| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2007 02:41:59 PM · #1 |
Just wanted some input and opinions on this photo. :) Critiques wanted! :)
Message edited by author 2007-08-10 14:43:14. |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:08:30 PM · #2 |
Left you a comment - You probably won't like it though...
You say this is one of your favs. I think this is the worst shot in your portfolio!
Was this set up or was it just a quick capture of something in a store/show? |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:34:46 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by pix-al:
Left you a comment - You probably won't like it though...
You say this is one of your favs. I think this is the worst shot in your portfolio!
Was this set up or was it just a quick capture of something in a store/show? |
Thank you for your honesty! I appreciate every opinion :) That's why I've asked for opinions! I will give more details in a bit as to this photo. Just want to hear a few more opinions first so that I don't "bias" anyone. I want "honesty"! :) |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 03:52:05 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Just wanted some input and opinions on this photo. :) Critiques wanted! :) |
Not one of my favs.......comp, lighting are poor. what is the story about? |
|
|
|
08/10/2007 04:06:33 PM · #5 |
Left a comment on the photo, but chalk me up as also confused as to what you intended.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2007 04:07:03 PM · #6 |
| Is this another 'really this was taken by Super Photographer X' thing? Don't care for the shot. Lighting, focus, composition, etc. |
|
|
|
08/11/2007 11:32:26 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Is this another 'really this was taken by Super Photographer X' thing? Don't care for the shot. Lighting, focus, composition, etc. |
Why? Does it look like it was taken by a Super Photographer??! :) :) |
|
|
|
08/11/2007 01:03:23 PM · #8 |
| Left a comment. ...and I am "Super Photographer X" (Art Roflmao is my now, not-so-secret identity), and it does not look like anything I took. I would've used more cowbell. |
|
|
|
08/11/2007 01:38:50 PM · #9 |
| Left a comment. Technically not a whizz; conceptually maybe too subtle. But I liked it. |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 10:39:31 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Left a comment. ...and I am "Super Photographer X" (Art Roflmao is my now, not-so-secret identity), and it does not look like anything I took. I would've used more cowbell. |
LOL Art! I'm waiting for a photography studio to spring up with the name ART ROFLMAO! Try looking THAT up in the yellow pages!!! ;) |
|
|
|
08/13/2007 10:49:50 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would've used more cowbell. |
I gotta have more cowbell!!! |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:09:29 PM · #12 |
I want to thank all of you so very much for your comments! It really helped me to realize a few things and has taught me a great deal.
I want to explain WHY this is one of my Fave shots first.
First of all, this shot was published in Elle Magazine in the December 2006 edition. It was taken by Leda & St. Jacques. It was not mine. However, the reason it is one of my faves is because it is not a shot that I normally would have looked upon as a "brilliant photo" either. It was supposed to "showcase" the little black dress.
I have no idea why the photographers chose this type of shot to do that and I can only conjecture as to why they have a television screen with Bush on it, but I'd only be guessing that there may have been some type of political statment with it. Or, perhaps, it was just "on" at the time that they snapped the shot??? Who really knows, but them?
The REASON I put this up for critique was because I wanted to see how DPC members viewed this photo in order to put some "issues" into perspective in my own work by matching it to my own opinions on it.
There were several things that I learned, thanks to all of your honesty in your comments and it's helped me tremendously and perhaps, others in here too.
Firstly, I recognized that my low scores lately in challenges in here are likely not necessarily due to "talent" as much as they are "personal tastes" being brought out, combined with perhaps, some other factors. Certainly, by all accounts, the photography firm who took this shot, are very well acclaimed and extremely successful! The mere fact that we don't necessarily see it as such, means that again, we are voting according to certain standards that we have set up, here in DPC rather than perhaps, what may appeal in other venues. I think that we have a certain "look" that we are accustomed to in here and I'm not sure that it's doing any of us justice in terms of not being able to think "outside the box" so to speak.
Secondly, I recognized that in looking for a sort of particular "style" or "look" in photos here in DPC, we may also be shooting our shots with that certain look or style in order to please fellow members as voters in order to gain a higher score. However, again, this is not being fair to ourselves as we may be losing our own styles in favor of gaining higher scores.
Thirdly, in not allowing ourselves to develop our own "style" in order to match DPC "looks" to our photos, we may be cheating ourselves out of being suitable for other venues! That, I think is one of the most important points to take into consideration here.
Quite obviously, had WE been the Editors sitting looking at this photo, it would have ended up in a waste basket somewhere! *grin* I'm wondering now, how many "famous" photographers would have been ripped apart had they entered their work in challenges in DPC???
