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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> The Wow Factor
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 118, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/20/2013 07:29:54 AM · #51
The wow factor is a paradox. To believe in it or acknowledge it perpetuates its' existence and/or influence. A base analogy is that it is like McDonalds or general corporate advertising. It exists, it has generic acceptance, it pays, its' worth or beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It can be an instrument of envy, lust, hatred or banal compromise, but it pays short term, therefore, in the pain of an Oxford comma, a fact of life. Give it credence and it lives. Hate it or love it gives a point of reference that validates your stance. I think hindsight is one of the most destructive elements of artistic endevour. Carpe diem.
 11/20/2013 07:34:23 AM · #52
Originally posted by jagar:
There is a difference between a short fast plastic Wow and a long satisfying platinum Wow, one takes but a breath to appreciate and digest, the other takes time to appreciate and it's never completely digested.


Given the format of DPC where you are voting on 300 images a week, I "blame" the voter, not the photographer. Your average voter probably spend 1-3s on an image. To get their vote, you need to wow them immediately. Something that requires time to digest and absorb will probably be lost on the speed voter.

So no, in reference to the OP, the "wow factor is not strangling photography", the voting practices are.
 11/20/2013 08:04:00 AM · #53
Originally posted by Garry:
... So no, in reference to the OP, the "wow factor is not strangling photography", the voting practices are.

Wowing may be a prerogative of the voter, but it was presented (e.g. in the recent negative space challenge) as a requirement to the photographer. So the question still holds.
11/20/2013 08:09:22 AM · #54
Originally posted by daisydavid:
I think hindsight is one of the most destructive elements of artistic endevour. Carpe diem.


There is perhaps one thing more destructive to artistic endeavor than hindsight and that's trying to be artistic. Carpe diem.
"Try not, Do, or do not, there is no try" Yoda from star wars :-)
 11/20/2013 09:08:45 AM · #55
The problem is, as with most beautiful underwear models or the street jugglers, they are attractive at first, but yet they most certainly do not have depth.

Luckily many of those at DPC(not all)who possess the power to wow also have depth.

(parenthetically, I agree with everything that daisydavid has said)
 11/20/2013 04:22:26 PM · #56
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The problem is, as with most beautiful underwear models or the street jugglers, they are attractive at first, but yet they most certainly do not have depth.

Luckily many of those at DPC(not all)who possess the power to wow also have depth.

(parenthetically, I agree with everything that daisydavid has said)


I know a large number of beautiful underwear models - pretty much all of them have depth.
 11/20/2013 04:45:22 PM · #57
The terms we used to use in architorture school was "flash versus substance".

Each side pairing off and dancing around the issue like the Sharks and the Jets. The serious minded students in somber clothing had their heroes (Krier, Koolhause and the Bauhaus boys) and talked about the profound nature of "Capitol A Architecture". The Stylist talked about the accessibility of architecture, the importance of inclusion of the masses,their heroes (Moore, Graves, Brown and Ghery) argued that architecture should not be a religion that required catechism to understand what was going on, otherwise it just became a circle jerk of clever fellows to the detriment of the urban grid.

Pick a side, pick a side. Same thing in any art form or area of study if you dig deep enough. Are you with us or against us?

Few people listen to both Depeche Mode and Pavement, Lady GaGa and the Black Keys.

The funny thing is if you really listen any of those bands, they have some great stuff, and to say that one style of music is inherently a failure because it lacks substance speaks more to the listener than the performer.

To bring it back to the OP, I would contend that many viewers do not give the Low-Fi B&W soft focus contemplative image fair shrift. But is it not equally true, that the fans of that style pass over the candy colored ultra sharp offerings with the same alacrity? There is some dross in both camps, but if you spend some time, there is real substance behind the flash from time to time. There is gold in those hills, but you have to dig to find it.
 11/20/2013 04:56:38 PM · #58
Elegantly stated, Brennan.
 11/20/2013 06:57:22 PM · #59
"architorture", LOL!!!!!

And Yes, Brennan. You are so right.
 11/20/2013 08:29:59 PM · #60
How do you unequivocally know that "wow" was the strangler and not the scapegoat?

11/20/2013 08:42:38 PM · #61
Ah, Mae, you are as wise as you are beautiful
 11/20/2013 08:48:41 PM · #62
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ah, Mae, you are as wise as you are beautiful


::beams sweetly at Johanna::
 11/20/2013 09:32:54 PM · #63
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But is it not equally true, that the fans of that style pass over the candy colored ultra sharp offerings with the same alacrity?
equally? Clearly not. Check the scores.
 11/20/2013 09:36:02 PM · #64
Thank God (or the Devil?) that Ubique is back...;-D
 11/20/2013 10:16:50 PM · #65
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ah, Mae, you are as wise as you are beautiful


::beams sweetly at Johanna::

So you're saying that wasn't "faint" praise?
 11/20/2013 10:17:43 PM · #66
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But is it not equally true, that the fans of that style pass over the candy colored ultra sharp offerings with the same alacrity?
equally? Clearly not. Check the scores.


I don't think you can use the scores to support or refute the point without taking into account how many fans of each style there are.
 11/20/2013 10:17:53 PM · #67
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But is it not equally true, that the fans of that style pass over the candy colored ultra sharp offerings with the same alacrity?
equally? Clearly not. Check the scores.


