| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2005 12:58:09 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
... There is enough problem as it is with pictures getting judged lower because they don't quite fit the challenge, ... |
You are making a mistake if you think "pictures getting judged lower because they don't quite fit the challenge" is a problem. They are supposed to be voted lower. Here's a quote from the rules, both Basic and Advanced --
"While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly."
If you don't take meeting the challenge into account when voting you are breaking the rules.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 01:53:48 AM · #27 |
When I said don't quite fit, I guess I should have had a "in the eye of the voter" in there. There are some cases where you would get a pretty good picture that was undervoted because it took an interesting peg at the idea of the challenge. As another thread said, taking a picture of a spider making a spider web might not be a good idea because even though this is "construction" ... it isn't quite "construction" in the sense that most people would think of off the top of their heads.
But what I meant in adding this is that this judgment is subjective as it is, then you add in moral subjectivity and you might as well just stay with the politically correct topics and adhere as closely as you can to the literals. This literalness might be boring for some. I actually rather welcome some of the extremeness I've seen, having looked at some pretty crazy stuff at deviantart.
Of course, if you can capture an incredible image, then these problems may not be a problem at all. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:01:29 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
When I said don't quite fit, I guess I should have had a "in the eye of the voter" in there. There are some cases where you would get a pretty good picture that was undervoted because it took an interesting peg at the idea of the challenge. As another thread said, taking a picture of a spider making a spider web might not be a good idea because even though this is "construction" ... it isn't quite "construction" in the sense that most people would think of off the top of their heads.
But what I meant in adding this is that this judgment is subjective as it is, then you add in moral subjectivity and you might as well just stay with the politically correct topics and adhere as closely as you can to the literals. This literalness might be boring for some. I actually rather welcome some of the extremeness I've seen, having looked at some pretty crazy stuff at deviantart.
Of course, if you can capture an incredible image, then these problems may not be a problem at all. |
That's all very accurate, actually. What it boils down to is this: the further you stray from the DPC community's "norm", the better your image has to be to score well. It's perfectly understandable. Everyone can relate to the norm, basically; that's how it BECOMES the norm. Outside-the-box thinking, questionable subject matter, unusual post-processing techniques, all will certainly alienate as many people as they will impress. More probably...
Unless they are exceptionally well done...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:06:35 AM · #29 |
Well... as for artistic and amazing pictures... with the suicide/violence theme:
//www.suzi9mm.com/
If you saw something like that in a challenge here... what would you give it? It is clear that the majority of the shots here are simply amazing. I would love to be able to do work like this, though I lack experience and facilities.
But would you vote it down for being so extreme even though the shots are simply incredible?
Edit: Made the link actually a link.
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 02:07:46. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:30:31 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
Well... as for artistic and amazing pictures... with the suicide/violence theme:
//www.suzi9mm.com/
If you saw something like that in a challenge here... what would you give it? It is clear that the majority of the shots here are simply amazing. I would love to be able to do work like this, though I lack experience and facilities.
But would you vote it down for being so extreme even though the shots are simply incredible?
Edit: Made the link actually a link. |
Most of those I'd probably rate quite highly. 6-8s for most, and a few that would be tempting for 9-10s. I believe the evaluation process here should be about the photograph and the quality of the photograph. But subject matter could play a part, and yes, sometimes I'd give a fairly low score to an image that was "poorly shot" (imho) combined with a tasteless subject matter. In general though, through at least the last 10 challenges that I've voted on, I've tried very hard to give higher than 5, and I can probably count the number of 1s, 2s or 3s I've "dished out" in one hand.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 02:43:03 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by yeoua:
... But what I meant in adding this is that this judgment is subjective as it is, then you add in moral subjectivity and you might as well just stay with the politically correct topics and adhere as closely as you can to the literals. This literalness might be boring for some. I actually rather welcome some of the extremeness I've seen, having looked at some pretty crazy stuff at deviantart. ... |
If you are going to expect voters to be entirely tolerant of danderson107's efforts to "make people realize this stuff happens", how can you not allow them to apply their own "moral subjectivity" ? I think we are better off trying to minimize both.
What you call "extremeness" and "pretty crazy stuff" have their place. But that's not what dpc is about. Challenge entries shouldn't get voted high because they have shock value, or because they touch on controversial subjects, or because the entering photographer is trying to "make people realize this stuff happens". They should get voted high because they meet the topic and are technically well executed. Selecting subjects that are pleasing to the tastes of the voters will get you more wow factor votes than shocking or offending their sensabilities will. I think that is as it should be.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 03:14:26 AM · #32 |
Have I been in a coma for the last 30 years or something? When I hear the term "moral subjectivity" applied to the reactions of voters to the subjects of Suicide, Violence, Self Mutilation - I am wondering in what philosophy / religion / moral foundation are these things considered morally acceptable??
