| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2009 01:15:52 AM · #276 |
| Karma, we must be misunderstanding each other. Let's forget it. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 07:15:53 AM · #277 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Oh, but let's not neglect the first part of hahn's leaden post which should have shut us down completely. |
You mean the one where he missed the point entirely and made that ridiculous statement?????
Originally posted by hahn23:
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.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2009 07:48:33 AM · #278 |
Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch.
The DPC look is good photography if you are looking for that type of photography. If you want something more, you look beyond it. Like Thomas Kinkade in the art market, it is a niche; we are lucky that it is not the entirety. While one can learn how to emulate the DPC look, to limit oneself to that just because it is popular here is the same as imitating Thomas Kinkade. There is no originality to it unless you learn to move beyond it. Everyone must start somewhere; there is no crime in that. It is not moving beyond what you've learned that holds you back. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 07:56:36 AM · #279 |
I think the simple point is that he made no point at all, at least not one that could be argued, so in effect, he brought us nowhere.
He did prove a premise that we can assume there are more people out there that think like him which strengthens other arguments or ideas that have been posted.
I think we all celebrate and understand personal taste and I think some of the thoughts that have been posted here go far deeper if read properly. I always assume that's a given but people seem to gravitate back to that point so it's probably not clear.
I found that post very disturbing and when I sense that way of thinking or seeing in the commentary or voting, that is precisely where I spin out of control and go into hiding. Or I could be more vocal and present another way of seeing...?
On a more personal note, I don't shoot pretty eye pleasing subjects and I certainly don't wash my images or set things up to insure they only include pleasing, inoffensive details. That's why is useless for me to compete in Challenges. I can enter for views, comments or favorites but not to compete.
Pure faithful moments will most likely get left behind for "created or orchestrated faux-reality" or an "eye pleasing" scene.
eta: Sadly this is in the Rant section but I think there's so much being said here that people should be in tune with. They don't have to agree but it's honest, persuasive, discourse that might benefit the site.
Message edited by author 2009-02-01 08:18:54. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 09:20:27 AM · #280 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Karma, we must be misunderstanding each other. Let's forget it. |
'kay. :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 10:51:39 AM · #281 |
I think there is a legitimate interpretation of "eye pleasing" that does not mean "trivial pap."
The Kevin Carter image is extremely well composed, and deliberately so. It doesn't have incongruous elements that detract (or fail to support) the story that it tells. Despite the poor JPEG rendition, the technicals are good. And to suggest that it would "garner little attention from DPC voters" is a joke. |
|
|
|
02/01/2009 12:13:56 PM · #282 |
One need only look as far right now, as the front page to see that the majority of the winning entries are "eye pleasing". The technicals are good, the images are "clean" (composition and non-offensive)...they fill "the look" that so many in here have come to expect and accept as "good photography". However, *with absolutely NO disrespect intended * the bottom line is that they are great *eye candy" shots. They lack "depth of meaning" in a number of ways. They are great for magazine advertisements or billboards but, in the grand scheme of things, they have little mind stimulation...except, of course, to those who wonder what SS or Apt. they used to get the shot. :) There are others with far more depth and meaning and equally "eye pleasing" that are buried in lower places because they weren't as successful with "the look".
I think this is where the problem lays. Members (in general) tend to become trained to look for a certain look, rather than appreciate the entire photo. Technicals play a big part, yes but, there's more to it than that. Unfortunately, anything that doesn't have that "look" tends to get passed by and not truly looked at by quite a number of voters. Meanwhile, those of us who want to see more in a photo and with more "depth" either resign ourselves to side challenges or other sites to fulfill that need and express it in our own work. Most members who want to deviate from the DPC Look, enter the challenges either resigning themselves to getting low scores or, to learning to brush off the comments in the hopes that some will see the beauty in their work and garner a few great comments that demonstrate that someone has "seen" their photo. Some of us enter what we want, in the hopes of eventually presenting enough "different" that voters may start to appreciate "different". Or, we fall into the trap of score chasing and lapse into trying to achieve what voters want to see. The rest of us, find solace and companionship in thinking in side challenges where there's a sense of openness towards a realm outside of "the look".
Great photography is not technically boxed, eye candy but, that's what a lot of members in here appear to think that it is.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2009 03:33:25 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch.
The DPC look is good photography if you are looking for that type of photography. If you want something more, you look beyond it. Like Thomas Kinkade in the art market, it is a niche; we are lucky that it is not the entirety. While one can learn how to emulate the DPC look, to limit oneself to that just because it is popular here is the same as imitating Thomas Kinkade. There is no originality to it unless you learn to move beyond it. Everyone must start somewhere; there is no crime in that. It is not moving beyond what you've learned that holds you back. |
Well, voters do respond to photos that have a flair of legitmacy like that one. In the right challenge it could win. Maybe in a free study it would have to be greased up so it can slide down the path of least resistence better. That's what the eye pleaser does, with absolutely no substance/context to speak of, it slides down with great velocity. That may lead to ribbons but it's a short lived reward. Most of those photos are forgotten the minute they are pulled off the front page. They are like the hare. He get to the midpoint in record fashion but stop there. While the tortoise ever so slowly passes the hare and eventually wins the real ribbon (i.e. lasting appeal).
