DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Hidden Gem.....Seriously?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 234, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/18/2009 01:59:03 PM · #51
Originally posted by Fetor:

Originally posted by scalvert:

but our individual preferences aren't likely to match up with a group average.

Thats a great way of putting it


I'd be even more blunt than that:

The day my personal choices for the top 20 images are the same as the actual top 20 finishers is the day I quit photography, because it means that I have been assimilated into the masses, so to speak.

I am *always* conscious of the fact that on a global scale there's no real "best", just "least objectionable". The images that win in DPC, while nearly always "good" images by objective/technical criteria, often succeed not so much because they are "better" than other "good" entries, but because there is nothing in them that offends or annoys or confuses any segment of the voting population. Almost by definition, thoughtful, content-steeped, intellectually aggressive imagery cannot win DPC challenges. The voting base is too broad for that to happen very often, though of course every now and then it does :-)

R.

Message edited by author 2009-03-18 13:59:16.
03/18/2009 02:04:39 PM · #52
Originally posted by AP:

On a final note, I would love to see a feature that lets you sort by # of favorites, because I see favorites as the sort of equalizer to the score. Not all high scoring shots get a lot of faves, some low scoring shots get many. I think seeing which images got more faves would balance the attention paid across the range of scores.


I think this is a great idea, even if it wouldn't help me an iota :-)
03/18/2009 02:08:30 PM · #53
Nobody has mentioned that there are likely more landscapes entered than other genres so statistically the group has more shots at winning the lottery. How many "original" entries can there be before they become unoriginal?
03/18/2009 02:11:53 PM · #54
Spazmo posted earlier about meaning and I wanted to follow up with my thoughts.

What is it? I don't see many images with real meaning here at DPC, or elsewhere. Individually, our photographs have great meaning. It might be the effort put into the building of a set, the travel or time required to get the shot, the memories associated with a photo, or a personal attachment to the photo's subjects. But no matter how difficult, time consuming, or personally rewarding your photo is, I don't think we should ascribe it with meaning for the masses or assume that a pretty landscape or lady isn't worthy of top billing, just because it is pretty.

Personally I don't see real meaning in the top photos until I get to yankos shot at #30. And i know the image means much more to him than me, just as the other photos probably have significance to their creators.

Dan's shot was awesome and could have easily ribboned. Does it have a deep message? Not to me. Mostly I appreciate the photo for the photo -- a splendid 15,000 mountain pass, a camel with the taj, or a perfectly placed zebra. These are things I might never see without you, the photographer. I appreciate the fact that each person shares what they have.

Obviously, many gems get buried in the challenge results. Hopefully the underground movements at DPC can continue to provide impetus for those submitters to continue. This was my favorite from the 5's.
03/18/2009 02:12:21 PM · #55
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How many "original" entries can there be before they become unoriginal?


An infinite number. All the original entries are, by definition, original. They will never become unoriginal.

l0g1c pwns U!
03/18/2009 02:19:24 PM · #56

I learned something about myself viewing, voting, and commenting in this challenge. While enjoying a variety of styles of photographs, LANDSCAPE is my favorite and that may explain the numbness I feel about my own photography. I yet to find or been able to get to some great locations around my area. So I'm basically taking photographs that don't appeal to my style. Oh Well, one day I will hit the jackpot!

Scott
03/18/2009 02:23:47 PM · #57
While landscape photos may have a tough time in the forums, clearly they are having no problem in the challenges. This challenge erased my guilt about voting them low.
03/18/2009 02:24:38 PM · #58
Isn't that what this page is for? More people should participate. From getting a chromey nom and an upsy daisy myself, I can vouch that it feels really good to have somebody tell you that your entry was a fave.
03/18/2009 02:48:41 PM · #59
I am glad that I didn't ribbon this time around, because I'd hate to see people putting down my image after I made top 3 out of 1100 or so.

I'm getting really tired of seeing sunsets in challenges, because they're so common and seem to be any and all challenges. However, though I'm scoring average sunset shots lower than I used to, I still have no problem scoring a beautiful sunset accordingly. People think that sunset shots have no emotional impact, but are you saying that you've never stood back and been moved by the beauty of nature? If not, I pity you. If so, why can't a picture bring that same sense of awe? If it's done well, it can.

