| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/07/2009 12:59:53 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
This then begs another question I guess, is DPC a digital photography contest site or an art contest site? |
Although photography isn't art, I'm gonna go with #2, an art contest site.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:02:04 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
This then begs another question I guess, is DPC a digital photography contest site or an art contest site? |
Although photography isn't art, I'm gonna go with #2, an art contest site. |
That's sarcasm right? heh. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:04:33 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
This then begs another question I guess, is DPC a digital photography contest site or an art contest site? |
Although photography isn't art, I'm gonna go with #2, an art contest site. |
That's sarcasm right? heh. |
I'll let you decide ;p
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:07:44 PM · #79 |
A camera in the hands of an artist produces art forms, whereas a camera in the hands of a design engineer
may be producing technical records and not art.
I guess you can sort of argue that the taking of a photograph is not art as it is a technical issue of
selecting F stop, shutterspeed, ISO etc etc.
It is deciding what to photograph, how to frame it and the affect one is looking to achieve that is art. IMO
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 13:10:03. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:23:19 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
...I guess you can sort of argue that the taking of a photograph is not art as it is a technical issue of
selecting F stop, shutterspeed, ISO etc etc.
It is deciding what to photograph, how to frame it and the affect one is looking to achieve that is art. IMO |
that music cannot be art as it involves selecting keys, notes and fingers...
that poetry cannot be art as it involves selecting images and sounds, arranging word order etc...
that painting... as it involves selecting materials, color, lines, composition, stroke etc...
While the decision making is undoubtedly part of the process, I feel It's a subordinated aspect...
I find it interesting and quite sensible, here, that you chose the word "affect" rather than the ubiquitous "effect". |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:27:40 PM · #81 |
that music cannot be art as it involves selecting keys, notes and fingers...
that poetry cannot be art as it involves selecting images and sounds, arranging word order etc...
that painting... as it involves selecting materials, color, lines, composition, stroke etc...
While the decision making is undoubtedly part of the process, I feel It's a subordinated aspect...
I find it interesting and quite sensible, here, that you chose the word "affect" rather than the ubiquitous "effect". [/quote]
I take this one a bit tongue in cheek as it were but let me just say I could play you a piece on the piano and
trust me even though I select the correct notes in the correct order there is no way you would call it art lol.
I am in essence effecting a piece of music but it would certainly not be the affect I was hoping for.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:31:09 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
that music cannot be art as it involves selecting keys, notes and fingers...
that poetry cannot be art as it involves selecting images and sounds, arranging word order etc...
that painting... as it involves selecting materials, color, lines, composition, stroke etc...
While the decision making is undoubtedly part of the process, I feel It's a subordinated aspect...
I find it interesting and quite sensible, here, that you chose the word "affect" rather than the ubiquitous "effect". |
I take this one a bit tongue in cheek as it were but let me just say I could play you a piece on the piano and
trust me even though I select the correct notes in the correct order there is no way you would call it art lol.
I am in essence effecting a piece of music but it would certainly not be the affect I was hoping for. |
I'd suggest it's in your sanity's best interest to never take  zeuszen tongue-in-cheek ;)
ME on the other hand, it's best if you always do.
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 13:32:15. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:32:37 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
What I take from this is that one should concentrate on taking a striking photograph and then worry about how you are going to fit it into the challenge later. |
Then you would likely be left scratching your head over a low score for DNMC. What you SHOULD take from it is that the challenge is the topic, and the description is usually less important- often irrelevant, and sometimes even contradictory. With few exceptions, you can chuck the description guideline out the window as long as you meet the challenge itself, and most of the voters are perfectly fine with that. Here's a simple explanation for literalists:
Exclusive Open Challenge: Transparency III (if you show transparency, then you've met the challenge).
Description: Create a photo in which a transparent or semi-transparent object is between you and your subject. (if the transparent object isn't between you and the subject, then you failed the description, but you still met the challenge- see above)
Thus, if someone were to claim "DNMC" on the latter example, he'd be incorrect because the challenge was transparency. Failure to meet the description would be DNMD. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:36:14 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
What I take from this is that one should concentrate on taking a striking photograph and then worry about how you are going to fit it into the challenge later. |
Then you would likely be left scratching your head over a low score for DNMC. What you SHOULD take from it is that the challenge is the topic, and the description is usually less important- often irrelevant, and sometimes even contradictory. With few exceptions, you can chuck the description guideline out the window as long as you meet the challenge itself, and most of the voters are perfectly fine with that. Here's a simple explanation for literalists:
Exclusive Open Challenge: Transparency III (if you show transparency, then you've met the challenge).
Description: Create a photo in which a transparent or semi-transparent object is between you and your subject. (if the transparent object isn't between you and the subject, then you failed the description, but you still met the challenge- see above)
Thus, if someone were to claim "DNMC" on the latter example, he'd be incorrect because the challenge was transparency. Failure to meet the description would be DNMD. ;-) |
If we truly want to treat descriptions as completely irrelevant, then get rid of them altogether, no? Just bing bang boom, gone.
