| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2007 09:24:55 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by yanko:
As Techo already mentioned there's probably not another background that could have worked better. |
Yes, I agree. I don't like Quart's image, and I think that the background is the least of its problems; another background would not help it.
|
I just think you don't like Rudy. I still say that if that image was by the photog you respected the most you would like it. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 09:54:26 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
surley there must be somewhere you can go that has more people with your ideals. |
If you find such a place, please let me know.
Regardless of how assertive agenkin's opinion is, he has kept his remarks to the merits of photographs, while his detractors have resorted to all sorts of personal attacks. You are making me sad. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 07:29:42 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
surley there must be somewhere you can go that has more people with your ideals. |
If you find such a place, please let me know.
Regardless of how assertive agenkin's opinion is, he has kept his remarks to the merits of photographs, while his detractors have resorted to all sorts of personal attacks. You are making me sad. |
first of all i was not personally attacking him here. I was merely asking the question why he stayed somewhere when he didn't like so many of the photographs. Arcady has specifically called out several photogs over time and in this thread. calling an artist cliche or saying that all their work is uninspired and pointless is as much a personal attack as saying the his ideals are pretentious IMO.
And if you are anyone wants to find a place more suited to your ideals that is your job not mine:) |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 07:42:48 AM · #204 |
all right kids, let's play nice.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:02:21 AM · #205 |
| An interesting by-product of this discussion (which I just recently discovered)... I'm contemplating, if my addiction permits, ceasing and desisting from entering challenges. Why? I don't play to win. I like the challenge of the challenges, though - the "go out and shoot for something" part of them. And I enter what I think is my best shot toward that challenge. But I don't shoot or enter to win. Still like DPC as a cool place to hang out. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:14:45 AM · #206 |
but deb, you don't need to play to win. i view the challenges as more of a studio class. it's an assignment that will stretch my brain and imagination. hell, it's obvious i don't play to win. but i like the more rigourous side of the challenge, as well as the friendlier aspect of the side challenges.
so, hey, don't stop!
we loves ya, baby...
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:29:39 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by xianart:
but deb, you don't need to play to win. i view the challenges as more of a studio class. it's an assignment that will stretch my brain and imagination. hell, it's obvious i don't play to win. but i like the more rigourous side of the challenge, as well as the friendlier aspect of the side challenges.
so, hey, don't stop!
we loves ya, baby... |
But the "Teacher" doesn't critique. The critiques come from all levels...which can be good or bad depending upon how I'm feeling for the day. If I'm going to enter a class I want an expert opinion.
If I enter to win...it had better be DPC eyecandy. I'm not enjoying the competition much these days. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:35:13 AM · #208 |
when i was teaching, my whole class partook in the critique. yes, as the art teacher, i had the vocabulary to express what i saw and thought easily, but i stressed the whole class (junior and senior high level) had valid opinios, and a great part of being an artist is the ability to express oneself about art as well.
a studio class is for experienced artists, a place where they can go and have a deadline, or be pushed to thin in new ways. studio classes don't usually have teachers, just a prof who's drawn the short straw!
just kiddin with the last phrase. studio classes aren't taught, really, they're, um, sorry, vocabulary failure. supervised? gah - gotta let the dog in. brain stopped working.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:43:45 AM · #209 |
Marjo, I think maybe that's what I'm coming around to - I don't like to (and can't) "compete" with the eye candy. I'm not saying the eye candy is bad - most of it is very good, in my humble, unschooled opinion. I can't recreate it - it obviously takes skill and knowledge to do it well. I marvel at how well light can be controlled. But it's also not what I want to shoot, per se, at least not right now.
What I figure is the stuff I DO like to shoot is viewed by the majority of the DPC voters as "click the 5, move on". At least that's the feedback I get on a lot of my entries. If that is indeed the case, and I don't wish to try to produce that which does do well in this competition, then am I wasting the voters' time? I don't think so in all cases - if I think something might appeal to 10% of the voting population, then I'll probably enter it. But if not, then I'll just stick it in my portfolio. Maybe. Darn site is addictive - have you noticed??
And I've obviously moved off topic. Sorry 'bout that. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:50:00 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
An interesting by-product of this discussion (which I just recently discovered)... I'm contemplating, if my addiction permits, ceasing and desisting from entering challenges. Why? I don't play to win. I like the challenge of the challenges, though - the "go out and shoot for something" part of them. And I enter what I think is my best shot toward that challenge. But I don't shoot or enter to win. Still like DPC as a cool place to hang out. |
Originally posted by xianart:
but deb, you don't need to play to win. i view the challenges as more of a studio class. it's an assignment that will stretch my brain and imagination. hell, it's obvious i don't play to win. but i like the more rigourous side of the challenge, as well as the friendlier aspect of the side challenges.
so, hey, don't stop!
we loves ya, baby...
