| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/27/2007 06:10:28 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
To me this argument is like saying shooting B&W is a cop out because if the photographers were really skilled they would use color to enhance they're picture.
It takes real talent and skill to shoot a good picture whether it has a background or not just like it takes real skill to shoot a good B&W photo.
I believe a lot of the problem some people had with this thread is the implication that shooting without a background means the photographer is less skilled or lazy. |
You hit the nail on the head. It's unfounded yet it happens over and over again. I can only assume it's purpose is to make one's own work or niche stand out since perhaps it's not getting the type of recognition the OP would like to see? Unfortunately for the OP, the challenge topics since day one often focus on stock concepts.
Maybe the real beef here is that there are not enough topics that spur originality or emulating the greats or straight from the camera type topics like photojournalism to which I agree. I have suggest challenges like this in the past. If it were me I'd try and strike more of a balance and I think with the new editing rules that have come out you'll see more of that at least I hope.
Regardless, lets not confuse lazyness and being unskilled with meeting the needs of the client in this case the voter, who prefer these "quick hitting" images.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 01:43:28 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I believe a lot of the problem some people had with this thread is the implication that shooting without a background means the photographer is less skilled or lazy. |
The implication of an image without background is that the image is less interesting to look at and rarely has artistic merit. |
In regard to your first assertion (bolded above), are you talking specifically about the photos that appear in the DPC challenges, or making a blanket statement about artistic photography in general? If it is the former, then perhaps you have a point. As I have already read hundreds of times (even as a noob), DPC is its own photographic community and as such its standards and preferences naturally don't necessarily reflect the standards and preferences of other photographic communities. That people who want to do well in challenges should choose to shoot toward those preferences should not come as any surprise. But if you mean the latter then I think that it is not only myopic, but also demonstrably wrong given even a quick and dirty perusal of the history of artistic photography. Especially in artistic portrait photography, blank backgrounds are quite common when the photographer wants to assure that there will be a dialog between the subject and the viewer.
I think that the real implication behind an image without a background is that the viewer should be looking very closely at the isolated, and therefore highlighted, subject. Looking at the implication this way, shooting without a background represents a risk for a photographer, because he or she must shoot the subject in such a way as to justify the request for the viewer's sole attention being directed to that aspect.
Can people take the same technique and do poorly what a master does well? Of course! But that doesn't invalidate the technique, or invalidate the attempts of those with less skill to emulate the technique as a way of improving their own skill level.
I believe that I probably share your preference for naturalistic photography, and I definitely do believe that the method matters. (A photo achieved though traditional photographic techniques tends to be more impressive to me than the same photo that acheives its look through manipulations in Photoshop, simply because I respect the difficulties of the physical process that in-camera techniques entail.) But I certainly am not going to confuse my own preferences with universal standards; let someone else nail their treatise on the correct religion of photography to the temple door. I can enjoy what I prefer without denying others their preference.
Edited for clarification.
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 22:41:40. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 03:01:18 PM · #153 |
| I didn't see any mention of him in this thread so I thought I'd just drop Richard Avedon into the conversation. He seemed quite good at taking the odd portrait and most of his images have some sort of artistic merit and are quite interesting to look at. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 03:05:48 PM · #154 |
I think the flat background (black white or otherwise) has its place however it should be used appropriately. Like not every shot looks good in black and white, not every subject really works well on a single colored background. (I'm guilty of using this when it may not be the best choice). As Shutterpuppy says, the goal is to add emphasis to the subject. As such composition is even more important. (Again, another place where I fail frequently when I attempt a shot with a removed background).
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 03:23:30 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
For the last couple of months, when voting, I have been deducting 2 points for the pictures without backgrounds. |
Shame on you.
With or without is still subjective.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but there certainly is no standard for what "should be", and is still up to the discretion of the subject and/or photographer, and there is no one alive I know of that has the credentials to say what is right and what is wrong.
Sounds almost as asinine as saying if you took your picture with a Nikon, I will deduct 1 point from your score.
