| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2010 10:45:50 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I'll tell you that one PM led to another and another, and then there were twelve. That simple. That inclusive. It was open to whomever we thought might be interested in the abstract catalog. Nothing fancy, sorry. |
There it is... |
I can understand why you feel excluded. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 10:53:39 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
What's the criteria to belong to this private club? |
From what I can tell, these are the basic rules for membership:
1. You must have an exaggerated sense of your own self importance.
2. You must have a total disregard for your fellow members
3. You must be one of the few who truly understands "Fine Art Photography."
4. You must treat certain challenges as beneath you.
5. You must give positive comments to and fave all the offending images to give a false sense of legitimacy (also see: circle jerk)
6. You must totally ignore the spirit of challenge rules.
7. You must ridicule anyone who sees things differently, even PM them if necessary.
Did I miss anything?
If these aren't the rules, please enlighten. |
Wait -- are these the rules for the abstract entrants, or the sourpusses who commented on them? |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 10:53:46 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
See rule #7 |
Oh, quite. That goes for both 'sides' as it were.
For the record, i can understand some annoyance when a photograph is seen as DNMC in a way that seems to spurn or mock the challenge as i've felt like that myself in the past. Once was with  Nuzzer' entry for 47 Steps and i was quite annoyed by that at the time as i loved the idea of the challenge so much. Of course, i'm not nearly as annoyed by it now and Nuzzer is a wonderful photographer whatever. I don't think i would get so het up about it now either.
The other entry it was possible that i might get annoyed about was 'The Oldest Profession' by signal2noise in the One In A Million challenge. It's a fantastic portrait of a prostitute but i never found out if it was a model posing as a prostitute or not. If it was a model i think i would have felt quite annoyed and cheated at the time, again as the challenge idea was such a good one. And again, if that happened now i don't think i would be nearly as annoyed. I never did find out though so the case may be irrelevant anyway.
I'm not in any way bringing up these two cases to be discussed in any way, just attempting to show that i do understand strong feeling with a particular challenge entry.
As to these abstracts my feeling is this.
1. I don't think it is against the spirit of a challenge, or the spirit of DPC in general, to be collaborative with entries as long as it does not affect voting. I think it's a great idea actually. As was mentioned in the other thread, it has been done before when a group got together and posted the same subject matter in memory of their friend which was a lovely idea. I guess there are two sets of photographer here on DPC. Those who see the 'challenge' as against others and whose goal is to 'win', and those who see the 'challenge' as against themselves and see the site as more as a collaborative learning tool anyway and to whom ribbons don't matter as much as learning and teaching.
2. I don't think the abstracts are in anyway DNMC. There are many abstract catalogues in the marketplace and galleries, screensaver companies, stock agencies all use them. It was a good creative slant on the challenge i feel.
Message edited by author 2010-03-29 11:09:10. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 11:13:27 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by kleski:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
WOW, what a great idea--product shots for a catalog of abstract art! I love it! |
Agreed. What a fresh idea!!
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I understand that some people are upset about this set of entries. One of the important functions of contemporary art is to raise issues and push boundaries. This often gets people upset. Hang in there! |
And here is the misconception... I don't think anyone is upset about the art aspect of these entries. It's about the method in which they were presented. Why wasn't this idea ever presented in a thread so others could participate?? Why was it only this group? These are the issues so please stop presenting it as if no one agrees with the art... |
Exactly. Had I voted in this challenge I would have had no problem with a bunch of people who don't like Product shots, but want to enter all challenges, getting together to create this fictitious "Abstract" catalog - I just wish it had been presented in the thread for any members to join if they wished. It's the behind the scene aspect of it that bothers people. And believe me, I do not feel "excluded"! As is apparent by my F.Arts entry, I have absolutely NO talent for abstract photography! LOL ;-) |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 11:19:54 AM · #30 |
I thought it was fun to see. It is nice to have different views and takes on things.
Message edited by author 2010-03-29 11:35:16. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 11:23:25 AM · #31 |
As it turned out, DPC really didn't like this sort of thing - that's apparent by the scores. All the abstract entries pretty much landed on the last two pages of the results and collected a lot of ones. I can see where an "open" discussion similar to what took place by PMs could have worked as long as all the entrants knew they were shooting themselves in the foot, then reloading and shooting themselves in the other foot by entering. At least as far as score goes, that's for sure. Or an open discussion would have simply led to more vitriol perhaps. Who knows? This also took 12 people out of voting - while not a huge chunk, it is kinda sizeable. I think most of those who played along are regular voters.
