DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Removed backgrounds - commercial photography syndrome
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 233, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/26/2007 02:58:01 PM · #76
Originally posted by boomtap:

Well not all boobs are created equal, and I am sure that somebody has put together a boob voting scale.


1-bad
10-good

01/26/2007 02:58:51 PM · #77
There goes the thread. :(
 01/26/2007 02:59:11 PM · #78


Probably my two best examples of portraits with featureless backgrounds. Both actually do have non-studio backgrounds, the first being a shower curtain and the second being the back of a black mesh chair.
01/26/2007 02:59:19 PM · #79
I would think there is more too it than that. I have seen some bad boobs get good scores.
01/26/2007 02:59:48 PM · #80
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by boomtap:

Well not all boobs are created equal, and I am sure that somebody has put together a boob voting scale.


1-bad
10-good


Ahhh..but even boobs are relative...are you partial to small firm ones? Or large full ones? And don't forget nipple shape and color. :oP
 01/26/2007 03:02:31 PM · #81
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
01/26/2007 03:06:37 PM · #82
Originally posted by agenkin:
There goes the thread. :(


It's also part of your answer. Most of the participants have some form of adult onset attention deficit disorder. The best way to make an impact when your pictures are only going to be viewed for a couple of seconds before the scoring decision is made, is to get rid of any extraneous information from the shot.

Backgrounds, complex ideas, emotion, subtlety, compositional elements - all just something else to distract the flitting mind.

Now. Where were we ? boobies.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 15:07:26.
 01/26/2007 03:09:13 PM · #83
I really don't find any of the examples here "objectionable", notwithstanding my earlier-in-the-thread general agreement with OP's position. All of these examples use the negative space well enough to pass muster in my personal aesthetic judgment. The ones I don't like are basically the ones that have a vast sea of black or white with some object stuck in the corner or symmetrically in the center, with no apparent reason that it was done that way.

But it's just a personal preference; I'm not about to tell anyone they should agree with me, or do it my way, not even Pedro :-) And as far as I can tell OP is not doing that either; he's just passionately expressing his own personal take on a style of photography that he finds too prevalent and, ultimately, unrewarding. I'm not sure why everyone's get so wound up about this...

R.
 01/26/2007 03:10:03 PM · #84
Originally posted by Gordon:


It's also part of your answer. Most of the participants have some form of adult onset attention deficit disorder. The best way to make an impact when your pictures are only going to be viewed for a couple of seconds before the scoring decision is made, is to get rid of any extraneous information from the shot.

Backgrounds, complex ideas, emotion, subtlety, compositional elements - all just something else to distract the flitting mind.


some truth there also the photog has the knowledge that they ahve about 3-5 seconds to make an impact on the voter before they move on so somtimes no background =mroe impact quickly.
 01/26/2007 03:15:16 PM · #85
Originally posted by Elvis_L:

some truth there also the photog has the knowledge that they ahve about 3-5 seconds to make an impact on the voter before they move on so somtimes no background =mroe impact quickly.


Which is why commercial photography is as it is. When one is skimming a magazine for example, it is the photo that makes you stop and look at it. If you are just flipping through, you may take 3 seconds or so to scan the photo before you flip the page.
 01/26/2007 03:20:28 PM · #86
I think we need to take a step back and appreciate Arcady for what he offers; a different perspective from the usual DPC.

I have been at the pointed end of his critique many times and I can safely say he does not like my work much at all. BUT, I have taken some of what he says to heart and think it's a good reminder. What Arcady likes is a photographic style which is simple, straigtforward and relies on lighting and subject as the primary source of "wow". This style is hard to do.

Anyway, let agenkin be agenkin. He is very consistent in his taste and I personally think it's beneficial that he chooses to stay around even though the majority of what DPC offers is not to his liking.
 01/26/2007 03:23:16 PM · #87
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
some truth there also the photog has the knowledge that they ahve about 3-5 seconds to make an impact on the voter before they move on so somtimes no background =mroe impact quickly.


I think the point of having a good background is to slow the viewer down...to give them something meaningful and delicious to look at. Voided backgrounds do get old...especially if there's no good reason for them. If the subject alone, as in many of the examples posted, is strong enough, is interesting enough to hold the attention then, of course, leave the background behind. It's certainly valid to consider adding one though and the reasons for it.

I also have to say that I find it rather contradictory that on the one hand so many people here think the viewers should give the image the "respect" it deserves and vote it on its merits...while on the other hand the photographer should know that they've got 3-5 seconds to impress said viewers. Which is it? Who has the responsibility for the image?
01/26/2007 03:24:48 PM · #88
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:

some truth there also the photog has the knowledge that they ahve about 3-5 seconds to make an impact on the voter before they move on so somtimes no background =mroe impact quickly.


