| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2003 10:27:32 PM · #76 |
JimmytheFish you have expressed my thoughts perfectly.
Along with one too many inanimate chess pieces photos, did I see a photo here of someone sitting on a toilet bowl??
That not only didn't hold much interest for me, but I thought it was foolish. It was not as good as some 'snapshots' of the kids and pets.
As the old expression goes "To each his own." |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:52:59 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by clues56:
JimmytheFish you have expressed my thoughts perfectly.
Along with one too many inanimate chess pieces photos, did I see a photo here of someone sitting on a toilet bowl??
That not only didn't hold much interest for me, but I thought it was foolish. It was not as good as some 'snapshots' of the kids and pets.
As the old expression goes "To each his own." |
Cheers :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:03:57 PM · #78 |
"I must have missed this part... Can you refer me back to it somewhere? "
Your comment to me re my entry:
"//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=45881 - this thread (the first post), if read in its entirety, should give you something to think about :)"
The smiley guy is negated by your opening line in this post:
"What makes you think I want to see snapshots of your kids and your pets?"
I'm well aware that the "love goggles" I wear for my pet don't hold up in the real world. I don't expect everyone to fawn over him. I'm not that unrealistic.
It's not what you say. It's how you say it. I take criticism as well as anyone else. I welcome criticism -- ask the at least dozen people who I've thanked for their constructive criticism.
They were specific to my pictures. They gave me direct suggestions about how I could improve my technique. They gave me information instead of insulting my technique. They told me exactly what they liked and didn't like about my photos without rebuking me as one would a schoolgirl.
For me this was a fun shot.What you disdain as a "snapshot", I was taught is called a "casual portrait" and is a legitimate genre. Even taking that off the table --
"I appreciate your sentiment."
and I respect your opinion. Your photos are for the most part very well done. Of course I want your opinion. Everyone has expertise of some kind to offer.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:20:40 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by DebN2003:
"I must have missed this part... Can you refer me back to it somewhere? "
Your comment to me re my entry:
"//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=45881 - this thread (the first post), if read in its entirety, should give you something to think about :)"
The smiley guy is negated by your opening line in this post:
"What makes you think I want to see snapshots of your kids and your pets?"
I'm well aware that the "love goggles" I wear for my pet don't hold up in the real world. I don't expect everyone to fawn over him. I'm not that unrealistic.
It's not what you say. It's how you say it. I take criticism as well as anyone else. I welcome criticism -- ask the at least dozen people who I've thanked for their constructive criticism.
They were specific to my pictures. They gave me direct suggestions about how I could improve my technique. They gave me information instead of insulting my technique. They told me exactly what they liked and didn't like about my photos without rebuking me as one would a schoolgirl.
For me this was a fun shot.What you disdain as a "snapshot", I was taught is called a "casual portrait" and is a legitimate genre. Even taking that off the table --
"I appreciate your sentiment."
and I respect your opinion. Your photos are for the most part very well done. Of course I want your opinion. Everyone has expertise of some kind to offer. |
You said this:
"If pets and children are not considered to be sufficient subjects for photographs then why are they allowed in the contests to begin with? "
This is what i was referring to. I never said anything like this and don't know where it came from. That came out of thin air somewhere and that is what I was asking you to refer me back to.
People here are not reading what I'm saying :) You are assuming that I mean more than I wrote. If you had read this thread, you would have seen that I posted several examples of pet/kid photos that I have given tens to. If you are not gonna read more than bits and pieces, please don't respond and please don't say I said things that I didn't say :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:22:25 PM · #80 |
"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..."
JTF:
Your commentary is eloquent and instructive. It's just the kind of constructive commentary I've been trying to explain in my other posts. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 04:53:29 AM · #81 |
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.. |
It's kind of a nonsensical scenerio, but go with it...
I tell you to open a can of paint. You reach for a wrench and start trying to pry open the lid, but can't get the blunt end into the crease. After watching you struggle for a little while, I walk over, pick up a screwdriver, taking it by the business end, and smack you up side your head, hard, with the handle. "Hey, dimwit, use a screwdriver. It's got a thin, pointed tip that fits into the crease and allows you to easily pry the lid open. This is not a job for a wrench." All the while, I have a smile on my face. :)
You, after screaming in pain, grab the screwdriver from my hand and plunge it into my arm, yelling "That hurt, you idiot!"
End of parable.
OK, I think I even alluded to the fact that I understood you were probably doing this on purpose. Tough love, the crusty old professor, whatever. Not my personal choice in teaching styles, but I agree it can be effective. In the scenerio above, you will most definitely remember the incident, and will probably never try to use a wrench to open a paint can again. It was certainly effective. But was it necessary?
In this case (snapshots, not paint cans), maybe....
But "I can't understand why you would accept one and not the other"??? You smacked a bunch of people upside the head. And some of them got mad. And some of us got a little defensive of those you smacked. (Hey, my shot's not a pet or my kid and I don't think it falls in the snapshot category, so I don't have any personal connection - this time.) You got the reaction you wanted. But don't be disingenuous and pretend to be shocked. It kinda cheapens the overall approach.
