| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2002 12:12:15 AM · #26 |
I'll admit that I was among the 4s on this one. I have to agree with many of the other posts here... as far as technical stuff, I think it was just fine. I like the way your face was lit, etc.
It just didn't grab me with any "wow" factor... in all honesty it just said, "here's a guy's computer room... much like mine."
I think a key to scoring highly on DP Challenge is to "think out of the box, but not so far that you can't see the box anymore." I like to see shots where people didn't use the first idea that came to mind... shots that really reached out and grabbed me. Shots that make me stare and want to reach through the screen are going to score better.
At the same time, some folks try to go a little too far "outside the box" and come up with things that aren't easily identified as belonging to the challenge.
It's a fine balance! With your extensive background I'm sure you'll have the technique down pat better than most of us for each challenge. The difference here is to challenge yourself to take shots an extra step or two.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:44:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I wasn't able to make it to vote on your photo, but here is how I feel about it...
It depicts your corner of the world perfectly, as a matter of fact, looks just like mine, where I spend most of my waking hours as well. However, the originality, creativity and effort are lacking. The photo its self is ok it's a good snapshot. I think though, what this web site is trying for though is attempt at "works of art" and how we can make our "works of art" better.
Well, if you put it that way, then at the risk of sounding immodest, I'll have to call it "a work of art."
And it does have a degree of orginality because while may folks take snapshots of their "special occasions", not many of the make images of daily life, the very essence of their life, and the very places where they spend much of their time.
In terms of creativity, it would have been quite easy for me just to flood the place with light rather than thoughtfully and deliberately considering what I wanted to show and not show, moving the viewer's eye from place to place as I showed not just myself, but the space where I spend a great deal of my time (when I'm not actually photographing). Indeed, the whole image was quite carefully orchastrated, and to such a degree, that it has reached a level of success that some even regard it a just as quickly taken snapshot. But it was anything but that.
Finally there is the issue of "lacking in effort." The challenge was to show my corner of the world. And I gave that good thought. And the image in question is the very essence of my "corner of the world" - in my home, in my den, and in the very corner where I spend the most time in that den. But from where I sit, what you have been saying is, at least to me, a compliment of sorts, because if I work dilligently and can in the end come up with a good image which at first glance seems to have been made with little effort, then I have well pushed the envelope without going over the edge to something which looks too setup, too contrived.
Edward Weston once said that the first requisite for any artist is to have something to say. And the image in question here does just that -- this is my corner of the world. And it is an image which has been made thoughtfully and deliberately, and with careful consideration to what I wanted the viewer to see and not see, and with consideration to not just the space but also to the relationship between the person and the space, and with due consideration to exposure and lighting and careful placement of the compositional elements.
So if I am pushed in to a corner now (no pun intended) about whether it is "a work of art" or not, then at the risk of sounding immodest, I am (shrug) pretty much compelled to say, "Yes, I suppose it is."
Or at least it seems that way to me once we get down to the very specifics of what is involved in the work of any photographic artist.
In any event, if any of us find we have reached a point in our image making where we are finally looking for a good a good answer to the question "What is art?", then my suggestion to read Robert Persig's 1970's book "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance." It's not an easy book to get through. And certain not a book if one is looking for just light reading. But within those pages Persig addresses the question of "What is art?" and answers that question better than anybody I have read or heard back then or even now today.
CJ
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:05:36 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
it's a sad fact that every week hundreds of people enter but only 3 win.
all the people who dont win - they ALL have these feelings.
Actually, you're somewhat mistaken if you at all believe that I am in any way dejected. I've been at this image making game for decades now, and it's going to take much more than this to at all shake my foundations, or the self-confidence which has been long earned.
**********
[/b] Imagine if they all posted a thread saying basically 'how come no one got it? '
I didn't ask, "How come no one got it?" Rather I asked "What were you thinking." It is a small, but very significant difference because I don't at all question that it is a good image. It is a good image -- technically, aesthetically, and in terms of meeting the specific criteria of the challenge. And it is (at the risk of sounding immodest) precisely because I know that it is a good image that when I see marks of 2, or 3, or 4, it truly has me wondering about those who gave such marks: What were you thinking?