From Marjo: But the "Teacher" doesn't critique. The critiques come from all levels...which can be good or bad depending upon how I'm feeling for the day. If I'm going to enter a class I want an expert opinion.
If I enter to win...it had better be DPC eyecandy. I'm not enjoying the competition much these days.
++++++++++++++++
Me, Germaine: Funny you guys should bring this up. I'm semi-abstaining from the challenges these days. I'm obviously marching to a very different drummer, and I'm tired of people telling me that my pictures don't "pop", don't have the "wow" factor, aren't "tack sharp", or that there's "noise" in my sky or background. If a challenge comes along that really intrigues me, I'll still enter, but I'm finding a lot more satisfaction in the Photo A Week group (I've got a link on my profile page).
I'm still going to hang around DPC because there's a lot of great creative energy here, but no, I'm not enjoying the competition like I used to.
You may read as much sour grapes into the above as you wish. 8) |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 09:56:07 AM · #211 |
hey, germaine, sounds like you need to visit us here. there's always a warm welcome for those with a different drummer, as we all sem to have our own percussion section in team suck.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 11:01:30 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
I just think you don't like Rudy
...
Arcady has specifically called out several photogs over time and in this thread. calling an artist cliche or saying that all their work is uninspired and pointless is as much a personal attack as saying the his ideals are pretentious IMO. |
Now, these are ridiculous accusations. I pulled out some *images* that the photographers posted on a public web site for critique and evaluation. I did this without even looking at the names: I just needed to pick some examples to illustrate my points. Everything I said was pertaining to the chosen *images*, and was never a personal insult to their authors. There is a world of difference between saying "your photograph sucks" and "you suck". Get it?
You said many times that I base my opinion of an image on the name of the author (be it Rudy or Avedon). This is a very inappropriate comment, I suggest that you expunge it from your head, unless you can substantiate it somehow. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:16:37 PM · #213 |
A plain or "removed" background is just another tool to isolate and bring attention to the subject, removed from the context of its environment. It's much the same as shooting with a wide aperture, which is frequently employed to do much the same thing. It's a tool that can be used well, or poorly.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:19:24 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
There is a world of difference between saying "your photograph sucks" and "you suck". Get it?
|
The two comments are more similar in their callous disregard for civility than they are different in their targeting. The difference is there, but the effect is largely the same. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:21:50 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by agenkin:
There is a world of difference between saying "your photograph sucks" and "you suck". Get it?
|
The two comments are more similar in their callous disregard for civility than they are different in their targeting. The difference is there, but the effect is largely the same. |
I take bad pictures all the time. Does that make me a bad person ?
Someone pointing out the first wouldn't be stating the second. In general, we get too tied up in our photographs - they are not us, just things we produce.
If you think your pictures are great, you'll have a hard time getting any better. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:28:57 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Regardless of how assertive agenkin's opinion is, he has kept his remarks to the merits of photographs, while his detractors have resorted to all sorts of personal attacks. You are making me sad. |
Sorry - didn't mean to make you sad.
Not sorry for, as you say a personal attack, but I stand behind what I said 100% and will take that stand against anyone, anytime, that comes out and says they are going to vote lower, any image with this or without that.
That is not a mature way to do business on this site. It's no different that saying I don't like pictures of black people or people with red hair, and will vote any I see lower. Prejudice comes in many flavors. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:36:41 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by agenkin:
There is a world of difference between saying "your photograph sucks" and "you suck". Get it?
|
The two comments are more similar in their callous disregard for civility than they are different in their targeting. The difference is there, but the effect is largely the same. |
I take bad pictures all the time. Does that make me a bad person ?
Someone pointing out the first wouldn't be stating the second. In general, we get too tied up in our photographs - they are not us, just things we produce.
If you think your pictures are great, you'll have a hard time getting any better. |
I also have a great many more "bad" images than good ones, and no, I don't think that makes either one of us bad people.
However, many people don't make that distinction, their photographs are a part of themselves. For many people, telling someone "Your picture sucks" is in effect telling them "You suck" as a person. Since the OP clearly understands the difference, the OP also surely must understand the common mis perception that people take their photos as a part of themselves. In those cases, such blunt commentary on the part of the OP can only be construed as having the malice of the "You suck" comment even though it is not a direct attack.
There's no reason not to give criticism, but there's also no need to be an ass about it either. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:44:38 PM · #218 |
I really don't care any more about whether or not my pix do well in competition here, so long as I get some idea as to WHY a pic got poor marks. In my early days here I had more technical problems than anything else; now I have a better grip on technical stuff, thanks to useful comments. My scores can vacillate wildly - I recently had a 4.1 in Ice, and a 5.4 in Furniture - but I take what I am given, learn, and move on.
