| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2002 04:12:42 PM · #1 |
I will start this rant with: I'm sorry, but beauty does "appeal" to me more than ugly. I've never been good at separating my emotional and rational sides. All I can say is, I will try to do better. Subject Matter - I don't like religion (my bad), others don't like flowers or kittens, or naked men...whatever. I realize my failing here and try to raise above it. If you don't like flower shots, or whatever, could you please do the same, TRY to raise above it. Look at the photo for it's technical merits or lack there of. Good photography - that's what we are all here for, right? Is it that hard to separate? I know that good photography can/should evoke an emotional response. Even if your response is negative, the photo did it's job! Reward it for doing so, please don't punish the photo. Thank you.
By the way, this is has nothing to do with my current shot, my next shot, my last shot and so forth. Just food for thought/enlightenment. |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 04:27:04 PM · #2 |
| I must agree with swashbuckler's comment. I have gotten comments stating that people didn't "like" my subject so my score was lower. When I score a photo I'm more interested in the presentation of the subject than whether I like the subject or not. There are some great photographers who put a lot of effort and imagination into their work. It's a shame to lower their scores because I don't like rust or flowers or cats or dogs.... |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 04:28:56 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 04:50:26 PM · #4 |
Subject matter has little or no affect on my rating. However, visual appeal does. Say someone take a really aweful photo of a beautiful boquet of flowers (I like flowers) and someone else takes a gorgous photo of a snake (I don't like snakes). The snake get the score. That's the fair way to do it, right? If I make a comment that it's visually unappealing to me, I try to state WHY it is, and also state that it's just an opinion. For example, the false teeth last challenge. My dad used to make me carry his teeth to the glass in the bathroom and that photo reminded me of that, however I scored it high, cause it was executed well.
That's what your talking about, right?
I'm so tired today. I think I'm getting what my son has. Ick.
~Heather~ |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 04:51:03 PM · #5 |
| O.K., even I have to draw the line somewhere. IMO, horse parts are not pencils. I could be wrong here, but last I looked...... |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 04:56:05 PM · #6 |
And I'll say this again: I don't have a problem with any of the categories we hold up as stereotypical -- I just have a problem with the majority of the shots that fall into those categories on this site. I'm sorry, but many/most of those shots simply aren't that good. It has nothing to do with the fact that you have a puppy or a lily or your newborn child in the shot -- it's the fact that the shot with said subject has an extremely busy background, or looks to have been taken as a last minute entry, or whatever...
|
|
|
|
08/21/2002 04:58:11 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
Just food for thought/enlightenment.
Enlightenment? Sorry, gotta penalize your post 3 points for religion :)
(Yes, I'm kidding)
I've noticed that shots with any religious reference, a flower, pet, or child, do very poorly here... Although this can be overcome by exceptional shoots... My slant on this is that if you want to brave a shot with one of these in it, make it a dang good shot or expect a low score... Right? Wrong? Beats me... True? I'd say yep... |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 05:00:35 PM · #8 |
I am in total agreement with Swash.
I try very hard not to penalize just because I don't care for the subject. I may note that in my comment, but won't vote it down just for that.
That is, with the exception that is if it is completely inappropriate, distateful or hateful.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2002 05:00:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
O.K., even I have to draw the line somewhere. IMO, horse parts are not pencils. I could be wrong here, but last I looked......
Actually, before you draw that line, check Webster's Unabridged definition of "Pencil"... The horse meets the challenge... |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 05:10:58 PM · #10 |
Let't not forget that subjectivity does play an important role in a viewer's reaction to a photograph. I think it's natural phenomenon for a voter to score a photo lower when they simply don't like the subject of the photo.
I have also seen instances of people making comments along the lines of "I normally don't like shots of flowers/kids/pets/whatever, but this is an exceptional photo.. well done!"
|
|
|
|
08/21/2002 05:23:50 PM · #11 |
Wow, live and learn! So pencil is a derivative of penis. I would have never guessed. The originally stated Challenge included wording specific to #2 pencils that are not universally available, so the site admins broadened the wording (too much). I will leave it at that.
My apologies to Websters for not knowing the origin of the word Pencil.
John, thanks for the better wording.
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]O.K., even I have to draw the line somewhere. IMO, horse parts are not pencils. I could be wrong here, but last I looked......