:)
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 04:58:48. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 05:55:03 AM · #82 |
Setzler is 100 % right here!
I learned my lesson the "hard way" by submitting This photo when I started at DPC.
My daughter and her cat are cute to me but the photo is a family snapshot and doesn't belong in competition !
Cheers everybody and learn from the pros!
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 05:58:23.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:06:06 AM · #83 |
| I submit photos that I think will meet the challenge for the week. I have submitted my family in these shots. Some may look snapshotty, but I always have tried to meet the challenge and have suffered through the comments. But I have learned through good comments or low scores to not do it again, unless I have a point to make. Great thread John and others, maybe we can learn from this long discussion and get out-of-the-box and take better shots. Van |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 10:13:47 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
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.
|
Abstract score 6.7
Impressionistic, blurry and flowers score 5.3
shallow, soft focus flower score 6.3
Motion blur score 6.6
Motion blur score 6.4
Motion blur, shallow DoF score 6.2
I don't think it is true that dpc voters are harsh on blurry, soft focus, shallow focus, abstract or impressionistic shots.
The flip side is, just because a shot has motion blur, is blurry, soft focused or abstract, doens't mean it is automatically any good.
Many times in these discussions people assume that they got a poor score because people don't get it. Maybe they got it and thought it wasn't any good ?
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 10:24:59.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 10:44:00 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't think it is true that dpc voters are harsh on blurry, soft focus, shallow focus, abstract or impressionistic shots.
The flip side is, just because a shot has motion blur, is blurry, soft focused or abstract, doens't mean it is automatically any good.
Many times in these discussions people assume that they got a poor score because people don't get it. Maybe they got it and thought it wasn't any good ? |
I disagree -- in general DPC voters are hard on anything "unusual." It's not hard to find a few isolated examples to counter any stated view here, but in this case I don't think it's a statisically valid sample.
I have comments on my current entry which say "I don't get [it] ..." and both "too blurry" and "love how you've used the shallow DOF" (slightly paraphased). Score is in the mid-3's. If I were voting on it I'd probably give it between a 5-7. Sorry I can't post it right now, but I'll be happy to direct you to it or email it if you want to evaluate it for yourself.
I think "out of the box" does just as poorly here has cliche/kids/pets/etc.... |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 03:52:37 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think "out of the box" does just as poorly here has cliche/kids/pets/etc.... |
So if out of the box/ cliche/ pets/ kids/ etc all do equally badly, perhaps, just perhaps, the execution matters more than the subject and we can't just blame the voters ? That was my point above - for all that it would be great to blame the rest of the world for not being able to recognise the brilliance we see in our photos, perhaps it isn't actually there ?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 04:05:39 PM · #87 |
Not all photos of kids do bad. Can I Play Too? did quite well in the Sports challenge, especially since there wasn't much action in the photo. So there's still hope for the DPC voters!
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 04:19:50 PM · #88 |
Hot topic going on in here, I must agree with alot of other people's sentiments on here, kids and pets are great if done with a quality approach,I always enjoy the pet and kids shots myself..of course thats my opinion.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 04:43:14 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think "out of the box" does just as poorly here has cliche/kids/pets/etc.... |
So if out of the box/ cliche/ pets/ kids/ etc all do equally badly, perhaps, just perhaps, the execution matters more than the subject and we can't just blame the voters ??? |
I agree, that's why I get annoyed with rants against photos with a certain subject, rather than specific criticism of some particular photo.
I think this whole process has the effect of "poisoning" minds and setting up prejudices against either taking or voting highly for certain photos, simply because of their subject. John may vote some kid/pet photos a ten, but a lot of other folks are probably giving them all threes because they read that that's "what DPC voters DO."
No one will ever take GOOD kid photos if they are afraid to submit any at all because people are tired of them and they will "automatically" get a lower vote. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 05:45:01 PM · #90 |
two things:
1) kids and pets CAN make wonderful photos...
2) kids and pets are also very difficult to photograph in a non'snapshot' manner, beacuse they move all the time, and they dont tend to listen to what you tell them very well.
those who can master the art of capturing kids and pets (on a regular basis ) on film are few and far between
the point here is ( with this thread in my opinion )- if the photo does not relay a UNIVERSAL message its probably not going to be looked at too highly.
try to capture emotion/ mode / feelings with/of the kids and pets - and end this thread.
soup
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 06:14:32 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by soup:
try to capture emotion/ mode / feelings with/of the kids and pets - and end this thread.
soup |
After only three pages of postings? When did you say you joined DPC?
I will also try to continue to follow your suggestion .... |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 07:18:15 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think this whole process has the effect of "poisoning" minds and setting up prejudices against either taking or voting highly for certain photos, simply because of their subject. John may vote some kid/pet photos a ten, but a lot of other folks are probably giving them all threes because they read that that's "what DPC voters DO."
No one will ever take GOOD kid photos if they are afraid to submit any at all because people are tired of them and they will "automatically" get a lower vote. |
You know, as well as anyone here, that well done photographs of ANY subject are going to do well in the end. None of the discussions that we have ever had on this topic seem to have had any adverse affect on the number of this type of image that gets posted here. I certainly haven't seen a slowdown in it. There are, in fact, many more than we have ever had. This was the whole point of starting this thread...
