| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2003 06:33:51 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by christyrack:
My apologies to John for attacking him earlier...I was mad NOT because you were saying kids and pets are not audience friendly subjects....but because you failed to critique it at all, leaving in its place, a link to this rant. This comes to mind....I submit a picture of a bible....someone leaves in the comment area a link to an Athiest website (which has happened) Anyway...sorry again John....I really do like your photos, and wished you could have given me something more constructive to work with on my picture! :)
Sincerely, Christy :) |
Please allow me to repost the constructive parts of my original post at the top of this thread:
"When you set out to photograph your pets and kids for use in online competitions, why not set out with a goal in mind? Something stronger than a family album snapshot... Why not approach your subject with 'stock photography' or some other idea in mind where the shot will be more appealing to a wider audience?
Kids and pets are cute and they do funny things. When you present them, ask yourself if others will be able to find the same interest you have in the photo. "
I do not have kids but I do have a niece and nephew that I photograph all the time. I have a cat also :) I photograph them all the time as well :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 07:48:22 AM · #52 |
I say "Bravo!" to John for being brave enough to start and follow through with this thread.
Look in the upper left corner of your screen. What does it say? Under the big 'dpchallenge'. "a digital photography contest" (the bolding is mine).
A quick scan through entries of other challenges would reveal that the standard for doing well is quite high, would it not?
At that point, wouldn't it be logical to compare one's shot to this standard and evaluate if the shot was competitive on any level and therefore worth submitting?
And if not, wouldn't the burden be on that person to figure out, whether by asking questions, reading, taking classes, or otherwise, how to improve the potential of the image?
People say "oh well, this site is about learning, so I'm going to throw in my pic i spent 10 seconds on because then I'll 'learn'. " But it doesn't work that way. There is SO MUCH MORE to learning photography than getting 5 comments on your snapshot.
We can't throw the whole burden of your learning curve onto our poor voters. There's 200-300 shots to vote and comment on. It's numbing and crushing to the spirit when you have to wade through bad shot after bad shot.
Make some effort on your own. This site, like other things, best helps those who help themselves. Do some critical self-evaluations before you submit. Look at other images that did well. Ask yourself if the shot is truly ready.
And if you want feedback, you dont have to enter the challenge. Post it in a photography discussion forum. Ask around online, check with friends.
The more lame entries we get the less feedback there's going to be for anyone.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 07:55:32 AM · #53 |
Bravo to you too Mag. Good advice.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:16:21 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I say "Bravo!" to John for being brave enough to start and follow through with this thread...
The more lame entries we get the less feedback there's going to be for anyone. |
But your "lame" might be someone else's best-to-date. Winners get ones. Last-place entries get tens.
I'm disturbed at the whole turn these threads are taking ... to throw out general criticism of the quality of the photos is to tar everyone with the same brush, and is likely to induce anxiety and resentment in a lot of folks.
"OMG -- I submitted a shot with a
() kid
() cat
() flower
() ____
in it, is he talking about MY photo?"
I think if you want to post a thread saying "I think this photo was lame and the photographer shouldn't have submitted it because ..." it might be constructive and educational, but saying "there's too many snapshots; people should discipline themselves" is too broadly pejorative to be useful criticism.
You are welcome to pick any of my lame photos (large choice, I'm sure) and offer up reasons I shouldn't have submitted it, and we can debate the pro and con views of that. To just offer up the scattergun comment "too many snapshots" -- when they can't even be defined (no consensus anyway) -- I think is ultimately destructive, and is more likely to induce resentment than enthusiasm for photographic education.
Unless your purpose is only to vent your own unhappiness with having to look at all those worthless pictures, as opposed to helping site photographers improve as a whole -- then just rant away (like me). |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:43:04 AM · #55 |
I posted this as a personal rant :) I also offered constructive criticism.
What I plan to do in the future is prepare a 'canned' comment for this type of photo that I can copy and paste. I don't intend to sugar coat them either. The number of this type of photo that gets posted here week after week is growing... probably normal as new people show up here.
It's quite difficult to offer any constructive criticism on family album snapshot type photos. I could say 'you should have found something else to photograph.' That is constructive. It's also gonna piss people off.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:51:09 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Martin:
Has anyone ever thought that maybe there should be a challange for the beginners and a challange for the more advanced? ..................... If you had seperate challanges, surely this would sort out the problem |
i would like to see separate forums for bad spellers, too!
