| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2010 11:07:32 PM · #26 |
It seems to me, and I could be way off base, that what Don's after here is not so much to stop photographers from *doing* the imitation or replication thing (it IS, after all, a valid way to learn), but rather to find a way to discourage voters from *rewarding* it with ribbons, when there's no creativity or originality whatsoever involved. And I understand that, and I sympathize.
I don't think, however, that what he's proposing is in any way viable. Heck, I don't do anything original really, or hardly anything.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 23:07:51.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:09:07 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Amazing that it doesn't even occur to some people that originality might be valued by some voters. |
It is. As for myself, I often give extra pointage to something more original. I won't ding the 1217th wow shot of wine glasses. It still gets a positive vote from me for being well done, but it also does not get the highest votes. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:10:50 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It seems to me, and I could be way off base, that what Don's after here is not so much to stop photographers from *doing* the imitation or replication thing (it IS, after all, a valid way to learn), but rather to find a way to discourage voters from *rewarding* it with ribbons, when there's no creativity or originality whatsoever involved. And I understand that, and I sympathize.
I don't think, however, that what he's proposing is in any way viable. Heck, I don't do anything original really, or hardly anything.
R. |
I think the only thing we as photographers can lay claim to is an interesting perspective on the image we generate.
Really, it's the reason I process the way I do.......it's rare that an imnage I offer up looks like what's there.....it's more what I see when I look at a scene.
As far as influencing voters......rotsa ruck! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:11:15 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Amazing that it doesn't even occur to some people that originality might be valued by some voters. |
It is. As for myself, I often give extra pointage to something more original. I won't ding the 1217th wow shot of wine glasses. It still gets a positive vote from me for being well done, but it also does not get the highest votes. |
same here... if I think an image deserves a 6 but it is totally original and creative i add a point and give it a 7. etc.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:17:27 PM · #30 |
Are you saying these (for example) are in this group?
 
There are so many variations. You can have an original take on an existing idea, where do you draw the line?
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 23:17:44. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:17:47 PM · #31 |
| oy, Jebikins. photography is not the reproduction of things. especially not of things as they are in themselves. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:20:54 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by MichaelC:
Are you saying these (for example) are in this group?
There are so many variations. You can have an original take on an existing idea, where do you draw the line? |
I'm not saying where to draw the line. Go ahead and post the originals of those photos and let the voter decide. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:25:41 PM · #33 |
| OK now we have SOME clarification....you're saying a copy of photos, not an idea |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:28:17 PM · #34 |
I'm not good enough at searching to find the original thread or the two original images, but does anyone remember those red tumbling telephone booths from a long time back? they were English, probably from London, and were a humorous bit of sculpture.
One DPCer took a picture of this and did well with it; much later on another entered it in a Challenge and also did well with it. While neither had any idea that the other had entered it at a different time, it seems to me there was a loud cry of plagiarism and a long thread on the subject.
Eventually it was decided that it's all fair game and there was 'no foul.'
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:32:46 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
does anyone remember those red tumbling telephone booths from a long time back? they were English, probably from London, and were a humorous bit of sculpture. |
 |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:36:57 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by JustCaree:
if I think an image deserves a 6 but it is totally original and creative i add a point and give it a 7. etc. |
If it's not original and not creative, what earned a six to begin with?
And just one point for totally original and creative?
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 23:42:07. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:37:32 PM · #37 |
Jeepers,  Yo_Spiff, how do you DO that!
Now, go find the other one!
:))
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 23:37:53.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:40:20 PM · #38 |
 
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 23:41:14. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:44:25 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by JustCaree:
if I think an image deserves a 6 but it is totally original and creative i add a point and give it a 7. etc. |
If it's not original and not creative, what earned a six to begin with?
And just one point for totally original and creative? |
yup. just one point. but around here one point is the difference between awesome and average....
and an image can be a 6 and not be completely original or creative... just look at how many wineglasses and bugs etc we have had on the front page.... techincals and composition color and processing etc... all add to an image... creativity is just ad added bonus.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:50:41 PM · #40 |
Yes, Yo_Spiff, you have the talent. One of those images was 2004; the other was 2007.
So if we adopted a 'no copy' mandate, would there be a statute/statue of limitations?
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself)
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:58:36 PM · #41 |
| the statue of limitations shall be awarded for the best copy. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 12:05:24 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by JustCaree:
... creativity is just ad added bonus. |
A catchy motto... I think we can sell it. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 12:13:24 AM · #43 |
Excellent Idea!
This way, we don't have to see any more photos of:
Water drops
Bugs
Flowers
Mountains
Wine glasses
Portraits
Hummingbirds
Cobwebs
Roads
Foliage
Colored pencils
Colored water in tubes
Rainbows
Balls
Churches (HDR)
Boats
Cars
Balloons popping
Trees
Woodies
Forks
After all that is done, we can vote on the most creative use of toe jam.
Maybe its because the TOS and MSA don't specifically state "have fun", but DPC is supposed to be a place to have fun, show off your skills, learn new skills, and participate in friendly competition.
So what if someone take a photo and someone else tries to replicate it? Good. If they succeed on recreating it and its better, then its a fantastic accomplishment. Now, those two people can have a nice friendly rivalry. (This is still supposed to be fun right?)