If we want to keep them there, then they must have more relevance than simply being a thin guideline that you can choose to ignore if you wish.
My opinion, I'm probably wrong, but it seems to be common sense to me. They either have a strong meaning and relevance, or they're superfluous and need to go. Period. For every challenge. The end.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:37:25 PM · #85 |
Then you would likely be left scratching your head over a low score for DNMC. What you SHOULD take from it is that the challenge is the topic, and the description is usually less important- often irrelevant, and sometimes even contradictory. With few exceptions, you can chuck the description guideline out the window as long as you meet the challenge itself, and most of the voters are perfectly fine with that. Here's a simple explanation for literalists:
Exclusive Open Challenge: Transparency III (if you show transparency, then you've met the challenge).
Description: Create a photo in which a transparent or semi-transparent object is between you and your subject. (if the transparent object isn't between you and the subject, then you failed the description, but you still met the challenge- see above)
Thus, if someone were to claim "DNMC" on the latter example, he'd be incorrect because the challenge was transparency. Failure to meet the description would be DNMD. ;-) [/quote]
Hey you know what scalvert to bring this to a close I would like to state that I really enjoy the challenges and it is I believe improving my photography so lets move on and I will see what I can do to improve my score eh lol
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:38:37 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The issue is not so much the voters, but the way you interpret the challenge. The description is a guideline, not a rule or checklist, and if you interpret every word THAT literally you're only going to handicap and frustrate yourself (this is a recurring hangup for a handful of DPCers). The challenge/topic was Transparency. THAT'S what the rules ask us to take into consideration (not necessarily the description). The description might or might not be helpful as guidance for the sort of thing the voters expect to see, but it's certainly not the final word on what's possible. Voters consistently view the challenge as the topic and the description as a "serving suggestion." If it looks Transparent, it is. If it looks like Wildlife, it is. If it looks like 4am or 2 seconds, it is. That's how it works, and no amount of ranting and raving will change it. Just go with it and save yourself the grief. Given my entry record, if there's one thing I understand it's meeting the challenge, and it's not that the voters aren't considering the topic... they do. You simply don't agree on what the topic IS! ;-) |
Shannon, what you're saying here is undoubtedly an accurate description of how the voters operate on DPC, as a group. And without a doubt your success in DPC rests not only on the quality of your photography but on the accuracy of your understanding of the voters, as you stated above. I have no quarrel with any of that, but I just have a suggestion:
If it is the "official position" that the topic/title is what governs whether an image meets the challenge, if the description is just a "serving suggestion", then why on earth are we including descriptions? Why don't we jujst have topics and NO description (as is indeed the case in a fair number of our challenges)?
Follow along with me on this, OK?
1. Many times we have challenges where the description field says "N/A" and the entrants know for a fact that the topic is open to broad interpretation.
2. MOST of the time we have challenges *with* descriptions, and most of *these* descriptions are fairly generic, designed, if anything, to *either* narrow the field down a bit, or open it up a bit, as far as interpretations go.
For example, the recent "Stars" challenge had the following description: Not all "stars" are in the sky. For this challenge photograph one or more stars. Clearly, this is an "expansive" description designed to alert all players that there are a lot of valid approaches to the challenge.
On the other hand, consider the "Red III" challenge last November, witht he following description: Show us the color red. Clearly, this was a *limiting" description, designed to weed out the many varying possible responses to "red" as a topic and focus us all on the color itself.
3. Now, based on your statements quoted above, consider the following scenario: IN the "Red III" challenge somebody (hypothetically) entered an absolutely beautiful environmental portrait of communist soldier standing guard during a blizzard in front of the Kremlin in Moscow. The image is done in black-and-white, and it is titled "Red Square". The voters reward this fantastic image with a blue ribbon. There are howls of outrage from the participants, virtually all the rest of whom worked hard on their depictions of "the color red". Is your response to them the same as the response quoted above? I presume it would have to be.
To all of which I respond, with all due respect: Shannon, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. You are basically saying to the "rest of us" that we are all suckers for reading the descriptions and trying to answer those requirements wherever applicable. You're saying that those players with enough experience (and enough of what I would call "moral flexibility") to understand the "realities" of DPC deserve to be rewarded for their cynicism. And I think this is an inappropriate position for an SC to be taking.
Why? Because there's a MUCH simpler, much less ambiguous, much less divisive approach to be taken: if it is the official position of DPC that the challenge descriptions are meaningless, then just do away with them and go with topics only.
But don't, for goodness sake, go around telling everyone that's a little bent out of shape because they spent a lot of effort trying to answer a *very specific* challenge description and a particular ribbon-winner ignored that description utterly that they ought to have known better, because challenge descriptions have no meaning in DPC.
Can't you see how ridiculous that is? It's an absurd thing to be saying. The whole goal of themed challenges ought to be to get everyone on the same page for the particular challenge, and descriptions are (or ought to be) one of the tools we use for that. If the description is meaningless, then it becomes nothing but a tool to weed out the suckers while those DPCers in the know work their particular brands of magic.
