| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2009 06:04:57 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by roby21112:
Hi Judi,
My hope with the wording was to get enough rise out of folks to get them to take a long hard look at this image,nothing more. I'll be honest and say that for the most part shots that end up wining are not my cup of tea but I stick around enter, vote, comment when the mood strikes and learn plenty. I did study art for five years and have a clear understanding of what is pleasing or moving to me and am very clear on the definition of perception. I think of this site as more of a fun distraction. I do not read the forums largely cause I simply am too busy or just do not care to get into the discussion of what art is, it is whatever you or the person behind, below, beneath, beside you think it is and any discussion to the contrary at least for me is silly. I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. Sorry, except Slippy. |
I accept your apology. I know that type can be misconstrued for the true emotion of the author. I know first hand how type can be taken the wrong way.
The image in discussion, is a good image in it's own right. I agree with that...but it isn't the type of image that would suit all publications...no image ever will. And DPC is just that...another type of media publication. That is why some images do better than others and yet the poorer scoring images on DPC have a tendency to excel in other forms of media. DPC is a client...but also a great place for trying different styles and techniques. Now if only the site would accommodate the more creative forms of editing and photography it could cover all bases. But that is a whole different kettle of fish worthy of not bogging this thread down in its argument.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2009 06:24:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by roby21112:
Hi Judi,
My hope with the wording was to get enough rise out of folks to get them to take a long hard look at this image,nothing more. I'll be honest and say that for the most part shots that end up wining are not my cup of tea but I stick around enter, vote, comment when the mood strikes and learn plenty. I did study art for five years and have a clear understanding of what is pleasing or moving to me and am very clear on the definition of perception. I think of this site as more of a fun distraction. I do not read the forums largely cause I simply am too busy or just do not care to get into the discussion of what art is, it is whatever you or the person behind, below, beneath, beside you think it is and any discussion to the contrary at least for me is silly. I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. Sorry, except Slippy. |
I accept your apology. I know that type can be misconstrued for the true emotion of the author. I know first hand how type can be taken the wrong way.
The image in discussion, is a good image in it's own right. I agree with that...but it isn't the type of image that would suit all publications...no image ever will. And DPC is just that...another type of media publication. That is why some images do better than others and yet the poorer scoring images on DPC have a tendency to excel in other forms of media. DPC is a client...but also a great place for trying different styles and techniques. Now if only the site would accommodate the more creative forms of editing and photography it could cover all bases. But that is a whole different kettle of fish worthy of not bogging this thread down in its argument. |
Glad you're not pissed. Here is art for you. Although this image fetched enough cash to buy my 70-40 I would not consider it art. Steve's image on the other hand I would consider art but hey that's just me.
 |
|
|
|
01/09/2009 07:56:39 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by roby21112:
Glad you're not pissed. Here is art for you. Although this image fetched enough cash to buy my 70-40 I would not consider it art. Steve's image on the other hand I would consider art but hey that's just me.
|
Hahahaha...now be careful that  Art Roflmao doesn't get hold of that image....Godzilla will have a field day.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2009 08:17:21 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Are any of the winning Asia images, on the front page all that interesting or are they eye candy? |
To be fair to those photographers I'm sure the photos hold more value to them than just eye candy. I believe all three used family members as subjects so just the shooting experience itself makes the end result, the photograph, more meaningful to them. I can see why they might get upset (as well as their friends) when someone labels their image as only eye candy or that it was undeserving of a ribbon. That's understandable.
In the end we all strive to capture something meaningful whether it can be seen by others is a different matter. That requires not only a skillful photographer but also a sophisicated viewer. The latter is less common than the former. We teach people to be skillful at the camera and processing the image but we don't teach people how to see. It is why you'll never see a question like the one you posted answered in any of the countless comments the typical ribbon winner gets because the only thing that those commenters saw (or more accurately understood or was taught to care about) was the surface, the eye candy. Now if we could only teach or encourage the ability to see we'd get somewhere but every effort made in that regard doesn't get traction.
Message edited by author 2009-01-09 20:27:49. |
|
|
|
01/09/2009 08:35:29 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Are any of the winning Asia images, on the front page all that interesting or are they eye candy? |
To be fair to those photographers I'm sure the photos hold more value to them than just eye candy. I believe all three used family members as subjects so just the shooting experience itself makes the end result, the photograph, more meaningful to them. I can see why they might get upset (as well as their friends) when someone labels their image as only eye candy or that it was undeserving of a ribbon. That's understandable.