Which is why commercial photography is as it is. When one is skimming a magazine for example, it is the photo that makes you stop and look at it. If you are just flipping through, you may take 3 seconds or so to scan the photo before you flip the page.

Unfortunate but true. I wonder if a buzz-phrase is coming into vogue, "The background is distracting." It makes me think... what, are you stupid? And hey, don't jump down my throat just because that's what I think. I think lots of nasty things. Sometimes I wonder if I should be locked up.

edit - spelling , duh

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 15:27:45.
 01/26/2007 03:26:06 PM · #89
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we need to take a step back and appreciate Arcady for what he offers; a different perspective from the usual DPC.

I have been at the pointed end of his critique many times and I can safely say he does not like my work much at all. BUT, I have taken some of what he says to heart and think it's a good reminder. What Arcady likes is a photographic style which is simple, straigtforward and relies on lighting and subject as the primary source of "wow". This style is hard to do.

Anyway, let agenkin be agenkin. He is very consistent in his taste and I personally think it's beneficial that he chooses to stay around even though the majority of what DPC offers is not to his liking.


as with most things, it not the message it is how it is delivered. He comented on one of mine to which I responed on my inmage. he responded to my response which means he went back and looked. why would he look at my shot that he hated again unless he wanted to see if he got a repsonse. to me it seemed like he was looking for a fight. he has picked fights with many people which is why he gets a repsonse like he has here.
 01/26/2007 03:27:59 PM · #90
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
as with most things, it not the message it is how it is delivered. He comented on one of mine to which I responed on my inmage. he responded to my response which means he went back and looked. why would he look at my shot that he hated again unless he wanted to see if he got a repsonse. to me it seemed like he was looking for a fight. he has picked fights with many people which is why he gets a repsonse like he has here.


Well, I can't disagree with this. He can be brusque. I do think there is a little "poke you in the eye" action going on.
 01/26/2007 03:29:17 PM · #91
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
some truth there also the photog has the knowledge that they ahve about 3-5 seconds to make an impact on the voter before they move on so somtimes no background =mroe impact quickly.


I think the point of having a good background is to slow the viewer down...to give them something meaningful and delicious to look at. Voided backgrounds do get old...especially if there's no good reason for them. If the subject alone, as in many of the examples posted, is strong enough, is interesting enough to hold the attention then, of course, leave the background behind. It's certainly valid to consider adding one though and the reasons for it.

I also have to say that I find it rather contradictory that on the one hand so many people here think the viewers should give the image the "respect" it deserves and vote it on its merits...while on the other hand the photographer should know that they've got 3-5 seconds to impress said viewers. Which is it? Who has the responsibility for the image?


depends on what you are going for. If you want a good score maybe the later if it is something that moves you then you do what needs to be done. this is a contest site and many here want to win. Many people here will say that the shots that speak to them the most personally have not scored well but that is not what they wanted to achieve in that shot.
 01/26/2007 03:33:01 PM · #92
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Pedro:
is either egotistical or ignorant...I can't decide which.

Well, let me know when you decide. In the meantime, I've had enough of your condescending attitude.


arcady, i feel i must weigh in here. i have looked through your portfolio quite often, and you have some very good work. your composition is good, as are your general photographic technicals.

however, i fear i am sometimes unsettled by your rigid application of your strictures to all others' work. i remember you left a very positve comment on one of my images, assuming it was a straight shot, not photoshopped in any way. then, you left a rather scathing comment on a smilar image of mine, which was named as being photoshopped. or, i think that negative comment was in a thread, which i can no longer find. maybe you can.

i never discovered if you decided you disliked my image after you discovered it was not a true holga image, but rather an approximation of one created by a photoshop action.

what is my point on this rather rambling comment? your attitude worries me, arcady. while i truly like and admire purist shooting hell, i did it for years, with my k1000 and leica being extensions of myself, to the point that composition, and exposure were automatic. that said, i could appreciate more active darkroom techniques than i used, and see perfectly valid artistic expressions within them.

art is not a single thing. painting goes from the hyper-real to the truly abstract. would you say that - to take two completely unrelated painters - jaques louis davide's work trounces that of robert motherwell, simply because the former is higly realistic (and please, i know it's not really, but it's just a quick example) adnt he latter is completely abstract. if one stands in front of a motherwell, the energy and emotion emanating from it are palpable.