Actually, before you draw that line, check Webster's Unabridged definition of "Pencil"... The horse meets the challenge...[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/21/2002 5:23:35 PM. |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 05:56:40 PM · #12 |
I am sorry, but I don't like nudety when you can see the parts. I consider that pornagraphy. If they cover them. mci photo It is not so bad. I happened to give mci an 8 for that photo.
Flowers, religion, bugs, snakes (yuke) and anything else are cool with me. I will score them on how well the picture is taken.
Please no more pornography. (Double Yuke) |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 08:29:46 PM · #13 |
While I agree with the SPIRIT OF THIS THREAD, there are instances when I just find the subject to be in poor taste. In those instances, I DO penalize with score because it is the only effective tool I have. That said, I also leave a comment explaining that I found it in poor taste and why, and I speak to the technical aspects of the photo if they are noteworthy.
When I decide to make a photo, I should be aware that people are going to react to it -- if it's something I suspect people will respond negatively to, I don't show it to those people. For example, it's not likely I will be posting any more baby photos. It doesn't mean they're not good. And it doesn't mean the subject appeals to me less. It just means this is not the audience for it. Lesson learned. :-)
Dawn |
|
|
|
08/21/2002 08:45:59 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I am sorry, but I don't like nudety when you can see the parts. I consider that pornagraphy. If they cover them. mci photo It is not so bad. I happened to give mci an 8 for that photo.
Flowers, religion, bugs, snakes (yuke) and anything else are cool with me. I will score them on how well the picture is taken.
Please no more pornography. (Double Yuke)
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. All nudes are not pornography. The human form is beautiful (sometimes...sorry ugly naked pencil guy) and does not deserve to be lumped into "pornography" just because someone is lacking clothes.
Would you say Michaelangelo's David is pornography? Any nude painting? If they are not, then why should a nude photograph -- essentially, another way of exploring our view of the world around us -- be considered as such?
Rob
|
|
|
|
08/21/2002 11:24:26 PM · #15 |
| Dawn, For what it's worth, I thought Day One is a fantastic shot which I gave a 9 (would have been 10 but some of the glare distracted)... I have also learned the lesson you learned and won't submit a child picture unless I just don't care about the score (which is actually most of the time come to think about it :) ) Live and learn... |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 12:01:34 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by muckpond:.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. All nudes are not pornography. The human form is beautiful (sometimes...sorry ugly naked pencil guy) and does not deserve to be lumped into "pornography" just because someone is lacking clothes.
Would you say Michaelangelo's David is pornography? Any nude painting? If they are not, then why should a nude photograph -- essentially, another way of exploring our view of the world around us -- be considered as such?
Rob
Yes I would say that to me it is Porn. I just don't care to see anyones parts. It should be kept behind closed doors with your husband or wife. Just my religious beliefs. Sorry. I can handle the partial nudety, but come on lets draw the line somewhere.
No hard feelings. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2002 12:34:21 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Dawn, For what it's worth, I thought Day One is a fantastic shot which I gave a 9 (would have been 10 but some of the glare distracted)... I have also learned the lesson you learned and won't submit a child picture unless I just don't care about the score (which is actually most of the time come to think about it :) ) Live and learn...
Thanks myqyl. I appreciate it. Really though, my feelings aren't hurt and I'm not distressed over it. I also think it's a nice shot. I'm glad that you appreciate it and thanks for the encouragement. I got some really nice comments and that made me feel good.
By the way, I agree about the glare. That is one thing I would like to see a tutorial on. I absolutely stink at using Photoshop to minimize glare and shadow. Although, it may not be useful for dpchallenge as it might count as a spot edit, I would still love to learn some tips.
Thanks again for your kind words. :-)
Dawn |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 01:39:50 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Sonifo
Yes I would say that to me it is Porn. I just don't care to see anyones parts. It should be kept behind closed doors with your husband or wife. Just my religious beliefs. Sorry. I can handle the partial nudety, but come on lets draw the line somewhere.
No hard feelings. Just my opinion.
I prefer it outside with my lesbian lover... I mean... (sorry, that was a bad joke).
