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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Photo finally published!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 67, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/25/2010 10:01:29 PM · #1
Originally posted by rugman1969:



I still don't think you understand why I started this thread. It was because my photo was posted on another website wwhere people appreciated it, not because of the vote score it recieved here.


Appreciated it in what context? The very premise of your argument is seemingly predicated on the assumption that the appreciation factor was relative to the same set of conditions... they were not...end of argument.

Originally posted by rugman1969:

I don't really care what it recieved here, I was proud of it regardless.


Perhaps I am misreading these comments you made, as they seem to suggest otherwise:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Finally published! This photo got a 4.7 in still life challenge, rejected by 1x, and now Photo of the Week on allears.net. Go figure. Finally, some people appreciate a good photo.


There is no denying that the image is a good one, but I must align myself with Bear_Music in this instance, your image did not meet those parameters normally associated with Still Life.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-08-25 22:05:14.
08/25/2010 07:35:25 PM · #2
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

The Voter


The Voter on this site. Not every site has voters.


True, but it was the voters on this site who you feel did not judge it fairly, when it comes to challenges half the battle is portraying a subject in a way the voters can connect it to the challenge topic, right or wrong their interpretation is the one they will vote. I remember seeing a little league coach talking to one of his players and he asked "were you out on second base yesterday" the kid said "I was safe by a mile", the coach asked him again "were you out" and said "no, the ump made a bad call", the coach said "maybe, but were you out", the kid lowered his head and said "ya, I was out".

If one person gets joy out of one of my shots I have succeeded and in your case yours was published which is awesome and congratulations!
08/25/2010 07:31:23 PM · #3
Originally posted by rugman1969:

A still life (plural still lifes[1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting.

Your definition.

Q: What about Space Mountain makes it a commonplace object?
A: Nothing

Q: What about the housing of Space Mountain, a building, in the open air, like any other building, places it in an artificial setting?
A: Nothing

Holy hell, dude, give it a rest. You've gotten your photo published and have scored better than I have in the current challenge, and I've actually met the requirements.

Congrats on the recognition, but I fear for you when you're reviewing the little league game you shot with your wedding clients.

Don't get defensive. Learn from this.

Message edited by author 2010-08-25 19:32:25.
08/25/2010 07:13:31 PM · #4
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.


See your point. I can see both sides, but I guess I am more liberal when it comes to what is and isn't still life. Show me a car parked in a prking lot and I'll say not still life, but show me a car that has been sitting in a yard for 35 years, and I will call it still life.

Okay, that's still life. But it's not StillLife™.


Based on many from this website, it is not considered still life, but based on many many other sites, it is. So who's right? The minority or the majority?


The Voter


The Voter on this site. Not every site has voters.


Dude, give it up. Space Mountain will never be a still life, ever. It is not a matter of opinion. It's like saying, in your opinion, the earth is flat. No matter how many people you find that agree with you, it's wrong. It's OK to be wrong. The more you fight it, the more absurd it gets.

Anyway, congrats on getting published on the Disney site. Well done!
08/25/2010 06:57:07 PM · #5
Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.


See your point. I can see both sides, but I guess I am more liberal when it comes to what is and isn't still life. Show me a car parked in a prking lot and I'll say not still life, but show me a car that has been sitting in a yard for 35 years, and I will call it still life.

Okay, that's still life. But it's not StillLife™.


Based on many from this website, it is not considered still life, but based on many many other sites, it is. So who's right? The minority or the majority?


The Voter


The Voter on this site. Not every site has voters.
08/25/2010 06:52:59 PM · #6
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

How this thread is ending up with DNMC discussions is beyond me. Not once did I mention DNMC. I was just relating the fact that a photo was thought to be good enough to publish on a website. And to clear something up here, if people voted majorily on the technical aspects and merits of a photo as long as they meet the rules and somewhat fit in a challenge, not a blatant disregard of the submission subjct, instead of voting on a picture based on them knowing who submitted it, many others' photos would do a lot better in challenges than they do now.


You're missing the point: the reason your image scored low is because it did NOT "somewhat fit in the challenge", and you can't show me any serious photography or art site that would call this image a still life. All of your attempts to "prove" it's a still life with weak interpretations of non-authoritative definitions notwithstanding, that image does NOT qualify as a still life according to the voters of DPC and according to any serious source of art definitions.

If the challenge had been "Disney Theme Parks" it would have been a publishable picture, and guess what? You found such a challenge, and it was published!

What's the mystery in this?

R.