*********
[/b] the challenge was last week and the votes spoke. Deal with it : )
The votes answer the question "How did people mark." But they do not answer the question of "What were you thinking?" And all the more so when some of the votes strike the photographer as baffling. And so the reason the question was asked here -- which if I'm not mistake, is the proper place for the discussion of Challenge Results. And certainly I expect a moderator to know that, and moreover to have more savvy than giving out flip remarks like "deal with it" (smiley face or not).
CJ
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:42:22 AM · #29 |
CJMorgan:"It is a good image -- technically, aesthetically, and in terms of meeting the specific criteria of the challenge."
Personnally I am done with this thread. It might be a nice discussion about art .. but I am not listening to people starting with this as a fact. I think, personnally, that we are loosing time trying to 'discuss' with you CJ. Maybe we should just worship the master you are, worship yor picture.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:45:14 AM · #30 |
An addition : I am sorry that your self confidence is so solid because you leave very good comment on pictures and I think you would be more helpfull to people like me if you were a little 'not so sure' about the quality of the picture you're taken, regardless of their quality.
Lionel
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 07:16:05 AM · #31 |
I don't mind talking about my scores or why I rated a photo.
I gave it a 4...and not to sound immodest..but I get paid everyday to "rate" photos. Am I right all the time...yes...for me.
Why was "4" a right score for me on this photo?
The photo lacked any hook ..for me. But the main thing that turned me off was the very rigid set-up look to the photo. It wasn't the fact you weren't smiling..it was this subtle feeling of rigidness that your pose produced..like..ok...I need to slightly adjust my finger let me tilt my eye one degree. I could feel this coming through and it left me cold.
I agree..technically the photo is well taken..but so are many family portrait shots and wedding shots but they often feel like cardboard....very arranged.
But..thats my style and others have theirs :-D |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:20:05 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I don't mind talking about my scores or why I rated a photo.
I gave it a 4...and not to sound immodest..but I get paid everyday to "rate" photos.
Then all the more reason I would expect you, of all people, to let your marking be guided mainly by objectivity, not subjectivity.
*********
Why was "4" a right score for me on this photo?
The photo lacked any hook ..for me.
If this photo doesn't appeal to you on a subjective personal level, if it doesn't turn your crank, as it were, then fine, I can accept that. And if you wish to deduct a point or two for that, I can accept that as well.
But in as much as the image meets the criteria of the challenge, and in as much as by your own admission it is, as you put it, technically "well taken," then from an objective stand point you can't reasonably mark it as low a four.
And so it then calls into question who would be paying you to rate photos (not that you have to answer that question here) because for someone who claims to be a professional at doing such work, with all due respect Hokie, a heck of a lot more professional objectivity is expected than that.
But thank-you Hokie for your response and stating why you voted the way you did.
CJ |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:36:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by lionelm:
CJMorgan:"It is a good image -- technically, aesthetically, and in terms of meeting the specific criteria of the challenge."
Personnally I am done with this thread. It might be a nice discussion about art .. but I am not listening to people starting with this as a fact.
It's not stated as fact, but opinion. And I feel strong about my opinion, and I've thought out my opinion, and I've tried my level best to well articulate all the reasonings behind it, but at the end of the day, it is an opinion. And you are quite free to hear the reasonings behind it, or simply disregard it as you see fit.
*********
I think, personnally, that we are loosing time trying to 'discuss' with you CJ.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way because quite often it is the friction of discussion and debate which has folks learning how others think and perceive things, and just as often a photographers learning comes from discussions from other photographers as it does from doing the work itself. So I'm sorry to hear if you feel all this is just a loss or a waste of time, because it's certainly not a waste of time from where I sit.
