| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/11/2005 12:26:39 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
It is amazing how many scores are low and comments are critical. What is THAT all about! |
A good challenge is to think of a way to "constructively critique" the criticism. Those brutal commentors might learn something through your example.
This site is all about putting yourself out there for others to judge. Some people don't have the most tact, and I'm guilty of it too. There were a couple of images about which I tried to think of something positive to say, and just couldn't. I know that sounds mean. But I've entered some pretty crappy photos and have borne the brunt of some pretty frank comments, myself. This is certainly not a site for gratuitous praise, and I'm glad for that. After all, how else are we going to learn?
Even though the bad comments seem unhelpful, they are helpful in the respect that they voiced the negative reaction to the image (Much better than silence, IMO) This just means that there is room for improvement, not that you are a terrible person:)
edit-typo
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 12:38:35.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:34:22 PM · #52 |
| This is true, but some need to remember that a constructive criticism needs to be a helpful criticm or it relays a different story. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:12:35 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
This is true, but some need to remember that a constructive criticism needs to be a helpful criticm or it relays a different story. |
OK, I say they should be drawn and quartered!
Oh, wait...I've gotten some purely complimentary comments that aren't constructive in the least bit. (Often on the same images as the negative comments.) My goal is, to one day, make an image that garners lots of praise, just so I can realize great improvement. (Pardon me, I'm feeling a little spunky today).
If we eliminate useless negative comments, we should eliminate useless positive ones too, just to be fair. Personally, I'd rather keep them all. Ideally, everyone would be skilled commentors, but just as in the world outside DPC there are all kinds of people having all kinds of days here. I've gone back quite a few times and ammended comments that didn't come out quite as I intended. That may happen in your case, as well.
It looks like you have gotten lots of constructive criticism. I hope you don't let a few downers discourage you. Tomorrow is another day.
Cheers,
Roxanne
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:18:06 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Ok...I have gone through the pics 4 times now and voted on all and will be going back to bump up/down. My general comment on the entries: disappointing. Out of the box shots on something as basic as 'family' I don't think will do to well. Just my opinion, perhaps I will be proven wrong. Shots of random kids don't convey family - just children. Nice shots, but still just children. Flowers don't convey family - why were they submitted? I can't even come up with an out of the box relationship for those. Shots of people in various settings - how do they convey family? They could be anyone. Nothing in the shots to bind them in any way as a 'family' unit. Telling me two people in a shot are brothers or sisters doesn't convey family. Just that with your title you want me to believe they are family. Again, just some nice shots of kids.
I think what is missing in a lot of these shots is the element that 'binds' the subjects together as a family unit and not just some random shot of people, even if they are family members. I won't even talk about the bird shots.
I hope this does not hurt anyone's feelings, but after reading the thread I thought you may like to know what went through at least one voters mind as he voted.
Edit: typos and structure |
Not exactly sure what you were expecting here.. group portraits? Everyone sitting around in a circle meditating? To simply shrug off shots of "random kids" as not showing family is a disservice to every parent or caregiver that regards those children as family.
Birds have families too..
Family also does not mean just "Parents and children", but is a wide, far ranging concept about the relationship of living beings.
However, you obviously feel strongly about this.. I'm just not understanding what it is you are going for is all.
*EDIT* I also disagree with the term "Family" being called "basic".. It's a very strong, complicated, and varied word with many meanings and a deep emotional aspect.
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 13:19:28.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:46:02 PM · #55 |
| I agree with greatandsmall ..............most pics dont make you think thats a family.............a member of a family is note a family and does note convey the image of a family |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:49:36 PM · #56 |
Two kids aren't family? Hogwash!!! Two flowers aren't in a family (genus)? That's horse manure! Is something not a "group" unless it is three or more? I don't think so.
For anybody who needs the definition:
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Middle English familie, from Latin familia household (including servants as well as kin of the householder), from famulus servant
Date: 15th century
1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : HOUSEHOLD
2 a : a group of persons of common ancestry : CLAN b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : RACE
3 a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common For affiliation : FELLOWSHIP b : the staff of a high official (as the President)
4 : a group of things related by common characteristics: as a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b : a group of soils that have similar profiles and include one or more series c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their own or adopted children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family b : spouse and children
6 a : a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera b : in livestock breeding : (1) : the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2) : an identifiable strain within a breed
7 : a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8 : a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area
Judy |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:52:22 PM · #57 |
So much details about "is it family?" I am voting more on the quality of the PICTURE itself, not how well they captured "family" or how far outside the box. Just thought you might want to know what some voters are thinking.
and here's my scores, and I have recieved some wonderful comments (good and bad)!!
