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

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

01/28/2009 02:20:36 PM · #76

Originally posted by pawdrix:

There are things that keep me floating here but I've never been one for superficial engagement. I'd hate to think it could be time to move but you could be right.

Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting that... It was just in the context of, if you want a different set of expectations fulfilled, sometimes its better to read a different book, you know? Doesn't change the fact that you, and people like you, and I hope to think myself as well, and a host of others we both could name, are incredibly valuable in helping the whole site have a broader perspective. I'd hate to see you go, I'd fight it tooth and nail. But that doesn't mean there might not be another site that would receive your work more enthusiastically, as well. No law says we have to stick to one, right?

R.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/28/2009 02:23:00 PM · #77

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Maybe the Side Challenges are a better model for elevated learning than the Challenges?

Well, of course!

That's pretty much what they're about.

The natural enmity of competition is eliminated thereby giving the ability to focus on the theme, and how to achieve it whilst giving and getting comments to guide your way.

Not to mention that if you like, you can keep working on the same basic subject through multiple iterations if you like, receiving input throughout the process.

The majority of the comments tend to be of a more upbeat, positive tone, too, for whatever reason......the whole atmosphere is much more relaxed.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

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

01/28/2009 02:37:07 PM · #78

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

you're making the assertion that your cutting-edge art directors somehow represent a more *valuable* or *correct* or *~whatever~* point of view, artistically and/pr commercially, than the voting collective (or the commenting collective) on DPC.

Originally posted by pawdrix:

It's safe to say that balls on accurate.

IMNSHO that's a terrible thing!

In the first place, if you get a wider viewing base, you'll find that judges, art directors, whatever are just as all over the place, and subject to their own preferences, as the man on the street.

I understand your point about the person that just bought his first Rebel and all, but the person IS looking to move forward with the craft or they wouldn't be here in the first place.....so to me, his opinion IS worth hearing if for no other reason than to see what someone else thinks.

You don't have to make it into a bad thing....how you choose to regard a comment is on you.

So to a certain extent, the people here are a better audience than the person off the street that wanders into the gallery to view your work.

The "experts" that juried the one image that I sold thrashed it on a couple of counts, technical points, yet the image sold in two days once it was moved onto the sales floor.

The other one that they just raved over.......well, it's nigh onto four months later and nada....yet they keep assuring me that an image of its quality is bound to sell.

Yeah, well......I'll take the money, please.....I don't need the inventory.

01/28/2009 02:50:21 PM · #79

My point? I wasn't the one who pulled out two of my shots and asked why I didn't mark comments helpful that I didn't find helpful. :) I was just answering your points and questions.

Originally posted by Chinabun:

Ok what's your point? I'M NOT THE ONE WHINING about comments. That would be YOU.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Well, there are those who do tend to habitually check off every single comment as "helpful"...even the ones that simply say "yes...." and nothing else....such as a comment in this one :) There's a lot of people who feel that they should mark even if it makes no sense at all! May I ask what you found helpful in that "yes...." comment that furthers your photographic skils??? :)

Personally, I don't feel the need to mark shots as helpful if I, personally, don't feel that they are helpful. It only sets up a situation where everyone feels that it's ok to give whatever comments they feel like giving and getting a "reward" for just saying anything.

Originally posted by Chinabun:
Ok so what about the comments that tell you about your lighting? and your shots out of focus? You didn't check those as helpful. The reason I didn't pick other photos is because you are complaining about buildings being removed and the image I chose is of what you are complaining about.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by Chinabun:
I see quite a few comments that people left that were trying to be helpful and maybe that's why your shot scored low, but it seems that you only mark helpful when it's someone who says they love your shot.

In these two you have good and bad comments but the only ones marked helpful are the ones who agree with you or "understand" what you were working with.

You've picked two of my dozens of entries. And, yes...there are some unmarked. The tomato shot...everyone said the same thing, I got the point and didn't revisit the comments afterwards...got the points. And, if you really looked, you'd see that I did mark those types of comments helpful on a lot of them. Call it battle fatique and point taken.

The second one (the buggy), I did not mark those as helpful because I couldn't move an entire set of buildings nor, did I want to! If you look at the description I put in on this one....the very fact that the buggy was sitting in an industrial area was PART of what I was trying to portray in this shot! So, it wasn't "helpful" to me that the buildings were a "distraction" (as talked about in my original post).