**********
Maybe we should just worship the master you are, worship yor picture.
It's not about worship. Or at least it's not for me.
Rather it's about asking folks to be accountable for the vote marking that they give. And about learning why they voted the way they did. And about learning how others are percieving the images we make and how well they do or don't communicate. And yes, sometimes it even brushes on that age old question of "What Is Art?"
And then ultimately it's about each of us taking all of what we've discussed and learned from our talks with each other and applying that to our photography so that the future images we make will communicate with greater clarity, directness and impact.
But worship? No, it's not about worship. Or at least if worship was the objective, I myself could find places where that could be obtained much easier than here.
CJ
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:39:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
If this photo doesn't appeal to you on a subjective personal level, if it doesn't turn your crank, as it were, then fine, I can accept that. And if you wish to deduct a point or two for that, I can accept that as well.
But in as much as the image meets the criteria of the challenge, and in as much as by your own admission it is, as you put it, technically "well taken," then from an objective stand point you can't reasonably mark it as low a four.
And so it then calls into question who would be paying you to rate photos (not that you have to answer that question here) because for someone who claims to be a professional at doing such work, with all due respect Hokie, a heck of a lot more professional objectivity is expected than that.
But thank-you Hokie for your response and stating why you voted the way you did.
CJ
I agree and have said as much in my 6 or 7 months being here. The emotional and artistic impact an image has is all powerful to me.
I work for a media conglomerate. I have a degree in communication/design and marketing, ran my own ad agency out of college, worked for a weekly magazine as creative supervisor for 5 years, moved on to editor of an industry publication for 10 years and now I am a regional ad director/coordinator covering 4 dailies, 4 weeklies, and 2 special interest magazines and 1 TV station (mainly working with national account stuff).
Now...all that work stuff out the way (which don't mean pooh when it comes to taking a photo) I gave you a 4 strictly on technical and meeting the challenge and should have given it at least a 5 in hindsight...but why quibble over a point when discussing the big picture.
If your current photo is what I think it is I am rating that a 10 I think...so it all evens out :-)
Normally, I put over half my score on whether the photo hits me right and in my work-a-day world where photographic technical perfection is a given...I would rate the "Wow" factor as all 10 points..I don't give pro's room for level of difficulty.
But in the challenge I will give 4-5 points for technical merit even if the rest of the photo leaves me unaffected. But then this is a hobby site so it's all each persons opinion here anyway which is a major relief :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 1:38:25 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:40:42 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
Originally posted by hokie:
[i]I don't mind talking about my scores or why I rated a photo.
I gave it a 4...and not to sound immodest..but I get paid everyday to "rate" photos.
Then all the more reason I would expect you, of all people, to let your marking be guided mainly by objectivity, not subjectivity.
*********
Why was "4" a right score for me on this photo?
The photo lacked any hook ..for me.
If this photo doesn't appeal to you on a subjective personal level, if it doesn't turn your crank, as it were, then fine, I can accept that. And if you wish to deduct a point or two for that, I can accept that as well.
But in as much as the image meets the criteria of the challenge, and in as much as by your own admission it is, as you put it, technically "well taken," then from an objective stand point you can't reasonably mark it as low a four.
And so it then calls into question who would be paying you to rate photos (not that you have to answer that question here) because for someone who claims to be a professional at doing such work, with all due respect Hokie, a heck of a lot more professional objectivity is expected than that.
But thank-you Hokie for your response and stating why you voted the way you did.
CJ[/i]
I disagree pretty strongly with your statements CJ but don't take this as personal - I am simply stating my viewpoint in the hope that you are actually interested in understanding other peoples' viewpoints and not only in attempting to then convince them that these viewpoints are invalid and that yours is the only correct one.
In YOUR opinion, according to the way YOU feel about voting, the lack of visual appeal in a photo that has technical merit guarantees a minimum score of, well I don't know, as you haven't said, perhaps a 5?