No mystery at all. I am not missing the point. You are missing the point of this whole thread because of your closed mind and convoluted way of thinking.The concept of still life is very varied from what I see, and obviously is now broken into still life themes by many photographers and painters, whereas many things would fit into this. Maybe when a still life challenge comes up from now on, it can be theme specific..I.e. still life landscape theme, still life flower theme, etc... Obviously, over the years many artists' minds have expanded and opened up to other interpretations of what still life is instead of the 500 year old standard way of thinking, which is why many other sites have still life catergories with buildings and landscapes and other things in them now.
I still don't think you understand why I started this thread. It was because my photo was posted on another website wwhere people appreciated it, not because of the vote score it recieved here. I don't really care what it recieved here, I was proud of it regardless. I am not looking to argue about all of these specifics you insist on bringing up. If you don't care whether it was recognized or not, stop writing back and go to another thread. I didn't ask for an opinion, I was sharing my happiness.

Message edited by author 2010-08-25 18:55:31.
08/25/2010 05:36:52 PM · #7
Originally posted by rugman1969:

How this thread is ending up with DNMC discussions is beyond me. Not once did I mention DNMC. I was just relating the fact that a photo was thought to be good enough to publish on a website. And to clear something up here, if people voted majorily on the technical aspects and merits of a photo as long as they meet the rules and somewhat fit in a challenge, not a blatant disregard of the submission subjct, instead of voting on a picture based on them knowing who submitted it, many others' photos would do a lot better in challenges than they do now.


You're missing the point: the reason your image scored low is because it did NOT "somewhat fit in the challenge", and you can't show me any serious photography or art site that would call this image a still life. All of your attempts to "prove" it's a still life with weak interpretations of non-authoritative definitions notwithstanding, that image does NOT qualify as a still life according to the voters of DPC and according to any serious source of art definitions.

If the challenge had been "Disney Theme Parks" it would have been a publishable picture, and guess what? You found such a challenge, and it was published!

What's the mystery in this?

R.
08/25/2010 05:27:38 PM · #8
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.


See your point. I can see both sides, but I guess I am more liberal when it comes to what is and isn't still life. Show me a car parked in a prking lot and I'll say not still life, but show me a car that has been sitting in a yard for 35 years, and I will call it still life.

Okay, that's still life. But it's not StillLife™.


Based on many from this website, it is not considered still life, but based on many many other sites, it is. So who's right? The minority or the majority?


The Voter
08/25/2010 05:11:40 PM · #9
Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.


See your point. I can see both sides, but I guess I am more liberal when it comes to what is and isn't still life. Show me a car parked in a prking lot and I'll say not still life, but show me a car that has been sitting in a yard for 35 years, and I will call it still life.

Okay, that's still life. But it's not StillLife™.


Based on many from this website, it is not considered still life, but based on many many other sites, it is. So who's right? The minority or the majority?
08/25/2010 05:10:15 PM · #10
How this thread is ending up with DNMC discussions is beyond me. Not once did I mention DNMC. I was just relating the fact that a photo was thought to be good enough to publish on a website. And to clear something up here, if people voted majorily on the technical aspects and merits of a photo as long as they meet the rules and somewhat fit in a challenge, not a blatant disregard of the submission subjct, instead of voting on a picture based on them knowing who submitted it, many others' photos would do a lot better in challenges than they do now.
08/25/2010 04:54:42 PM · #11
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Originally posted by George:

The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.


See your point. I can see both sides, but I guess I am more liberal when it comes to what is and isn't still life. Show me a car parked in a prking lot and I'll say not still life, but show me a car that has been sitting in a yard for 35 years, and I will call it still life.

Okay, that's still life. But it's not StillLife™.
08/25/2010 04:10:35 PM · #12
Originally posted by George:

The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.


See your point. I can see both sides, but I guess I am more liberal when it comes to what is and isn't still life. Show me a car parked in a prking lot and I'll say not still life, but show me a car that has been sitting in a yard for 35 years, and I will call it still life.
08/25/2010 04:04:13 PM · #13
Originally posted by BeckyT:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Finally published! This photo got a 4.7 in still life challenge, rejected by 1x, and now Photo of the Week on allears.net. Go figure. Finally, some people appreciate a good photo.

Photo of the Week!!!


Congratulations. It is an awesome photo that tells a story that was just too busy for a still life. Just my opinion. Don't think it deserved a 4.7. Love the expression on the boys face. that is one big sundae. Thanks for sharing.


That is not my photo. This is my photo My photo. My photo was on there for only a week.
08/25/2010 04:01:50 PM · #14
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

Congrats rugman1969 ! Not only is your photo a winner, but your thread is doing pretty good too LOL.