However, in being fair....did you look at the dozens, upon dozens of other shots where I have marked all comments as helpful?! Or, were you "cherry picking" the 2 photos to bolster a "nit pick"? :)

01/28/2009 02:58:05 PM · #80

Originally posted by pawdrix:

I think to have this discussion we might need to agree that there's an abundance of ridiculous criticism that get's tossed around that lacks serious perspective. If you don't agree with that or don't care then there's not much point having this talk.

Someone PMed me yesterday saying that they were just here to have fun and they don't take things too seriously. That's fine and I get that BUT there are some folks here who do take this stuff, deeply and personaly. Some of those folks have even carved themselves out really serious carreers...Joey Lawrence, Julia "grigrigirl" Bailey to name a few. There are easily 30 people who began here and now make respectable money...perhaps $800-10,000 per day, maybe more.

If you look at their work you'll see a good deal of their sucess is in their ability to think broadly, "out of the box" and NOT get bogged down in the silly stuff I'm railing against. Some folks can tune that stuff out some can't, won't or don't know better. I'd simple prefer acting to let people know what I think
of these comments since I found them a little harmful when I was first going. If it weren't for the saving grace of may 10 (well studied) members I may have thought that my work sucked. Since I like to shoot I may have gravitated to the mainstream to connect.

Gen IE-Thinking about your waiting by the newstand to see reactions, comment. Has anybody ever seen a comments box by art that's hanging in the museums?

Could you imagine Picasso checking in daily at Museo del Prado, in Madrid to see his comments...

"you have a slight magenta shift in the skin tones. You can easily fix that with a selective adjustment. Otherewise good luck."
" nice picture but I'm not too crazy about her expression"
"the little girl is cute but too bad about the eyes"
"I kinda like the muted tones but the brighter colors hurt my eyes. Maybe it's just my monitor?"
"the horse is a bit of a distraction that keeps pulling my eye"
"this is a good pick but it would be better without the horse"
"creepy image. You may want to fix the horizon that would make this better. It's not too bad just off by a hair.Good Luck!

Ok, I spit my tea out on the Picasso comments!!! I'm still chuckling!!! ROFLMAO!!!!

I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you've made in this post.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/28/2009 03:07:32 PM · #81

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Could you imagine Picasso checking in daily at Museo del Prado, in Madrid to see his comments...

"you have a slight magenta shift in the skin tones. You can easily fix that with a selective adjustment. Otherewise good luck."
" nice picture but I'm not too crazy about her expression"
"the little girl is cute but too bad about the eyes"
I kinda like the muted tones but the brighter colors hurt my eyes. Maybe it's just my monitor?"
"the horse is a bit of a distraction that keeps pulling my eye"
"this is a good pick but it would be better without the horse"
"creepy image. You may want to fix the horizon that would make this better. It's not too bad just off by a hair.Good Luck!

I'd wager that comments just like those were made when Picasso introduced this piece. Probably by serious art critics of the day.

Actually, there was a tremendous amount of criticism towards Picasso's works. It wasn't accepted by the art critics of that time period. It's only in later years that his work began to become noticed and appreciated. Even then, it stood on its own in a lot of aspects. But, look at how wrong they were about his work.

The hat should go off to the man to dare to entrench a path that was different from mainstream and carve the way for other artists to find their own expressive styles. Had he been influenced by the critics, we wouldn't be seeing not only his work, but also newer artist's works and appreciating them.

If everyone only bowed to the masses and techniques of the masses, we'd be bathed in sameness. Acceptances of different and a willingness to learn to see different is what allows us to progress. To do otherwise, limits growth. We may master a certain look/technique but, never grow beyond that.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/28/2009 03:13:11 PM · #82

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you've made in this post.

... which begs the answer WHY?

Is it due to the points raised, or simply because it supports your contention.

There are indeed some very valid points raised by Pawdrix in his presentation, but I can't say that I agree with him on the totality of his assertions.

Perspectives, insight, experience and personal preferences all play part in the decision making process, and commnents are reflections of one's personal viewpoints. One can disagree with them, but that doesn't equate with their being wrong... at least not in the eyes of the person rendering judgement.

Ray

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/28/2009 03:14:28 PM · #83

"There's no connection between artist and subject"
"her oof shoulder draws attention. I would have prefered to see a wider dof"
"3"
"I see what you were trying to do but the second nose detracts from your overall score. 5"

Challenges do seem to be "bathed in samness" if I may steals Ray's words...

