Nit-Pickers, 1's and 2's and "Distracting"

01/31/2009 12:52:33 PM · #251

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Jeb, it's like if you watched a funeral procession in Chinatown and wandered away with the thought "That's bizarre, they were all wearing WHITE at a funeral? How weird!" then your reaction wouldn't be *wrong* exactly (it *is* weird to you after all) but nevertheless the reaction springs from a gap in your understanding; you don't realize that in China white, not black, is the color of mourning. (This is hypothetical of course, *you* may know this, but if you didn't then...)

So extending this to DPC, if one of our Chinese members entered a "mourning" challenge with white-robed imagery, he'd probably get hammered because "Everyone knows *black* communicates mourning, not white!", and this would be too bad.

There are those who would argue that our hypothetical Chinese member should know better than to expect a white mourning picture to score well in a competition dominated by Western voters, and there's an element of truth in this, and IMO that's what's too bad. The bottom line, the end result, is that in our challenges we DON'T get shown a diversity of things; we mostly get shown whatever the shooter thinks we will appreciate, quite often at the expense of images that are much more meaningful to the shooter, and which I, personally, would much prefer to see.

R.

These points are so true. There is no real room for the most part in understanding the basis behind a photo when one has a certain set of criteria in mind and cannot see beyond it. This was likely an excellent example to have given in the white vs black and the cultural differences.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and put up one of my shots (knowing it could be torn apart).

This shot had a great deal of meaning to me. Perhaps, too deep for anyone else to appreciate. It was to illustrate the growth that our children go through as they "emerge" into adulthood. I knew that the technicals were attrocious. I knew that it wasn't a stock shot and I equally knew that given that this was a "silhouette" challenge, many would expect to see a totally black figure in front of a light background. I also took into account that it may not be everyone's cup of tea or tastes. However, having some art training and background (I was a muralist), I also recognize that silhouettes do not have to be totally blackened to be considered a silhouette. That's not what voters saw for the most part. They only judged it according to the fact that they weren't seeing a totally black figure against a lit background. Fortunately, a number of people saw it. Jeb was one and I have great admiration for Posthumous for also seeing it and encouraging me to continue on with this type of photography. THIS is my style....depth of meaning and more artistic in tone than Stock Shot.

In short, your comments are well taken. :)

01/31/2009 12:55:27 PM · #252

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
How does one figure out what is good and what isn't when there are two opposing measurements by which to judge?

By realizing that you are the only judge of that. There are no absolutes.

R.

LOL...so true....but a lot of DPC voters don't tend to see that point. It's stock, stock, stock. :) That means, bottom, bottom, bottom for those who don't achieve that look. It kind of makes one scratch their heads and wonder why am I here? I think that's what I'm asking myself as well....except, I've met so many wonderful people in here! Dang it! ;)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/31/2009 01:10:02 PM · #253

Ya'll keep saying stock does well here, therefore artistic does not. While the latter may be true, I don't know that the former is. What is popular on dpc *might* be stock-able, but some of my best scorers have been rejected soundly by stock agencies.

So, I don't think "stock" is the right word. Perhaps "dpc-ish" is the only way to describe it.

FWIW, my best sellers at stock agencies, if they were also entered here in some form, scored anywhere from low 4's to mid 5's, with maybe an occasional 6.

bucket

Canon EOS-30D

01/31/2009 01:21:04 PM · #254

Originally posted by ubique:

(I knew I should have given that Macbeth quote in its entirety.)

In the Single Tree challenge I have voted on 208 entries (if I vote at all on a challenge I always vote on 100% of the entries):
Score 10 = 1
Score 9 = 2
Score 8 = 2
Score 7 = 6
Score 6 = 0
Score 5 = 29
Score 4 = 0
Score 3 = 168
Score 2 = 0
Score 1 = 0

By my standards, that's a perfectly rational distribution, although if you're just looking at the end of this thread (and hopefully the end is near) then you'll have to flick back a few pages to see why I have no 4s and 6s.

I consider 168 (i.e. 81%) of the entries in that challenge to be of "no consequence", so they get my default score of 3. In spite of the OP's relentless determination to insist otherwise, the 'technicals' of those 168 photographs are entirely irrelevant. They all fell at the first hurdle; lack of consequence. You must bear in mind that I really do mean what I say in my profile biography ... I am not a photographer; I am not particularly interested in photography. I am interested only in photographs.