That's probably because you can't vote down the candy colored ultra sharp without fear of pitchforks and suspensions. No such threats exists for the other camp.
 11/20/2013 10:21:44 PM · #68
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ah, Mae, you are as wise as you are beautiful


::beams sweetly at Johanna::

So you're saying that wasn't "faint" praise?

At least it was *prompt*...
 11/20/2013 10:27:03 PM · #69
Originally posted by PennyClick:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But is it not equally true, that the fans of that style pass over the candy colored ultra sharp offerings with the same alacrity?
equally? Clearly not. Check the scores.


I don't think you can use the scores to support or refute the point without taking into account how many fans of each style there are.


the point is irrefutable and unsupportable.
11/21/2013 12:03:01 AM · #70
Originally posted by mitalapo:
Originally posted by Garry:
... So no, in reference to the OP, the "wow factor is not strangling photography", the voting practices are.

Wowing may be a prerogative of the voter, but it was presented (e.g. in the recent negative space challenge) as a requirement to the photographer. So the question still holds.


I wasn't really referring in the OP to DPC photography. I meant photography generally.

But in the narrower context, Garry makes a fair point: that the voters' demand for a 'Wow' forces many DPC photographers to adopt it as a mantra, like the rule of thirds. They know that most voters are dismissive of anything in which the Wow is not reassuringly overpowering. Many of those voters even say so in their comments ... 'Technicals are good, it's Sharp as a Tack, nice use of Rule of Thirds. But there's no real Wow Factor.'

But now I must dispute the usual claim that it's because voters don't have time for considering more complex photographs. That's nonsense. If you haven't recognised that you're looking at a more demanding and ambitious photograph in 3 - 5 seconds, then you aren't equipped to do so even if you were to contemplate it for 3 - 5 hours. This 'I don't have the time' bullshit actually means 'I don't have the imagination, nor the curiosity'.

And my next forum post will be: 'Rule of Thirds ... It's backing composition into a corner.'
 11/21/2013 12:09:48 AM · #71
Originally posted by ubique:
And my next forum post will be: 'Rule of Thirds ... It's backing composition into a corner.'

That's why I hold out for "Symmetrical": the possibilities are endless :-)
 11/21/2013 08:54:38 AM · #72
Originally posted by ubique:
... It's strangling photography.


The audience is not, & should never be, a part of the photographic process.
Photojournalism is the one exception.
The ethics of photojournalism dominate photography.

Is it possible to use photography as an instrument of self-expression?
Can you dance like nobody's watching when you're on stage in front of a full house?
It's worth it to try.
11/21/2013 09:44:25 AM · #73
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by mitalapo:
Originally posted by Garry:
... So no, in reference to the OP, the "wow factor is not strangling photography", the voting practices are.

Wowing may be a prerogative of the voter, but it was presented (e.g. in the recent negative space challenge) as a requirement to the photographer. So the question still holds.


I wasn't really referring in the OP to DPC photography. I meant photography generally.

But in the narrower context, Garry makes a fair point: that the voters' demand for a 'Wow' forces many DPC photographers to adopt it as a mantra, like the rule of thirds. They know that most voters are dismissive of anything in which the Wow is not reassuringly overpowering. Many of those voters even say so in their comments ... 'Technicals are good, it's Sharp as a Tack, nice use of Rule of Thirds. But there's no real Wow Factor.'

But now I must dispute the usual claim that it's because voters don't have time for considering more complex photographs. That's nonsense. If you haven't recognised that you're looking at a more demanding and ambitious photograph in 3 - 5 seconds, then you aren't equipped to do so even if you were to contemplate it for 3 - 5 hours. This 'I don't have the time' bullshit actually means 'I don't have the imagination, nor the curiosity'.

And my next forum post will be: 'Rule of Thirds ... It's backing composition into a corner.'


I think you need to find something more DPC appropriate. I'm proud of DPC for not sticking with rule of thirds. We seemed to do well with spreading out off centered, centered, rule of thirds, and just all over the place pretty well. And it seems to have been a long time since someone suggested that I go for rule of thirds. But, if you're not tack sharp -- you're dead in the water. :)
 11/21/2013 04:17:56 PM · #74
Originally posted by vawendy:
But, if you're not tack sharp -- you're dead in the water. :)


Unless it is clear it was not an error. There is a tendency to dismiss anything that might be a mistake, as a mistake, instead of considering that it may be an artistic choice. And that is a shame.

In the same way we ought to try to see if something is DNMC by considering what other viewpoints might have been taken on a challenge, we really should pause and think before voting " Might what I have taken for a mistake, be a compositional choice? Assuming it was a choice, is it a good one?" But for me, out of focus elements are not inherently artistic, they have to contribute to the work. The inverse is equally true; an irrelevant and distracting background that is tack sharp is a detriment.

When the subject is one that clearly is helped by a softer look we even give ribbons to them.
11/27/2013 10:59:18 AM · #75
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The problem is, as with most beautiful underwear models or the street jugglers, they are attractive at first, but yet they most certainly do not have depth.

Luckily many of those at DPC(not all)who possess the power to wow also have depth.

(parenthetically, I agree with everything that daisydavid has said)


I know a large number of beautiful underwear models - pretty much all of them have depth.


I am sure they do. The point is, like with flashy pop photography, they are flattered to death and never need to show real depth.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/26/2025 04:58:26 AM

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: 07/26/2025 04:58:26 AM EDT.