FWIW, I usually get a little riled or more vocal after I enter a Challenge or two. They tend to affect a ralphing reaction.

Message edited by author 2009-01-28 15:21:56.

01/28/2009 03:17:36 PM · #84

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm so glad he didn't listen to those jack-asses. Aren't you?

Keep in mind, what he did was so over the top...probably scary for his day. So, I could honestly understand people freaking out.

What bothers or annoys the crowd here is often minor or fabricated. A lot of folks here are taught to agressively find flaws no matter how small or insignificant.

What will we find in Marc Chahalls cooment box at The Museum Of Modern Art...

"too busy"
"a better crop would make this more effective"
"Cutting off the mans ear bothers me for some reason. Nice tonal range. Looks like LucisArt."
"Tone mapping isn't my favorite and I don't think it works very well here"
"This would be good if you showed more of the mans face. The blown catch light in his eye is also a bit distracting. You could fix that in Photoshop"

I wouldn't get hung up on what DPC commenters would say about works from masters in the fine art world.

I hate to break it to you, but 99% of the images here are not fine art and never will be. Most are from people trying to develop their art and skill set; the comments and suggestions could potentially help in the regard. The site also allows people to see how their images and interpretations measure up to others.

If the comments aren't particularly helpful, then my advice is:

Don't sweat the small stuff, . . . and it's all small stuff.

So, may we take it then that by your definition, DPC should only be considered a site to develop technical skills? :)

There's a difference between "art" and "skills".

Art, encompasses both creativity and skills and the freedom to deviate to differing forms.

Skill, on the other hand, encompasses a technique with very little deviation from a set method or way of achieving a certain product.

If DPC is meant to further one in terms of technical skills, then it cannot be considered to be enhancing an artform. If it cannot be considered art, then it is a skill and there is very little room for self-expression or growth. It is mastering a skill and the only thing the score means is how well one has mastered that skill.

Is that what you are saying?

01/28/2009 03:18:16 PM · #85

Originally posted by pawdrix:

LMAO!!!!

01/28/2009 03:21:51 PM · #86

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

That's the thing.......you can never tell what's good or bad 'til you have a buyer, or don't.....what if someone wants to have an image they saw of yours blown up to 4 by 6 feet, on canvas, in an elaborate gilt frame......yet it's an image that you don't particularly think is all that good?

In my experience this site has a lot less to do with the fine art market than the world of advertising art. Images best liked here tend to be those that would do well in a mass market magazine; colorful, sharp, and a bit sexy if possible. The sort of images found in magazines like Apature which fine art photography buyers tend to buy, tend to get snubbed here. This web site is not a juried exebition, it is democracy in action. Sometimes that drives me crazy, but it is the nit pickers and the technical hounds that rip my entry that I'm here for. And to be honest while the ones and twos are awful I know I have no more earned them than the tens.

Nicely said.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/28/2009 03:23:54 PM · #87

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

If DPC is meant to further one in terms of technical skills, then it cannot be considered to be enhancing an artform. If it cannot be considered art, then it is a skill and there is very little room for self-expression or growth. It is mastering a skill and the only thing the score means is how well one has mastered that skill.

That simply isn't true. Art and craft (or skill) go hand in hand. The artist needs to develop the necessary skills to communicate his/her vision. Without repeatable, ingrained skills, the presence of "art" is an accident.

When Jackson Pollack become lionized by the art world (and rightly so, IMO) an entire slew of imitators sprang into being who threw paint at canvas with consummate gusto, but not one, ever, came close to creating a masterpiece to equal JP's best. There was a LOT of work behind the development of that technique, a lot of failed attempts, a lot of misery and pain and sweat.

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/28/2009 03:33:09 PM · #88

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
you're making the assertion that your cutting-edge art directors somehow represent a more *valuable* or *correct* or *~whatever~* point of view, artistically and/pr commercially, than the voting collective (or the commenting collective) on DPC.

Originally posted by pawdrix:
It's safe to say that balls on accurate.

IMNSHO that's a terrible thing!

In the first place, if you get a wider viewing base, you'll find that judges, art directors, whatever are just as all over the place, and subject to their own preferences, as the man on the street.