...walking off shaking my head as to how many ways images can be nit-picked to smitherines.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 03:39:40 PM · #156 |
| what a load!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 04:56:30 PM · #157 |
 vs. 
Hmmm... one of these scored well, the other didn't :-)
Based on a particular comment the first should have tanked...
Originally posted by agenkin:
This is a stock/commercial photograph, not minimalism. 4 |
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 17:00:42.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 05:37:11 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I believe a lot of the problem some people had with this thread is the implication that shooting without a background means the photographer is less skilled or lazy. |
The implication of an image without background is that the image is less interesting to look at and rarely has artistic merit.
Why some photographers are doing this is also an interesting question. I believe a few reasons have been identified in this thread (in no particular order):
1. The natural background for some subject prevents a successful image; shooting it with the background removed is better than shooting it with the natural background.
2. Some say that they, actually, like removed backgrounds for aesthetic reasons. Perhaps it's the huge commercial/advertising industry having its influence upon the people's tastes by surrounding us with background-less images (billboards, magazines, TV ads, etc.).
3. Photographers, who submit to Stock sites, know that replacing the backgrounds by complete white or black increases the sales of an image, because it is easier to use such images in publications. Perhaps such photographers extend this habit into photographing for pleasure, or maybe they submit to DPC what they submit to stock, I don't know.
4. Some claim that they remove the background to increase an image effectiveness at the DPC (meaning - to inflate its score), since in the few seconds that an average voter spends to view an image, a background is a distraction, and you'd better remove it completely and get down to business of showing an interesting thing that you photographed.
In the first case, I believe that it *is* photographer's laziness and artistic compromise.
In the cases 2, 3, and 4 - I think that one may feel sorry for those, who shoot commercial images for pleasure, or shoot to get votes, or let themselves to be manipulated by the mass media. My opinion, of course. |
I guess I missed this thread the first time around and quite honestly I have to say that this has got to be the biggest load of SHIT I've read here for a long time.
Use my image to illustrate your dislike of this style if you must but dig a little deeper if you must analyze. Your list of reasons as to why one may use this style is incomplete and perhaps in your rush to critisize, it never occured to you that reason #5 could simply be that the photographer LIKES THAT STYLE.
Not interested in debating why... and I'm sure you couldn't care less. Your opinion's out there for all to marvel over. That's what matters after all... ;P
For what it's worth and please take this as constructive. This is a results based site, not simply a venue to showcse ones work. As such, we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. It seems that you have a great deal of difficulty with this concept based on your resentment of styles that have proven to be much more succesful than your own. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 05:54:05 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by agenkin:
For the last couple of months, when voting, I have been deducting 2 points for the pictures without backgrounds. |
Shame on you.
With or without is still subjective.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but there certainly is no standard for what "should be", and is still up to the discretion of the subject and/or photographer, and there is no one alive I know of that has the credentials to say what is right and what is wrong.
Sounds almost as asinine as saying if you took your picture with a Nikon, I will deduct 1 point from your score.
...walking off shaking my head as to how many ways images can be nit-picked to smitherines. |
I should have added this this first time around:
If a member CANNOT be a fair and impartial judge, then he/she should not participate in the voting process PERIOD. In the world we live in, premeditated vote prejudice is unethical and those that are caught swaying their votes, should be banned and have their votes removed.
Seems too harsh?
What if someone were judging the Olympics and didn't like Koreans, and openly stated they would vote them lower. Think the Olympic Committee would turn a blind eye? Think that judge would EVER get a chance to say oops - sorry - I won't do it again? HA!
I rarely ask anything around here of an over burdened staff, but can this vote "tampering" be looked into? This undermines the very core of what this site is about and as we have seen in the past, members tampering with the voting system here were shown the door.
