| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2007 04:00:50 PM · #101 |
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? |
It seems entirely consistent to me. You can think that viewers should spend more time on carefully considering an image, while recognizing that they still don't and coming up with strategies to use that fact.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:02:06 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yanko:
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 |
Well, my post was significantly shorter than yours, so YOU are forgiven this time :-P
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:06:44 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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? |
It seems entirely consistent to me. You can think that viewers should spend more time on carefully considering an image, while recognizing that they still don't and coming up with strategies to use that fact. |
I see. So as a viewer/voter if I spend time with an image and it bores me with an irrelavent background then it's my fault for wanting something more than an easy reach because I don't view and vote like the majority? (Explain it to me slowly.) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:07:54 PM · #104 |
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". :-) |
Gosh! And here I always thought that for a thread to progress posters only needed to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Silly me! |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:14:35 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
 
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. |
But Karma, though the first has a solid background I wouldn't call it "featureless". There's still a play of light and shadow on it that adds, in my opinion, greatly to the shot.
(general opinion now, not in response to Karma's post)
I tend to agree somewhat with agenkin. There are definitly shots that would be enhanced with more background, if only that light play.
But backgrounds are much harder than it seems they should be, and for those of us struggling with so many details at once, sometimes it's easier to leave that part out and focus on getting the main subject right.
I recall in one of my earliest entries I worked hard to get lighting even on the background, only to have Robert comment that the background was boring and would be improved by less even lighting. And he was right (of course), and I learned something :D
So sometimes the background is a strong artistic choice, sometimes it's necessity, but it's something we can at least give some more thought to, as it IS an integral part of our shot. :)
eta; This doesn't mean there aren't LOADS of shots that I feel are enhanced by a featureless background, too!
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 16:21:40. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:16:45 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
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". :-) |
Gosh! And here I always thought that for a thread to progress posters only needed to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Silly me! |
That's what I meant... :-)
Let me add that I don't have an issue with his dislike of isolated backgrounds, but I would like to understand why he feels they aren't valid.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 16:18:32.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:21:18 PM · #107 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:21:20 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by xianart:
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. |
Hi, Christian, you can see that you are still on my Favourites list. I think that you are a very talented artist, some of your images blow me away. Your kind words are quite unexpected and appreciated. Your criticism to me getting away with my attitude is also taken, you are not the first to criticise me for that. I do get emotional sometimes and I do like to defend my opinions, some of which are on the strong side. I am not sure to what extent this applies to my posts in this thread: my response to Pedro was harsh, but, I think, appropriate.
For the rest of your post... My opinion about art and photo art is just my opinion. I like to discuss art. It's important to understand *why* some image works or does not work. To illustrate my points I need sometimes use examples from other members of DPC, which sometimes upsets them. Are you saying that we should not publicly discuss our dislikes of others' work? There is an educational component in such discussions, for hodlers of either opinion.
Originally posted by xianart:
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? |
A tough question. I returned to view that image on my own recently, when going through my past comments. The captured moment and the composition are great. To me it looks as though the bridge and the child are is much larger than what they were in reality, that's why I said that the image looks surreal, and I love that. I don't like what you did to the image (even though it fooled me in the beginning).
The question here is whether the methods matter, given that the final image looks natural and does not give them away. This is an interesting question, and my response, for now, is "yes, they do", at least to me. However, I need some time to find a logical backing for this claim. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:29:37 PM · #109 |
I think you're entitled to your opinion and your vote, however Originally posted by agenkin:
....and I use the -2 points as a reinforcement to see less of such images at this site.... |
<--- that lesson will only work if you leave a comment explaining your take on the issue every time you deduct points for teaching purposes. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:29:57 PM · #110 |
I was just telling a friend this morning:
A photographer CHOOSES what details to include in his/her image. He isn't responsible for the univers, but he IS responsible for EVERY detail in his presentation. Everything in the frame should support the image's overall meaning or its distracting from it. For example if you have an image that includes a hand and the nails are shabby and hand is dirty you get a different response from the viewer than if the hand were clean and nails manicured.
The background can be a HUGE part of the image but like any detail if it isn't helping the image, its hurting it.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:31:36 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I think you're entitled to your opinion and your vote, however Originally posted by agenkin:
....and I use the -2 points as a reinforcement to see less of such images at this site.... |
<--- that lesson will only work if you leave a comment explaining your take on the issue every time you deduct points for teaching purposes. |
For what it is worth and a bit to his defense, he did exactly that on a current entry of mine.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:39:27 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Gordon:
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? |
It seems entirely consistent to me. You can think that viewers should spend more time on carefully considering an image, while recognizing that they still don't and coming up with strategies to use that fact. |
I see. So as a viewer/voter if I spend time with an image and it bores me with an irrelavent background then it's my fault for wanting something more than an easy reach because I don't view and vote like the majority? (Explain it to me slowly.) |
I don't think the two original points have much of anything to do with what the viewer wants. It would be nice to think that every entry here would get more than a fleeting chance to impress a viewer. The reality is that they don't.
