| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2006 03:30:15 PM · #76 |
I can guarandarntee that you won't be seeing me in any of my pictures. At least not all of me. Parts, maybe. And no, not THOSE parts....
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 03:37:35 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm see recognizable members as part of the photo. I feel this may sway scores for the good or bad.
I feel that you should get a model if you need a person in the shot. |
The scores may sway, so? Why try to lose the fun here, after all that is one of the main reasons we are here right? Me anyway, and if that fun factor is gone then I wouldn't really want to take part here anymore. And threads like this are "fun" killing threads.
If I can't find a suitable model I will use myself, I have no problem with that. As for my scores they will probably drop because some voters will say "ah kiwiness" he has enough ribbons, and I will get scored lower. But that is a minority (I hope), if your photo is good enough you will get scored appropriately for it, on majority. But all that doesn't worry me at all, the main thing for me is just to take part.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 03:45:18 PM · #78 |
To the OP, I have a question - Have you ever tried to produce quality shots with you both in front of and behind the camera at the same time?
It is very challenging. You cannot see through the viewfinder when you are the model, cannot see what the lighting is doing, cannot tell if you are well composed, etc. There is a TON of trial & error involved, thus, in my opinion, TONS more learning.
Also, models aren't always patient enough to let you discover new processes through trial & error, but when you are your own model, you can take all the time you need. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:05:01 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
...or maybe, just maybe, people need to lighten up and learn to have fun again. It must be awful to have to be so anal all the time. ... |
Sorry for being so anal in your eyes, but does one have to give up on the ideal of a level playing field in order to have fun?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:06:29 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
...or maybe, just maybe, people need to lighten up and learn to have fun again. It must be awful to have to be so anal all the time. ... |
Sorry for being so anal in your eyes, but does one have to give up on the ideal of a level playing field in order to have fun? |
The field is still the same...it's just your perception that has changed. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:07:19 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:
Lighten up and go take some pictures instead of sitting here. If you really believe you need a recognizable face for higher votes then go establish yourself as that face- I guarantee you cannot without the good picture coming first.
I like to be in my own pictures, it's fun and a challenge in it's own.
-JL |
Word-up to my homey.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:13:08 PM · #82 |
The images that either contain people/places/subjects we know or are processed in a way that we recognize are usually recognizeable because they have consistently scored well. If they weren't scoring well, people probably wouldn't continue on with the same methods (and if they did, no one would complain because no one complains about the losers). So essentially, you are asking people to not submit what they are best at in order to level the playing field. Why is that appealing? Is it more fun to compete against people when you know they aren't showing their best work?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:23:32 PM · #83 |
Each challenge topic gives photgraphers guidance as to what they should shoot. It would be only a coincidence if that guided them in the direction of their best abilities.
If we can ask entrants to use a given topic, why can't we give them some small measure of guidance in the direction of maintaining their anonymity?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:23:35 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
The scores may sway, so? Why try to lose the fun here, after all that is one of the main reasons we are here right? Me anyway, and if that fun factor is gone then I wouldn't really want to take part here anymore. And threads like this are "fun" killing threads.
If I can't find a suitable model I will use myself, I have no problem with that. As for my scores they will probably drop because some voters will say "ah kiwiness" he has enough ribbons, and I will get scored lower. But that is a minority (I hope), if your photo is good enough you will get scored appropriately for it, on majority. But all that doesn't worry me at all, the main thing for me is just to take part. |
Agreed... We should be ashamed of ourselves when Kiwiness must resort to being the voice of reason. LOL!
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:26:10 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
The field is still the same...it's just your perception that has changed. |
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - Hamlet
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:28:10 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Each challenge topic gives photgraphers guidance as to what they should shoot. It would be only a coincidence if that guided them in the direction of their best abilities.
If we can ask entrants to use a given topic, why can't we give them some small measure of guidance in the direction of maintaining their anonymity? |
I would assume that most photographers try to shoot to the best of their ability regardless of the actual topic.