I understand your point about the person that just bought his first Rebel and all, but the person IS looking to move forward with the craft or they wouldn't be here in the first place.....so to me, his opinion IS worth hearing if for no other reason than to see what someone else thinks.

Yes, judges, art directors, etc, will have opinions that vary and may be wrong but they are at least qualified opinions and thus can be weighed accordingly. That's the difference. Unless your goal is to be as popular as possible and cater to everyone, some kid who just picked up his first Rebel isn't going to be all that helpful to you. No different than some kid who got his first car telling you how yours should be. Would you care?

Message edited by author 2009-01-28 15:33:47.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/28/2009 03:44:07 PM · #89

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

*ART*, an image is still created with *CRAFT*, and craft can be dissected, commented upon, and (hopefully) improved. I have no problem with separating the craft from the art, and offering my impressions on the former as completely separate from my appreciation of the latter. And I'm sure I've shown, in the Lensbaby thread for example, that I am not hung up on some arbitrary definition of "technique" as it relates to photography...

R.

This is the problem though, photography can be looked upon as solely a "craft/skill" in which case, the creative factor goes out the window. Once that creative factor is gone or, at the least, greatly discouraged and diminished, we could all take shots of the same rock and simply see who has gained the best skill. The comments in here are mainly geared towards the technical skills.

ETA: For some, it doesn't discourage the creativity as they simply shrug off the low scores and go on to photograph what they want. However, for others, it diminishes the creative aspect as they struggle with the technical skills and fear straying from that part of photography. Thus, we get a million macro bug shots on flowers, water/other liquid drop/splash shots, glasses with backlighting and patterns, and the list goes on of over repeated photos. And people mimic the comments they've seen on similar shots because they've seen it so often.

Message edited by author 2009-01-28 16:02:43.

Bebe

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/28/2009 03:50:21 PM · #90

Originally posted by yospiff:

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Again, I vote for a No Comments Button.

I vote for a NO Comments Button too! I would rather reserve
my shitty, noob, stupid, nit-picking comments for those
who really want them.

Another "Yea" for this idea!

[...]

This thread and other recent ones has changed my mind on this issue - I vote yes as well. But truly what I want to see is the possibility for the commentator to have a list of people for whom they would prefer not to comment. Then, when someone makes it clear that they aren't always looking for certain types of comments, I could just add them to my list & save myself the time & effort of commenting on their images.

01/28/2009 03:52:22 PM · #91

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

If DPC is meant to further one in terms of technical skills, then it cannot be considered to be enhancing an artform. If it cannot be considered art, then it is a skill and there is very little room for self-expression or growth. It is mastering a skill and the only thing the score means is how well one has mastered that skill.

That simply isn't true. Art and craft (or skill) go hand in hand. The artist needs to develop the necessary skills to communicate his/her vision. Without repeatable, ingrained skills, the presence of "art" is an accident.

When Jackson Pollack become lionized by the art world (and rightly so, IMO) an entire slew of imitators sprang into being who threw paint at canvas with consummate gusto, but not one, ever, came close to creating a masterpiece to equal JP's best. There was a LOT of work behind the development of that technique, a lot of failed attempts, a lot of misery and pain and sweat.

R.

Oh, I agree that without skill, art canot necessarily expressed. The artist does need skills (well, there are some artists that are questionable....but, that's another discussion for another site! :)) to execute their vision. No doubt and no disagreeance.

But, in taking Jackson Pollack as an example and the fact that his technique couldn't be mimicked, one would have to ask themselves WHY one would WANT to mimic it? While it was a technique/skill, one has to also develop one's own form of art lest they be considered a "copy cat". Otherwise, we'd simply have a world of Jackson Pollack or Picasso or Group of Seven styled art.

The same holds true of photography. If we all tried to master the skill and techniques of one particular form of photography, we'd all end up with simply Ansel Adams. :))

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/28/2009 03:54:12 PM · #92

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

The comments in here are mainly geared towards the technical skills.

Yup, but that's understandable. It's a LOT easier to identify technical strengths and weaknesses than it is to delve into the emotive content of the image. Especially inasmuch as we usually have no indication what the shooter was striving for in the first place. Anyway, for *most* people photography *is* a craft, not an art form. Most people, in my experience, would never accept an Amish master quilt as a work of art, nor a piece of Shaker furniture. Most people refuse to think of architecture as art. No need, IMO, to even bring the concept "art" to the table in conjunction with DPC. It's all just "work", whether artwork or craftwork is pretty much immaterial. People react to it however they react to it, and there's little that will change that except to fight the good fight and expose them to outlier imagery as much as possible, in the hopes that their vision broadens.