Votes: 82
Views: 110
Avg Vote: 5.2317
Comments: 7
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
~~SiSi
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:54:48 PM · #58 |
| good who need the rules every challenge put whatever you want in |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:56:33 PM · #59 |
| if you remove your title and look at your pic and you do not think about family...did you meet the challenge |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:00:22 PM · #60 |
And if you meet the challenge, but have an inferior picture ( out of focus, etc) does that merit a better score than the one who too the nicer pic of a bird family?
Not trying to argue, just trying to balance it all.
~~SiSi
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:01:00 PM · #61 |
Just wanted to add this little note:
There was a collection of photographs called, "The Family of Man", put out by Time-Life books, if I recall. In it, were photographs chosen from thousands of submissions that best conveyed the meaning of "Family" as it relates to human relationships. These photographs ranged from single portraits, to interactions between parents and children, to shots from funerals, to groups of 2 or more children doing various things, to still lifes of various objects. All of them were considered to convey the meaning of "The Family of Man", and many shots in this challenge I would consider to be very similar to those in the collection.
We just cannot arbitrarily dismiss photographs because they don't fit our narrow-minded conception of what a challenge topic is. As Jutilda pointed out.. the definition of "Family" is amazingly far-ranging.
It just kills me that this comes up again, and again, and again.. with every challenge topic we have. Someone *always* tries to force the definition into a little box, and even their "outside the box" thinking tends to be inside their own little box.
However, it's entirely up to those people to vote how they wish to, and *have* that opinion. I just wish they'd keep it to themselves more.. and after the challenge is over, open a discussion on it. Please, lets keep how we feel about challenge entries to ourselves during voting.. there's no point in discussing it and putting influence out there while people are still finding their own way while voting.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:01:50 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by holdingtime:
good who need the rules every challenge put whatever you want in |
A challenge topic and description are not *rules*.. but guidelines. An important distinction.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:12:23 PM · #63 |
| yes they are guidlines but they have rules given by the site and even the site says pic need to follow challenge titles (guidlines) and when someone has to defend a picture saying that it meet the challenge then I wonder. Guidline make it interesting for the people willing to follow them and give great pleasur when you meet one with a good pic. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:22:20 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by holdingtime:
yes they are guidlines but they have rules given by the site and even the site says pic need to follow challenge titles (guidlines) and when someone has to defend a picture saying that it meet the challenge then I wonder. Guidline make it interesting for the people willing to follow them and give great pleasur when you meet one with a good pic. |
The rules don't say you *need* to.. they only suggest that voters vote with the challenge topic in mind. My *point*, however, is that there is no need to be negative about the entries during voting, and post in threads that things are "disappointing" or "not meeting the challenge". That's what your vote is for. If you feel that way, vote accordingly, and wait until the challenge is over to start a discussion on it. People certainly can't go and say.. "oh, sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't meeting your interpretation, I'll go change my entry now".. so it's pointless, negative, and distracting.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:41:24 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by holdingtime:
I agree with greatandsmall ..............most pics dont make you think thats a family.............a member of a family is note a family and does note convey the image of a family |
Thanks for agreeing with me, but I think it was really Artyste you meant to quote.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:49:28 PM · #66 |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 03:46:00 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Ok...I have gone through the pics 4 times now and voted on all and will be going back to bump up/down. My general comment on the entries: disappointing. Out of the box shots on something as basic as 'family' I don't think will do to well. Just my opinion, perhaps I will be proven wrong. Shots of random kids don't convey family - just children. Nice shots, but still just children. Flowers don't convey family - why were they submitted? I can't even come up with an out of the box relationship for those. Shots of people in various settings - how do they convey family? They could be anyone. Nothing in the shots to bind them in any way as a 'family' unit. Telling me two people in a shot are brothers or sisters doesn't convey family. Just that with your title you want me to believe they are family. Again, just some nice shots of kids.
I think what is missing in a lot of these shots is the element that 'binds' the subjects together as a family unit and not just some random shot of people, even if they are family members. I won't even talk about the bird shots.