How do you propose we enforce anonymity? What would the rules be, exactly? |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:30:53 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Orwellian ? ... hmmm. Not my intent at all. Perhaps my thought is clearer if you take it as a whole instead of breaking off the last half of that sentence - "to the extent that it becomes familiar to the voters and can be easily identified with a particular user." I, too, enjoy photographing people however I tend to lean more toward candid shots as opposed to portraits or posed photos. I have never felt any need to use the same person more than once in the 80+ challenges I have entered.
|
i specifically left out the rest of the sentence, thinking that it added nor subtracted from the point, seeing as how the whole thing said virtually the same thing to me...that you would like to see our challenges even more full of rules and limitations than they already are. so in that respect, yes, that seems quite orwellian to me. basically i'm just saying...man, why you gotta waste our flava, DAMN. :)
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 16:33:08. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:34:27 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
The field is still the same...it's just your perception that has changed. |
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - Hamlet |
That quote makes absolutely no sense in the context of this conversation or in relation to what laurie has said. How about addressing what laurie has stated?
ETA: I think there are few who we can say truly vote high on images of people they recognize and like. I have lots of photographers on this site whose work I generally admire and then there are challenges where I see a photo I adore and it is not by someone I would have though or I hate photos by some of my favourites. I think its very petty to claim that model recognition means ribbon or high score.
Also, I agree with what mk said.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 16:40:53.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:34:48 PM · #89 |
To truly be a level playing field everyone would need to shoot with the same equipment, location & props. BORING!
I want to go against the best how else am I going to improve.
The Wazzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 04:46:30 PM · #90 |
I have been reading this, and I think it's quite rediculous to ask SC to make rules where we can't use ourselves in photos. Just remember....I am looking at this from the point of view of someone who hardly ever has good scores. But I think it's completely stupid to make up a rule like that!
I am not one of the "popular" people you speak of.... and yes, sometimes it's very obvious who took the picture... but who cares? I am here to have fun and challenge myself. I am here to work with others and share ideas. As someone said before... you are only trying to win a few blue pixels. It's not money or prizes. This is for fun! And some of you get your knickers in a bunch and make this place not fun!
People come here to bitch about this or that. Why not just go out, shoot pictures for a challenge? Challenge YOURSELF to do a shot. Challenge YOURSELF to think outside the box. Don't compare to others or what you can and can't do. If you come here and do this, you will always be a winner - to YOURSELF.
When I started here I used to always look for "That" shot... the shot that would woo people. And you know what? I was miserable. I never got the scores to win. When I won my 3rd place with Aura... I wasn't shooting for anyone but me. I decided to try something I never did before. And I was so happy with the outcome. In my mind... I took home the blue. And I do every challenge that I enter. I know that I have pushed myself and my creativity and made something. Even if no one else likes it. I take all the comments I get and use them to learn for the next time. To learn what I could've done better.
I also look at the winners and see what made them winners.... I then try to use some of those techniques. Not to get higher votes, but to push myself to do things I never thought of. I am here to learn.
I am not here to win over my peers... I am here to challenge myself and do something that helps me. So everyone - stop being so freaking anal and have fun! That is what this place is for. Fun and learning!
Now that I sounded like a inspirational speaker.... I am done.
Lor |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 05:28:09 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by mk:
... How do you propose we enforce anonymity? What would the rules be, exactly? |
Something like this:
"What might be appropriate would be a sentence or two in the rules that generally discourages the use of any model, pet, subject, scene, place, landscape, border, style, etc. to the extent that it becomes familiar to the voters and can be easily identified with a particular user. Violation would not be a DQ-able offense but rather let the voters decide as we do with meeting the challenge."
It doesn't matter too much how it is worded. It isn't intended to be an extra burden on the SC. No more enforcement than is now exerted over DNMC. It will not make the playing field perfectly level. It is not a rule "where we can't use ourselves in photos." Adding a couple of sentences to the rules would hardly raise them to the level of "Orwellian", not unless you feel we are already very close to that level, I don't.
Just a mild but offcial statement/warning/reminder to users to avoid being so repeatitive in their entries that they become widely known and thus undermine anonymity.
This is only my idea. If you don't like it, feel free to make your own proposals to address the concern raised by the OP.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 05:34:23 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
"What might be appropriate would be a sentence or two in the rules that generally discourages the use of any model, pet, subject, scene, place, landscape, border, style, etc. to the extent that it becomes familiar to the voters and can be easily identified with a particular user. Violation would not be a DQ-able offense but rather let the voters decide as we do with meeting the challenge." |
This is redundant, as it's already done. Recognizeable people get just as many (if not more) low votes than they do high votes and it all evens out in the end. People already self-police it. Yeesh. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 05:34:43 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by mk:
... How do you propose we enforce anonymity? What would the rules be, exactly? |
Something like this:
"What might be appropriate would be a sentence or two in the rules that generally discourages the use of any model, pet, subject, scene, place, landscape, border, style, etc. to the extent that it becomes familiar to the voters and can be easily identified with a particular user. ....