Message edited by author 2009-02-01 15:36:15.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2009 12:28:02 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe in a free study it would have to be greased up so it can slide down the path of least resistence better. That's what the eye pleaser does... |
"greased up"
image
I'd go Grunge with that one...maybe Acid with a parchment overlay and some deep vignetting, in Advanced.
Honestly, that image would lose on the sharpness end but who cares. It's a serious heartbreaker. |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 01:10:16 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe in a free study it would have to be greased up so it can slide down the path of least resistence better. That's what the eye pleaser does... |
"greased up"
image
I'd go Grunge with that one...maybe Acid with a parchment overlay and some deep vignetting, in Advanced.
Honestly, that image would lose on the sharpness end but who cares. It's a serious heartbreaker. |
Isn't it sad that anyone would need to "grease" this photo in any way? This has to be amongst the most poignant photos ever shot! The photographer, I believe, if I remember correctly, either contemplated suicide or did because of the criticisms he took over this shot. From the best of my recollection, he was a photojournalist who recognized that he couldn't help every one of those in this situation so, he snapped this shot, hoping to bring the message to the forefront as his method of "aiding" those in this situation....by spreading the message to the world. It ended up ruining his life, if not taking it!
I find it totally disgusting that a photo such as this one, would very likely be torn apart because of "tastes" and "technicals" in here. There would, of course, be a group of us who would see the value in this shot in and of itself. There would be others, however, likely greater in number, who would bypass this photo as "emotional" but....and go on to rhyme off the flaws in the shot.
To have to do ANYTHING to this shot at all, is beyond me however, that's likely what would be wanted if it were entered into any challenge in here. Sad, to say the least. :( |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 01:15:59 PM · #286 |
What about THIS PHOTO ?
I can't imagine how this one would have needed doctoring for voters! |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 01:35:40 PM · #287 |
Yep, I think the standards for studio still lives should definitely be the same as for war photography. There's really no difference.
Too bad the voters at DPC are soulless goons who only see bright colors and shiny objects, as evidenced by the terrible, unthoughtful images that populate the front page.
Yep, "eye-candy".
It's easy to learn to take those shots, it's just "technicals". I choose not to do it because I value my artistic integrity way too much.
Right? |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 01:52:51 PM · #288 |
Too bad the voters at DPC are soulless goons who only see bright colors and shiny objects, as evidenced by the terrible, unthoughtful images that populate the front page.
If this were true my scenic imagery would be scoring a lot higher. There's no particular rhyme or reason to DPC scores or comments which is why we need more side challenges so that talented people can get their work viewed and appreciated.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2009 01:54:16 PM · #289 |
| Bottom line: Everyone is different. |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 01:55:19 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Bottom line: Everyone is different. |
Indeed.
Also: Stop taking the game too seriously. |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 03:37:53 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!! |
Isn't ego grooming what this thread's all about? |
THIS! |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 04:01:37 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!! |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...the bottom line is that they are great *eye candy" shots. They lack "depth of meaning" in a number of ways. They are great for magazine advertisements or billboards but, in the grand scheme of things, they have little mind stimulation...except, of course, to those who wonder what SS or Apt. they used to get the shot. |
Just curious, how long did you spend with all the ribbon pictures before you judged them to be lacking in "depth of meaning"?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2009 06:15:44 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch.
The journalist who shot that photo and won the Pulitzer, Kevin Carter, committed suicide because he couldn't handle the celeb status he received as a result of that shot and live with the human misery that surrounded him. He was a tortured soul. Many people have asked about the Sudanese child in that photo, who was on her way to a food bank but too weak to barely crawl. This depicts the human condition in its purest form. There are many sides to photography and this is one of the more graphic. I agree that this photo would not garner much attention from DPC voters and perhaps that's part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2009 06:32:15 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch.
The journalist who shot that photo and won the Pulitzer, Kevin Carter, committed suicide because he couldn't handle the celeb status he received as a result of that shot and live with the human misery that surrounded him. He was a tortured soul. Many people have asked about the Sudanese child in that photo, who was on her way to a food bank but too weak to barely crawl. This depicts the human condition in its purest form. There are many sides to photography and this is one of the more graphic. I agree that this photo would not garner much attention from DPC voters and perhaps that's part of the problem. |
At the risk of being argumentative, really???? :) I'd bet my 5D that this photo would grab our (the collective DPC voters) attention like few others ever have. Raw photography at its best. |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 06:41:56 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch. |
Originally posted by digifotojo:
The journalist who shot that photo and won the Pulitzer, Kevin Carter, committed suicide because he couldn't handle the celeb status he received as a result of that shot and live with the human misery that surrounded him. He was a tortured soul. Many people have asked about the Sudanese child in that photo, who was on her way to a food bank but too weak to barely crawl. This depicts the human condition in its purest form. There are many sides to photography and this is one of the more graphic. I agree that this photo would not garner much attention from DPC voters and perhaps that's part of the problem. |
Originally posted by mpeters:
At the risk of being argumentative, really???? :) I'd bet my 5D that this photo would grab our (the collective DPC voters) attention like few others ever have. Raw photography at its best. |
My sentiments exactl, but I didn't want to be the first to say it.......8>)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2009 06:53:38 PM · #296 |
I realize I'm nitpicking :) at dahkota's statement--I tend to agree with her, but maybe this photo wasn't the best illustration. Same goes for the WW2 photo and the Vietnamese child.