There are so many different areas in which one can excel with their photography. Just because our shots do not "make it" in here, does not imply that we have no talent! Nor, does it imply that we should pack away our cameras. The tastes here in DPC are rather biased to some degree or another. We have "trained" ourselves into "seeing" what is considered "good" by DPC standards, so to speak. And, we, in voting on each others' shots, are considering ourselves capable of doing such. But, are we really? Again, obviously not because this shot would have ended up on the floor had we had to judge it for publication in that magazine!
The one biggest thing that I think I learned is that even though this photo would have scored extremely low here in DPC, THESE PHOTOGRAPHERS were thankfully, not sitting, hitting their update buttons, waiting for their low scores! THEY were WALKING TO THE BANK WITH A BIG FAT PAY SLIP IN HAND!!!! :)
So, for anyone like me, who wonders WHY they cannot raise their score in here AND be true to their own styles in photograpy....TAKE HEART! What doesn't make it big in votes, tastes or scores in here......CAN STILL MAKE BIG MONEY elsewhere...or, at the least, be a big hit with others! HANG IN THERE and try some different avenues with your work if you're not "making it" here! :)
NOTE TO MY PEAPOD FRIEND:
Your niche is still awaiting you. Find it!
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:16:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Is this another 'really this was taken by Super Photographer X' thing? |
Answer: yes.
Even by their own standards this is a pretty lousy shot, but they got paid for it and no one is paying me to take pictures of anorexic people in front of tv's so wht do I know? |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:29:05 PM · #14 |
| Ever seen any of Juergen Teller's fashion spreads? I almost guarantee he would end up with the brown ribbon here, even if he works with the most beautiul talent in the world. I keep a few of his pictures hanging on my wall to give me inspiration. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:34:28 PM · #15 |
No disrespect intended here "Hobbiest"...
The point you've put forth in your last post directs much attention to how we (DPC community) would have "voted" on this photo.
A response to this image, in the context of a challenge, most likely would be substantially different than it has been in this thread. Here you asked for critique/opinions, without any context other than it's a photo.
As a standalone photo I'm not really fond of it either personally. The photographer that took it I imagine had some assignment/theme in mind when it was captured. The editors of the magazine probably had an idea in mind when the shot was commissioned.
Doesn't seem like the comparison to a voting reaction is really valid IMO.
As for image types here on DPC that do well...yes, simple, stock photo type images do better in general than those that require thinking. Most likely because the image doesn't get much screen time in front of the viewer/voter as they try to get thru 100's of images while voting.
JMO of course. :P |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:48:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
No disrespect intended here "Hobbiest"...
The point you've put forth in your last post directs much attention to how we (DPC community) would have "voted" on this photo.
A response to this image, in the context of a challenge, most likely would be substantially different than it has been in this thread. Here you asked for critique/opinions, without any context other than it's a photo.
As a standalone photo I'm not really fond of it either personally. The photographer that took it I imagine had some assignment/theme in mind when it was captured. The editors of the magazine probably had an idea in mind when the shot was commissioned.
Doesn't seem like the comparison to a voting reaction is really valid IMO.
As for image types here on DPC that do well...yes, simple, stock photo type images do better in general than those that require thinking. Most likely because the image doesn't get much screen time in front of the viewer/voter as they try to get thru 100's of images while voting.
JMO of course. :P |
Hi Glad:
You raised some very valid points in your response.
I tend to disagree in part to what you've mentioned about the voting on the photo process and there being "no context" in this photo given, but in the voting process, that tends to imply that there would be.
When we all vote on a shot in a challenge, what do we truly know about the shot during the voting process? We know what the challenge subject was supposed to have been captured in each shot, but unless we recognize a familiar model, or background and can pin it to a specific member, we really have no clue about anything else driving that photo, do we?
A good example of this was a photo that I had much admired in the "Shadow Challenge" that just finished up this week. I, personally, loved this photo and gave it a high score during voting. It did extremely poorly in score. I, instinctively felt that there was a "story" and "deep meaning" behind this shot although, it was not evident by just looking at the photo itself. It wasn't until I put it up as my choice for a Post Humous Award that the "context" was laid out by the photographer. I'm sure that a few voters may have "rethought" their low scores on this once they had read the story behind it! However, as voters here, we are not privy to that kind of information during voting. So, my question is, how does that differ from looking at the photo that I had used as an example in this thread? Was this particular photo I used not put up the very same way that we do in challenge voting? Other than, of course, there not being a "subject" to "title" it by. That was the only difference as far as I can think of. I guess I could have given it a title for experiment's sake, but really, where in uses other than competitions, or pieces of art, do photos have titles?
Let me just pose another question here. Had I titled that photo...."Black Dress" and labelled it as having been entered into a challenge for "fashion", would it have made any impact on your opinion towards the photo itself?