Message edited by author 2003-09-25 10:52:52. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:53:25 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I posted this as a personal rant :) I also offered constructive criticism.
It's quite difficult to offer any constructive criticism on family album snapshot type photos. I could say 'you should have found something else to photograph.' That is constructive. It's also gonna piss people off. |
I agree ... I'll let you know after I get a couple. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:13:21 AM · #58 |
Would it be a good idea to send an email to the bottom 10-20% of the scorers which contains possible stock explanations as to why their photo didn't fare so well? Perhaps some links to the tutorials, and a few suggestions like photos need to fit the challenge fairly obviously, photos of pets and kids don't tend to do well unless they are very carefully thought out, abstract art doesn't tend to do so well etc.
Maybe that'll help some people. If they still don't comply, well we send the death squad after them, and if they survive the monopod beating, well, they'll be forced to go do something that sucks, like yoga. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:14:24 AM · #59 |
Here's a sample of what I might use:
"This snapshot looks like a great addition to your family album. Your friends and family will enjoy it immensely as a keepsake photograph. These people have emotional ties with your subject and share your same level of interest in it. An outsider, like myself, will not likely find anything of particular interest here. It looks like a purely candid photo, and I can't determine your 'goal'. I don't see any particular attempt at creativity, composition, effective use of light, or any other element that would give this photo any merit when viewed by someone outside of your friends/family circle."
That says the same thing I said in the beginning of this rant in a more civil tone :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:19:02 AM · #60 |
| i think people will never understand the idea of personal taste, which john is freely using in this instance. people are here for different reasons, don't let one person discourage you from submitting something you want to share. there is an audience for every type of photo on dpc. just keep pluggin. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:38:50 PM · #61 |
| I am extremely sorry that I am a pet photographer. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:59:16 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by NicNic101:
I am extremely sorry that I am a pet photographer. |
Not all pet photos are 'snapshots'
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 02:44:27 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Here's a sample of what I might use:
"This snapshot looks like a great addition to your family album. Your friends and family will enjoy it immensely as a keepsake photograph. These people have emotional ties with your subject and share your same level of interest in it. An outsider, like myself, will not likely find anything of particular interest here. It looks like a purely candid photo, and I can't determine your 'goal'. I don't see any particular attempt at creativity, composition, effective use of light, or any other element that would give this photo any merit when viewed by someone outside of your friends/family circle."
That says the same thing I said in the beginning of this rant in a more civil tone :) |
I would have accepted that with much gratitude and an open mind. After exploring this site some more I see now that I have a lot of improving to do and am now getting in the habit of taking my camera with me everywhere so I won't miss a shot.
Deannda
Learning, always learning |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 03:04:53 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by christyrack:
[quote=jmsetzler][quote=christyrack]Okey...here goes..
n its place, a link to this rant. This comes to mind....I submit a picture of a bible....someone leaves in the comment area a link to an Athiest website (which has happened)
Sincerely, Christy :)[/b] |
Been there Christy, my amber shot got a link to a creationist web site.
The critque area is not an appropriat venue for espousing religious or political views. Leave that to the images. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 03:07:41 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Here's a sample of what I might use:
"This snapshot looks like a great addition to your family album. Your friends and family will enjoy it immensely as a keepsake photograph. These people have emotional ties with your subject and share your same level of interest in it. An outsider, like myself, will not likely find anything of particular interest here. It looks like a purely candid photo, and I can't determine your 'goal'. I don't see any particular attempt at creativity, composition, effective use of light, or any other element that would give this photo any merit when viewed by someone outside of your friends/family circle."
That says the same thing I said in the beginning of this rant in a more civil tone :) |
I would have accepted that with much gratitude and an open mind. After exploring this site some more I see now that I have a lot of improving to do and am now getting in the habit of taking my camera with me everywhere so I won't miss a shot.
Deannda
Learning, always learning |
So then it doesn't really matter what I say.. just how I say it... I have to fluff things up to make people feel better about their work rather than being harsh. This 'idea' comment that I made here says the exact same thing my other post said, just in different terms.
I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other.. lol..
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 03:45:56 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other.. lol.. |
Because your later explanation talks about THE PHOTO and what you -- as an individual -- like dislike about it.