I've heard the argument "It's reality" - I think that's a load of crap - which, by the way is also a reality, but would it be acceptable to post graphic pictures of it? How about abortion - a trash can full of discarded fetuses - I know that would draw some fire from all directions, even though it is "reality".
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 04:37:50 AM · #33 |
I agree with the perception/opinion that most pictures in DPC lack any "intellectual content" and in most cases are just a pretty image
when pictures do have some any 'provocative' content / subject they are judged low
IMHO is a shame, because the documentary side of photography is not explored or appreciated. I've read in so many post that most people judge on technicality, how ever that is only half of the picture
The real problem i guess is that most people do not have the 'open minded' attitude needed to judge on subject or interpretation
So many pretty picture make a short lasting impression while a picture that represents something may really touch you
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 04:41:11 AM · #34 |
No offense, but I get annoyed when people use the phrase "not open-minded" to describe others' opinions, judgements or values that do not match their own. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 04:52:27 AM · #35 |
Yes that why i places it between ''
here take your pick
//thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=open-minded |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 06:03:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
What you call "extremeness" and "pretty crazy stuff" have their place. But that's not what dpc is about. Challenge entries shouldn't get voted high because they have shock value, or because they touch on controversial subjects, or because the entering photographer is trying to "make people realize this stuff happens". |
Coolhar,
I have been thinking of saying something for a while now, but I must say that I am continually disappointed by the way in which you attempt to limit the creativity and scope of the DPC community. Yes, DPC, as a forum in which success is determined by popular vote, is a place where pretty, stock-style photographs that provide uncontroversial interpretations of challenges will do well, but that is not to say that this site should be confined to people seeking to produce such images.
DPC provides it's users with a forum to share their work, and attempt to grow as photographers. Given then, the widely held perception of photography as an artform, such growth is not merely about enhancing ones technical skills, it involves learning to challenge ideas, provoke thought and evoke emotion. Your continued attempt to stifle imaginative expressions and interpretation does nothing to aid in this growth.
I'm well aware, that as it stands, my own photography is hardly provocative or challenging, but I personally would like the freedom to engage in more imaginative or provocative photography without being stifled by such vehemently conservative approaches. I'm sure there are many within this community that feel the same.
Photography (and, in turn, dpc) is more than f-stops and shutter speeds. It is creativity, imagination, and emotion. The world is not always a beautiful place, and in seeking always to portray it as such, we tell only half a story.
Anders |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 06:12:56 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by megryan:
They should be judging the photo as it is technically, personal issues should not come into it. |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Challenge entries shouldn't get voted high because they have shock value, or because they touch on controversial subjects, or because the entering photographer is trying to "make people realize this stuff happens". They should get voted high because they meet the topic and are technically well executed. |
I love it when others tell the rest of us how we should be voting and what we should and should not be taking into account.
I completely disagree that voters should only take into account the technical aspects of an entry. Photograhy is not just about mastering the technical skills but about creating an image that does one or more of a number of things: aesthetically pleases the viewer, communicates a concept, idea, belief or story, evokes an emotional reaction, makes the viewer think about something.
I think too many people restrict themselves and limit their full appreciation of the medium by assuming that the only purpose of photography (or at least, the photography here on DPC) is to aesthetically please the viewer.
Why do we want to encourage an artificial separation of technical achievement and ability to grow in terms of content and what we are trying to do with content?
And why do we want to ask voters not to be subjective when voting? Receiving their honest votes, including their subjective reactions, gives us a much better idea of how that image might be taken by the wider world with all of the personal experiencess, emotional baggage, belief systems and subjective likes and dislikes of viewers intact.
I see DPC as a site that supports photographers who want to learn to improve their skills in all areas, not solely technical.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 07:54:59 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
...Photograhy is not just about mastering the technical skills but about creating an image that does one or more of a number of things: aesthetically pleases the viewer, communicates a concept, idea, belief or story, evokes an emotional reaction, makes the viewer think about something... |
Yep, made me think about how much I don't feel like, or want to, look at photos that have a twisted concept. Doesn't matter how technically correct the photo is.
Originally posted by Kavey:
...gives us a much better idea of how that image might be taken by the wider world... |
I certainly don't want my kids looking at some of this either. Before you get on your soapbox about this one, they aren't looking at them on DPC. This comment is thrown in as an example of wider world interpretation.