With several hundred images in every challenge, if you plan on doing the entries justice (and by that I mean voting on a significant portion of them, not just 1/5th) then it takes half an hour to vote on a challenge if you give 5 seconds consideration to each image.
If you consider that a 'deep and meaningful' image (i.e., not high impact, superficial or just 'commercial' in this context might take or deserve several minutes(! - rather than say the actual days, months, years or lifetime that some images might really deserve) to appreciate the subtleties inherent in the image, then that voting period would require 10 hours or more, to do justice to a 300 entry challenge.
The logical conclusion is that it just is not practical for any voter/viewer to actually consider entries in anything but a superficial and instinctual way. To do well, you have to consider that in what you enter. So the winners tend to be characterized by the most easily read, high initial impact images.
Those images that require calmer reflection will never prosper here, even if one or two aberrant voters want to spend the time to take the 10 hours to vote in a considered manner, the masses of voters will not and will swamp any influence those few might hope to have.
I can easily spend hours in a gallery looking at photography, with maybe 20 images on display. If I visited museums the way I vote here, I'd need to have running shoes on.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 16:41:43.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:41:08 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I was just telling a friend this morning:
A photographer CHOOSES what details to include in his/her image. He isn't responsible for the univers, but he IS responsible for EVERY detail in his presentation. Everything in the frame should support the image's overall meaning or its distracting from it. For example if you have an image that includes a hand and the nails are shabby and hand is dirty you get a different response from the viewer than if the hand were clean and nails manicured.
The background can be a HUGE part of the image but like any detail if it isn't helping the image, its hurting it. |
I strongly agree with the above statement. It is harder to shoot with backgrounds. Sometimes you can use DOF to make the background less active. It's often a lot easier to intentionally over- or under-expose it, thus producing a background-less image. But you are just as much responsible for the millions of boring (0,0,0) and (255,255,255) pixels, should you choose to remove the background.
I often chose not to shoot an interesting subject just because I can think of no feasible way to get a clear shot at it. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 04:49:50 PM · #114 |
I hate to use my own images to raise a question, but since we're determined to make this a civil discussion, I'll offer these:
 
what is the difference between these two images? they got virtually identical scores and placings in their respective challenges. The first one with a 'real' background received a criticism of the model (which hurt her feelings by the way - criticize my photos all you like, but leave her out of it) yet the second one is apparently a quality portrait (though somehow pretentious) and it sits on a solid featureless background - it was met with a 6.
So...what gives? I'm honestly not trying to be a smartass; I'm curious given the nature of this thread.
P
edited to remove inaccurate info.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 17:58:10. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:04:34 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
The part I find slightly amusing is Arcady's comments on them. The first one with a 'real' background received a vote of 4, and a criticism of the model (which hurt her feelings by the way - criticize my photos all you like, but leave her out of it). The second one is apparently a quality portrait (though somehow pretentious) yet it sits on a solid featureless background - it was met with a 6. |
I did not vote for the first shot, I don't know why you think that I gave it a 4. I would probably have given it a 5 should I have voted, well, not much of a difference. Also note that it was the *photographer* who made the model look "plastic" - there was no criticism of the model, please tell her that.
The second shot does not *quite* fit the topic of this discussion, the background is not interesting, but is not completely blacked out. I meant by "quality portrait" that the light, exposure, and focus are set perfectly well. I still think that it is pretentious.
Why did we shift into grilling me for the comments I made in the past? This is the third complaint. :) Anyone else? :) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:10:07 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
I did not vote for the first shot, I don't know why you think that I gave it a 4. I would probably have given it a 5 should I have voted, well, not much of a difference. Also note that it was the *photographer* who made the model look "plastic" - there was no criticism of the model, please tell her that.
The second shot does not *quite* fit the topic of this discussion, the background is not interesting, but is not completely blacked out. I meant by "quality portrait" that the light, exposure, and focus are set perfectly well. I still think that it is pretentious.
Why did we shift into grilling me for the comments I made in the past? This is the third complaint. :) Anyone else? :) |
My bad - I thought you had commented on it earlier that you had given it a 4. I was less concerned about the votes and comments as I was about the distinction between the two.
