| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2012 02:59:57 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I felt like I'd seen that image many times in the past, I moved on and didn't vote.
This place is becoming far to competitive for me, I will invest more time in the side challenges and if I enter a challenge, I will try to be a bit more original than usual, even if that means lower scores and no ribbons. I get little pleasure now out of sheepishly entering what I know will do well, this will have to change, sombody like  timfythetoo gives me great motivation, I just love the way his images have evolved, we all know he could ribbon if he wanted to. |
I am not in Top 50 yet so I am not ready to move back into the alternative images like these:
 . 
I took these before I got any ribbons. I moved into winning of ribbons after I decided that I have no talent for the alternative artistic genre. So I am stuck with the images I love - timeless angry seascapes, morning light in the mountains, the explosion of autumn colors. I guess everyone goes through phases. I am looking forward to your "new" phase ;) |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:00:51 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Penny Lane:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Thanks:
"Waterfalls, coastlines, seascapes and mountains are especially popular in classic landscape photography". |
:)
Interestingly I just looked this up yesterday as our camera club is having a landscapes competition and people were asking me "Is this shot a landscape? What about this one? " and I realised I was only assuming I knew what a landscape was. I found it to be an eye opener to read the broader definitions given here. |
According to the link also, a kitchen, a lamp, a wall, or even the human body, if shot like a landscape. So basically landscape = free study. :P
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:02:29 AM · #28 |
Jagar et all - In terms of originality of this image and many others we all see, true it has been seen again, and again. You (Jagar) obviously enter primarily the original, and do extremely well by that as we all enjoy your works. We have all seen the "scape" under discussion before, for that reason I voted a little lower than I may have for the originality thoughts. Point being, and proven through all of the discussion here is, if it doesn't work for you - use your vote. If you think it's DNMC - use your vote. And if it's a plain bad photograph, use that vote.
We all vote what we vote and score what we score, the trick is to learn while here, get better in ways that interest you by learning from others you respect, enjoy yourself, and aside from nobody enjoying low votes - brush off the unnecessary cutting commentary.
I think DPC is a great site and forum for information. Its always sad to hear from the "masters" that the rest of us look up to, that they are entering less, leaving the site all together, or have lost interest in DPC due to the little squabbles here and there. Rest assured there is still many of us on this site that appreciate the quality, efforts, detailed descriptions, and learning experience gained from entries of the pros, the self styled, and site favorites... I/we do not want to see any of the aforementioned works entered here any less.
Competition breeds learning, achievement, motivation, and excellence. I like this DPC competition very much, and am always trying to learn and get better. Unfortunately it also breeds conflict, self esteem issues and jealousy in some. Such is the way of all things.
Nick
Message edited by author 2012-05-16 03:05:52. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:07:33 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Oh I don't know, part of the fun can be going for a score - the 'audience' comes with the challenge part and deliberately trying to score well can be fun - sort of like a commission. Certainly things like DPL and the BYOAKC can get me to enter stuff I don't like (too) much for the score but I like to see if I can do it - do I have its measure?
I mix it up though, play both sides if you will, but - shooting for a ribbon or for some PH bling can both be about shooting for a particular audience.
Of course, we can persuade ourselves that our work is emergent and uninfluenced by such intentions to pander to any audience but I'm not sure I buy that. All art is socioculturally constructed - each 'piece' we create emerges from and contributes to a wider context. We are all influenced by audience in some way. I welcome that, if I could never share my images, if there was never a reaction then I'd give up and sell my kit.