You also made another very valid point about voting in DPC when you said that a lot of voters don't take the time in which to truly sit and THINK about a photo in any great depth as they are pouring through hundreds of photos during voting. And, I totally agree with what you've said about stock style photos generally faring better score wise because of that very fact. And, it is highly likely that in this particular instance, the editors of this magazine had commissioned this particular photography firm to have taken the shots and they simply chose from the perhaps, dozens of shots, which would make publication.
However, again, there are all kinds of publications and uses of photography where there are literally hundreds of photos for editors to choose from for publication. So, they would also be under "time constraints" as well yet, they often are able to find "context" in photos. This particular shot may not have been one of them, but it also wasn't the only shot from this firm in that publication. There were several pages worth.
My point here is that what fares well in DPC voting isn't representative of the value of any photographer's work being either good nor, bad. It's simply representative of what DPC voters have become used to and are looking for. Perhaps, pegging it into "stock photo style" may be more on the mark. The circumstances in DPC voting have created the "good and bad" based on a number of different factors and that means that no photographer should base their "worth" on DPC's voting patterns. Just because their work doesn't do well in voting DPC, or just because it does do well in DPC, doesn't truly pin it as worthless or worthy in other venues. No one should walk away with their heads hung in disappointment because they haven't achieved beyond the 5 range in DPC scoring. Nor, should they expect a photography position elsewhere because they scored high consistently in DPC.
That, and that alone was the point I was trying to make in this thread....both to myself as well as others who have expressed similar feelings to me in private conversations.
Just my thoughts here too. I'm open for more discussion if anyone else is. :)
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:52:19 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Ever seen any of Juergen Teller's fashion spreads? I almost guarantee he would end up with the brown ribbon here, even if he works with the most beautiul talent in the world. I keep a few of his pictures hanging on my wall to give me inspiration. |
I SO agree with you on this one! His work would be torn to shreds! I'm sure he'd have a lot of "snapshot" comments on every single piece! *grin*
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:55:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Is this another 'really this was taken by Super Photographer X' thing? |
Answer: yes.
Even by their own standards this is a pretty lousy shot, but they got paid for it and no one is paying me to take pictures of anorexic people in front of tv's so wht do I know? |
LOL Router......but how do you know that by their own standards this is a pretty lousy shot? Perhaps, there is merit there that we've yet come to recognize! Perhaps, we lack the skills to make such a judgement.
Just a thought. :)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 12:14:48 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
No disrespect intended here "Hobbiest"...
The point you've put forth in your last post directs much attention to how we (DPC community) would have "voted" on this photo.
A response to this image, in the context of a challenge, most likely would be substantially different than it has been in this thread. Here you asked for critique/opinions, without any context other than it's a photo.
As a standalone photo I'm not really fond of it either personally. The photographer that took it I imagine had some assignment/theme in mind when it was captured. The editors of the magazine probably had an idea in mind when the shot was commissioned.
Doesn't seem like the comparison to a voting reaction is really valid IMO.
As for image types here on DPC that do well...yes, simple, stock photo type images do better in general than those that require thinking. Most likely because the image doesn't get much screen time in front of the viewer/voter as they try to get thru 100's of images while voting.
JMO of course. :P |
I tend to think people are actually harsher in voting then when an image is brought up in a forum so I don't see the real point of your counter argument about "context". Voting or no, there is a style that appeals here. |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 11:22:11 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
No disrespect intended here "Hobbiest"...
The point you've put forth in your last post directs much attention to how we (DPC community) would have "voted" on this photo.
A response to this image, in the context of a challenge, most likely would be substantially different than it has been in this thread. Here you asked for critique/opinions, without any context other than it's a photo.
As a standalone photo I'm not really fond of it either personally. The photographer that took it I imagine had some assignment/theme in mind when it was captured. The editors of the magazine probably had an idea in mind when the shot was commissioned.
Doesn't seem like the comparison to a voting reaction is really valid IMO.
As for image types here on DPC that do well...yes, simple, stock photo type images do better in general than those that require thinking. Most likely because the image doesn't get much screen time in front of the viewer/voter as they try to get thru 100's of images while voting.
JMO of course. :P |
I tend to think people are actually harsher in voting then when an image is brought up in a forum so I don't see the real point of your counter argument about "context". Voting or no, there is a style that appeals here. |
I equally agree with these points. I also feel that there is a great deal of "harshness" during voting by comparison to one that is brought up for discussion or critiquing in the forums. And, there truly is a "style" here at DPC to a great extent. It takes quite a shot to "break the rules" in voters' eyes so to speak.