And you (SC in general) don't understand WHY this bothers people, even IF there's nothing that can be "done about it"? Which isn't true anyway, because the problem goes away if you eliminate descriptions. The problem only exists BECAUSE there are descriptions.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:41:45 PM · #87 |
| Dang. I think Bear's going to Yanko me. :P |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:43:13 PM · #88 |
| The latest edition of Rangefinder is full of prizewinning photos from around the world. Very few of them would win ribbons at DPC, regardless of what the challenge topic is. To me, that's much more disconcerting than whether or not people are meeting the challenge topic. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:44:15 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
What I take from this is that one should concentrate on taking a striking photograph and then worry about how you are going to fit it into the challenge later. |
Then you would likely be left scratching your head over a low score for DNMC. What you SHOULD take from it is that the challenge is the topic, and the description is usually less important- often irrelevant, and sometimes even contradictory. With few exceptions, you can chuck the description guideline out the window as long as you meet the challenge itself, and most of the voters are perfectly fine with that. Here's a simple explanation for literalists:
Exclusive Open Challenge: Transparency III (if you show transparency, then you've met the challenge).
Description: Create a photo in which a transparent or semi-transparent object is between you and your subject. (if the transparent object isn't between you and the subject, then you failed the description, but you still met the challenge- see above)
Thus, if someone were to claim "DNMC" on the latter example, he'd be incorrect because the challenge was transparency. Failure to meet the description would be DNMD. ;-) |
Are you serious? Who knew! :-D I haven't been here long but I guess I foolishly believed the description had some relevance to the topic, that it was a real guideline that was to be followed for the challenge. If it's only an example, please say so up front so we don't misinterpret, it or do away with it entirely. We are all smart enough to know what transparency is, at least I think we are! :-D |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:44:27 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If we truly want to treat descriptions as completely irrelevant, then get rid of them altogether, no? Just bing bang boom, gone. |
This has proven to be to simple of a solution. So simple in fact it's apparently impossible.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:46:08 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The latest edition of Rangefinder is full of prizewinning photos from around the world. Very few of them would win ribbons at DPC, regardless of what the challenge topic is. To me, that's much more disconcerting than whether or not people are meeting the challenge topic. |
Oh, absolutely. But this tempest-in-a-teapot is nevertheless a relevant one, because we are playing a game, and the game has rules, and it's just become glaringly obvious that the rules of the game aren't what they appear to be, and that's disconcerting.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:47:42 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Dang. I think Bear's going to Yanko me. :P |
Yup, you and a couple others; I spent like half an hour composing that danged epic response, and it was already old news by the time it was posted. But boy-howdy, ya got give me points for detail and effort eh? :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:48:37 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Dang. I think Bear's going to Yanko me. :P |
Yup, you and a couple others; I spent like half an hour composing that danged epic response, and it was already old news by the time it was posted. But boy-howdy, ya got give me points for detail and effort eh? :-)
R. |
Boy-howdy do I! Ya shore did learn me Pa! ;) |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:48:49 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The latest edition of Rangefinder is full of prizewinning photos from around the world. Very few of them would win ribbons at DPC, regardless of what the challenge topic is. To me, that's much more disconcerting than whether or not people are meeting the challenge topic. |
This is because people at DPC are told what's a good photograph and what isn't by people with skewd perceptions of what makes a good photograph. Most of which are determined to be good because of visual appeal only and not content or technicals. Just like the border debate. This person hates borders because some other person said they hate borders. Like the kid who hates peas because he heard some other kid say he hates peas.
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 13:51:25.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:52:12 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
The latest edition of Rangefinder is full of prizewinning photos from around the world. Very few of them would win ribbons at DPC, regardless of what the challenge topic is. To me, that's much more disconcerting than whether or not people are meeting the challenge topic. |
Oh, absolutely. But this tempest-in-a-teapot is nevertheless a relevant one, because we are playing a game, and the game has rules, and it's just become glaringly obvious that the rules of the game aren't what they appear to be, and that's disconcerting.
R. |
Actually, it sucks either way, because the fact is that some people read the description and some don't. If you're not glaringly obvious about how you are meeting the challenge (title *and* description), your score will suffer. Period. The red and blue may not have met a rigid definition of the description, but they didn't win because of their beauty. They are cold images with no human element. They won because they are so glaringly and obviously "transparent," double entendre intended. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:52:24 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Like the kid who hates peas because he heard some other kid say he hates peas. |
My kid loves peas. (Just trying to turn the tide in a healthier direction.) |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:55:07 PM · #97 |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:55:58 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
brussel sprouts. |
My children love them as it goes |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:56:04 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
brussel sprouts. |
Man, I love brussel sprouts. I like to put them in my mouth and then squeeze all the juice right out of them. MMMMMMMM mmm. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 01:58:36 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
brussel sprouts. |
Man, I love brussel sprouts. I like to put them in my mouth and then squeeze all the juice right out of them. MMMMMMMM mmm. |
Hey shall we have a long and drawn out discussion about how we gauge if we like sprouts or not? |
|