I hope this does not hurt anyone's feelings, but after reading the thread I thought you may like to know what went through at least one voters mind as he voted.
Edit: typos and structure |
Not exactly sure what you were expecting here.. group portraits? Everyone sitting around in a circle meditating? To simply shrug off shots of "random kids" as not showing family is a disservice to every parent or caregiver that regards those children as family.
Birds have families too..
Family also does not mean just "Parents and children", but is a wide, far ranging concept about the relationship of living beings.
However, you obviously feel strongly about this.. I'm just not understanding what it is you are going for is all.
*EDIT* I also disagree with the term "Family" being called "basic".. It's a very strong, complicated, and varied word with many meanings and a deep emotional aspect. |
My point was (I thought this was clear) is that even though children come from families, I saw nothing in a lot of shots that conveyed the 'concept of family.' Two kids to me does not show family just because it is two kids in the shot. They could be ANY kids - kids on a playground, kids in day care - what conveys FAMILY? |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 03:53:39 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Ok...I have gone through the pics 4 times now and voted on all and will be going back to bump up/down. My general comment on the entries: disappointing. Out of the box shots on something as basic as 'family' I don't think will do to well. Just my opinion, perhaps I will be proven wrong. Shots of random kids don't convey family - just children. Nice shots, but still just children. Flowers don't convey family - why were they submitted? I can't even come up with an out of the box relationship for those. Shots of people in various settings - how do they convey family? They could be anyone. Nothing in the shots to bind them in any way as a 'family' unit. Telling me two people in a shot are brothers or sisters doesn't convey family. Just that with your title you want me to believe they are family. Again, just some nice shots of kids.
I think what is missing in a lot of these shots is the element that 'binds' the subjects together as a family unit and not just some random shot of people, even if they are family members. I won't even talk about the bird shots.
I hope this does not hurt anyone's feelings, but after reading the thread I thought you may like to know what went through at least one voters mind as he voted.
Edit: typos and structure |
Not exactly sure what you were expecting here.. group portraits? Everyone sitting around in a circle meditating? To simply shrug off shots of "random kids" as not showing family is a disservice to every parent or caregiver that regards those children as family.
Birds have families too..
Family also does not mean just "Parents and children", but is a wide, far ranging concept about the relationship of living beings.
However, you obviously feel strongly about this.. I'm just not understanding what it is you are going for is all.
*EDIT* I also disagree with the term "Family" being called "basic".. It's a very strong, complicated, and varied word with many meanings and a deep emotional aspect. |
My point was (I thought this was clear) is that even though children come from families, I saw nothing in a lot of shots that conveyed the 'concept of family.' Two kids to me does not show family just because it is two kids in the shot. They could be ANY kids - kids on a playground, kids in day care - what conveys FAMILY? |
Sure they could be any kids.. but it's their interaction that is important.. even best friends are "family". Two people can be family. I guess if the kids are standing alone on opposite sides of the photograph you might have a valid point.. unless they're there because of an argument or fight.. which siblings and friends have.. who's to know? Yes, if the photographer has failed to get that idea across to you, then you've got all the right in the world to mark them down for it.. but I just see no need whatsoever for a public outcry about it during the voting stages. That is all.
Use your vote and your comments on challenge entries to get your point across. Wait until the challenge is over to start a public discussion about it.
Am I being that unreasonable? Is it *that* difficult?
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 03:55:00 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
We just cannot arbitrarily dismiss photographs because they don't fit our narrow-minded conception of what a challenge topic is. As Jutilda pointed out.. the definition of "Family" is amazingly far-ranging.
|
We can, and we will. It's called judging.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 03:59:10 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
Originally posted by Artyste:
We just cannot arbitrarily dismiss photographs because they don't fit our narrow-minded conception of what a challenge topic is. As Jutilda pointed out.. the definition of "Family" is amazingly far-ranging.
|
We can, and we will. It's called judging. |
then judge it quietly, and personally. Don't make it into a public witch hunt. That happens far too often. (yes, I know *you* haven't done so).
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 04:19:31 PM · #71 |
Probably been said 1000 times, but what it seems to come down to is:
If it obviously meets the Challenge, in the opinion of most viewers, it will do better than if it doesn't.
There is nothing wrong with submitting an image that meets the Challenge in an obscure fashion. Just don't expect everyone to get it.