But I'm not saying that technical execution has no place at all for me. If a photograph does not fall at the first hurdle, then the quality of its rendering does become a factor in my reaction to it. 'Technical execution' does not mean superficial nonsense like sharpness of focus, lack of distractions, rule of thirds, 'wow' factor, and all that nauseating pap. It means that the nature and quality of the rendering is appropriate to the purpose. It can be blurry; it can be eccentrically lit or composed; it may have great void areas of dark or light; the focus may be uncertain or even absent entirely; the horizon can be wonky if that seems apt. Or it may be what the undiscriminating observer would unhesitatingly call technically 'flawless'. It all depends what fits the photographer's purpose.

Lack of Consequence:
Absence of feeling; pointlessly imitative or derivative; lacking in apparent imagination or originality. I ask myself this question: "Is this photograph memorable or stimulating in any way? Does it add anything to my perception of the subject, or of any subject? Am I better off for having seen it, for having reacted to it?" If I answer "no" to all three of those questions, then I judge the photograph to be of no consequence.

And for the benefit of the OP, let me emphasise that none of this has anything to do with what the nominal subject of the image is; nothing to do with what I 'like or don't like' in that sense.

And as a final red rag to the bull, I should admit that I would look at the 3's for an average of about 3 or 4 seconds. Once they have so quickly fallen, why look any longer? It's ghoulish; like rubber-necking at a car crash. But the images that do clear that first hurdle I will look at for somewhere between 1 and 15 minutes, and often several times in the case of the eventual 7-10s.

So there ... now everyone who starts one of these 'please explain' threads can quote me right up front, as the sort of aberrant voter that we don't want at DPC.

P.S. For what it's worth, if I were voting on my own 27 challenge entries, I would give every one of them a 3 except for one. The very first one, as it happens.

Quite simply I don't believe I have ever put half the thought into my scoring and comments as

ubique does.

Posthumous manages to make an equally generous offer.
I personally put little thought into most of my entries lately, hope occasionally to put in enough effort to be spotted by someone who finds my shot exciting, and vote infrequently and without reason.
How anyone could take any issue with someone who offers their insights is beyond me. Give me a 3 please, on every piece of crap I submit! And if ever I nail something, I will simply look forward to the eye of the critic sharing his thoughts.
The only reason I can possibly imagine a photographer such as

pawdrix or me for that matter might stay is the chance that one day you might get that intense feedback.
I really think the chase for a ribbon has destroyed most intelligent comments, simply because they are not about the photo, but rather about how the photographer might do better in a challenge.
I am personally only interested in a challenge to act as a catalyst for me to create, or pursue something beyond the mundane.
I suppose the idea of side challenges is really where I should focus my efforts, though the one true benefit of a challenge is the anonymity.
As far as what people expect, or the idea of a stock DPC shot, for me that is irrelevant. The numbing effect of reading the same sort of comment can be frustrating at times, but it is a gentle reminder of what it means to submit a shot in a popularity contest vs. a critical panel.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/31/2009 04:06:02 PM · #255

Originally posted by karmat:

Out in the world, this is referred to as "formula". For every serious or semi-serious niche (and a web site is a niche) there's a formula that describes the work that's best-received. So to say that "formula images" do best in DPC is to make an accurate statement.

Defining that formula, of course, is not so easy. I recall one of our more successful members did a pretty good job of that once a year or two ago, but I can't put my finger on it right now. In any case, it would be an interesting exercise to try to define (and refine) the elements that make up the prototypical "DPC Formula" image. Two words come to mind immediately: "smooth" and "focused".

I'll leave it up to the rest of y'all to wade in and expand on this. Bear in mind that just because a formula exists doesn't mean that occasionally images that deviate radically from the formula won't do well. Nothing's absolute, and we've had a number of winners that are atypical of the DPC formula. Nevertheless, winning images in DPC tend to have a lot in common.

If this gets interesting enough, we might start a thread to explore it. Or maybe that previous post (can someone find it and quote it?) is already sufficient unto the task?

R.

01/31/2009 06:12:07 PM · #256

Originally posted by bucket:

... The only reason I can possibly imagine a photographer such as pawdrix or me for that matter might stay is the chance that one day you might get that intense feedback ...

Agreed, sometimes one comment can be more sustaining than a hundred others, or a thousand. But that's not necessarily to say that all of the 1000 'lesser' comments have no value at all. Yes, some people have nothing to say but insist on saying it (as the existence of this very thread attests); others have something to say but are too timid or otherwise restrained to express what they really think and so they say something 'safe' instead.

I think that commenting is for many people really a self-affirmation process anyway. Look at all the gushing comments that are posted on ribbon-winning shots post-challenge ... if they really felt so wildly enthusiastic about the photograph, how come so few of them made any comment about it during the challenge? It's self-affirmation by association.

More evidence of that is that if you go to the shot that finished in say 11th place it receives very few post-challenge comments ... often none at all. But is it less worthy of comment? Of course not (in fact it's very often more worthy, but that's another story). Of course people do want to offer congratulations on a ribbon, but when their comment includes wildly extravagant praise and 20-20 hindsights like, "Oh, I just knew this would ribbon!"... well, I think the comment is not entirely altruistic.