But I think we all have the right to vote as WE see fit. To decide what a photo has to do to acheive a vote of 4 or 6 or 2 or 10 ourselves. The site gives us a scale and tells us which is end is good and which is bad. That's all. How we use the scale is up to all of us, as long as we vote consistently then I think that's well and good.
My scale is very different from the one you seem to use.
For a photo to score a 5 (average) with me it has to relate to the challenge to an average extent, also to be technically acceptable, but ALSO to have SOME appeal.
A photo won't get average marks from me unless it has SOME of each.
Now when I say appeal I don't mean I personally have to think it's "pretty" or I personall have to like the content (as in marking more for chocolate than for broccoli). I mean that it has to have what I call attractiveness as a photo. Visual appeal. To be an image that I enjoy looking at - for whatever reason.
Some of the photos I admire most deal with quite horrific subject matter. So I don't just mean "nice" content.
Just because YOU think that a photo with technical merit doesn't deserve less than 5 no matter how little someone likes it, doesn't mean the rest of us have to think that way.
Also, you say:
I don't at all question that it is a good image.
That's your prerogative. But that's not to say that someone else is wrong if they don't agree with you, or perhaps you think they ARE wrong if they don't agree with you??
I can see that it's well thought out, but I don't particularly think it's a exceptionally wonderfully taken image.
And whether you like it or not, I am entitled to my viewpoint and to vote according to that.
I scored you a 6 by the way, but that's not really relevant to what I have said above.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:43:01 PM · #36 |
Here is my short say on the subject:
I didn't find this a very interesting photo. It is a photo of you at your computer. Okay so it fits the challenge. Well done. Now, it appears TO ME that not much thought went into making an interesting photo. I'm sure there are more interesting things where you live than a guy sitting on a chair.
I vote on a photo judging by its creativity, technicallity, appearence, and lastly Meeting the Challenge.
I dont think you were very creative so far as ideas were concerned.
Technically an "okayish" photo, but it seems boring to look at, and the background is sometimes blurred/doubled.
Appearence: Again, nothing exciting to grip my attention.
Challenge: Yep.
These are basically the things I think about when I vote.
I gave your photo a 3.
Okay, time to flame me.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:53:25 PM · #37 |
CJ you really seem to be beating yourself up over this. It must really be bothering you a lot because I've progressively done worse every challenge with more entries each time. What was I thinking when I voted on it? I can't remember honestly. I was one of the 2,3,4's too. I look at it now, and I'm asking what did I see? The quality of the shot is not blowing me away with anything. I like the lighting on your face and upper torso. If you were Kathy Ireland or Jenny McCarthy sitting there, I'd be a bit more interested. I'm sure it has a deeper meaning to you. That's great!! I think you should enjoy it to the fullest. I don't see why you're looking for redemption like this. I'm a beginner at this stuff in the worst way, so I'm trying to take my lumps and learn some lessons from some of you more experienced types. I've always taken way more than my fair share of pictures, but not on this level, never for anything more than memories of my kids. It's not that I think you suck or anything, I just am not particularly fond of the shot. I'm sure you are 10x the photographer I am, and my scores prove that. I just hate to see someone taking this almost, well for lack of a better term, personally. Good luck to you CJ, I hope you find the answer you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:05:25 PM · #38 |
Put it this way:
A = Artist
B = Buyer
A: Hi, would you like to buy my new photo?
B: Let me take a look.
A: Right this way.
B: Hmmm, I dont really like it. I don't think I'll buy it.
A: What?! Are you mad? The title is "My Room" and it is a photo of my room so what in hell's name is wrong with it? It fits the title! It was also composed using the rule of thirds!
B: I dont find it interesting so I don't want to buy it. OK?
A: Oh my god you are MAD! You're a crazy idiot! You must be if you think my photo is bad!
B: Why would I like a photo of someone in a room? Okay maybe you did use "the rule of thirds" but I just dont like the way it looks! Its boring.
A: What are you thinking you fool!!!