In the end we all strive to capture something meaningful whether it can be seen by others is a different matter. That requires not only a skillful photographer but also a sophisicated viewer. The latter is less common than the former. We teach people to be skillful at the camera and processing the image but we don't teach people how to see. It is why you'll never see a question like the one you posted answered in any of the countless comments the typical ribbon winner gets because the only thing that those commenters saw the surface, the eye candy. Now if we could only teach people to how to use their eyes to see more depth we'd get somewhere but ever effort made in that regard never seems to get traction. |
Good points. My comment leaned more to the way of "interest" but I feel their pop was what propelled them to the front not their depth by any means.
Regarding Gordons comments which hit the whole image head on, even through to the processing choices. I can't say how much I appreciate the insight. I wish more people would look at things with such an eye.
I called the friend I was walking with when I took the shot and asked, for how long was I shooting that shot. He said, "...at the most, 10 seconds"
In terms of composition as Gordon noted there's a triangular thing going on which was the best I could muster before the scene dissipated or I got hit by a car...or beaten up by a gang member. I also chose to keep the men walking away because I liked the pairs, also noted and how they set the women alone aside to herself. As for Chinatowns colors, they are vibrant and certainly neon but not on that particular street I was shooting. It was very drab and just adjacent is a dark wall flanking the Manhattan Bridge. I tried to keep that as true as possible...bring out what was there but not push cheesy saturation levels.
I can't and won't push the interest level thing but I will say if your neighbor was washing their pots in the street or you local butcher was cleaning his knives by the side of the road it might hit home.
...and here's my outtake.
Would've gotten killed, I'm sure.
Message edited by author 2009-01-09 20:57:42. |
|
|
|
01/09/2009 08:57:15 PM · #31 |
I like Steve's work, but this one doesn't really speak to me. If I'd known the story and the danger shooting beforehand, maybe it would have. Actually, I liked the B/W version he linked better.
But I also like photos that pop. Admit it - it's hard to produce wow-factor, it's an elusive and changing goal, colored by challenge descriptions and voter taste on any given day. It's difficult, usually appealing, and that's probably why it's sought after.
For my personal collection, I care about those images which mean something to me - I suspect most of us do. But DPC is a contest. Bemoan the voters as you may, it's only natural that wow-factor reigns supreme. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it reflect negatively on those who like "wow" images. |
|
|
|
01/09/2009 10:22:42 PM · #32 |
| Steve's shots in question are good examples of street photography. It's not a clean art form. It's whatever was there to be captured at that time, distractions and all. Street photography normally does not come in at the top of most challenges. Even in the street photography challenge, one of the ribbon winners had a street feel, but was clearly staged and not the real thing that we normally consider this genre to be. |
|
|
|
01/09/2009 10:37:58 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
As for the walkers. ... I don't think they distract or lead the eye at all UNLESS you've been trained to think that way. No offense. ;)
|
Nope, the walkers didn't lead the eye, it was the strong line of the sidewalk curb that takes you directly to them (and nearly out of the photo) - leading line I think it's called. I know, another one of those silly rules/terms. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/09/2009 11:21:30 PM · #34 |
I don't think there's been a challenge yet where I haven't see one of my favorite photos settle far away from the top 10/20. I think that's probably true for about everyone. Different people have different tastes, and, as it has been said, that's a lot of what makes Art interesting.
If you are taking a photo to win / score high, then I think essentially you need to aim for a photo that will please others more than one that will please yourself. That is if winning is your sole purpose. If you're not wrapped up in winning and post Art that means something to you and that you're happy with, then really all the comments and scoring given by other people are just kind of extras. It doesn't so much matter what they say, because YOU are happy with it and you were able to share your vision of Art.
For me (and I have not yet entered many challenges here) I'm here to practice my photography and to share my vision of Art. I read over the comments and see where other people think I could have done better, and decide if I think those ideas are good for me. I get to learn about other people's versions of Art, and decide what I like/dislike and what I might want to incorporate in to my own work. If something scores low, I just chalk it up to DPC and I not being on the same wavelength this time around, and see how the next challenge goes. :)
*And just for the record, I did enjoy your Asia entry, Steve, and I also thought it would score a little higher than it did. But seeing your outtake with the man eating soup, I think I personally enjoy that one a little more. And I like how the levels don't seem to have been adjusted much/at all; It looks a little 'grimey' (not sure if that's the word I want...) and very REAL. I look forward to seeing and learning more from your work. :)
*Also wanted to quickly add that your photo, The Pitchman, is one of my favorite challenge entries I've seen on this site.