Here is where you are disallusioned:
"No one will ever take GOOD kid photos if they are afraid to submit any at all because people are tired of them and they will "automatically" get a lower vote."
The word that bothers me in your quote is SUBMIT. Do you really believe that people should just submit random snapshots to a photo competition? In general, I would hope not. There are the occasional snapshots that will withstand the test of time and the dpc voting public, but not many.
There are lots of ways to learn how to make 'portraits' or whatever you want to call 'good kid photos'. For that matter, ANY snapshot of a kid or pet or whatever the subject may be is a GOOD photo. It's good to the person who took it. Referring back to my original post once again... These photos, for the most part, can't expect to be accepted by the general public as 'competition worthy' photos.
I have some free time this weekend and I believe I will scour DPC for kid and pet photos that I think are great examples of what people should strive for if they want to make them 'competition worthy'.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:07:11 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What makes you think I want to see snapshots of your kids and your pets? Do you carry your family photo album around with you and ask strangers for feedback? Your kids and your pets are cute and funny, but they probably don't command much interest from anyone who doesn't know you.
What's even worse is that you will likely get offended when someone leaves you a comment along these lines. You have a personal emotional tie with your subject and won't likely be able to take criticism very well. Will you get offended when I ask you why you bothered to post it? Probably so...
How often have you looked at a friend's family photo album (or a stranger's for that matter) and seen a photo that you would consider artistic in a way that you would hang it as a decoration in your home? How many of them are of a quality level that would make them good stock photoraphy for use in magazines or other publications? Probably not many. You probably do think your own stuff is worthy though :) Obviously so, because you post it to photo competitions here :)
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. |
Hi John,
Well I do not want to talk about politics. But when I look at the picture you have submitted for the transparency challenge, which you have called "Liberty and justice", and which shows an American flag, I feel the same way you feel about other peoples kids and pets: this is their world (your world is the USA), and they (you) like it.
One (like you) might think it is to be narrow minded to submit pets and kids pictures. I think the same about people who submit pictures about amercan flags, liberty and justice (even if your picture had an award and blablabla). This is not my world but so what? No one can do a generic shot, that will touch the heart of everyone. Even if I am not an American, I like your picture because I only look at the shot and not its meaning. Otherwise I really don't like it.
Sorry, I do not want to be a typical Frenchman against Americans, but it would be the same if you were a Spanish guy submitting a Spanish flag.
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 20:23:32. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:19:51 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Jeanseb:
One (like you) might think it is to be narrow minded to submit pets and kids pictures. I think the same about people who submit pictures about amercan flags, liberty and justice (even if your picture had an award and blablabla).
Sorry, i do not want to be a typical frenchman against american, but it would be the same if you were a spanish guy submitting spanish flags. |
I'm sorry if you determined that I was being narrow minded. I never said such and never indicated such either. Maybe it's a language barrier or something.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:26:59 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Jeanseb:
One (like you) might think it is to be narrow minded to submit pets and kids pictures. I think the same about people who submit pictures about amercan flags, liberty and justice (even if your picture had an award and blablabla).
Sorry, i do not want to be a typical frenchman against american, but it would be the same if you were a spanish guy submitting spanish flags. |
I'm sorry if you determined that I was being narrow minded. I never said such and never indicated such either. Maybe it's a language barrier or something. |
Hi again John,
Well sorry if I used the bad word. English is not my mother tongue. I wanted to say that you only looked at the meaning of the shot (family pictures) and not the shot itself (arts and blablabla).
Maybe I have edited my previous post since you have read it. Again, I do not want to be mean, but this is how I feel. I do not want to have a word fight with anyone. This was just how I felt after I read your post.
again, I do like your shot
Message edited by author 2003-09-26 20:27:47. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:27:42 PM · #96 |
| Now watch it about the American Flag! |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:30:04 PM · #97 |
| And I do not have anything against the American flag, or any other flag. I am not a typical bad person. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:32:21 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Jeanseb:
Hi again John,
Well sorry if I used the bad word. English is not my mother tongue. I wanted to say that you only looked at the meaning of the shot (family pictures) and not the shot itself (arts and blablabla).
|
Absolutely.. I look at both aspects of each photo. I look at both aspects of each of this 'type' of photo and find nothing of value in either. This is what causes these photos to fall into this 'category' for me.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:35:38 PM · #99 |
Hi John,
So its not a question of kids and pets, but a question that some of the kids and pets pictures were not creative. This might happen to any other subject.
Sorry if I have said things that have been said in previous posts. I only have read the first message of John. |
|
|
|
09/26/2003 08:47:56 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Jeanseb:
Hi John,
So its not a question of kids and pets, but a question that some of the kids and pets pictures were not creative. This might happen to any other subject.
Sorry if I have said things that have been said in previous posts. I only have read the first message of John. |
You are absolutely correct. I just used kids and pets as an example since there are LOTS of them in the challenges.
|
|