B: I don't like your attitude mister! I don't think I'll be wanting any of your future photos, even if they ARE good!
I hope this gets my point across.
You can't force someone to like a photo.
You can't assume your photo will do well simple because it follows rules.
You must make sure your photo is different and interesting, otherwise many people won't like it.
Learn to accept your score, or people will lose respect for you.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:12:25 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I don't mind talking about my scores or why I rated a photo.
...Am I right all the time...yes...for me.
But..thats my style and others have theirs :-D
What he said... isn't this the whole idea - Everyone is right all the time for them???
Originally posted by hokie:
The emotional and artistic impact an image has is all powerful to me.
Again, what he said!! I totally agree with this and rate all images largely based on this criteria and how it impacts me !!
Just remember this "rule of thumb" CJ - 1/3 of the people will LOVE your work, 1/3 of the people will HATE your work, and the remaining 1/3 could take it or leave it.
Linda
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:13:43 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Imagine if they all posted a thread saying basically 'how come no one got it? '
I didn't ask, "How come no one got it?" Rather I asked "What were you thinking."
It seems rather clear - they were thinking that it wasn't a picture that deserved a higher score than that.
the challenge was last week and the votes spoke. Deal with it : )
The votes answer the question "How did people mark." But they do not answer the question of "What were you thinking?"
They do. See above.
And certainly I expect a moderator to know that, and moreover to have more savvy than giving out flip remarks like "deal with it" (smiley face or not).
CJ
Dear CJ, I did not intend to be flip. In fact, I was 100% serious in my exhortation that you do in fact 'deal with it'. Otherwise it will eat you up. As I said before, many of us don't get why our picture didn't do as well as expected. And the reality is that there is only one thing to 'get' and that is that 'one man's meat is another man's tofu.. i mean poison' : ) .. Even the most famous, popular and revered artists, in any field of endeavor have their detractors. For example Michael Jackson is the best selling musician of all time and has won many awards, yet neither I nor any of my friends have his records. Should Michael Jackson feel bad that all of us could care less whether or not MJ exists?
Assuming your vision has some merit, there will always be those who harken to it and those to whom it means nothing.
Quality is one thing; universality is yet a completely different other.
Knowing and accepting the difference, and not thinking it reflects upon your abilities and competence, is really key here.
And that's what I meant by 'deal with it.' We all must. If we do not, we leave, get angry, or go insane :) ...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 8:37:35 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:19:56 PM · #41 |
| The problem I have with this discussion CJ is that you do not seem to be hearing what you are being told. I did like your photo. The angle and lighting told me it was a well thought out shot. It will look great on the cover of your portfolio. But as the other's have said, it is not something I will linger over. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:57:57 PM · #42 |
This is perfect. Just what I was thinking.
Originally posted by konador:
Put it this way:
A = Artist
B = Buyer
A: Hi, would you like to buy my new photo?
B: Let me take a look.
A: Right this way.
B: Hmmm, I dont really like it. I don't think I'll buy it.
A: What?! Are you mad? The title is "My Room" and it is a photo of my room so what in hell's name is wrong with it? It fits the title! It was also composed using the rule of thirds!
B: I dont find it interesting so I don't want to buy it. OK?
A: Oh my god you are MAD! You're a crazy idiot! You must be if you think my photo is bad!
B: Why would I like a photo of someone in a room? Okay maybe you did use "the rule of thirds" but I just dont like the way it looks! Its boring.
A: What are you thinking you fool!!!
B: I don't like your attitude mister! I don't think I'll be wanting any of your future photos, even if they ARE good!
I hope this gets my point across.
You can't force someone to like a photo.
You can't assume your photo will do well simple because it follows rules.
You must make sure your photo is different and interesting, otherwise many people won't like it.
Learn to accept your score, or people will lose respect for you.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 03:15:52 PM · #43 |
Dear KONADOR -
Well put. I'm impressed by your wisdom and wit. And just wait till you get old and grow into that a little. Nice way to put it without getting nasty.