If no wrong doing has taken place, then I stand down and offer an apology.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 05:56:31 PM · #160 |
| Very reasonable request Brad. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:00:45 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Brad:
If a member CANNOT be a fair and impartial judge, then he/she should not participate in the voting process PERIOD. In the world we live in, premeditated vote prejudice is unethical and those that are caught swaying their votes, should be banned and have their votes removed.
|
Except you just described how everyone votes. It's a subjective 'good' or 'bad' rating, not something that you get trained to do 'impartially' or 'fairly'
Do you like the picture or not ? If you do, you score it high, if you don't you score it low.
The only real tampering or cheating accusations should be reserved for the cases were people vote their friends higher based on recognizing them or their dog, hypothetically.
I think voting pictures low for not having a background is a stupid generalisation as well, but it is perfectly reasonable within the voting guidelines for the site.
good -> bad. Each of us picks a number to represent that. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unless we know the person. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:02:24 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Very reasonable request Brad. |
It's a ridiculous request. Nobody is a "fair and impartial" judge. We all have biases. What Brad is requesting is that people whose biases differ from the "norm" should have their votes thrown out. This site is normative enough, thank you. I don't know how many beautiful, mysterious and fascinating photos have to get low scores before you're satisfied. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:05:50 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. |
are we? by whom? |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:07:07 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. |
are we? by whom? |
By the nature of the site it is after all a competition. Thus the hopes of a positive result or do you submit to score low? |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:08:32 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Qart:
Very reasonable request Brad. |
It's a ridiculous request. Nobody is a "fair and impartial" judge. We all have biases. What Brad is requesting is that people whose biases differ from the "norm" should have their votes thrown out. This site is normative enough, thank you. I don't know how many beautiful, mysterious and fascinating photos have to get low scores before you're satisfied. |
Define the 'norm' for me. It's been tried lots of times. Perhaps you've finally come up with the definitive answer.
Biase we all accept and live with. What's demonstrated here is not biase. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:08:38 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Qart:
Very reasonable request Brad. |
It's a ridiculous request. Nobody is a "fair and impartial" judge. We all have biases. What Brad is requesting is that people whose biases differ from the "norm" should have their votes thrown out. This site is normative enough, thank you. I don't know how many beautiful, mysterious and fascinating photos have to get low scores before you're satisfied. |
NO
What I am saying is if someone came out and said they were voting any image in a landscape challenge that had red in it 2 points lower. How would you feel if yours did, and knowing that someone out there already has it in for yours by -2
Everyone has their likes and dislikes. That's what makes the world go around, and frankly I am thrilled the world is full of different opinions, BUT, when someone is allowed, key word allowed, to judge something, then they should ATTEMPT to be fair and impartial, not state to the world they are not going to be and can do anything they want.
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 18:09:15. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:12:10 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. |
are we? by whom? |
By the nature of the site it is after all a competition. Thus the hopes of a positive result or do you submit to score low? |
so if your style of photography does not grab the attention of the masses then you are expected to change your style to suit? |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:13:26 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. |
are we? by whom? |
By the nature of the site it is after all a competition. Thus the hopes of a positive result or do you submit to score low? |
so if your style of photography does not grab the attention of the masses then you are expected to change your style to suit? |
Only if you want to score well here. Different styles may do better elsewhere, but DPC has proven again and again to prefer a certain type of image.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:14:22 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. |
are we? by whom? |
By the nature of the site it is after all a competition. Thus the hopes of a positive result or do you submit to score low? |
so if your style of photography does not grab the attention of the masses then you are expected to change your style to suit? |
Good question. I guess that depends on if you enter to win or enter for another reason. I enter to win! I like the competition. I also like quite a few of my low scoring images. But if you are here to compete the the answer to your question is YES! |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:15:09 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
Originally posted by Qart:
we're asked to submit images that grab one's attention in hopes of a positive result. |
are we? by whom? |
By the nature of the site it is after all a competition. Thus the hopes of a positive result or do you submit to score low? |
so if your style of photography does not grab the attention of the masses then you are expected to change your style to suit? |
Not expected to do anything. Submit what you want and accept whatever results you get. Oh and in the mean time, slag those who do well.