So, do I ever just shoot for me? Probably not - that would be like an actor playing to an empty house. So, I like the competition - but that doesn't mean that I don't find some of the facets of competitiveness to be unpalatable; though one might argue that it (inevitably) comes with the territory. Perhaps it's a marker that people care - I think I'd take that over benign indifference. |
This pretty much echoes my own thoughts on everything, and what I try to angle towards here in the forums periodically, particularly the portion about various audiences and why we shoot. If you made a shot for yourself, you'd never post it here. The other side of us being influenced by the audience, however, is that we also control the audience based on the work that we present to it. That's where things get interesting. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:09:46 AM · #30 |
| I believe Paul is correct, we do play to the audience and the tune we play depends on the quality of the particular audience we are playing to, having played the humdrum ribbon tune, I might up the beat and try a more psychedelic rythme for awhile. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:18:20 AM · #31 |
I actually like my entry in Landscape. I enjoyed taking it. The sea was very rough but it was quite bright so the colors and the light turned out as I wanted them. I don't consider it "eye candy" and the repetition of the themes in landscapes is pretty common. I don't know what caused  neat to dislike it so much and start this rather pointless discussion. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:21:08 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I believe Paul is correct, we do play to the audience and the tune we play depends on the quality of the particular audience we are playing to, having played the humdrum ribbon tune, I might up the beat and try a more psychedelic rythme for awhile. |
John, your photos are very intelligent. You put a lot of thought in what you do. I just hope you won't lose it in your new phase.
PS Maybe we should start counseling of ribbon hogs. I heard some rich people get that because they feel bad about being rich. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:21:12 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I believe Paul is correct, we do play to the audience and the tune we play depends on the quality of the particular audience we are playing to, having played the humdrum ribbon tune, I might up the beat and try a more psychedelic rythme for awhile. |
Excellent John - though I'm taken with Derek's point about influencing the audience; I'm hope you'll continue to enter the work in challenges and not just hide it away in the side challenges.
I actually think you've done that. Before your glowing black and white village life shots became regular front page material, I'm not sure many of us would have expected them to be compatible with consistently high scores. I think you did change the expectation and perceptions of the audience and now we see your style being regularly emulated. I've done it myself recently and have been well-rewarded!
In summary, you may have played the ribbon tune, but I don't think it was even close to approaching humdrum when you began. True, you might feel that you have that recipe cracked and you want to move on to see if you can cut the ribbon cloth another way - that's worth the membership fee in itself. I'm excited to see where you'll go next.
Message edited by author 2012-05-16 03:22:55. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 03:31:44 AM · #34 |
If only we could pick our audience then ;)
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Oh I don't know, part of the fun can be going for a score - the 'audience' comes with the challenge part and deliberately trying to score well can be fun - sort of like a commission. Certainly things like DPL and the BYOAKC can get me to enter stuff I don't like (too) much for the score but I like to see if I can do it - do I have its measure?
I mix it up though, play both sides if you will, but - shooting for a ribbon or for some PH bling can both be about shooting for a particular audience.
Of course, we can persuade ourselves that our work is emergent and uninfluenced by such intentions to pander to any audience but I'm not sure I buy that. All art is socioculturally constructed - each 'piece' we create emerges from and contributes to a wider context. We are all influenced by audience in some way. I welcome that, if I could never share my images, if there was never a reaction then I'd give up and sell my kit.
So, do I ever just shoot for me? Probably not - that would be like an actor playing to an empty house. So, I like the competition - but that doesn't mean that I don't find some of the facets of competitiveness to be unpalatable; though one might argue that it (inevitably) comes with the territory. Perhaps it's a marker that people care - I think I'd take that over benign indifference. |
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 04:39:38 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by JustFred:
If only we could pick our audience then ;)
|
//www.facebook.com
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 05:06:15 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by jagar:
I believe Paul is correct, we do play to the audience and the tune we play depends on the quality of the particular audience we are playing to, having played the humdrum ribbon tune, I might up the beat and try a more psychedelic rythme for awhile. |
John, your photos are very intelligent. You put a lot of thought in what you do. I just hope you won't lose it in your new phase.
PS Maybe we should start counseling of ribbon hogs. I heard some rich people get that because they feel bad about being rich. |
Counselling would be fun :-) we could have the aspiring ribbon hogs counseling the ribbon hogs and the ribbon hogs counseling the aspiring ribbon hogs, or don't we already do that?
The audience is representative of our ideals, when our ideals are no longer represented by the majority of the audience, we have to be honest to ourselves. I would say 80% of the time the ribbons don't represent my ideals, not to ask myself questions in such a scenario would be ignorant. The best way to improve is to constantly move your boundaries, let the cup not get full and the song not grow stale.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 05:20:00 AM · #37 |
I think the "problem" with the entry for its acceptability by some as landscape is the leading jetty on top. With landscape you don't expect a roof. I think it really is just that simple.