The problem that you and Steve share (well, one of the many problems in my estimation), is that both of you, when you are doing the work that you clearly most love and are best at, have a very small audience.

Originally posted by bucket:

... I am personally only interested in a challenge to act as a catalyst for me to create, or pursue something beyond the mundane...

This has made me wonder if I shouldn't try entering a challenge again. Problem is, I'd be sure to be disappointed ... I might do very badly ... or even worse, I might not.

01/31/2009 06:19:24 PM · #257

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by karmat:
Ya'll keep saying stock does well here, therefore artistic does not. While the latter may be true, I don't know that the former is. What is popular on dpc *might* be stock-able, but some of my best scorers have been rejected soundly by stock agencies.

So, I don't think "stock" is the right word. Perhaps "dpc-ish" is the only way to describe it.

Out in the world, this is referred to as "formula". For every serious or semi-serious niche (and a web site is a niche) there's a formula that describes the work that's best-received. So to say that "formula images" do best in DPC is to make an accurate statement.

Defining that formula, of course, is not so easy. I recall one of our more successful members did a pretty good job of that once a year or two ago, but I can't put my finger on it right now. In any case, it would be an interesting exercise to try to define (and refine) the elements that make up the prototypical "DPC Formula" image. Two words come to mind immediately: "smooth" and "focused".

I'll leave it up to the rest of y'all to wade in and expand on this. Bear in mind that just because a formula exists doesn't mean that occasionally images that deviate radically from the formula won't do well. Nothing's absolute, and we've had a number of winners that are atypical of the DPC formula. Nevertheless, winning images in DPC tend to have a lot in common.

If this gets interesting enough, we might start a thread to explore it. Or maybe that previous post (can someone find it and quote it?) is already sufficient unto the task?

R.

I'm not sure that at this moment, I can expand on this any better than what has been described above. It'll come to me in a more concise way eventually but, in general, there tends to be a certain "formula" that TENDS to do well and DPC shots do have a certain look. Part of it is a stock'ish look but there's something beyond just stock.

In looking at the photos on the front page right now, there is a look about all of them. They tend to be a cross between stock and advertisement. I think it's closer to advertising than stock, but the elements of stock are there quite heavily.

There's also a look to the editing as well. Again, the exact terms to use, evade me at this moment.

However, Robert's assessment is right, in my mind anyways. The winning photos in DPC could be considered DPCish. I've also found that shots that do well in here, bomb elsewhere and vice versa.

Anyone else have more to add or can fill in what escapes my mind at the moment in describing the "DPC Look"?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/31/2009 06:25:08 PM · #258

"Yes, some people have nothing to say but insist on saying it (as the existence of this very thread attests);" Quoting

Ubique

Interesting comment to have made. :)

ETA

Some of the most important discoveries have come from discussion. The origins of the discussion is insignificant. The true significance of the discussion is that some form of knowledge or understanding comes from it.

Message edited by author 2009-01-31 18:30:05.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/31/2009 06:34:34 PM · #259

Originally posted by ubique:

(well, one of the many problems in my estimation)

Geez...is it that obvious?

Originally posted by ubique:

Agreed, sometimes one comment can be more sustaining than a hundred others, or a thousand.

True and an occasional Thumb makes up for a lot of pain. The side Challenges provide plenty of fulfilling comments both the greater and the lesser. There's context which gives meaning and more weight to what people say, that isn't the case with the regular Challenges. Even when the Challenge theme provides a pretty specific idea or platform with which people can judge the criteria still reverts to a narrow mindset or way of seeing.

As for you entering Challenges. Oy vey!

I entered a few this month and I'm not sure it was worth it. You may be disappointed. Not that I care about the numbers but I did manage to break a 6 twice. Within the numbers may be the hidden meaning or message that God may actually exist. Or a message of hope. Not sure but I'm still missing the love.

Message edited by author 2009-01-31 19:08:17.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

01/31/2009 07:02:41 PM · #260

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

....Anyone else have more to add or can fill in what escapes my mind at the moment in describing the "DPC Look"?

The "DPC Look" is good photography. It is to be emulated and "learned from". Almost all of the ribbon winners are top of the field. Experiments and artistic efforts are great, but they have to be eye-pleasing images, too.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/31/2009 07:09:57 PM · #261

Originally posted by hahn23:

...they have to be eye-pleasing images, too.

01/31/2009 07:27:04 PM · #262

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by hahn23:
...they have to be eye-pleasing images, too.