Originally posted by Kavey:
...Why do we want to encourage an artificial separation of technical achievement and ability to grow in terms of content and what we are trying to do with content?... |
Technical is a process or method, content is purely subjective as can be illustrated by the direction of this thread. They can easily be separated.
Originally posted by Kavey:
...And why do we want to ask voters not to be subjective when voting?... |
I'm very subjective - when I see images that make me wish I hadn't they get a very quick 1 vote from me. Sorry if that sucks, you don't like it, etc...just the way it is. That's my 'vote' to tell those that submit gross images I don't like it, no matter how technically correct it is, and I hope they get to message to think twice the next time.
There, have fun with that. ;^)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 08:40:52 AM · #39 |
I'm not saying that you should vote up a picture with shock value.
I'm saying that you should NOT vote down a picture with shock value.
As for voting style... I'm personally on the side that wants to vote only one technique. Why? When you try to vote on style and emotional content and what not, you tend to sometimes get into situations where you vote down because the content had a negative impact on you.
But doesn't that mean that this negative impact affected you? So wouldn't that also mean that the picture is in a sense "stronger" than a picture that had zero affect on you but looked just as good?
Yes, I love the artistic stuff, but I do not think it might be fair to put that into the judging criteria if all our judging criteria is so different. If you think that difference in criteria is a good thing, look at criteria on "good technique"... I'm going to say that most people have about the same idea about what constitutes good technique, while everyone has wildly different ideas on what constitutes "artistic" or "emotionally powerful" in relation to the whole spectrum of good/evil tasteful/disgusting.
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 08:50:59. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 08:44:08 AM · #40 |
Glad2badad
You may not like to see photos that make you think, feel or react negatively but this site isn't all about you. Some people do get something out of images like that and this site is for them too.
You don't want your kids to see "some of this"... ensure they visit only child-safe sites. How you achieve that shouldn't be anyone else's cross to bear. And I'm not getting on a soapbox, I'm just saying what I think, same as you are. I'm fed up with parents assuming they have the right to expect the entire world to dumb-down to a child's level just because it's easier for them that way. I totally agree that the global community shares a responsibility to ensure that kids are not exposed to unsuitable material in arenas where it's fair not to expect any but... there are many arenas where material that's unsuitable for children should be expected.
That technical and content CAN be separated is not a persuasive argument that they SHOULD be separated.
I'm absolutely happy for you to vote a 1 to an image that you strongly dislike. It's your subjective opinion. I don't think it sucks nor do I dislike it.
My whole point is that I don't think it's right to try and vote purely on technical aspects alone - that's not a natural way to judge an image. I know that I'm not alone in wanting personal, subjective feedback to my images as well as technical.
So why would I have a problem with some people voting low on an image that they intensely dislike?
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 08:45:16.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 09:02:10 AM · #41 |
I don't much like the suicide subject, I just think it's a little...lame. It's like the gothic equivalent of a flower shot.
That aside, I'm not going to vote it down. I don't vote flower shots down unless they're technically poor, badly composed etc. - and by citing the technical details I'm merely trying to quantify what a 'good photo' is.
If your image deals with suicide, is tastefully done, is artistically portrayed and is aesthetically pleasing I'll vote it up. If you've creatively expressed the (what is fast becoming a hackneyed) subject in a new and interesting way I'll vote it up.
There's a particular shot in the decisions challenge (not suicide but close) that fits those criteria and I'm proud to say I did just that.
If I vote a suicide shot down it's because I think it's trite, ugly or badly done. I had the idea myself for the decisions challenge, but then realized it would be a little bit silly and very difficult to accomplish in a new and interesting way.
Alex.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 09:08:43 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by AlexMonty:
I don't much like the suicide subject, I just think it's a little...lame. It's like the gothic equivalent of a flower shot. |
Don't flower shots usually do well on dpc? :)
Message edited by author 2005-06-06 09:12:16. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 09:36:43 AM · #43 |
They do indeed, but DPC isn't the gothic equivalent of itself :p
I'm sure the suicide shots would do well on the dark, angsty, broody version of DPC, the members mostly in their teens - as opposed to members twice their age (on average) like on DPC.
Also, I like that analogy and no matter what anyone says I'm going to cling to it like...well now I have to think of another one (analogy, that is).
Alex
PS: I'm open to analogy suggestions ;)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 09:40:07 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
...You may not like to see photos that make you think, feel or react negatively... |
I don't mind thinking, really, and I do quite often. ;^) I do think, however, that it is a shame that people feel the need to glorify a sad state of human affairs such as suicide. Such a waste of photographic talent and energy.