so, what am i saying? you are more than entitled to your opinion, and perhaps pedro was intemperate in his wording. that said, i'm afraid i find your attitude equally condescending, and frequently insulting to other photographers on this site. dpc is a learning site as well as a sharing site. to truly improve, we must experiment with different techniques. criticism is vital to grow and learn, but it needs to be constructive, not inflamatory and deprecating. shutting someone down because one does not like the style helps no-one. art is wide ranging organism, that has many psuedopods (mix my metaphors like a blender...) not everyone likes all aspects of it, but that is part of life. one can appreciate a thing even if one doesn't like its style.

so, do you still like my Poohsticks shot, or do you hate now that you've found out it was done through the magic of photoshop?
 01/26/2007 03:42:28 PM · #93
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
He comented on one of mine to which I responed on my inmage. he responded to my response which means he went back and looked. why would he look at my shot that he hated again unless he wanted to see if he got a repsonse. to me it seemed like he was looking for a fight. he has picked fights with many people which is why he gets a repsonse like he has here.

I do this because I like discussing photography. I routinely check for responses for my comments. Rest assured that I didn't single you out or try to pick a fight with you.
 01/26/2007 03:50:06 PM · #94
Originally posted by KaDi:
I also have to say that I find it rather contradictory that on the one hand so many people here think the viewers should give the image the "respect" it deserves and vote it on its merits...while on the other hand the photographer should know that they've got 3-5 seconds to impress said viewers. Which is it? Who has the responsibility for the image?


Great question! I think the answer is 'whichever party cares most' with an 'and about what' clause. If someone wants to get the most possible from an image, they'll stop and take the time. If the photographer wants the best score, they'll go the tried and true route (with some exceptions), if the photographer wants to provoke, they'll do so in the most efficient way possible - with or without a background - by clarity or confusion. It all depends on motivation.
 01/26/2007 03:54:02 PM · #95
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But it's just a personal preference; I'm not about to tell anyone they should agree with me, or do it my way, not even Pedro :-) And as far as I can tell OP is not doing that either; he's just passionately expressing his own personal take on a style of photography that he finds too prevalent and, ultimately, unrewarding. I'm not sure why everyone's get so wound up about this...

R.


Actually I didn't state a preference either way...i enjoy both styles equally. My objection was to the sweeping generalization.

and frankly, if this stuff gets people wound up in real life? they gots issues. Net conversations are a lot like road rage...often a little more inflammatory and outspoken than they need to be.

Bear, you can feel free to tell me to agree with you as often as you like. I can't promise I'll heed your advice, but you're still entitled to say it :)
 01/26/2007 03:54:43 PM · #96
Me thinks that for this thread to progress and that we all learn we should stop with all the "YOUS". :-)
 01/26/2007 03:58:17 PM · #97
Originally posted by agenkin:
It is my impression that there are more and more challenge entries with backgrounds removed to completely white or black. We are seeing background-less portraits, close-ups, still lifes.

Removing the background will make your image a better seller on the stock sites, but it will, in most cases, turn your art photograph into a product (or just a thing) shot.


As you have pointed out there are many ribbon winning shots with solid colored backgrounds. I understand YOU don't prefer that and think it ruins the photo. That's fine but so what? The photos you've offered as examples were all submitted into "contests" not submitted as photography class assignments yet you treat it as the latter. In order to "win" one of these contests you need to submit things that the majority likes and as DPC 101 states simple is better. Now if everyone here thought like you then most of us would be submitting things YOU like. Maybe this is where your disconnect is?

If you truly feel you are trying to help others become better photographers than why not spend more time commenting on portfolio work instead of the challenges which are catered to a specific audience?

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 16:00:50.
 01/26/2007 03:58:27 PM · #98
you know - you're right ;}

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Me thinks that for this thread to progress and that we all learn we should stop with all the "YOUS". :-)


Message edited by author 2007-01-26 15:59:00.
 01/26/2007 03:58:59 PM · #99
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Me thinks that for this thread to progress and that we all learn we should stop with all the "YOUS". :-)


Damn. Too late. :P
 01/26/2007 04:00:10 PM · #100
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I really don't find any of the examples here "objectionable", notwithstanding my earlier-in-the-thread general agreement with OP's position. All of these examples use the negative space well enough to pass muster in my personal aesthetic judgment. The ones I don't like are basically the ones that have a vast sea of black or white with some object stuck in the corner or symmetrically in the center, with no apparent reason that it was done that way.

How does "negative space" differ from the OP's "removed background"? I can grok the difference, but damned if I can explain it.

I'm talking about negative space that's one solid color rather than, say, a big sky.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 01:52:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/07/2025 01:52:23 AM EDT.