There have been many photos used as inspiration in one way or another. Most of the time, those photographers have given credit to where their inspiration has come from. No matter how much one tries, there will always be some difference, even subtle. So much as the tilt of the head, or color balance can dramatically change the photo, make it better or worse than the other.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2010 12:17:40 AM · #44 |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 12:31:23 AM · #45 |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 01:16:08 AM · #46 |
Maybe the WHOLE voting system needs a revamp - instead of the current 1>10 we could break it down further:-
Originality 1>5
Composition 1>5
Technique 1>5
Lets have radio buttons marked 1 to 5, click on them - job done!
Of course that means 3 clicks instead of 1 so voting would take longer !
Easier said than done but it is an idea that I think warrants consideration.
Message edited by author 2010-08-28 01:19:04. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 02:13:35 AM · #47 |
The voters ALREADY decide how they want to score originality and it is IMPOSSIBLE for all voters to have knowledge or memory of ALL photos ever taken, so they're originality points will be subjective based on that voters knowledge, experience and tolerance. It is incomprehensibly ABSURD to suggest that people start calling out photos in threads during voting for ANY reason, let alone unoriginality.
Apart from the ill-conceived suggestion, Don, I think you are taking the challenges much too seriously. Take a break and photoshop a Godzilla image. ...you know, so i can call you out in a forum post. ;-) Kidding ya, ya know. Seriously though, too serious.
And if this thread devolves into a discussion on recommended changes to the voting system, I'll have to put it on ignore and go watch endless reruns of Groundhog Day. ;-) No offense, just a warning on the fruitlessness of that topic. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 02:54:03 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The voters ALREADY decide how they want to score originality and it is IMPOSSIBLE for all voters to have knowledge or memory of ALL photos ever taken, so they're originality points will be subjective based on that voters knowledge, experience and tolerance. It is incomprehensibly ABSURD to suggest that people start calling out photos in threads during voting for ANY reason, let alone unoriginality.
Apart from the ill-conceived suggestion, Don, I think you are taking the challenges much too seriously. Take a break and photoshop a Godzilla image. ...you know, so i can call you out in a forum post. ;-) Kidding ya, ya know. Seriously though, too serious.
And if this thread devolves into a discussion on recommended changes to the voting system, I'll have to put it on ignore and go watch endless reruns of Groundhog Day. ;-) No offense, just a warning on the fruitlessness of that topic. |
Nuff said. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 03:15:55 AM · #49 |
Thinking aloud now, so don't pound me too hard but imagine this...
Just once, we do an experiment. We run a challenge - a Free Study might be good, where as comments are submitted they are visible to all. We allow ourselves to be influenced (or not) by the comments of others, we get to see how the image communicates to a wider audience, we can share our own reflections. Don could call out whether the image is original or not, someone else could say they didn't care. Most art is subject to communal critique - it happens in side challenges all the time, though often I think they tend to err on the complimentary side rather than offer a full spectrum of opinion.
Perhaps, the photographer should join in the debate, perhaps they shouldn't (I'd favour keeping the photographer anonymous) - call the challenge 'Public Gallery - Free Study'
We say we learn from the photography of others, perhaps there is something to be learnt from sharing interpretations while we can still modify our score.
I know people will say that the value of the image should be in the eye of the beholder, I agree, but we aren't always the best viewers, sometimes context or an artistic reference is fundamental to the story being conveyed properly and sometimes I didn't spend long enough looking and I missed a really interesting corner of an image....
I can also see the tension in keeping the image anonymous for this sort of activity since perhaps part of the value of an image lies with how it articulates with the photographer's other work. I still favour anonymity for other reasons though.
To return to the OP, the irony of my post is that I have no idea whether it has been suggested before - and from my perspective I've never thought about it before - it is original to me.
Should I duck now?
Message edited by author 2010-08-28 03:17:23. |
|
|
|
08/28/2010 03:19:55 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Thinking aloud now, so don't pound me too hard but imagine this...
Just once, we do an experiment. We run a challenge - a Free Study might be good, where as comments are submitted they are visible to all. We allow ourselves to be influenced (or not) by the comments of others, we get to see how the image communicates to a wider audience, we can share our own reflections. Don could call out whether the image is original or not, someone else could say they didn't care. Most art is subject to communal critique - it happens in side challenges all the time, though often I think they tend to err on the complimentary side rather than offer a full spectrum of opinion.
Perhaps, the photographer should join in the debate, perhaps they shouldn't (I'd favour keeping the photographer anonymous) - call the challenge 'Public Gallery - Free Study'
We say we learn from the photography of others, perhaps there is something to be learnt from sharing interpretations while we can still modify our score.
I know people will say that the value of the image should be in the eye of the beholder, I agree, but we aren't always the best viewers, sometimes context or an artistic reference is fundamental to the story being conveyed properly and sometimes I didn't spend long enough looking and I missed a really interesting corner of an image....
I can also see the tension in keeping the image anonymous for this sort of activity since perhaps part of the value of an image lies with how it articulates with the photographer's other work. I still favour anonymity for other reasons though.
To return to the OP, the irony of my post is that I have no idea whether it has been suggested before - and from my perspective I've never thought about it before - it is original to me.
Should I duck now? |
Art is watching Groundhog Day, I know it...
Yeah, that would actually be a ton of fun.. It'll never happen, but it would be superb. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 06:07:06 AM EDT.
