|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2007 07:53:28 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Originally posted by ursula:
Why enter something that you know will not do well? What's the point? .... Plus, in at least a few cases, it's worth thinking whether your own take on your own photo is all that accurate. Is it really a good photo? Is it really that deep and meaningful |
I agree with what you say, ursula, except with what I quoted above. This is a lot easier said from your standpoint because you are a phenomenal photographer who has found great success on DPC. But at some point, people need to submit photos that they realize aren't going to score in the top 10, or even 100. People need to throw out trial images to see the reaction -- it is the only way for people to learn. I know that I have submitted images that I know wouldn't score well (especially during my first year at DPC which was my first year of photography) and I accepted that, but I still wanted to see people's reaction. If that is wrong, then I think we are at a disagreement. I could not have learned without submitting work that I realized wouldnt do great -- it took me long enough to score above a 6, but that I didn't before then didn't make me not want to submit until I was positively sure I had that 6.
I hope I'm being clear and not sounding antagonistic. I think it is a good thing to talk these issues out.
- Lee |
No, you're not (sounding antagonistic). I love talking about these things.
I do not think it is wrong to throw out images (or put them in a challenge) that you know will not score well, except if you feel sore about it afterwards. If you want to enter such images (I've been doing it myself more and more lately), then you have to be aware that you can't be sore over the low score. Also, to me, just "getting reactions" isn't enough, it doesn't mean all that much, because you're getting these reactions from the wrong group of people. What will I learn from that except what I already know?
But, I think it is true though that quite a few images that are said to be too out of the box or whatever for DPC are simply not that good (to put it mildly).
Message edited by author 2007-01-23 19:59:21. |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 08:31:39 PM · #52 |
I'm a little confused by the negative space issue. Surely negative space has little to do with minimalism?
Would you guys consider this a minimalist image or not? (Couldn't enter it because of the cropping but otherwise straight out of the camera) |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 08:41:47 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
I'm a little confused by the negative space issue. Surely negative space has little to do with minimalism?
Would you guys consider this a minimalist image or not? (Couldn't enter it because of the cropping but otherwise straight out of the camera) |
This would get low votes, you subject covers the entire frame. You would need something else, maybe a single red berry as an example.
Negative space is not a requirement for this challenge, but is surely an easy way to accomplish the goal. Image a blue background scene with a small single red berry. Not very imaginative, but if would work for this challenge. Your subject "branch" is too big. Unless I am missing something in the photo.
Good luck, hope that helps. Unfortunately, I doubt if I will be able to get a challenge in myself. |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 09:06:41 PM · #54 |
Yeah...
No.
Is there such thing as "Too much Blur"?
If there is, you've achieved it. |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 09:06:51 PM · #55 |
Oh, I realise that the votes would be low, but that's because of the way that the challenge is worded.
I'm just asking if everyone agrees that that's an acceptable definition of 'minimalism'.
Full OED definition:
1. Art. a. A style of painting associated with the Russian-American artist John Graham (1881-1961), characterized by an attempt to reduce the art form to its most basic elements. b. A movement in sculpture and painting originating in the mid twentieth century, and characterized by the use of simple, massive forms. Cf. MINIMAL a. 6a and MINIMALIST a. 2a.
The first public exhibition of minimalist work (by forty-two ‘Younger American and British Sculptors’) was held at the Jewish Museum, New York City, in April 1966.
2. More generally: the practice of using the minimum means necessary to achieve a desired result, esp. in literature, design, etc.
I realise that minimalism in photography could be different, but I think the specific mention of 'simple, massive forms' with regard to painting and sculpture show that there is no reason for a minimalist photograph to have a tiny subject. |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 09:26:58 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Oh, I realise that the votes would be low, but that's because of the way that the challenge is worded.
I'm just asking if everyone agrees that that's an acceptable definition of 'minimalism'.
Full OED definition:
1. Art. a. A style of painting associated with the Russian-American artist John Graham (1881-1961), characterized by an attempt to reduce the art form to its most basic elements. b. A movement in sculpture and painting originating in the mid twentieth century, and characterized by the use of simple, massive forms. Cf. MINIMAL a. 6a and MINIMALIST a. 2a.
The first public exhibition of minimalist work (by forty-two ‘Younger American and British Sculptors’) was held at the Jewish Museum, New York City, in April 1966.
2. More generally: the practice of using the minimum means necessary to achieve a desired result, esp. in literature, design, etc.
I realise that minimalism in photography could be different, but I think the specific mention of 'simple, massive forms' with regard to painting and sculpture show that there is no reason for a minimalist photograph to have a tiny subject. |
Short answer, NO.
There was a challenge recently called: Wind II
Description: This challenge is specifically intended to be about "wind" like a breeze that blows, not about alternate meanings of wind like "wind the clock" or anything else. Your task is to try to capture this invisible but always-present phenomenon.
Yes, there is more than one definition to a word. In Minimalism, I think the description in the challenge is pretty clear. Yes, what you describe is a type of minimalism. Is it what the challenge asks for? No. Though I am surprised that the standard definition isn't being used, that is what I would have thought initialy.
Hope that helps. Good shooting out there to everyone.
Message edited by author 2007-01-23 22:11:05. |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 11:36:12 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ursula:
RANT:
Oh, geez, I don't know :) I sort of agree with what you're saying, but I also am really, really tired of people so often saying that only dumbed down visual candy images win ribbons, making it sound like that is just so uncool and below all those who know so much better.
Maybe that's not what you're saying at all, but that's what it sounded like to me.
Look, the challenges are to make the best possible image to give back the topic to a general audience. It isn't high art, but it is an art in itself to be able to do that, and it is quite attractive as a concept and fun to take part in. To say that that is "dumbing down" a concept/image makes it sound like something bad, something not quite worthwhile for those that know better.
If you want to get an idea across, what's the best way to do it? Isn't it to try and present it in the clearest, most concise, and visually most attractive way possible? I don't think "dumbing down" quite fits. Sounds more like a lousy excuse to me.
END OF RANT. |
I couldn't agree more. Last I checked even the great ones knew how to grab your attention. This whole idea of having to spend 5 hours studying a photograph to understand it is a failure on the photographer's part not the viewer's. There are many ways to grab people's attention, failing to do anything in that regard is not one of them.
Message edited by author 2007-01-23 23:37:54. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 04:11:05 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 04:11:05 AM EDT.
|