!

which brings us full circle.

what is eye-pleasing to me, may not be to "you" (general, collective, plural you)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/31/2009 07:38:36 PM · #263

Originally posted by karmat:

which brings us full circle.
what is eye-pleasing to me, may not be to "you" (general, collective, plural you)

No, it doesn't. And 'eye pleasing' has nothing to do with it.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/31/2009 07:39:52 PM · #264

I highly recommend a Beret.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/31/2009 08:31:23 PM · #265

probably should use mind pleasing, more accurate.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2009 09:13:14 PM · #266

Originally posted by pawdrix:

As for you entering Challenges. Oy vey!

I entered a few this month and I'm not sure it was worth it. You may be disappointed. Not that I care about the numbers ...

What's almost surely my next Brown-ribboning shot (currently under 3.5) already has been favorited twice ... :-)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/31/2009 11:27:28 PM · #267

Originally posted by hahn23:

I'm not sure I agree with that.

The DPC look does have a certain appeal to it, but there is a distinct lack of depth to it to a certain point.

I'd kind of love to see a side challenge start up that's kind of an artistic thought seminar with (obviously) images and explanations to go with them.

I know I've learned a bunch since I've gotten here, and my ability to shoot good images that are pleasing and are reasonably well constructed, but I really don't go deep or long when it comes to really carying any kind of message.

I threw up a couple examples of images that really spoke to me, they weren't something that moved

pawdrix in the slightest, almost the opposite in fact, but when I look back through my challenge entries, I see that my images don't seem to do that. Most of them are pretty hum-drum.....so I can't even say that I evoke strong reactions in the majority of my images. What's missing?

The only one that I ever really had that evoked strong reactions, both positive and negative wasn't so much the image, but how I approached the challenge description.....my infamous B&W Portrait.....

But what fun that was!!!! I got the most terrific comment ever from

timfythetoo, a couple of comments from others who said they admired my stones, a whole raft of DNMCs, and a couple who told me I was an idiot! That was SUCH a blast!

I've learned so much here that I cannot imagine over time, as long as I'm willing to keep an open mind, that I wouldn't be able to figure out how to reach a more eusive, and discerning, viewer.

Which means I'll get more 1s & 2s.......8>)

And I don't think I'll bitch, 'cause if you're getting 1s & 2s, you're reaching.

01/31/2009 11:29:19 PM · #268

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by karmat:

which brings us full circle.
what is eye-pleasing to me, may not be to "you" (general, collective, plural you)

No, it doesn't. And 'eye pleasing' has nothing to do with it.

which is my point -- if you look at the entirety of what I quoted.

01/31/2009 11:34:26 PM · #269

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by karmat:

which brings us full circle.
what is eye-pleasing to me, may not be to "you" (general, collective, plural you)

No, it doesn't. And 'eye pleasing' has nothing to do with it.

which is my point -- if you look at the entirety of what I quoted.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/31/2009 11:38:05 PM · #270

Hahn said they "had to be eye-pleasing images."

That is right back to where we were discussing several pages ago -- *that* is the part that is subjective. What I consider "eye pleasing" is almost guaranteed NOT to be what person A thinks, or person B, or maybe even person C. That part of this discussion has gone round and round and round.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/31/2009 11:41:41 PM · #271

Originally posted by karmat:

That's the crux of it......what seems to be pleasing to the general voting public seems to be safe, clean, conventional images.....when you push the line, your audience, though more discerning, is smaller.

01/31/2009 11:51:11 PM · #272

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by karmat:
Hahn said they "had to be eye-pleasing images."

That is right back to where we were discussing several pages ago -- *that* is the part that is subjective. What I consider "eye pleasing" is almost guaranteed NOT to be what person A thinks, or person B, or maybe even person C. That part of this discussion has gone round and round and round.

That's the crux of it......what seems to be pleasing to the general voting public seems to be safe, clean, conventional images.....when you push the line, your audience, though more discerning, is smaller.

Thus, what is "eye pleasing" on the front page is not pleasing (or as pleasing, or slightly less pleasing) to the smaller audience.

02/01/2009 12:08:43 AM · #273

Originally posted by hahn23:

... Experiments and artistic efforts are great, but they have to be eye-pleasing images, too.

Karma ... look at it again; it's a preposterous statement. Being 'eye-pleasing' has nothing to do with the substantive latter part of this discussion. Several participants have been at great pains to explain why that is the case. And it's not a matter of opinion; Hahn's statement is quite simply not true ... and not just untrue for those few commentators, but untrue universally. It is petitio principii ... begging the question. It is saying that all images, be they stock, pap, DPC ribbons, art or experimental, MUST be eye-pleasing as well as whatever their other qualities (or lack of them) may be. That is demonstrably false, and therefore there is no stand-off position as you suggest.