Anyway, I'd like to think the DPC community isn't totally clueless! ;) |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 07:05:04 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
At the risk of being argumentative, really???? :) I'd bet my 5D that this photo would grab our (the collective DPC voters) attention like few others ever have. Raw photography at its best. |
I think there would be quite a few who would see what was really going on in the image, and quite a few who would comment on it. I still hold that a group of people would remark on 1) Whether or not it fit the challenge; 2) Technical Aspects in which they think it is lacking. Additionally, there would be people who would just, in their two seconds of looking at the image, hit a number between three and five and move on, not really aware of what they were seeing. Here, in this forum, are people who are taking the time to click on the link. With the set-up I gave it, they are already expecting something they need to see rather than just look at quickly.
I completely agree that it is photography at its best. It is what photography was invented to do: capture life. But DPC, as a collective, prefers meta-life, or hyper-life if you prefer. And I'm not saying that there aren't individuals here who feel otherwise; on the contrary, there are many, many people who can capture photography such as this and many who appreciate photography such as this. That is why I came back after a year of absence - there is no better place to explore the world than here, when one is stuck behind a computer rather than out in it.
I believe that DPC is a great place to learn. I think trying to shoot high scores for a challenge is a great way to learn technicals and to learn how to appeal to the masses. But, you need to allow yourself to move beyond that. If DPC is your goal, then that is fine. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I know quite a few musicians who are perfectly content being very technically sound while playing the songs of others. They have no desire to write their own. Its the path you choose. I view photography as an art. Art is not stagnant, it always moves forward. If you don't move past what you know, you don't move forward.
You all may disagree with me all you like; all it is is my opinion. It doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, and certainly nothing to get your panties in a bunch.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2009 07:41:01 PM · #298 |
Nobody's saying you shouldn't push yourself to be better, and push beyond what you know. No one is saying that success at DPC is the be-all and end-all of being a good photographer.
Some, however, are suggesting that success at DPC comes at the expense of being a good photographer, and that "good" photos won't succeed here. That the only photos that will work are "stock" photos, where "stock" is carefully used as a pejorative term suggesting a lack of depth. That, frankly, is absurd BS. Working towards success at DPC will make the vast majority of photographers better photographers. Working to improve ones grasp of the fundamentals will make the vast majority of photographers better photographers. You need to understand the rules to break them successfully. You need to have control of your process. Ex post facto rationalizations of your images shortcomings don't count.
There is a great deal of excellent photography that would not do well here. No one disputes that fact. However to make the logical leap that (a) photography that does well here is not excellent, and (b) photography that does poorly here is excellent, is a leap that is not supported by the facts, and which is, no offense intended, an insult to those photographers better than I who share their work and their ideas here, and an insult to photographers like me who are trying to learn.
I don't shape all my work to fit DPC. I don't, actually, shape much of it to fit DPC. But I know that I have much to learn from this community, and I appreciate it for that. If others find that it's not a supportive community for what they need, GO ELSEWHERE. Don't prattle on about how the voters don't get it or claim that your work is being marginalized by the "not meaningful" work of people like  jjbeguin.
Please. |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 07:45:21 PM · #299 |
No worries-- the picture haunts me and I didn't even take it. And you are probably right about the technical comments. :( I say, "Who cares about technicals? What about the picture?" :)
Maybe this isn't true, but I think that the DPC community is more educated then they are given credit for. Not saying the site doesn't cater to flashy or pretty pictures...
I appreciate the people here who stimulate us(me) to think in a different way. Welcome back and I agree, it is definitely nothing over which to get some fabric all bunched up!
Message edited by author 2009-02-02 19:46:24. |
|
|
|
02/02/2009 08:12:05 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!! |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...the bottom line is that they are great *eye candy" shots. They lack "depth of meaning" in a number of ways. They are great for magazine advertisements or billboards but, in the grand scheme of things, they have little mind stimulation...except, of course, to those who wonder what SS or Apt. they used to get the shot. |
Just curious, how long did you spend with all the ribbon pictures before you judged them to be lacking in "depth of meaning"? |
Had you quoted my full statement, you would have included the part where I had said "On the front page now". :)
|
|