Message edited by author 2009-01-09 23:27:32. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 02:08:06 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
As for the walkers. ... I don't think they distract or lead the eye at all UNLESS you've been trained to think that way. No offense. ;)
|
Nope, the walkers didn't lead the eye, it was the strong line of the sidewalk curb that takes you directly to them (and nearly out of the photo) - leading line I think it's called. I know, another one of those silly rules/terms. ;-) |
Just for you Barry. :)
 |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 01:48:54 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
As for the walkers. ... I don't think they distract or lead the eye at all UNLESS you've been trained to think that way. No offense. ;)
|
Nope, the walkers didn't lead the eye, it was the strong line of the sidewalk curb that takes you directly to them (and nearly out of the photo) - leading line I think it's called. I know, another one of those silly rules/terms. ;-) |
Just for you Barry. :)
|
OMG Richard! That's hilarious!!! :-D
Folks...if you haven't clicked on this, you need to. He-he. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 01:51:56 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
As for the walkers. ... I don't think they distract or lead the eye at all UNLESS you've been trained to think that way. No offense. ;)
|
Nope, the walkers didn't lead the eye, it was the strong line of the sidewalk curb that takes you directly to them (and nearly out of the photo) - leading line I think it's called. I know, another one of those silly rules/terms. ;-) |
Just for you Barry. :)
|
That's so funny. It should probably be posted along with Challenge descriptions just to give some of the non conventional presentations a fair shake.
"Nope, the walkers didn't lead the eye, it was the strong line of the sidewalk curb that takes you directly to them (and nearly out of the photo) - leading line I think it's called. I know, another one of those silly rules/terms. ;-) "
Barry-Your eye was lead and to that I would say, "so what". It's a true scene shot exactly as it was and therefore everything within frame is perfect, simply because it was there. If something was smack in front of my main subject that might be considered a distraction or a bad thing because the view is hindered. Outside of that it's all good. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 02:45:19 PM · #38 |
Even Steve finds a distraction now and then!
ETA: Just having fun. His point is valid, and I'm always grateful for the feedback.
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 14:59:24. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 04:02:38 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Barry-Your eye was lead and to that I would say, "so what". |
???! So now you're dismissing a proven element of photography? Leading lines are influencial and usually used to good intention - however, misused they can take away from a photo in a detrimental manner.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's a true scene shot exactly as it was and therefore everything within frame is perfect, simply because it was there. |
With all due respect, just because it was there doesn't make it perfect. Many a snapshot out there includes an all-inclusive "true scene". I'm not making an argument that your photo is a "snapshot", but by your definition of a photo being "perfect, simply because it was there" would insinuate that all photos are perfect. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 04:12:49 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Barry-Your eye was lead and to that I would say, "so what". It's a true scene shot exactly as it was and therefore everything within frame is perfect, simply because it was there. If something was smack in front of my main subject that might be considered a distraction or a bad thing because the view is hindered. Outside of that it's all good. |
You perfectly recorded the scene, but you didn't perfectly record the scene in an artistic manner. A security camera could do exactly what you are describing. Who cares about that? I want to see some thought put into things from the artist. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 04:38:41 PM · #41 |
Here's a really sloppy clone job to illustrate the point I think some people are making re: the leading line and the bulletin-board-readers as "distractions:
Arguing this image from a purely compositional point of view, I don't think there's any question that the altered version "works" better; in the original version, the bulletin-board readers really stop the eye right in the center of the image, to the detriment of our focus on the woman who is, after all, the subject of interest.
Steve, I understand what you're saying about "it's perfect because it was all there, it is what it is," but that only gets you so far; in the end the impact of the image is dependent on what you choose to exclude from your frame as much as it is by what you include.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 16:39:06.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2009 04:54:08 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Barry-Your eye was lead and to that I would say, "so what". It's a true scene shot exactly as it was and therefore everything within frame is perfect, simply because it was there. If something was smack in front of my main subject that might be considered a distraction or a bad thing because the view is hindered. Outside of that it's all good. |
You perfectly recorded the scene, but you didn't perfectly record the scene in an artistic manner. A security camera could do exactly what you are describing. Who cares about that? I want to see some thought put into things from the artist. |
Don't you really mean who cares about this photo because it has an older woman in it and not some pretty young asian girl? Trust me nobody would care about the flaws of the image if the main subject had instant gratification. Some of the ribbon winning shots could be shot by an automated camera as well. Hell, I've done fashion shoots where all I need to do is lift the camera and click the shutter. The image looks great because of the pretty model, MUA, the hair stylist, the fashion director and not because of me. Such a shot would easily outscore Steve's but it could have just as easily been shot by a monkey. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 05:02:13 PM · #43 |
While I like how Bear has given the image an better balance overall I still think some people are forgetting that essentially what we have here is a streetscape image and some of the so called rules are better suited for a landscape images. With streetscape photography its more suited to capturing everything that is going on at a given moment.