LOL thanks
08/25/2010 04:01:02 PM · #15
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by MattO:

Abstract? not. Master of disguise? 47 Steps? I literally could go on and grab a bunch, but really if you haven't ever seen or read the forums and the complaints about DNMC I'm not sure what to tell you. This is not a Generalized comment.


To "abstract" a thing is to reduce it to its essentials. The fork is reasonably abstract, it's not utterly DNMC. The splash-droplet *does* have an "alien" hiding in it, so it makes a passing nod at the topic. The "47 Steps" image isn't in the category we're talking about; due to the nature of the challenge it was entered in, we had no way of KNOWING it didn't meet the challenge until after the votes were tallied. None of these are anywhere near as utterly DNMC as entering a shot of a building from a hotel balcony in a "Still Life" challenge.

R.


If you see an alien in that picture, I would like a sample of the product that allows you to see it please
08/25/2010 03:52:07 PM · #16
Originally posted by fm_1107:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Davenit:

Interesting thread. Enjoyed it...

Regards
Dave Nitsche
(Bone sucking judge on 1X)




...love it!

Also, I never had issues at 1x.


I have issues with 1x, they don't publish everything I enter! Just like DPC, I don't win a ribbon in every challenge I enter. It's incomprehensible!

;-)
08/25/2010 03:33:50 PM · #17
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Davenit:

Interesting thread. Enjoyed it...

Regards
Dave Nitsche
(Bone sucking judge on 1X)




...love it!

Also, I never had issues at 1x.

08/25/2010 01:36:45 PM · #18
The "arrangement" part has to do with the photographer or artist deliberately arranging things within the scene... or at the very least, finding a scene that looks "deliberately arranged" (in an artistic manner, to be reproduced photographically or in some other form) Also, a more narrow definition of "objects" is required - you know, one that doesn't include gigantic things like buildings. Now do you get what still life is?

We define "types of art" and "movements in art" backwards - we see them, then we try to describe them to make a definition. In the case of "still life," the definition is pretty hard to formulate using basic English, and thus the dictionary's definition is a bit broader than the one artists ans art lovers have in their heads but can't put down on paper. Perhaps a better strategy would be to burn the dictionary, look at classic examples of still life (maybe borrow a book from the library), and try to "join the movement" for a bit. Those types of resources (i.e. written or assembled by art historians or critics) are a lot better than a bunch of DPC users or a dictionary... or even an encyclopedia.

In this case, DPC users agree with that "art critic" perspective and disagree with the dictionary definition... In the case of minimalism, DPC users disagree with both. But I've already left that fruitless debate.
08/25/2010 09:53:51 AM · #19
Originally posted by BeckyT:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Finally published! This photo got a 4.7 in still life challenge, rejected by 1x, and now Photo of the Week on allears.net. Go figure. Finally, some people appreciate a good photo.

Photo of the Week!!!


Congratulations. It is an awesome photo that tells a story that was just too busy for a still life. Just my opinion. Don't think it deserved a 4.7. Love the expression on the boys face. that is one big sundae. Thanks for sharing.


Except that isn't the photo which rugman is referring to!
August 17th photo is the one that he had published.
08/25/2010 09:40:06 AM · #20
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Finally published! This photo got a 4.7 in still life challenge, rejected by 1x, and now Photo of the Week on allears.net. Go figure. Finally, some people appreciate a good photo.

Photo of the Week!!!


Congratulations. It is an awesome photo that tells a story that was just too busy for a still life. Just my opinion. Don't think it deserved a 4.7. Love the expression on the boys face. that is one big sundae. Thanks for sharing.
08/25/2010 09:28:28 AM · #21
Originally posted by Davenit:

Interesting thread. Enjoyed it...

Regards
Dave Nitsche
(Bone sucking judge on 1X)


lol ;-)
08/25/2010 09:20:40 AM · #22
Interesting thread. Enjoyed it...

Regards
Dave Nitsche
(Bone sucking judge on 1X)
08/25/2010 06:16:44 AM · #23
Originally posted by tnun:

Originally posted by bvy:

This is a wedding photo.


dammit bvy that is a wedding CAKE, not a wedding photo.


Blimey, you're right! My ignorance knows no bounds.
08/24/2010 11:22:57 PM · #24
Originally posted by bvy:

This is a wedding photo.


dammit bvy that is a wedding CAKE, not a wedding photo.

hey! are we still alive?
08/24/2010 11:07:29 PM · #25
Congrats rugman1969 ! Not only is your photo a winner, but your thread is doing pretty good too LOL.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 08:23:44 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/29/2024 08:23:44 AM EDT.