In terms of b/g removal...hey, if it helps the photo, do it. Generally I don't do it for challenges, though I did for Nude IV. I isolate all the stuff I shoot for stock, so that way whoever downloads 'em is getting a clean image to work with.
And that's my .02 cents' CDN. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:46:14 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Regardless of how assertive agenkin's opinion is, he has kept his remarks to the merits of photographs, while his detractors have resorted to all sorts of personal attacks. You are making me sad. |
Sorry - didn't mean to make you sad.
Not sorry for, as you say a personal attack, but I stand behind what I said 100% and will take that stand against anyone, anytime, that comes out and says they are going to vote lower, any image with this or without that.
That is not a mature way to do business on this site. It's no different that saying I don't like pictures of black people or people with red hair, and will vote any I see lower. Prejudice comes in many flavors. |
So, what is the correct way to vote? Your way? My way? The SC's way? Perhaps DPC should have a vote monitor that tells us exactly what to score each photograph so that our votes are not influenced by individual thought or, God forbid, opinion.
All of our opinions are the products of our prejudices and biases.
My opinion is that I hate strawberries. Does that mean I'm wrong to be prejudiced against strawberry ice cream and not consider it equally with chocolate when ordering? |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:53:39 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Since the OP clearly understands the difference, the OP also surely must understand the common mis perception that people take their photos as a part of themselves. In those cases, such blunt commentary on the part of the OP can only be construed as having the malice of the "You suck" comment even though it is not a direct attack. |
This reminds me how in the Soviet times in Russia a person could be sentenced to jail for "intent to violate a law". It is my guilt, now, that some others cannot maintain a rational conversation without taking things personally?
You are right, I often say things bluntly. I dislike political correctness and pussy-footing, I think that it is wrong to put sugar coating on top of negative commentaries. Yes, I know that it causes me problems sometimes. I am trying to word things as neutrally as I can.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 13:54:08.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:55:04 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
All of our opinions are the products of our prejudices and biases.
My opinion is that I hate strawberries. Does that mean I'm wrong to be prejudiced against strawberry ice cream and not consider it equally with chocolate when ordering? |
That's fruitist.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 01:59:26 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Brad:
That is not a mature way to do business on this site. It's no different that saying I don't like pictures of black people or people with red hair, and will vote any I see lower. Prejudice comes in many flavors. |
Brad, I suggest that you are fixated on the voting implication of my dislike for commercial images. I don't like the language they speak, the language of low-taste TV commercials and perfume advertising.
Do you think that I should be giving a 10 to a technically perfect image (light, exposure, composition, etc.), to which my body reacts with a physical rejection? Why?
Me voting down some images is just my way of saying "I really dislike this".
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 02:00:18 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
You are right, I often say things bluntly. I dislike political correctness and pussy-footing, I think that it is wrong to put sugar coating on top of negative commentaries. Yes, I know that it causes me problems sometimes. I am trying to word things as neutrally as I can. |
There's a difference between being direct and being rude. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 02:01:38 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, what is the correct way to vote? Your way? My way? The SC's way? |
A correct way?
How about a fair way: A non-premeditated & non-predjudiced method that gives every image voted on, a fair shake. That's what judging is supposed to be.
Deducting, based on personal issues, has no place here.
Hypothetical Scenario
Pet Portrait Challenge
Take your best picture of a pet, in a portrait-like setting.
OK, no problem, except I come out and say somewhere that I am personally going to take away 2 points from anyone's image if they were done in black & white. Your image is in black & white, as are about 30% of them.
How well would that be received by the members here?
How would that sit with you?
Best suggestion I have for those that know ahead of time they can't stand a certain type of image in a challenge and will deduct from it, is to skip it, as the vote cast has nothing to do with the image on it's own, and penalizes a member based on their own issues, not the image itsef.
Like I said, prejudice comes in many flavors.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 02:11:13 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Do you think that I should be giving a 10 to a technically perfect image (light, exposure, composition, etc.), to which my body reacts with a physical rejection? Why?
Me voting down some images is just my way of saying "I really dislike this". |
You know Arcady, I have gained a lot of respect for you in how you have handled yourself in this thread. Quite commendable.
I understand what you are saying and have little to offer in the way of a suggestion other than to skip over one's that affect you in such a negative way. We all have our own likes & dislikes, and applaud you for being open and honest about yours.
This site has come down to finding new ways to split hairs, as though the stakes were a Time Magazine cover shot for best of the year.
Not everyone here has the outlay to set up for professional level results and as a hobby and learning site, and knocking someone's best attempt, with what they had only picks away at the foundation this place was set down on - the one that was largely composed of fun.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 14:11:27. |
|