When I look at streetscape images I like to search around the frame for all the elements and see how or if they interact and in Steveâs shot I actually like how the âleading lineâ directs us to the walkers exiting stage right. This enhances the image it shows movement and also I remember when voting on this image that the two people looked of Asian stature which was important to me for the challenge description.
With no disrespect intended to Qart I think this image nailed the challenge description better then the blue ribbon winner.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2009 05:31:59 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Barry-Your eye was lead and to that I would say, "so what". It's a true scene shot exactly as it was and therefore everything within frame is perfect, simply because it was there. If something was smack in front of my main subject that might be considered a distraction or a bad thing because the view is hindered. Outside of that it's all good. |
You perfectly recorded the scene, but you didn't perfectly record the scene in an artistic manner. A security camera could do exactly what you are describing. Who cares about that? I want to see some thought put into things from the artist. |
Doc-With all due respect you must be crazy. To say that a security camera could have taken that shot is an insulting comparison.
I'm not saying it's the most artistic rendering of the scene. I don't think the Blue winner is any more artistic. It's simply lit, it's simply composed and it's sharp. BFD! The only thing interesting is the make-up and her nice eyes but photographically...artistically a non-event. The technical's are fine but that's craft NOT art. I don't think many in the Top 10 are any more artistic for that matter.
I had 8-10 seconds to capture this woman before she spotted me...and she would have definitely began to yell if I was spotted. Again, It a really seedy part of town so speed was what came first and foremost. Getting that shot took some balls and believe me, my heart was pounding as I rifled off 4 frames. I did manage to place her in the bottom left frame, which is as bold an artistic choice as the rest in the Top 10. I wanted to capture the rest of the people in scene but people feel they are insignificant. I suppose I could have positioned myself to your liking but I would have also been hit by a a car. I don't think it's a perfect shot or the most artistic but I do think everything in frame has a perfect right to be there.
My image isn't for the 3 to 5 second viewer. If you savor it for a few extra seconds you can always make your way around and find the woman again. Sure Challenge entries are suited for shooters who can appeal to the 5 second voter but that's a low bar to be setting for an educational site or else all you have is an experience that appeals to the depths of Britney Dpears fans. JMHO.
People need to learn how to separate reality for a set-up situation. That's what amazes me most about the discussion is that some folks don't appreciate the difference.
Eta: Bear I understand that point but someone who really wants to understand a scene will rummage around this type of image for a moment. So, those guys reading the posters were there...what, do you do ask them to leave? NOT get the shot? That's crazy.
Jason-No offense btw. We don't need to agree but I do hope we are at least on the same page. Also, I'm not the slightest bit insulted by any of this. My image is just a sample that might help make a greater point. Again, no offense meant or taken.
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 18:07:10. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 05:34:42 PM · #45 |
*edit*
Ack. Sorry. Completely out of line. I apologize.
I'll just personally put this thread on ignore. Tries my patience too much.
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 17:41:50. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 05:42:11 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
... |
Jason and Steve are adults and are not virgins of debate nor am I. All I see here is some passionate discourse about the differences of setup vs candid and the lack of appreciation of the latter.
ETA: to remove your quote since you removed it in the original. Although since you removed it I have no respect for you now. Joking of course.
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 17:45:19. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 06:35:18 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Doc-With all due respect you must be crazy. To say that a security camera could have taken that shot is an insulting comparison. |
Yes, I know you are better than a security camera, but my point is that if you hold capturing the scene exactly like it was as the utmost then a security camera could have done just as well (having captured the scene exactly like it was). What the security camera lacks and you have is artistic sensibility. Even in street photography that needs to be employed for the best results. You can't just "capture the scene" to be successful. I'm pretty sure you know that, but I was replying to an extreme propositon (the picture is perfect because it perfectly captures the scene) with an extreme rebuttal (well, a security camera could do that).