03/18/2009 02:49:02 PM · #60
Originally posted by scalvert:

our individual preferences aren't likely to match up with a group average.

I was curious, so I scraped out the numbers and ran a check. It turns out my own votes were only moderately correlated (0.56) to the average scores. I wonder if that's typical.

It might be interesting for dpc to note the score variance for each photo and the variance of voters' score correlations for each contest, just to have a metric of the degree to which opinions vary per-photo and per-contest.
03/18/2009 03:01:56 PM · #61
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography.


Clap, clap!

And while I'm here, can someone PLEASE explain to me why that wonderful, exceptional, blue ribbon landscape is considered "overprocessed"? Puhleeze.....

R.


For the record I never said "processing is bad" if you were directly refering to me. I personally don't like overprocessing which is usually what I'm alluding to when I comment and I don't think that's being elitist. do think it's harder to take a great photo that requires NO processing than it is to take and average image, process it to the 9's and wow the average viewer. I'll stick by that.

The colors (Martian Purple/Orange/Yellow) are groovy but my honest opinion is that they look amateurish and while I enjoy nice, rich toning I think it takes far more talent to do it with a delicate hand. Most of what I don't enjoy looking at appears closer to what you'd see from someone playing with PS color sliders for the first time.

At this point I view all those wild exotic colors as if they're being displyed like shiny objects for little children.

(Are you ready to rumble???)

As a few people have stated processing is part of Photography. Ok, fine but if you start with a photography and you process and you then process some more and then some more and then some more, there IS a point where we could/should draw the line as we move further from the original photograph and into another realm. A better term might be Mixed Media or whatever...if you get my drift. Maybe we're talking about a different art form that utilizes Photography.

These thoughts have NOTHING to do with this Challenge. I didn't look at many images, I didn't vote and didn't enter.

ETA:Also in my defense, I did mention in one of my posts that the Blue was nice.

Message edited by author 2009-03-18 15:15:45.
03/18/2009 03:14:07 PM · #62
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So while I appreciate people like pawdrix adding another dimension to the site, I also tire from the (gasp) elitist, bourgeois attitude that assumes processing is bad and street photography is the only true application for photography.


For the record I never said "processing is bad" if you were directly refering to me. I personally don't like overprocessing which is usually what I'm alluding to when I comment and I don't think that's being elitist.

....

As a few people have stated processing is part of Photography. Ok, fine but if you start with a photography and you process and you then process some more and then some more and then some more, there IS a point where we could/should draw the line as we move further from the original photograph and into another realm. A better term might be Mixed Media or whatever...if you get my drift. Maybe we're talking about a different art form that utilizes Photography.


Well, it's statements like this that garner you the label from some, Steve. You have *your* idea of what this thing called "photography" is, and you want to label stuff that doesn't fit in that pigeonhole as other-than-photography; understandably, some think that makes you a "purist" trying to "protect" a narrow definition of a very broad art.

R.
03/18/2009 03:20:11 PM · #63
Well, I don't usually talk to much in the forums, because after five years, alot of these discussions sounds the same. Don't knock the excellent images that placed high - in a Free Study type of challenge, landscapes have a wider appeal than street photography or architecture. I also think that some people confuse use of levels, curves, contrast, shadows & highlights with over saturation.

But, one things is pretty obvious from this challenge is that there are alot of excellent, excellent images. Here are a few that I really liked.








03/18/2009 03:20:14 PM · #64
Originally posted by pawdrix:

The colors (Martian Purple/Orange/Yellow) are groovy but my honest opinion is that they look amateurish and while I enjoy nice, rich toning I think it takes far more talent to do it with a delicate hand. Most of what I don't enjoy looking at appears closer to what you'd see from someone playing with PS color sliders for the first time.

I bet sunset colors appear "different" when viewed through the air at 5000 meters in Peru than the do anywhere in NYC ... I've seen plenty of pictures taken at altitude on film which look very similar in color and contrast. I'm not at all sure those colors aren't very similar to what the photographer saw -- remmeber that the dynamic range of even the best dSLR sensors falls several stops short of what the human eye can perceive.
03/18/2009 03:23:09 PM · #65
Originally posted by Fetor:

4. An extraordinary amount of work that went into a shot and


I'm puzzled as to why you included those two. Nothing wrong with them but they ARE heavily processed.