There are plenty of seascapes in the challenge that did quite well. Had I voted I would have taken a point or two off for the perceived ceiling. Maybe three. But it wasn't too much to deserve the full wrath of dnmc, nor was it casual enough to deserve the full acknowledgement of my vote.
Lovely image though. Need to get myself nd filters!
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 05:34:55 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
With landscape you don't expect a roof. I think it really is just that simple. |
That is a great point. Deep. Meaningful. Wise. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 07:03:28 AM · #39 |
It all depends upon how you learned. I learned that seascapes are just a subcategory of landscapes. If you search definitions of landscape photography, there really is no consensus of what it includes.
My definition is pretty wide -- it's simply the area around you. Most of the time I consider landscapes to be nature, but urban landscapes are still landscapes, imo.
Regarding the picture in question: if it was a shot in the middle of the ocean, it might have pushed me out of my "landscape" comfort zone, but this fits comfortably for two reasons: the pier actually is a land, of sorts. Man made land, but land nonetheless. Also, the land is definitely implied because the pier is anchored to something.
But I think it boils down to how you originally learned the definition of landscape. :)
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 07:22:51 AM · #40 |
I personally just think some people are really keen to find a reason to DNMC an image.
Personally I like the shot in question and I did / do consider it landscape and voted accordingly.
The DNMC crowd here seems to be fickle though because glaringly obvious DNMC shots often get through their net ;)
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 07:27:31 AM · #41 |
| i dont think its any less landscape than the yellow or red winners. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 08:16:10 AM · #42 |
| I agree with Wendy - seascapes should be a sub-genre of landscapes, otherwise I don't know how I should consider them. The image has quite a cliché style but IMO can be considered a landscape. In my language landscape is translated with the word 'paesaggio'. This word has no connection with the word 'land' or 'water' or 'sea' that's why I consider 'landscape' as something rather 'generic'. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 08:52:47 AM · #43 |
The only ones I voted a bit lower for not fitting my understanding of a landscape were a couple of images where the main subject was not the landscape itself. One I felt was marginal, and it got a neutral 5. I also left comments explaining those votes. And, seaside scenes are landscapes, even if they just show water without land.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 09:55:41 AM · #44 |
It appears that I should have entered this image:
//500px.com/photo/7638405
It has a few rocks on it! Land! Land! ;) |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 10:19:04 AM · #45 |
From Wikipedia
Landscape comprises the visible features of an area of land, including the physical elements of landforms such as (ice-capped) mountains, hills, water bodies such as rivers, lakes, ponds and the sea, living elements of land cover including indigenous vegetation, human elements including different forms of land use, buildings and structures, and transitory elements such as lighting and weather conditions.
Maybe it's time to expand the minds (and concepts) of some people here... |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 10:26:34 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by JustFred:
If only we could pick our audience then ;)
|
//www.facebook.com |
I have my biggest fans on Facebook. :-) (They all tell me I have a great camera!) |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 10:33:06 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by JustFred:
If only we could pick our audience then ;)
|
//www.facebook.com |
I have my biggest fans on Facebook. :-) (They all tell me I have a great camera!) |
I don't have a Facebook account - it's a good job I already have faith in my camera. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 10:35:12 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by JustFred:
If only we could pick our audience then ;)
|
//www.facebook.com |
I have my biggest fans on Facebook. :-) (They all tell me I have a great camera!) |
+1 Me, too. I often hear about my lucky location and a great camera equipment. |
|
|
|
05/16/2012 10:36:17 AM · #49 |
That is my favorite comment, which is mostly the comment you get "WOW... Your Camera takes GREAT pictures!!!"
*facepalm*
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by JustFred:
If only we could pick our audience then ;)
|
//www.facebook.com |
I have my biggest fans on Facebook. :-) (They all tell me I have a great camera!) |
|
|
|
|
05/16/2012 10:48:33 AM · #50 |
Maybe someone should suggest that the challenge description for the next one just be "Scapes". That would end this problem.
Re FB. I post a shot from my P&S every now and then, just so they will have something to compare the "good" ones with. : )
|
|
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 02:22:35 PM EDT.