I respect religious differences, but not to the point that they impose unreasonable conditions on a majority of people who don't agree with them. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe that most people who come to DPC and submit or vote don't mind a tasteful nude. PhotoJim's small hint of genitalia was not roundly objected to on the grounds of taste (people had lots of other objections though :)). We have yet to see a well photographed full-frontal nude of either gender (I think), so the theory has not been fully tested (hmmm.... *makes a note for about next week's challenge*.... no, I'm joking again), but I think it would be allowed if it was well done. So, I understand that you have objections, but this site really operates on the assumption that what the majority of people are happy with is OK by us. Will you go along with that when the time comes? |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 02:24:07 AM · #19 |
Well, I'd like to take a picture of a baby with its finger stuck in an apple pie, surrounded by stuffed animals and American flags, sitting on a bed of flowers and being licked by a puppy, in front of a church, at sunset, just as the ships are sailing out to sea! I could offend everybody equaly with the pure innocense, beauty, and good feeling of it all. Maybe I could squeeze an old hippie beating up on a crippled veteran into the background, just for good measure. Heck, I don't like pencils or horses.
And it took considerably less than a thousand words to paint this one!
Robbie |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 02:36:18 AM · #20 |
I've thought better of this post, since it discusses my religous beliefs and why I believe nudity is a tribute to God instead of an embarrassment to God...
Suffice to say it had quotes from the Bible (Matthew 6:27-28 if anyone cares) and got a bit preachy toward the end about tolerence and original sin :)
I feel it's better if I just say "I think nudity is as valid a subject of art as are Lillies of the Field" :)
But this puts it a bit nicer :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/22/2002 2:44:34 AM. |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 04:52:21 AM · #21 |
| nudity? If it ain't porn, skip it. What is the point after all? There is a statue just a block away from the White House, that when viewed from a certain angle shows a very clear act of sexual abuse being committed upon a young man by an athority figure, swords drawn and fully nude. I have the picture. There are people in here who are offended by fuzzy stuffed animals, and you want to debate the value of artistic nudes? The sexuality of flowers is too much for some of us to handle. One view of a pistol and they go off half cocked! Even babies offend people. Because they are the result of an act of congress, I suppose.And God(oops another offense) forbid we might show some patriotism. Robbie |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 05:43:14 AM · #22 |
rapsiii3 - patriotism is a different matter than nudity and the "cliche" subjects of babies, sunsets etc. It's possible for people from any country or religion, etc. to look at the other types of photos you've listed and appreciate them. It's just not possible for me to look at a photo of an American flag and see it the same way you do. If you want to submit photos of flags, just bear that in mind. They don't have universal appeal on an international website with international voters. And because of facts of history or current events, some people will even hold a grudge against that symbolism (perhaps as a mark of their own patriotism).
The fact that one American flag photo has won a challenge, and has been chosen by the most people as their favourite, shows that there really isn't that huge a backlash against it though. |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 06:28:14 AM · #23 |
Touchy outlanders! If you can't see what I mean through your nationalism, than I don't suppose it is possible for you to see thru your anti nationalism either. Go ahead and hate me! I'm just an ugly American practioner of the photo-arts. Cats make me sneeze and itch but I like a good cat picture. I never have had a feeling of any kind when I saw a picture of someone elses flag. But when I see pictures of my flag being burned in the streets of forign capitols, I have strong feelings. Puppies make me feel all warm and fuzzy. If you got a problem with flowers and other "cliches" then such is your loss.When God and Country (yours or mine) are not fit subjects for artistic expression, then it might just be time to burn the churches in Rome, throw the world into a new dark age, ban Islam, condemn parenthood, and let you dog crap on the sidewalk and not even have to carry a pooper-scooper!
You just go right ahead and judge your flags. I came here to look at pictures. |
|
|
|
08/22/2002 06:45:52 AM · #24 |
Raspii,
Don't get too uptight about it... there are certain images that you can produce that will stir some sort of negative emotion in just about anyone. Some people feel strongly about certain things. It doesn't matter what the image really looks like, but if it hits a sore spot with someone, the actual image is never seen.
Photographers who walk this line have to get used to these things :)
|
|
|
|
08/22/2002 08:40:59 AM · #25 |
rapsiii3, you're just flame throwing. No one could possibly read my post and interpret it as anti-American.
Honestly, inviting arguments over nationalism with the world as it is right now is pretty ridiculous. I hope no one takes you up on that. |
|