Originally posted by Fetor:


My point is more of a question....What have we become? A group of people that vote based on editing of stagnant objects? Or should we vote based on effort, subject matter, hard work, and uniqueness in a challenge like this?


I crossed out the things that as a viewer don't interest me. Besides, I don't see how you can realistically judge the amount of work someone puts into an image or the level of difficulty just by looking at it. Why would you even want to? According to the DPC rules as a photographer all you need to do is click the shutter or be the person responsible for composing the scene for it to be a valid entry out of the camera so who knows how much work the photographer actually put in? He or she may not have even come up with the concept let alone the lighting or any of the artistic work involved. How do I know the photographer created the paper art that was captured? Shouldn't the ones who creates it themselves be rewarded more points than those who only photographed someone else's artwork? How do I know that mountain view captured from a long hike, a short drive or a fly over? Shouldn't that factor in? How do I do that? And what about editing? Doesn't that take effort as well? But even there how would I be able to determine who created their effects and who simply ran a filter/action they downloaded? This is why I don't care to measure effort, hard work or level of difficulty and just let the end result speak for itself.

Message edited by author 2009-03-18 15:26:35.
03/18/2009 03:23:43 PM · #66
I honestly don't think the problem is in how *much* editing is done. It can take 2 minutes or 20 hours and can involve 1 step or 1000. The problem lies in 1) if the editing is believable and works with the image as a whole rather than as the subject itself and 2) if the editing is skillfully done.

BTW - I think the editing on the first place image is perfect - it doesn't draw attention to itself.
03/18/2009 03:40:18 PM · #67
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Well, it's statements like this that garner you the label from some, Steve. You have *your* idea of what this thing called "photography" is, and you want to label stuff that doesn't fit in that pigeonhole as other-than-photography; understandably, some think that makes you a "purist" trying to "protect" a narrow definition of a very broad art.

R.


I think it's where we draw our lines. I believe there's a point where photography does drift into the realm Digital Art and NONE of the images posted in the OP (or on the front page) are in that realm even based on my "narrow opinion". Some folks are in the school where it's ALL good and I certainly have no issue with whatever people do but I believe the more and more you process, you are at some point moving further and further away from photography. BTW I have a pretty wide berth in that area before I'll begin looking at something as being a different Art Form.

My main point was about what I consider to be cheesy, overprocessing. My only issue, to be specific with the Red is that the colors are IMO super-wicked corny. The Yellow is far more delicate and I appreciate that.



Message edited by author 2009-03-18 16:01:16.
03/18/2009 03:44:18 PM · #68
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Well, it's statements like this that garner you the label from some, Steve. You have *your* idea of what this thing called "photography" is, and you want to label stuff that doesn't fit in that pigeonhole as other-than-photography; understandably, some think that makes you a "purist" trying to "protect" a narrow definition of a very broad art.

R.


I think it's where we draw our lines. I believe there's a point where photography does drift into the realm Digital Art and NONE of the images posted in the OP (or on the front page) are in that realm even based on my "narrow opinion". Some folks are in the school where it's ALL good and I certainly have no issue with whatever people do but I believe the more and more you process, you are at some point moving further and further away from photography. BTW I have a pretty wide berth in that area before I'll begin looking at something as being a different Art Form.

My main point was about what I consider to be cheesy, overprocessing. My only issue, to be specific with the Red is that the colors are IMO super-wicked corny. The Yellow is far more delicate and I appreciate that.


OK :-) Let's put it this way; you *sounded* a lot more extreme earlier than you're coming across in this post,and it raised some hackles.

Peace, brother :-)

R.
03/18/2009 03:45:46 PM · #69
Originally posted by dahkota:

I honestly don't think the problem is in how *much* editing is done. It can take 2 minutes or 20 hours and can involve 1 step or 1000. The problem lies in 1) if the editing is believable and works with the image as a whole rather than as the subject itself and 2) if the editing is skillfully done.

BTW - I think the editing on the first place image is perfect - it doesn't draw attention to itself.