Anyone for a Fall Abstracts catalog? Anyone know how hard it is to shoot abstracts on purpose? :-)
Representing only myself, I apologize to those who were offput by the apparent "exclusivity" - it wasn't meant to be off-putting at all, just a bit of fun and a way to enjoy a challenge that I would not have participated in otherwise. Have you seen my setup shots? Not pretty. Not pretty at all... :-) |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 11:52:48 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
What's the criteria to belong to this private club? |
From what I can tell, these are the basic rules for membership:
1. You must have an exaggerated sense of your own self importance.
2. You must have a total disregard for your fellow members
3. You must be one of the few who truly understands "Fine Art Photography."
4. You must treat certain challenges as beneath you.
5. You must give positive comments to and fave all the offending images to give a false sense of legitimacy (also see: circle jerk)
6. You must totally ignore the spirit of challenge rules.
7. You must ridicule anyone who sees things differently, even PM them if necessary.
Did I miss anything?
If these aren't the rules, please enlighten. |
i am in |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:07:22 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
1. I don't think it is against the spirit of a challenge, or the spirit of DPC in general, to be collaborative with entries as long as it does not affect voting. I think it's a great idea actually. As was mentioned in the other thread, it has been done before when a group got together and posted the same subject matter in memory of their friend which was a lovely idea. I guess there are two sets of photographer here on DPC. Those who see the 'challenge' as against others and whose goal is to 'win', and those who see the 'challenge' as against themselves and see the site as more as a collaborative learning tool anyway and to whom ribbons don't matter as much as learning and teaching.
|
I'll speak to this one, as I've said many times, for me, the subject matter isn't the issue. The voters will ultimately decide if something fits the challenge or not.
As for the collaborative effort, there is a difference between getting together as a group and giving tips on editing, image selection, treatments, etc. and deciding as a group a specific genre and titling method. We do the former all the time as a learning/mentoring effort. We even have the DPL where teams compete against each other. As for the latter, now you're talking a different game. This has nothing to do with learning, mentoring, or improving one's skill.
Approximately 10% of the entrants partook in this little game. Let me ask you this, at what point DOES this de-legitimize the challenge format, 20%, 50%? What if instead of 11 or 12 people it was 50 or 60? Would that make a difference?
If you think this is acceptable for 10%, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't have a problem if 75% of the entrants did this.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:26:33 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
If you think this is acceptable for 10%, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't have a problem if 75% of the entrants did this. |
Actually we are working on that. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:31:29 PM · #35 |
Clearly there are opposing views on this. I must say that I felt as though your clique-ish experiment wasted my time in reviewing, voting and commenting for this challenge of a specific discipline of photography. Yours were product shots only in the sense of your group's imagined abstract catalog concept, which, by that definition would've made this pretty much an open challenge of any image. I felt your intention to redefine the challenge took my focus and attention off of those who were trying to meet and participate in the challenge as it was described.
Isn't this what side challenges are for - instead of polluting an actual challenge with images?
|
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:37:35 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Isn't this what side challenges are for - instead of polluting an actual challenge with images? |
Polluting? Nonsense. The challenge was adulterated! |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:47:26 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Isn't this what side challenges are for - instead of polluting an actual challenge with images? |
Polluting? Nonsense. The challenge was adulterated! |
Neither. We FORTIFIED it, actually :-)
It was a work of conceptual art, people. We had a little fun. Some of these responses are mind-boggling... Certainly, no disrespect was intended.
R. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:49:04 PM · #38 |
| Adulterate: to inject some thoughtful mature stuff into stuff. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:55:04 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Adulterate: to inject some thoughtful mature stuff into stuff. |
Not so sure the Catholic church would use that definition... |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:59:18 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It was a work of conceptual art, people. We had a little fun. Some of these responses are mind-boggling... Certainly, no disrespect was intended.
R. |
Exactly. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 12:59:55 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Isn't this what side challenges are for - instead of polluting an actual challenge with images? |
Polluting? Nonsense. The challenge was adulterated! |
Neither. We FORTIFIED it, actually :-)
It was a work of conceptual art, people. We had a little fun. Some of these responses are mind-boggling... Certainly, no disrespect was intended.