My brother is in jail. Just about everything my family talks about or does revolves around the chaos he creates. Would a picture of a man behind bars say "Family" to anyone but me? Not many I guess. But it's my perogative to enter that if I wish.
It's too bad the Challenge criteria gets so much attention. My submission is a stretch and I knew it would not speak to everyone. Here is a very constructive comment I received "I see the concept you were going for, but doesn't say family to me, sorry." After the voting, I will respond "Thanks for your comment, I knew it was a stretch. I appreciate your taking the time to vote and comment." The End.
For those who seem unable to make constructive comments, I recommend just forwarding them this thread:
9 Guidelines for Giving and Receiving Feedback I think I'll read it again myself, and brush up on my commenting skills:)
This will always be a topic for hot debate (and rightly so). I just hope we don't expend all of our energy contesting this, when we could be talking about the artistic and technical qualities of the submissions and helping each other improve our skills.
Cheers,
Roxanne
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 04:30:55 PM · #72 |
Roxanne: Thanks for the guidelines. I've often not said anything negative for fear of hurting someone. Then I've read that people complain "tell me even if it's bad," so it is a sword with two sides. I try to say something negative only when I can give a way to improve that negativity. NOT EVERY TIME can I do it, but most.
I guess the only way it could be done without making people angry is to have judges, but this is NOT American Idol. It is in fact a forum and people need to chill. I get frustrated and might say something, but I'm not going to get on my soap box for hours going on and on. Take what you're given, learn from it (or not if you choose) AND GO THE ____ on!!!
Ok, I'll shut up now. Judy P.S. My scores are falling........ oh well |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 04:31:04 PM · #73 |
thank you for that Roxanne.. I can get behind a post like yours 100%, and it's all I've been saying. Spend more time on the entries and less spreading negativity around DPC.
It gets so tiring.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 04:32:06 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Yes, if the photographer has failed to get that idea across to you, then you've got all the right in the world to mark them down for it.. but I just see no need whatsoever for a public outcry about it during the voting stages. That is all.
Use your vote and your comments on challenge entries to get your point across. Wait until the challenge is over to start a public discussion about it.
Am I being that unreasonable? Is it *that* difficult? |
First, I didn't start this discussion, I read the discussion already started and gave my opinion to try and give some answers to people. I have used my vote and my comments. And will continue to do so. But let me ask you this, and answer honestly (and I bet if everyone answered this HONESTLY, 99.999% would say the same thing) what was the first thing that came to your mind when you saw 'Family'? Flowers? Birds? Or your own family?
Again: I think what is missing in a lot of these shots is the element that 'binds' the subjects together as a family unit and not just some random shot of people, even if they are family members.
I did say in the very beginning IT WAS MY OPINION about the OOTB shots and also that I may be proven wrong. I also apologized for hurting anyones feelings, again it was only my opinion. I never said how I voted.
Message edited by author 2005-07-11 16:36:33. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 04:37:34 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Yes, if the photographer has failed to get that idea across to you, then you've got all the right in the world to mark them down for it.. but I just see no need whatsoever for a public outcry about it during the voting stages. That is all.
Use your vote and your comments on challenge entries to get your point across. Wait until the challenge is over to start a public discussion about it.
Am I being that unreasonable? Is it *that* difficult? |
First, I didn't start this discussion, I read the discussion already started and gave my opinion to try and give some answers to people. I have used my vote and my comments. And will continue to do so. But let me ask you this, and answer honestly (and I bet if everyone answered this HONESTLY, 99.999% would say the same thing) what was the first thing that came to your mind when you saw 'Family'? Flowers? Birds? Or your own family? |
It honestly doesn't matter what the first thing I thought of was. To tell the truth, the *first* thing I thought of was.. "oh, boy, here we go again." I'm not singling *you* out either, really.. you just happened to have the strongest post about "not meeting the challenge" out of any I read, so was using it as my basis. Sorry if you felt singled out, or targeted, not my intention. My *target* is the fact that every time a challenge comes up, the inevitable "these submissions don't meet the challenge" rants come up, during the challenge, and I really think they're pointless, defeatist, and wrong.
that's *all*. I have my own thoughts and ideas about what does and doesn't meet *every* challenge, and in the past I've been like others, and voiced them.. but I realized how silly it all was, and now I keep it to myself and let my comments on entries and my votes decide, and that's all I ask of the community.
Yes, I know it's being idealistic.. but I just wish some common sense would come through, sometimes.
|
|