And to Richard. A monkey could obviously not shoot Qart's picture unless he understands makeup and lighting. Assuming Qart had control of those (and I'm be disappointed if he didn't), his shot definitely shows skill. Probably 90% of us, even with access to a beautiful model, would come up with quite inferior results because we don't know studio lighting. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 07:10:09 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Doc-With all due respect you must be crazy. To say that a security camera could have taken that shot is an insulting comparison. |
Yes, I know you are better than a security camera, but my point is that if you hold capturing the scene exactly like it was as the utmost then a security camera could have done just as well (having captured the scene exactly like it was). What the security camera lacks and you have is artistic sensibility. Even in street photography that needs to be employed for the best results. You can't just "capture the scene" to be successful. I'm pretty sure you know that, but I was replying to an extreme propositon (the picture is perfect because it perfectly captures the scene) with an extreme rebuttal (well, a security camera could do that).
And to Richard. A monkey could obviously not shoot Qart's picture unless he understands makeup and lighting. Assuming Qart had control of those (and I'm be disappointed if he didn't), his shot definitely shows skill. Probably 90% of us, even with access to a beautiful model, would come up with quite inferior results because we don't know studio lighting. |
I personally scored the blue low, I could not tell if the chop job on the lips was an oversight before or after the shot. I've seen the shot before again and again on the front. I'm pretty certain Quart had more than ten seconds to compose and fire, which is making me love Steve's shot even more now. Wow dude on the ground, not seen, 4 shots, legs intact, in this town in under ten seconds? I'm not worthy.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2009 08:20:13 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And to Richard. A monkey could obviously not shoot Qart's picture unless he understands makeup and lighting. Assuming Qart had control of those (and I'm be disappointed if he didn't), his shot definitely shows skill. Probably 90% of us, even with access to a beautiful model, would come up with quite inferior results because we don't know studio lighting. |
Obviously I exaggerated to make a point like you did with the security camera comment but the point stands, which was the shot isn't as difficult as you make it out to be (of course I could be wrong and I'll grant that).
However, lets analyze. I doubt Rudy did the makeup himself (but if he did kudos) nor did he pick out this model from a casting call (working with an unfamilar model you may have to coach is far more difficult than someone you know well) nevermind the model isn't asked to do anything other than to look into the camera once her makeup is on. Now lets get to the technicals. Is the composition/POV special? It works but again it is centered and straight on which isn't exactly breaking new ground nor is it a difficult to get. So what we are left with is the lighting. Assuming of course he lit it which I'm quite sure he did so that's the one thing that may stand out from a difficulty level, but in my not so humble opinion I don't believe it was all that difficult. I doubt he had to grab this shot in under 15 minutes so I'd expect he should be able to light his subject adequately especially given the fact that he has the equipment to do so. I don't know why people think working with off-camera lighting is all that difficult. It is only difficult if you're pressed for time and have to work with subpar equipment for the task. Rudy's entry before this one which also won a ribbon took far more risks and is a style that demands far more than what he was required of with Geisha.
ETA: If anybody feels insulted because I dare critique a ribbon winner keep it to yourself, please. Rudy is quite capable of defending his own work so allow him to do that if he so chooses. I would expect the same courtesy of anybody critiqing my work, which of course you are free to do and would encourage. After all we are all here to learn right?
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 20:41:00. |
|
|
|
01/10/2009 09:14:41 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Eta: Bear I understand that point but someone who really wants to understand a scene will rummage around this type of image for a moment. So, those guys reading the posters were there...what, do you do ask them to leave? NOT get the shot? That's crazy. |
No, not at all. I quite agree with you in the sense that it is what it is. My point is that those who "critique" the image by saying the two "readers" are a distraction within the image are pretty much correct, that's all; they ARE a distraction, compositionally â that's just how it worked out. I'm not sure what the disagreement is about here, frankly... I mean, I'm sure you'd agree that whatever is necessary for a shot to transcend, to move to a higher realm of what it is, this shot doesn't have it. Right?
I mean, you look at the "best" of Cartier-Bresson, and then at the bulk of Cartier-Bresson, and you can see that only a relative few of his images are canonical. Ditto Ansel, ditto Dorthea Lange, ditto whomever. And when an image does cross that line to greatness, we can figure out why, just as when an image fails to cross the line, we can look at it and see what's lacking, or (more often) what ought to be lacking/removed but unfortunately was not. I mean, you go out on the street shooting, I go out in the landscape shooting, we come back with 10, 50, 100, whatever images apiece, and how many of them even move us to go further with them?
So it's no criticism of you or your art or the effort expended in pursuit of same that you "didn't ask the guys to move": of course not! You can't do that. But still, their presence at just that point int he image is holding the image back from being as expressive as it might be of the woman and her world, because that's what composition DOES for us; it's like the syntax of our art.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-01-10 21:16:37.
|
|