|
So you've been sucessful twice now shooting herrons, would that mean you can never shoot herrons again? Or birds in general? Or wildlife in your native state? The line is too gray to draw and I'm of the school "if its not broke, don't fix it". |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 05:37:08 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
This is only my idea. If you don't like it, feel free to make your own proposals to address the concern raised by the OP. |
To address the concerns of the OP, don't worry about it just vote on the image not the face. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 06:08:05 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by idnic:
So you've been sucessful twice now shooting herrons, would that mean you can never shoot herrons again? Or birds in general? Or wildlife in your native state? |
No, it wouldn't. But I would be put on notice that future heron entries would increasingly risk the wrath of the voters. Since you brought it up I must confess that recognition crossed my mind while I considered entering my most recent heron shot. I feel the same way about some other things I've entered - better to avoid them for a while than get scored low.
What happened to all the voices who frequently speak out about creativity? Wouldn't avoiding repetition be paralell to encourageing creativity?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 06:32:55 PM · #96 |
Forced creativity doesn't seem very creative to me. What if someone had told Monet that he shouldn't paint anymore haystacks or Ansel Adams that he should branch out from B/W landscapes?
Part of creativity is repetition.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 18:33:37. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 06:45:14 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Forced creativity doesn't seem very creative to me. What if someone had told Monet that he shouldn't paint anymore haystacks or Ansel Adams that he should branch out from B/W landscapes?
Part of creativity is repetition. |
Well said - and sometimes creativity is obsessing on a theme until you perfect it. Nobody shoots a perfect portrait the first time they stand in front of a person. Perfection takes practice, lots of it, any source, any time, and then some. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 06:47:15 PM · #98 |
In some ways, I sort of agree with the OP.
ANY website, club, group, etc., where people congregate is going to become somewhat 'cliquish'. That's human nature, and there's no way to avoid it. People will see a recognizable style/face/dog/hairstyle and know who the photographer is. I've submitted 2 photos recently and they were quite similar, for instance. And as soon as I saw Joey's 'Shadow' submission, I knew it was him. There will always be people who vote higher because they want their 'buddy' to win, and there will always be people who vote lower because they don't want one of the 'popular' people to win. I believe that they balance themselves out pretty well. I have yet to see a terrible image win just because it was done by one of the well-known artists here.
So I see the OP's point.
However...
This is a photography site. It's a fairly relaxed place for -artists- to come and show off their work. Because it's a photography site, there are specific rules regarding digitally altering photos. I think that if the rules started going hog wild, limiting creativity and expression to the extreme, a lot of people will leave and this site will die.
Art is a very personal thing, and looking back at art from present day to the first artwork that's been found, you'll find tons of examples of a typical style, self portraiture, using the same models/themes/etc... Waterhouse is my all-time favorite artist, for example, and nearly every model he used looked the same. Telling an artist they can't use their typical subject is kind of like telling Stephen King that he can't ever write another horror story. It's just ripping away his personal style, and what he loves to do. And no matter what, he'll continue to do that, he'll just find another place to do it.
To the OP: Yeah, it can be hard to see the same people win, using typical styles, models, etc., but you have to keep in mind that a *lot* of people aren't really super regular and chatty here, and they're voting too. A few votes one way or the other really won't help or hinder a submission. Most people here will hand out very fair votes, and most people here would be pretty unhappy to learn that they won based on their username/face/model familiarity.
...err, sorry about rambling. I'm very long winded! |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 06:47:15 PM · #99 |
And besides...a photographer and model both benefit from a good, comfortable relationship. The creative process is often a joint effort between the two. How would it be fair to tell these "teams" that they can't work together anymore?
I recently voted lower on a highly recognizable image of a photographer who is one of my favorites. Love his work and was almost positive it was his, but just wasn't crazy about that one. I've also suspected that other works were by someone and have been wrong. I've never let my voting be swayed by recognizability.
Voters either have integrity or they don't and no amount of regulation will change that. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 07:11:55 PM · #100 |
The answer is obvious to level the field. All photographeres abandon your styles and take that of another or simply a new one. Do not use the polish techniques but rather go back to square one. Lose your identity and then let's see if you can survive.
Is this another thread that advances nothing? |
|