I didn't actually do any noise reduction or smoothing on the first one...her skin really is that good. It might be a hair overexposed which would flatten it out more, but that's it.
Again, I'm not intending to grill you for your past comments (this is not the time nor the venue), I'm trying to understand your point of view. You'll note I marked both of your comments as 'helpful' because I respect your right to an opinion, and whether or not I agree with it, I can use the intel to learn from as I try to understand what appeals to others.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 17:55:44. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:15:21 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
...My opinion about art and photo art is just my opinion. I like to discuss art. It's important to understand *why* some image works or does not work. To illustrate my points I need sometimes use examples from other members of DPC, which sometimes upsets them. Are you saying that we should not publicly discuss our dislikes of others' work? There is an educational component in such discussions, for holders of either opinion.
...The question here is whether the methods matter, given that the final image looks natural and does not give them away. This is an interesting question, and my response, for now, is "yes, they do", at least to me. However, I need some time to find a logical backing for this claim. |
i think both of these extracts are important, both for you, arcady, and for everyone on dpc (myself included). we are all discussing art, which is a subjective thing, prone to the vagueries of emotions and opinions. however, if we are to truly critique, learn and grow in our chosen art form (and any others we may be practice (i'm a painter and drawer (can't say draughtsperson - i'm nowhere near that technical))) (too many parentheses), we must balance our subjective reactions with objective, rational thought.
of course we all believe in our work, and our opinions of ours and others'. but this is art, not a science. there are very few things in art that are 'Right'. we need to be able to balance what we see with a knee jerk reaction with what a rational analysis of the displayed work shows.
neither can work in isolation. we need both passion and logic. we need to carefully examine why we believe something aobut an artwork. do we dislike because it is actually poorly done (and yes, there is a lot of bad art out there)? or do we dislike it because it is outside of our experience, sensibilities or comfort zone? if this is the case, then we need to step outside ourselves to critique the work, as we should also do with images we like. neither outright condemnation nor wholehearted approval are helpful in the long run. very few things are either completely bad or good.
so, to finally come around the to points you made - yes, it's good to use others' work as object examples, but one needs to use rational and logical argument, and constructive criticsm to truly affect some sort of dialogue. otherwise, all one achieves is a vitriolic spouting which teaches neither oneself nor others anything. when one is harshly ciritcised, in an aggressive manner, one stops listening. when criticises harshly, one has already stopped listening. neither extreme allow room for growth and development. and surely that's what being an artist is all about.
your second statement quoted here, i think, is vital. we must consider our opinions, and discover the reasons we hold them, before putting them forward as fact.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 17:19:04.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:54:32 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
 |
Move over .. me too |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:10:56 PM · #119 |
this is going to be a tough to get a grip on - no?
i think about this as if i developed my own film - but sent the negatives away to be printed at Walmart... part of a finished image is the printing process. with digital the print is made digitally. i can't understand why you would negate the value of the end product soley based on the means used to acheive it - with one exception. the artist in this case didn't use they're own skills - but an action created by someone else. if the same effect was acheived with the artists own methods would the value still be lost?
Originally posted by agenkin:
The question here is whether the methods matter, given that the final image looks natural and does not give them away. This is an interesting question, and my response, for now, is "yes, they do", at least to me. However, I need some time to find a logical backing for this claim. |
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 18:11:41.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:14:10 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Shecoya:
Originally posted by boomtap:
|
Move over .. me too |
 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:18:07 PM · #121 |
Here are three shots with the same subject but varying backgrounds ... which "work(s)" better and why?
   |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:23:47 PM · #122 |
In my humble opinion
#1 is nice - good bokeh, but too many subjects
#2 the background distracts A LOT from the point of the image
#3 is just about perfect - clean, crisp, shows the viewer PRECISELY what you wanted them to see.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:25:37 PM · #123 |
yes. what idnic said.
did you guys make the conclusion that everybody's got a different opinion?
no? |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:32:37 PM · #124 |
i dunno - the BG in the third one makes it hard to look at the subject.
a gradient of some sort - like from a polarizer would have done wonders.
the first is the best - shows the subjects doing what they do while hinting at the surroundings with some decent bokeh.
Originally posted by idnic:
#3 is just about perfect - clean, crisp, shows the viewer PRECISELY what you wanted them to see.
|
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:41:49 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by soup:
this is going to be a tough to get a grip on - no? |
Yes, this is a tough one. I would prefer not to take this thread away from its original topic. If you want to discuss it now, I'd rather you opened another thread just for that. |
|