Your original comment stands more of an indictment of THE PHOTOGRAPHER -- both their judgement and skill.
It's not quite "just the terms you use" even though that has a great deal to do with it. Recognizing that a work has some merit, even if uninteresting to you, and discussing specifically what's wrong with it is what differentiates constructive criticism from dissing.
In the workshops on the subject I've been involved with, the operative phrase was
"Criticize the act/thing, not the person."
Message edited by author 2003-09-25 15:47:26. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 04:00:08 PM · #67 |
Perhaps because the second paragraph is quite diplomatic, while the first one could be overlooked as little more than frustrated ranting. Not saying it is, but some look at it that way.
I'd say that, while personal snapshots aren't really welcome around here, neither are abstract or impressionist shots, soft focus shots, selective focus shots, shots with motion blur, shots with nudity, and any shots which are pretty much outside a very narrow 'stock photography' range. Flags, animals, kids, flowers etc. all elicit very harsh reaction and automatic low scores irrespective of the photograph's merit. We've got an environment where people are saying they'll automatically give 1s and 2s to photos containing certain subjects.
Art is a funny thing. We get used to seeing certain things as domestic humans - things which are very common to us, such as cats, dogs, kids etc. which many are drawn to and are compelled to photograph because they mean something to the person at hand. Well, does this mean that personal expression should give way to universal appeal? This is a cyclical argument, as the 'stock shots' have also, in the past, been disparaged as high-scoring but boring and overdone.
So what are we really going for here, John? I read your posts about being trapped and feeling stifled creatively with producing nice pretty stock shots, and then your own (tongue-in-cheek but not overly so, at the end of the day) lament at your panned art shots like 'Jammin'' and your many shots of chess pieces etc. which, while well-done, hold about as much interest for me personally as a photo of a dog or a cat would. I was an avid chess player myself, but I have little interest in shots of inanimate chess pieces laying on a board.
People are expressing themselves through their family shots. They are seeing the world around themselves, and taking images. They may not conform to basic photography principles like the rule of thirds etc. or have good lighting or any number of thigs which we value and praise around here. But I ask...what's the real difference between your posting a shot of a guitarist in a bar, and someone posting a cat or dog snapshot and doing the best they can at it? Sure, they may not know how us more experienced photographers see shots, but then by your own admission a while back, we view shots differently than the general public. This viewing photographs as 'photographers' has led to a very intolerant and narrow set of voting criteria, as explained above. If a photo doesn't appeal, vote low and leave your remarks that it doesn't appeal to you. However, it DID appeal to one person, as they took the time to take the shot and post it.
I look at the top-rated shots on photo.net as examples of very fine photography, and there are photographers in there that make the very best photographers here look like snapshooters - photographers which would scoff at the incredibly restrictive process we subject ourselves to here at DPC week after week, at the expense of self-fulfillment and time spent on our own vision.
Can art grow out of constraint, or are we just fooling ourselves into thinking that we're producing something meaningful here? If so, the complaints about poorly-lit cat shots taken with a webcam seem rather petty as a result...
Just my thoughts...
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other.. lol.. |
Message edited by author 2003-09-25 16:01:56. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 04:28:13 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by sslickk:
Originally posted by christyrack:
[quote=jmsetzler][quote=christyrack]Okey...here goes..
n its place, a link to this rant. This comes to mind....I submit a picture of a bible....someone leaves in the comment area a link to an Athiest website (which has happened)
Sincerely, Christy :)[/b] |
Been there Christy, my amber shot got a link to a creationist web site.
The critque area is not an appropriat venue for espousing religious or political views. Leave that to the images. |
EXACTLY my point sslickk!!! Thanks for saying what I wanted to say!!! :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 05:17:08 PM · #69 |
This is the problem with leaving comments when you vote. I have seen wonderful photos of kids and pets and it has helped me when I am photographing the same. All this rant began with was that the way he presented the photo had no WOW factor. This sight is for contests and when people vote the will bring their own values, ideas, and prejudicies (I know bad spelling).
I looked over the "at rest" photos and their are many photos I would say are done well and draw your attention to the subject and others where the subject evokes no feelings whatsoever.
Would people rather get a 4 or 5 (average score) without a comment or have someone explain that the subject does not draw the viewer to it.