Actually, there was one shot in the Shadow Challenge that kind of surprised me. It wasn't top in score, but a lot of people "took note" of it in Post Humous Awards. It beat out a number of other shots that perhaps, had better technical qualities and kind of "broke the rules" in the "style" that we are accustomed to. What surprised me was that a number of voters really liked this particular shot because it was "outside the proverbial DPC box" yet, it was ranked according to DPC "standards". This shot by  Goodman  grabbed some voters' attention with an "atypical" (meaning, not the norm for DPC standards)set of criteria but, the score still reflected DPC standards in spite of some rather excellent comments! Voters LOVED this shot, yet the scores did not represent that "adoration". Why not? Have we become "trained" NOT to give higher scores to those who are not within the DPC parameters? Have we trained our eyes to spot and appreciate "different" but, still stick within certain criteria when it comes to scoring? What is that saying to anyone who dares to go outside the DPC criteria "box"....do it and we'll adore it, but we won't score it high because it's not typical of work in here?
I think it's interesting. Would love to hear more thoughts!
Message edited by author 2007-08-16 11:26:46.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 11:27:16 AM · #21 |
What seems to typically do well is high end textbook photography. Stuff that would feature in all the 'digital photography for dummies' glossy books or 'introduction to portrait lighting'
The voters here are in the majority learning photographers, who are involved to one level or another in learning photography and thus aspire to do the clean, competent work that's shown in most texts.
The majority of working photographers, particularly in the fashion & advertising realm, are trying extremely hard to distance themselves from that sort of clinically 'correct' photography - because 'everyone' does that.
So the majority is aiming for competently above-average images that are 'safe' and that's what gets voted up.
Message edited by author 2007-08-16 11:28:25. |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 11:37:47 AM · #22 |
I just don't like it... famous photographer or not. IT reminds me of a comment I got for one of my photos that said "if you were famous this would be your best work".
I found that funny but true :).
And yes, it would not have scored well here, i would have given it a 3 personally because it seems lazy and half-assed to me, but maybe im not avant-garde enough.
It just isn't my thing im afraid, not mainly because of the technical aspects, but the context (or lack thereof) also.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 11:44:50 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
What seems to typically do well is high end textbook photography. Stuff that would feature in all the 'digital photography for dummies' glossy books or 'introduction to portrait lighting'
The voters here are in the majority learning photographers, who are involved to one level or another in learning photography and thus aspire to do the clean, competent work that's shown in most texts.
The majority of working photographers, particularly in the fashion & advertising realm, are trying extremely hard to distance themselves from that sort of clinically 'correct' photography - because 'everyone' does that.
So the majority is aiming for competently above-average images that are 'safe' and that's what gets voted up. |
Excellent points! This is what I am trying to say as well.
My question really then, has to be, are we cheating ourselves and narrowing our parameters as even hobbiest photographers by trying to win high scores in here? By attempting to gain a higher score, we ultimately, have to peg ourselves into and within DPC voting parameters. Does that not hamper us from finding our own individual styles and techniques?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2007 11:47:39 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
LOL Router......but how do you know that by their own standards this is a pretty lousy shot? Perhaps, there is merit there that we've yet come to recognize! Perhaps, we lack the skills to make such a judgement.
Just a thought. :) |
Yes, and perhaps the emperor's new clothes really are all the rage, if only we could see the skills to make such a judgment! =)
This is an endless debate that goes round and round, and like Gordon pointed out, there are many social aspects as well (wanting to be different, wanting to appeal to a widespread audience, etc)
In the end: shoot what you want, shoot with your intended audience in mind, adapt and learn and keep an open mind, and ignore the naysayers.
Message edited by author 2007-08-16 11:49:30. |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 11:51:20 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Tez:
I just don't like it... famous photographer or not. IT reminds me of a comment I got for one of my photos that said "if you were famous this would be your best work".
I found that funny but true :).
And yes, it would not have scored well here, i would have given it a 3 personally because it seems lazy and half-assed to me, but maybe im not avant-garde enough.
It just isn't my thing im afraid, not mainly because of the technical aspects, but the context (or lack thereof) also. |
Tez, I also didn't much care for that particular shot. That was why I pointed it out as one of my "faves". It's because it's one that I would not normally have looked upon as a "brilliant photo", however, quite obviously, there is quite a bit of merit to this shot. It has been published and the photographers are acclaimed world wide for their work. Again, they are not sitting hitting update buttons, waiting for scores to rise or drop, hoping for a ribbon. Their work is being PAID for! So, what might that tell us all as hobbiest photographers about our work even with LOW scores? What is that telling us about our voting eyes? Our dislike or distaste and perhaps, even giving this type of shot 3's or less, could potentially tell us that as much as we think that we "know" what is good and what isn't, it only makes it "good or bad" according to both personal tastes and criteria that we've set up in DPC.
|
|