I don't think Thomas Kincaid, the self-proclaimed "artist of light", produces art, myself. But there's a whole WORLD of appreciators who would dispute that with me. So it goes.

R.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/28/2009 03:56:07 PM · #93

Originally posted by yanko:

That's the difference. Unless your goal is to be as popular as possible and cater to everyone, some kid who just picked up his first Rebel isn't going to be all that helpful to you. No different than some kid who got his first car telling you how yours should be. Would you care?

So why even bother?

My understanding is that the comments from the kid who just picked up his first Rebel are part of his own learning process on this site, andt hey should be encourage, but not taken as gospel. You need to decide for yourself if the person has a valid critique or if they just don't understand. For example, my recent entry in "Life" got a lot of conflicting comments regarding the composition and the way the light was striking the dusty window. I consider many of those as representing personal taste, rather than flaws of my entry. On the other hand, a handful of people made the same critique about the glossy pot, but nobody thought the shiny pot was a positive element, so that critique carries more weight. You have to interpret the comments and decide for yourself what to take away from them.

01/28/2009 04:01:29 PM · #94

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

The same holds true of photography. If we all tried to master the skill and techniques of one particular form of photography, we'd all end up with simply Ansel Adams. :))

Well, if we limited ourselves to the one form, maybe... But even so, Ansel (and Edward Weston, and others) collectively formed a "school" of photography, West Coast Realism I'd call it) that they aggressively offered up as an antidote to the then-prevailing "pictorialism" of the times, actually Edward Steichen, I believe, started all this, and so many people STUDIED Adams's techniques and WORKED with his techniques, but their work, while broadly similar, was still their own. Look at Wynn Bullock, look at Minor White, for example. Adams himself was heavily influenced by Edward Weston.

As artists, we tend to do this; build on the past. It's normal, it's even inevitable. And yes, it CAN become caricature, but it doesn't have to.

But the thing of it is this: you study different artists, you become familiar with their tools, you incorporate the tools into your own particular toolbox, you customize them as appropriate, and this is what you work with. You really can't work in a vacuum very effectively, if only because you can't avoid reinventing the wheel unless you're familiar with the concept "wheel" in the first place...

R.

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

01/28/2009 04:13:22 PM · #95

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
The comments in here are mainly geared towards the technical skills.

Yup, but that's understandable. It's a LOT easier to identify technical strengths and weaknesses than it is to delve into the emotive content of the image. Especially inasmuch as we usually have no indication what the shooter was striving for in the first place. Anyway, for *most* people photography *is* a craft, not an art form. Most people, in my experience, would never accept an Amish master quilt as a work of art, nor a piece of Shaker furniture. Most people refuse to think of architecture as art. No need, IMO, to even bring the concept "art" to the table in conjunction with DPC. It's all just "work", whether artwork or craftwork is pretty much immaterial. People react to it however they react to it, and there's little that will change that except to fight the good fight and expose them to outlier imagery as much as possible, in the hopes that their vision broadens.

I don't think Thomas Kincaid, the self-proclaimed "artist of light", produces art, myself. But there's a whole WORLD of appreciators who would dispute that with me. So it goes.

R.

Well...I am a Kincaid fan actually. :) Not because I think of him as a great artist, but more because it's great "eyecandy" (in its own way) and emotes a lovely feeling from the subjects of his paintings...soft, warm light sources. The same holds true of the way that I vote, comment, score on photos in DPC. If a shot emotes something from me, if there is meaning behind it and in it, if it has content that is somehow, speaking to me and decently photographed, it will score much higher with me than the technically perfect shot of two pieces of paper rolled into a heart or the pefect splash shot that has no meaning and emotes nothing from me. I know though that the rolled paper and the splash is going to score higher and likely win the ribbon over the emotive shot. I find that a shame because I've seen suckers stuck to paper do better than an expressive old man's face in DPC. LOL

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/28/2009 04:15:22 PM · #96

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't think Thomas Kincaid, the self-proclaimed "artist of light", produces art, myself.

Hasn't he just perfected his craftsmanship to the extent of being able to program organic robots to execute his work sufficiently rapidly to meet the demand. ;-)

Regardless of the guy's artistic merit (or lack thereof), he seems to have more than the usual share of business savvy ...