Maybe we shoud have a checkbox that say I don't want any critique unless you are going to say its wonderful. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 05:28:59 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
So then it doesn't really matter what I say.. just how I say it... I have to fluff things up to make people feel better about their work rather than being harsh. This 'idea' comment that I made here says the exact same thing my other post said, just in different terms.
I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other.. lol.. |
I think how you say it is vital, and it doesn't have to be "fluffed up." Quite frankly, in your initial post, you sounded like an arrogant, pompous, holier-than-thou god of photography. With the "fluffing" you sound like a normal guy who has an opinion to offer and can substantiate it.
So I guess the decision isn't what you say or why, but how well you want it to be received. If you want to truly help someone, fluff away. If you just want to jerk their chain, don't.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 05:54:51 PM · #71 |
In spite of your tone, I appreciate your sentiment. I had an instructor who would routinely tear up photos of pets and flowers.
Further, as attatched to my dog as I am, I didn't expect to win the competition on the basis of this candid photo. Fact is, I debated putting it in at all, save the fact that I considered it to be funny when taken in context with the comments I wrote. It was a way of keeping my hand in the contests while waiting for a topic I could more adquately capture. I did try to keep the technical rules of photography in mind.
If pets and children are not considered to be sufficient subjects for photographs then why are they allowed in the contests to begin with?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 06:13:52 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DebN2003:
In spite of your tone, I appreciate your sentiment. I had an instructor who would routinely tear up photos of pets and flowers. |
I don't know the entire circumstances, but as someone with quite a bit of experience in education I think I'd tear up the instructor's contract and say take a hike. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 06:36:11 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by DebN2003:
If pets and children are not considered to be sufficient subjects for photographs then why are they allowed in the contests to begin with? |
I must have missed this part... Can you refer me back to it somewhere? Kids and pets are great subjects for photography. I believe I even posted a few examples of photos that received 10 votes from me.
This is another post that makes my point even stronger. People take it personally when their kid/pet snapshots are attacked for being snapshots. You wonder why you don't get many comments during the challenge... this is why. I don't normally bother to comment on them either because they don't naturally inspire me to comment in any way. The only inspiration for comment I can muster is similar to my first post in this thread. Everyone says they want to get better and want constructive feedback. This is the most constructive feedback I have ever given on this site. You can take it as you will, but if you think about what I have said here, your results on DPC will benefit from it.
I applaud everyone who does take snapshots of their kids/pets/family for nostalgia purposes. I don't applaud those who post them to photo contests unless the image has some quality that makes it appealing to the general public.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 06:38:59 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
So then it doesn't really matter what I say.. just how I say it... I have to fluff things up to make people feel better about their work rather than being harsh. This 'idea' comment that I made here says the exact same thing my other post said, just in different terms.
I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other.. lol.. |
I think how you say it is vital, and it doesn't have to be "fluffed up." Quite frankly, in your initial post, you sounded like an arrogant, pompous, holier-than-thou god of photography. With the "fluffing" you sound like a normal guy who has an opinion to offer and can substantiate it.
So I guess the decision isn't what you say or why, but how well you want it to be received. If you want to truly help someone, fluff away. If you just want to jerk their chain, don't. |
I'm not in a position anymore where it matters to me what people think about my comments and what tone I should choose. I chose this particular tone this time around for a reason. I wanted to jerk some chains and I certainly have. I doubt that it will make a difference, but I felt it was time for me to post my feelings.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 07:42:11 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
So then it doesn't really matter what I say.. just how I say it... I have to fluff things up to make people feel better about their work rather than being harsh. This 'idea' comment that I made here says the exact same thing my other post said, just in different terms.
I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other.. lol.. |
No, I accepted them both and appreciated them both! :)
I knew when I put in my photo it would not do well and I'm still discovering with my dinky little camera but like I said before, I can take the harsh as well as the nice as long as it's teaching.
Admittedly when I first read your rant I thought, "MY LORD, how arrogant!" But then again I thought the same thing about my husband when I first met him and we've been married 13 years now, LOL. The thing is I kept reading, went back and read again and see your point either way. Don't fluff on my account, I'm a big girl, I can take it ;)
Deannda
Been adding other pictures to my profile, going to try to link them for more critique |
|