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 18:16:01. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:20:01 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Brad:
What I am saying is if someone came out and said they were voting any image in a landscape challenge that had red in it 2 points lower. How would you feel if yours did, and knowing that someone out there already has it in for yours by -2
Everyone has their likes and dislikes. That's what makes the world go around, and frankly I am thrilled the world is full of different opinions, BUT, when someone is allowed, key word allowed, to judge something, then they should ATTEMPT to be fair and impartial, not state to the world they are not going to be and can do anything they want. |
People post their little scoring lists on an almost daily basis, x points added on for this, y points added for that. z points for the challenge topic.
This is just the opposite. Equally silly, but still the same type of thing.
Consider the more normal 'I vote high on pictures I like, and low on pictures I don't like' I'm sure that's how most people vote. I'm sure it is how you vote too.
Now just say you didn't like pictures with white backgrounds. What's the problem ?
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 18:23:00. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:23:44 PM · #172 |
I just wanna add to this turmoil that the Olivia shot is drop dead gorgeous IMO.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:24:55 PM · #173 |
Ouch, I didn't notice that this thread came alive until now.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by agenkin:
The implication of an image without background is that the image is less interesting to look at and rarely has artistic merit. |
In regard to your first assertion (bolded above), are you talking specifically about the photos that appear in the DPC challenges, or making a blanket statement about artistic photography in general? |
and
Originally posted by Gordon:
I thought I'd just drop Richard Avedon into the conversation. He seemed quite good at taking the odd portrait and most of his images have some sort of artistic merit and are quite interesting to look at. |
Note that I was careful to say "rarely", rather than "never". A talented photographer can use a removed background to create something interesting. However, most DPC pictures with removed backgrounds do not fall into that category, IMO.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:28:07 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by agenkin:
For the last couple of months, when voting, I have been deducting 2 points for the pictures without backgrounds. |
Shame on you.
With or without is still subjective. |
Well, voting by nature is subjective. There are very few things about photography that can be subjective. If a challenge image with a removed background grabs me (which has not happened, so far), I'd definitely make an exception.
Edited to add that there are other things for which I deduct points when voting, like, for example, tasteless selective desaturation (I have yet to see a tasteful example of selective desaturation, BTW), which I, personally, dislike vigorously. I also dislike heavily retouched portraits, kitschy images, and wow-look-what-I-came-up-with sort of photographs.
It's just part of my voting scheme (well, I don't have a scheme per se, but let's call it that), and, as long as I apply this voting scheme uniformly to all submissions, I believe that I am not doing anything unfair.
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 18:43:22.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 06:33:33 PM · #175 |
I think what Brad was implying is the deduction of points for truly arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the submission. Its like deducting points because someone submitted a picture in portrait orientation rather than landscape.
I also think though that you can't "weed out" such votes. Firstly, its not really practical. Secondly, even though someone will vote down a particular style or processing technique down, they will usually do so consistently. So while your picture may get a lower mark for the challenge, it may be on par with other images that use a similar technique. I think the main consideration is consistency.
In terms of how I would feel if someone black balled one of my shots for using a particular technique? I wouldn't like it. No one would. A lot of it has to do with the fact that we sometimes get really attached to the pictures we put up here. It is very rare where someone will submit a picture that they absolutely hate.
Everyone loves the results of our art. We all know that there might be better images out there but OUR image is pretty good. And to get nitpicked on something so arbitrary is really disheartening.
In terms of the competition: I recently read an article in Photolife that was quite interesting in regards to this point. Excellence and success are two different things. The opposite of excellence is mediocrity. The opposite of success is failure. In the article they defined excellence as being better tomorrow than you were yesterday. Success is simply being the best. Given the choice I'd rather have excellence. Each entry allows me to learn and to create better images. Its exciting to look over my own portfolio and see how far I have come since August. A lot of that has to do with this community.
"Minus two for no background" teaches me nothing. "Uninteresting background" or "this image could use more elements" teaches me a lot more.
Feel free to deduct points for whatever you want. But please add a comment when you do.
|
|