But of course this is all subjective. Take your own shot (which I gave a 9, BTW). It is not believable, but it does work and the editing is skillful. I have never seen a sky so brilliantly white that objects like birds start to fade into the BG. You processed your shot to a great effect (or overexposed), but the shot would not have been nearly the same if the shot was not processed to depart from how our eye sees reality (let's say the BG had a value of 180,180,180 and was not quite so homogenous).

OTOH, sometimes the camera captures things the eye does not see. Take my own shot. The night sky is very blue. It didn't look like that when I was shooting. It was black. BUT, I have learned that if you shoot at the beginning of astronomical twilight, the camera still captures a deep blue that is easy to bring out in a photograph. So while my shot is likewise not believable, it may actually represent a type of reality (ie. that captured by the camera sensor).
03/18/2009 03:48:48 PM · #70
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Well, it's statements like this that garner you the label from some, Steve. You have *your* idea of what this thing called "photography" is, and you want to label stuff that doesn't fit in that pigeonhole as other-than-photography; understandably, some think that makes you a "purist" trying to "protect" a narrow definition of a very broad art.

R.


I think it's where we draw our lines. I believe there's a point where photography does drift into the realm Digital Art and NONE of the images posted in the OP (or on the front page) are in that realm even based on my "narrow opinion". Some folks are in the school where it's ALL good and I certainly have no issue with whatever people do but I believe the more and more you process, you are at some point moving further and further away from photography. BTW I have a pretty wide berth in that area before I'll begin looking at something as being a different Art Form.

My main point was about what I consider to be cheesy, overprocessing. My only issue, to be specific with the Red is that the colors are IMO super-wicked corny. The Yellow is far more delicate and I appreciate that.


Maybe it's because you live most of your life in a major, major city, but the red ribbon is almost not colorful ENOUGH when compared to some mountain sunsets I've had the pleasure of witnessing first hand.
03/18/2009 03:53:52 PM · #71
Originally posted by mpeters:

... I don't see many images with real meaning here at DPC, or elsewhere. Individually, our photographs have great meaning. ... I don't think we should ascribe it with meaning for the masses or assume that a pretty landscape or lady isn't worthy of top billing, just because it is pretty.
...
Mostly I appreciate the photo for the photo -- a splendid 15,000 mountain pass, a camel with the taj, or a perfectly placed zebra. These are things I might never see without you, the photographer. I appreciate the fact that each person shares what they have.


This is one more important reason why I come here.
03/18/2009 03:55:02 PM · #72
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Some folks are in the school where it's ALL good and I certainly have no issue with whatever people do but I believe the more and more you process, you are at some point moving further and further away from photography.


What about going the other way? In other words, the more you fabricate (i.e. lie/deceive) in front of the camera the further away you move from photography? Or does it not work that way? If that's the case why not?
03/18/2009 03:56:09 PM · #73
..... .....
.
Three of my many favs in this challenge, in no particular order. Lots of 10's & favs for me. Loved it.
03/18/2009 04:03:48 PM · #74
Well i didn't edit my photo of my Osprey at all part from a little crop...i didn't even really need to sharpen it...i think it should have been Basic editing so that we could have seen some real photos and not the photoshop advanced photos.
i was really disapointed with alot of photos...i haven't been doing this that long but forthis topic to be the best photos there were some pretty sad ones!
03/18/2009 04:06:39 PM · #75
Originally posted by subject22:

Well i didn't edit my photo of my Osprey at all part from a little crop...i didn't even really need to sharpen it...i think it should have been Basic editing so that we could have seen some real photos and not the photoshop advanced photos.
i was really disapointed with alot of photos...i haven't been doing this that long but forthis topic to be the best photos there were some pretty sad ones!


I think people constantly forget that BEST is relative and subjective.

Best what? Best techncially? Best artistically? Best emotively? Best personally?

Your best and my best are two completely different ideas. What is 'sad' to you might be the opus of another.

While I'm personally underwhelmed by yet another showcase of what I would consider to be rather plain and lifeless landscapes on the front page, they were honored by more people than just me, and have won their place there, and I recognize that I'm not the only voice of what is good and what isn't in this art form.

Not that it stops me from saying anything, but I try my best never to make it sound like I have the authority to determine what should or should not be accepted.

Message edited by author 2009-03-18 16:11:02.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 12:41:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 12:41:07 AM EDT.