| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2005 11:40:53 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 11:46:23 PM · #27 |
| I had a picture of the Death Star under construction but then.. well.. that dang camera date got me... |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 12:19:54 AM · #28 |
Judge Judy being the mean old bat she is certainly would have given it a 2 or 1.
I would have given it a 4, the photo just did not have alot of interest for me.
BTW, I think DR Phil would have given it an 6, just cause he is such a nice guy. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 12:27:42 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Judge Judy being the mean old bat she is certainly would have given it a 2 or 1.
I would have given it a 4, the photo just did not have alot of interest for me.
BTW, I think DR Phil would have given it an 6, just cause he is such a nice guy. |
I lurve Dr Phil..... |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 01:55:42 AM · #30 |
That's strange....I thought when I read this thread the 1st time there was reference to the picture in question selling 3 prints for $150 each. Where is that reference now? Did those sales really happen? Just curious.
Originally posted by soup:
the challenge details were 'Creatively capture an interesting photograph of architecture.'
not to photograph a building according to standard professional standards.
personally i didn't find this particular image all that creative, nor enjoy how the building was chopped.
be content a few prints were sold, and it has valuable appeal to some.
my entry, i thought was quite creative, and still do despite the rather painful beating it was issued... |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 02:29:03 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by 4score:
That's strange....I thought when I read this thread the 1st time there was reference to the picture in question selling 3 prints for $150 each. Where is that reference now? Did those sales really happen? Just curious. |
The comment about the sales is in the discussion underneath the photo. Follow the link in the original posting. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 09:53:05 AM · #32 |
Yes, those sales happened. I have a gallery in the front of my house. The image sells well here, of course, because it is so VERY Cape Coddish... Has little or no relevance to the issue of DPC voting. Kinda like selling wedding pictures tot he family of the bride :-) These people love their cape.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 10:14:34 AM · #33 |
bear
Your house is a gallery. Every room but the kitchen, unless you've added some there *grin*
I went back for a quick review of the submissions, and I think I would have ranked this somewhere around 70th. Mostly it's a matter of taste, but it just seems too flat for me. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 11:15:10 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Yes, those sales happened. I have a gallery in the front of my house. The image sells well here, of course, because it is so VERY Cape Coddish... Has little or no relevance to the issue of DPC voting. Kinda like selling wedding pictures tot he family of the bride :-) These people love their cape.
Robt. |
Not to mention that $150 is a drop in the bucket to some of those wealthy cape cod vacationers! ;) |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 12:46:05 PM · #35 |
Finally got dug out, went back to the marsh. Here's the same shot as wide as I can make it, snow covered of course. May give some insight as to why there's "no door" in the submitted image, for what that's worth... Just a snapshot, no adjustments to this image but levels.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2005 04:44:54 PM · #36 |
Well thanks for your support of this thread, folks. I think it may be time to kill it now (if it hasn't expired from natural causes already). I appreciate all the strongly held points of view & I learned quite a lot, about prevailing DPC values in particular. My final contribution to this thread should be to explain why I felt so favourably disposed toward the image, and still do, in spite of the several opposing opinions. I don't expect to persuade anyone to my view, of course, just to show that I had some sound reasons for it.
Architectural Merits of the Building:
The modesty of the building is irrelevant. The view that a building would have to be grand, glamorous and spectactular to be suitable for this challenge seems to me simply puerile. Sorry; ain't no other word for it. I'm sure the photographer was aware, however, that his image would be handicapped in the judging of this challenge because of the superficially unprepossessing nature of his subject. I don't imagine he cared.
Composition of the Image:
An inescapable element of architectural merit is the relationship of a building with its environment. In some cases, that environment is a thicket of high-rise steel & glass, and the architect is inevitably asked to "out-Wow" the neighbouring buildings. In photographing such a building, the photographer is probably best advised to include that environment as mere glimpses and reflections, or even shadows; he must make the building the star. But in this particular case, the environment is an essential part of the cottage, and both the architect and the photographer knew it. So in my opinion, the view that too much prominence is given to the "background" (aka: that pesky environment) entirely misses the point, both of the architecture and of the photographer's tribute to it. Having chosen this subject, the photographer wisely elected to also show us why he did so.
Cropping of the Image:
We have since seen that there were some physical restraints preventing including all, or even a bit more, of the cottage. However, I would like to hope that even if those restrictions had not existed, this photograph would have been framed/cropped exactly as it was. It is, to me, a clever hybrid view; not the whole structure, but still more than a close detail shot. To include the whole cottage while retaining enough image size to reveal its structural & decorative character would have required excluding the essential environmental context. It would have been a nice shot of a modest little cabin and that's all.
Processing of the Image:
I don't know much about this subject. It looked very sympathetic to me, given the subject & the scene generally. No brooding, Wagnerian, Icelandic sky; no absurd and inappropriate tilting; no wildly oversaturated colours. It appears from the photographer's subsequent comments that what processing he did use was pretty subtle.
Conclusion:
I still think it's a very fine architectural photograph, but I admit that it would have to be considered ill-chosen if the expectation had been to win a DPC ribbon.
Message edited by author 2005-01-25 16:46:58. |
|
|
|
01/25/2005 05:11:02 PM · #37 |
What is going on with DPC.
|
|
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: 08/01/2025 08:00:17 AM EDT.