R. |
I find them quite hysterical. It seems to me if you read between the lines that those objecting seem to feel "excluded" and that is what's so bothersome to them. If you are one of the "offended" I'd suggest you examine your motives/feelings on this some more because an entry on an internet challenge site shouldn't be able to bother you to to the point of name calling and outright anger. As for polluting... basically you're calling these photographers pictures trash. I think an apology might be in order. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 01:40:26 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by northebound:
Originally posted by tnun:
Adulterate: to inject some thoughtful mature stuff into stuff. |
Not so sure the Catholic church would use that definition... |
Alas, there are many churches that do not share my sense of humour. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 01:51:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I find them quite hysterical. It seems to me if you read between the lines that those objecting seem to feel "excluded" and that is what's so bothersome to them. If you are one of the "offended" I'd suggest you examine your motives/feelings on this some more because an entry on an internet challenge site shouldn't be able to bother you to to the point of name calling and outright anger. As for polluting... basically you're calling these photographers pictures trash. I think an apology might be in order. |
Not at all offended. And those images that were good, I commented accordingly. I voted per the challenge topic and description though.
Had I wanted to review/vote and possibly learn about abstract images, I doubt I would go to a product shot challenge for that. In turn, what do I stand to learn about product shots from abstract images.
Collaboration is fine and in the right instances is of great benefit to the site. Collaboration in a non-team environment for an off-topic purpose that impacts the overall results (user experience, not score) just seems like a wasteful exercise. Again, why not just have a side-challenge and produce a catalog of abstract photography - my be cool, I don't know.
I'm interested in the All Things Being Equal challenge, but would including 10 off-topic abstract images really be worthwhile to the voters? Possibly? Probably not.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2010 02:00:28 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Isn't this what side challenges are for - instead of polluting an actual challenge with images? |
Polluting? Nonsense. The challenge was adulterated! |
Neither. We FORTIFIED it, actually :-)
It was a work of conceptual art, people. We had a little fun. Some of these responses are mind-boggling... Certainly, no disrespect was intended.
R. |
What reaction did you expect? I find it hard to believe that no one thought this would be received badly.
This is particularly disturbing from a few of the people that are DPC royalty in my mind.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2010 02:00:55 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I'm interested in the All Things Being Equal challenge, but would including 10 off-topic abstract images really be worthwhile to the voters? Possibly? Probably not. |
Seriously, here's the thing of it:
1. Abstract art IS a "product", it's produced and sold all the time.
2. A common means of selling art is through shows, and shows have catalogs.
3. Therefore, the idea of a "catalog of abstract art" is not in the least far-fetched, and it definitely has some reference to the challenge theme embedded in it. Granted, it's an out-of-the-box take on the topic, but so what?
Seriously, man... It's not about what YOU (as a voter/viewer) want to find in or take from the challenge, it's about what all of US, as photographers, want to put into it... The viewer/voter has a tremendous amount of control over the "results" just by voting; the position you're taking goes even beyond that, basically excoriating people for not meeting your expectations of what they should enter.
As far as the "All Things Being Equal" challenge goes, a catalog would make no SENSE in that context, see? We wouldn't have done this for that challenge. The concept "catalog" was actually embedded in the description of the other challenge, and that was our starting point.
R. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 02:02:35 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
What reaction did you expect? |
Not one of childish ranting and cries of elitism, surely. Not one that sounds suspiciously like "hands off my DPC". |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 02:05:34 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
What reaction did you expect? I find it hard to believe that no one thought this would be received badly.
This is particularly disturbing from a few of the people that are DPC royalty in my mind. |
Actually, *I* think of *you* as a long-time member whose opinions and insight I respect, and I'm astonished you're pushing at this the way you are. So it goes; we'll both get over it. As for what reaction "we" expected, there's actually been very little negative reaction, certainly just as much positive reaction, as far as I can see, so that's about par for the course whenever you do something different in DPC...
R. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 02:05:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I find them quite hysterical. It seems to me if you read between the lines that those objecting seem to feel "excluded" and that is what's so bothersome to them. If you are one of the "offended" I'd suggest you examine your motives/feelings on this some more because an entry on an internet challenge site shouldn't be able to bother you to to the point of name calling and outright anger. As for polluting... basically you're calling these photographers pictures trash. I think an apology might be in order. |
*removed* I'm done here
Message edited by author 2010-03-29 14:07:27. |
|
|
|
03/29/2010 02:51:12 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... As for what reaction "we" expected, there's actually been very little negative reaction, certainly just as much positive reaction, as far as I can see, so that's about par for the course whenever you do something different in DPC...
R. |
The Product Shot II thread was smoldering for a while during the challenge. It's an interesting read, especially now knowing the players. Yes there was a fair amount of opinions on both sides of the debate...although many in the Abstract Club were quite active with the counter-points.
