it.
Voters seemed to be extra cranky this round imo. I'm thinking a lot of people really didn't meet the challenge. Didn't mean we all didn't though.
I sound bitter, but I'm really not. I'm just truly baffled that there was anyone who didn't see the miniature object in my photo. LMAO! |
|
|
|
08/09/2004 03:00:35 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by turquoise919:
I'm just truly baffled that there was anyone who didn't see the miniature object in my photo. LMAO! |
Maybe it was too small to see. ;-) |
|
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: 09/08/2025 07:51:37 PM EDT.