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

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

01/28/2009 04:18:12 PM · #97

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

It's safe to say that balls on accurate.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by yanko:

Nope. I wouldn't care for it one bit.

I have no time for people who aren't steeped in education and experience....that's the only way it can and should be.

Especially when it comes to photography.

Right, Joey?

It's that kind of approach that makes me hate the art world at large.....that whole incestuous, "You're nothing unless we say you are." kind of elitist attitude really sucks.

There's a man here in the local community that has degrees, and education up the wazoo, and is considered in the artistic circles here to be a resident genius, yet by most of the real world photogs in the area, he's an intolerable hack. Not to mention the fact that he's an arrogant f*ck who has the people skills of a rhino with a bellyache.

I'm reluctant to put too much stock in experts, especially in such a world as art simply because of the subjective nature of the viewer.

Yes, there are techniques and rules, but even here the same techniques and rules can be tossed out the window with great success. I dunno......I do have a real disdain for authority, and the experts in the art world seem to wield their authority with impunity all too often.

I think it's also abundantly clear, even to me, that I will never make it for that very reason......I smply don't feel obligated to have the utmost regard for the rules of photography and art. I see too much variance in tastes from the people who I have contact with on a daily basis as they see my work. Most like most of my work and for the most part, it's just merely good, certainly NOT exemplary. Most people really like my work......they just don't know ay better, I guess.

Oh, and of all things, to use a car analogy on me is pretty fallacious. I find kids who haven't developed the bad habits over the years to be the most natural and intuitive when it comes to both understanding, and working on, the ever-rapidly evolving world of the automobile today.....so....bad example. And my exposure to that industry is on multiple different levels as a professional and enthusiast that spans four decades. That doesn' mean that I think I know it all, in fact, unlike many of my peers, it merely means that I have a true perspective as to the range of my limitations and therefore keep my eyes and ears open. I cannot tell you how many times I've learned from the younger people in the industry.

That's partly why I guess I'm more openminded to commentary......you never know if the 14 year old with his first DSLR is going to be the next Joey Lawrence.

BTW......if you think I have any skills and insight at all into this, then you can credit another "Kid".....Sean Mahoney

cutlassdude70, who is half my age, because he tutored, mentored, cajoled, encouraged, and just generally turned on that light in the darkness that was photography to me when I got here.

I really believe that you all have valid points here.......that's really what all of this means to me; I just really hope that you all would consider any and all comments that you get to be as intended.....and I would think that they ARE, for the most part, intended to be helpful.

Do with them as you will.....I know I will always give them consideration, and sometimes, I will PM the commenter to see if they'll elaborate on what it was that struck the commenter about my image, good or bad.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/28/2009 04:20:56 PM · #98

Originally posted by yospiff:

Originally posted by yanko:
That's the difference. Unless your goal is to be as popular as possible and cater to everyone, some kid who just picked up his first Rebel isn't going to be all that helpful to you. No different than some kid who got his first car telling you how yours should be. Would you care?

So why even bother?

My understanding is that the comments from the kid who just picked up his first Rebel are part of his own learning process on this site, andt hey should be encourage, but not taken as gospel. You need to decide for yourself if the person has a valid critique or if they just don't understand. For example, my recent entry in "Life" got a lot of conflicting comments regarding the composition and the way the light was striking the dusty window. I consider many of those as representing personal taste, rather than flaws of my entry. On the other hand, a handful of people made the same critique about the glossy pot, but nobody thought the shiny pot was a positive element, so that critique carries more weight. You have to interpret the comments and decide for yourself what to take away from them.

I think the bolded part here pretty much embodies my feeling about DPC. You get from it what you decide to take from it. No more, no less.

01/28/2009 04:22:31 PM · #99

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

That's interesting. 'Cuz if Kincaid were a photographer he'd do really, really well at DPC, where eye candy is the safe route to popularity. Almost seems like you're undermining your own position here, though I guess not really. I mean, it's "OK" to like Kincaid (shudder) and still bemoan the fact that more original, and very worthy, artists are ignored in the marketplace. But the thing of it is, of course, that DPC *IS* a marketplace, for all intents and purposes, as far as challenges go; when you enter a challenge, your competing to see if your image can attract the most buyers, basically, right? Even if the payout isn't cash...

R.