Originally posted by Kavey:
...this site isn't all about you. |
Never said it was. JMO as you have yours.
Originally posted by Kavey:
Some people do get something out of images like that and this site is for them too. |
Sad, but true.
As for what my kids see or don't see, yes that IS up to me. If voicing my opinion can make just one person stop and think about the social value (in this case lack thereof), of an image they want to show the world, then I'm doing what's right for my kids. Get enough people thinking this way and maybe social values can take a much needed positive turn in the warped liberal world we live in.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 10:03:27 AM · #45 |
I've cited why I dislike most suicide shots, your reasons show two that you have two major misconceptions...
Do you think that they are glorifying suicide by taking a photograph of someone contemplating it, or preparing to commit suicide? That's ridiculous! I think they're (and I apologize to all that entered suicide shots) pretentious, pseudo-artistic attempts at SOMETHING (for the most part), but they CERTAINLY do not glorify suicide.
Do you think that these images are going to make people want to go out and kill themselves? That's ridiculous!
I hope you've just misconceived your own reasons for disliking them. If not and you still strongly believe that photographs of suicide are decaying the moral fabric of society, then you're not particularly sociologically perceptive...or maybe you're just out of touch.
Alex.
PS: I totally respect your opinion, but I still think it's silly :)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 10:09:55 AM · #46 |
Photos depicting the use of drugs is not allowed on DPC, why is that (besides the legal issue)?
Advertisements of hard liquor have been banned in many places...
Sorry, still think that images of young people contemplating suicide falls into the same immoral classification.
Silly me.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 10:22:46 AM · #47 |
Besides the legal issue? I'm guessing the legality IS the issue!
"Advertisement for" is not the same as, "photo depicting." Please tell me you see the difference!
Anyhow, where are hard liquor advertisements banned? Just curious :) I don't think that's a bad thing, although I'm not sure it'll curb the demand.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2005 10:42:31 AM · #48 |
Before continuing this discussion further, I think you might want to take a look at this thread.
Skiprow's loss
With all due respect to Skiprow, I have to post this:
What you don't realize about depicting suicide is that no photo can be dark enough to depict the actual thoughts of the person contemplating suicide. Immature, you say, well, I can tell you that suicide is a very immature manner of handling your problems. The photos depicting suicide here in this challenge did not indicate for the most part, that the photographer understands the nature of suicide. So here's a little insight from one that's been there.
People decide to commit suicide, because they they feel there is no other way to handle their problems. The scenarios that a suicidal person comes up with in his mind are far darker and more horrifying than anything I've seen in this challenge. No matter what anyone says a friend, relative, clergy or therapist, all the advice comes across as trite and condescending. People that commit suicide, usually think something along the lines of "Well, I'll show them." Suicide is a call for attention, because needs are not getting met. The depressed person doesn't think about not being around to enjoy the attention. If they succeed. They don't think about those that are left behind to handle the problems they are avoiding.
I hope you'll take this into account when you try your next suicide photo. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 10:50:22 AM · #49 |
guys --
this conversation is better left until the challenge is over. we're talking about a small minority of the images in this challenge and it's not fair to debate their value while voting continues.
for the record, images of illegal drugs are NOT banned. images of the USE of illegal drugs are...and yes, it's simply a legality issue.
not everything in this world is sunsets and flowers and there's absolutely no reason why people can't post exactly what they are feeling here. it's art, and it's bound to be controversial. but leave the controversy alone until Wednesday, 12:01am DPC time.... please. |
|
|
|
06/06/2005 10:58:57 AM · #50 |
And why is legality an issue? Just the depiction of using drugs (doesn't really have to have drugs in the photo) is a big no-no. Why? Because it could be considered encouraging the use of...
As for hard liquor advertising ban, I don't know all the specifics, but I know it goes back to the 70's in the USA. I did find a link doing a quick search (scroll to the end of the article 'Commentary' section: The Multimediary Opportunity Newsletter
Regarding "Advertisement for" vs "photo depicting"...how do you think it would go over (if at all) for a photo depicting a young person in the act of commiting (simulating) suicide to be posted on the side of a city bus or a roadside billboard? No text, just the photo. People would be outraged and rightly so.
I'm sure you will come back with some debatable point and we could stand on both sides of the fence for some time. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree...
Originally posted by AlexMonty:
Besides the legal issue? I'm guessing the legality IS the issue!
"Advertisement for" is not the same as, "photo depicting." Please tell me you see the difference!
Anyhow, where are hard liquor advertisements banned? Just curious :) I don't think that's a bad thing, although I'm not sure it'll curb the demand. |
|
|