- Inspzil
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:51:49 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by inspzil:
Dear KONADOR -
Well put. I'm impressed by your wisdom and wit. And just wait till you get old and grow into that a little. Nice way to put it without getting nasty.
- Inspzil
Ditto!!
(Konador, are you really 15 ??- only kidding! You show wonderful maturity for someone that age. ;) )
Linda
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:00:54 PM · #45 |
I was one of the people who gave you a low score (and I do have a den and can relate).
What I think your picture lacked (as some others I see from the comments would agree with me)
is the main subject; is it you or the room?
If it was the room (or den whatever your preference for working might be),
then that's what should've been accented; and not you in the middle of it.
Some other aspects of it could have been hi-lighted as well; for example if the camera was pointing strait down and you used a fish-eye or wide angle attachment, the image might̢۪ve conveyed more of the constraints of your work space.
All in all, I think it was a great idea, however not very well executed.
This is nothing personal, just an honest OPINION.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:09:01 PM · #46 |
I find this thread amusing. VERY amusing as a matter of fact. The guy asks what we were thinking...and then he doesn't want to hear it. Don't ask how we feel, if you're not ready to accept it. That's my opinion. And on that line...if you don't REALLY want to know how people feel about your photos, then simply don't post them here. Because...trust me, we'll tell you.
I told you honestly how I felt about your photo, as did many others, and you shot US down for being honest. BLAH.
Thats all I have to say.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 6:08:37 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:12:04 PM · #47 |
Another phenomenon that occurs as the site gets bigger with more and more entries is that photos like CJ's get lost in the shuffle.
If CJ's photo was only one of 40 photos in the challenge or he was the photographer sitting on my desk talking one on one about the photo I might be able to look deeper into the photo.
But..with 240 or so photos..unless you blow away the competition your photo gets lost in the pack...
I think my photo is like that this week. Based on the low amount of comments and its middling score its just getting lost in the group...I can understand that and accept that happens from time to time...
I know I should have put that darn nekkid girl reflection in that photo..darnit!!!! >:-D |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 07:45:06 PM · #48 |
Just remember this "rule of thumb" CJ - 1/3 of the people will LOVE your work, 1/3 of the people will HATE your work, and the remaining 1/3 could take it or leave it.
Linda
[/i]
Actually CJ - about 8% loved your photo, 33% hated it and 58% could take it or leave it.
1-4 = hate it
5-7 = take it or leave it
8-10 = love it
I gave it a 5. To me it met the challenge but was uninteresting. It was a well taken snapshot as far as framing, but only family or friends would want a copy.
Funny thing about this site. Sometimes a photo can have the colors altered or other PS changes and "Wow, That's Great" while others get hammered. I have entered several that I thought were great that were not well recieved.
The reason I keep entering is not to win, but to learn from others. I doubt I will ever be in top three. There is an abundance of talent here and they will all help you with any questions you might have. Could be you already know everything about photography, Photoshop, PC's etc.
If you have the time perhaps you would like to learn what it takes to win HERE.
I doubt many other sites would have given you this much screen time either. Quit crying and go try to take a more interesting pitcher.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 08:57:38 PM · #49 |
| When are we going to quit wasting our time on this and move on? |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:10:25 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by cjmorgan59:
In any event, if any of us find we have reached a point in our image making where we are finally looking for a good a good answer to the question "What is art?", then my suggestion to read Robert Persig's 1970's book "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance." It's not an easy book to get through. And certain not a book if one is looking for just light reading. But within those pages Persig addresses the question of "What is art?" and answers that question better than anybody I have read or heard back then or even now today.
Well I'll pipe up and agree with this bit - it is a really good read.
I remember taking several weeks to read it many years ago, a couple of
pages at a time and then thinking for the rest of my daily 40 minute
commute.
A shame the follow up book, 'Lila' ? was so bad in comparison.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 10:08:46 PM. |
|