I get the feeling that not everyone voiced a visible opinion either. The accumulated results for the Abstract Club entries came in with 360 1's versus 22 10's. With 12 entries that's an average of 30 1's and not quite 2 10's for each. That tells me that this wasn't received favorably.
Here's a look at a handful of thoughts from last weeks debate laying out the points of contention:
Originally posted by tfarrell23:
Just a thought...OOB has and always will be a norm for any Challenge here at DPC... there should be no argument there...I think that what should be discussed is the amount of discussion among 12 entrants planning to enter like images with almost exact titles.
Even with the promise of not voting on the images...there is an uneasy feeling of a secret agreement between a number of people...that sort of cheapens the authenticity of
of the Challenge. ...
So now we have 12 individuals...trying to make a point..or let's just say have a little fun...but no one else is in the know...it is the opportunity for suspicion and that not everyone KNOWS..that makes for the split between the two factions here. Next time it could be 24 people...where do 12...24...36 people go to to discuss this type of interaction? That is another fly in the ointment... |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
While I don't think something like this is intended to be harmful it is in a way putting a neon sign over the entries taking away a bit of anonymity. These entries could be getting higher scores than they could be getting if they were good ole oobies we see every challenge because people might get carried away with the 'oh, look at the vision and the creativity' bit while ignoring actual content of image. These entries are getting judged as a group whether you like it or not. A person who hates the idea(and perhaps not the image, just the idea) might be giving out 1s to each and everyone of them.
As a one time experiment it's okay but I can see other less mature versions of this cropping up. Allusions to users, collaborations could pop up in titles from this and I'm cringing at the idea. |
Originally posted by Jac:
To all the abstract submitters, you're pathetic and taking away from this challenge with your invasive dictatorial attitudes. You don't like DPC, leave. You're a minority here, a very small one at that. |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
It's obvious that there was some sort of collusion with the abstract entries, and on a pretty large scale.
Is that a good thing?
IMO, what probably started out as a little joke has only succeeded in making a mockery of this particular challenge.
Well played. :-( |
Originally posted by Sevlow:
I really dont understand these entries at all, its just beyond me.
Whatever, I have an uneasy feeling about this type of organised action, it does not sit well with me at all. |
Originally posted by kleski:
It's evident that the group behind this have not considered anyone else before this challenge started...
What started as a joke by 10% of the submitters has once again resulted in a controversy on DPC. Why?? How many more people are looking on at this thread saying it's time to move on to another site? Good photographers who want to participate in a serious challenge but see this type of behavior...how many people need to be driven away because of sh*t stirring?? I can understand when a person submits something to buck the system but now a whole group? What were they hoping for??
What are the costs? Members and friends... |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
But again, the most disturbing aspect of this is that there was obviously communications among these folks to discuss about what kind of image to enter and how to title it. There is a big difference in this and asking for help in choosing an entry, editing tips, etc. |
|
|
|
|
03/29/2010 03:02:13 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I get the feeling that not everyone voiced a visible opinion either. The accumulated results for the Abstract Club entries came in with 360 1's versus 22 10's. With 12 entries that's an average of 30 1's and not quite 2 10's for each. That tells me that this wasn't received favorably. |
Let's make a distinction here, though; we KNEW the images would be scored by most as DNMC: we didn't enter them expecting high scores, far from it. I don't think the fact that so many people gave the images very low votes necessarily means that most, or even many, of those voters also felt that we had somehow "done something wrong" by entering these images in the challenge.
Certainly, I've scored many images low on account of feeling they didn't meet a particular challenge, but I can't recall offhand getting ticked off that any of these were entered in the first place. Likewise, I have seen many examples of two or more people shooting the same thing at the same time, and never felt especially annoyed at the "collaboration". We're seeing a lot of same-subject entries from Judi and Brat, for example, because Brat is working for/with Judi...
The interesting thing here is that none of us had any influence over, or even awareness of, the others' entries (except inasmuch as some of us live with one of the others) until the challenge posted for voting. We just said to each other, "Wouldn't it be fun to do a 'catalog'?", agreed to make it a catalog of abstract art (it could have been clothing, it could have been shoes, it could have been anything, didn't matter really) and then we went out independently of any feedback and shot our entries. Not only that, we agreed not to vote on the challenge so there would be no hint of collusion whatsoever.
Honestly, I fail to see what the problem is...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-03-29 15:03:03. |
|
