What would this spider shot have gotten? I'm very curious.
It was one of the entries that i didn't enter. Thanks! :)
|
|
11/23/2002 09:25:30 AM · #12 |
Bottom line, this is a contest based on peoples perception of your work, AND, BEAUTY and PERCEPTION of it, are indeed in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2002 01:56:41 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
...Insulting the person, by saying they are not smart, is counter-productive. Grow some skin, take it like a man, and learn from it. We all put varying amounts of effort into our comments, so take what you get and shut up already...
With so many citations repeated in your post, it is unclear to whom you are addressing this remark. I assume it is not to me, since the whole point of my post was that it's perfectly possible to give constructive criticism without insulting the photographer.
If it is addressed to me, please be made aware that I consider being told to "shut up" insulting. |
|
|
|
11/22/2002 11:17:07 PM · #14 |
This is extremely narrow minded, and nit-picking.
Maybe he should have said "I" instead of "the viewer", however, it was not worth starting a thread over. And pleasing instead of pleasant.
I am tired of people complaining about not getting techinical critisim, and then complaining when someone does a technical critique.
And let's look at some of Scott's comments
A macro ghost 11/11/2002
huh?
Look! I've got one, too! 11/11/2002
focus?
CLose to the Shuttle 11/11/2002
isn't this challenge supposed to be macros?
My point was, maybe what the photographer did was intentinal, but that does not mean it worked. Insulting the person, by saying they are not smart, is counter-productive. Grow some skin, take it like a man, and learn from it. We all put varying amounts of effort into our comments, so take what you get and shut up already.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]Just because the photo is they way you intened, does not mean it is pleasing. This seems like an honest critique. You should be sorry.
Originally posted by Scott Loehwing:
[i]" Your image is notin focus and therefore is not pleasant to the viewer."
[/i]
By couching the criticism in the third person ("the viewer") the implicaton is that the criticism is "objective" and would apply broadly. Also, not all photos are intended to be "pleasant."
Photos from A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide by Lonny Shavelson.
P.S. Don't be afraid to check this out -- these are NOT "gross" photos or anything.
I would say something like "I prefer photos in which at least one element is in focus, so I can't rate your photo highly, even though this look may be exactly what you were trying to achieve..."
Expressing opinion as fact is one of the most irritating forms of communication (IMO!)[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 11:14:42 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 11:19:16 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 11:19:49 PM. |
|
|
|
11/22/2002 06:28:10 AM · #15 |
I think it's two spiders having a scrap.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2002 06:22:50 AM · #16 |
The web on your picture is really cool. One problematic thing, I think, is that the spider is eating something, but it's not immediately obvious (would make for a great shot otherwise).
I assume that most people didn't even notice the spider's prey. |
|
|
|
11/22/2002 06:06:42 AM · #17 |
I did 8066. Its a Linyphia, probably triangularis but may be one of its indistinquishable cousins. That week I was stating to despair, as it was very wet and windy all week, and I didnt want to submit a studio shot (I find closeups of ornaments rather boring). On the weekend, there was a 2 hour break between fronts when the wind dropped suficiently to get the photo. I also photographed a shield bug. I couldnt shade the spider (see the white patch on the body, thats bad glare) as it was too windy for long exposures and I didnt want to lose DOF. I purposly used the leaf in the background to hide an ugly fence. There was very little active on that day as the weather had been grim for so long, theyd all got the winter blues and topped themselves.
My best ever spider shot is [url= //www.uberfish.freeserve.co.uk/ThePit/recent/2002-08-29_13-40_3230.jpg ]on my website[/url]
Now for the others:
8012 Rather good, better than mine. There is glare on the red hourglass, which is a key feature of this species. It looks like a captive animal (but comments show its not).
8103 This species is very common. They sit right out in the open and are very easy to photograph. The pic is quite good. Dont like the way the legs go into the dark.
8127 Looks like something in the Meta genus to me. Much the same as above. I prefer to see spiders with something of the background in, these night shots dont tell me where it lives.
8178 Pholcus sp. Needs colour balancing. This species is tricky (Its all leg, making autofocus useless and DOF tricky), but if you get them in the right position with a nice shadow, they go really well. This is not a good shot as the 'pose' is inelegant and unnatural.
7978 Harvestman (not a spider). awful.
8116 Bad photo, but the camera didnt help.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 6:05:39 AM. |
|
|
|
11/22/2002 05:30:22 AM · #18 |
| Ok, done. I just haven't figured out how to do it, at first. |
|
|
|
11/22/2002 05:22:00 AM · #19 |
In the order you mentioned them, I scored them 8, 7, 6, 7, 6 (should have scored that one 5), 4 & 3.
May be easier to compare if you made the image adresses appear as links.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2002 05:04:07 AM · #20 |
As a side point, I would be really interested in a comparison of last week's spider photos:
8012
8066
8103
8127
8178
7978
8116
It is of course a purely egotistic interest, since one of the photos is mine :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 5:01:38 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 5:02:42 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 5:25:38 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 5:26:41 AM. |
|
|
|
11/21/2002 10:16:56 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Journey:
[i
Here is a comment you made:
<< Last 10 Comments Made...
? 11/11/2002
it's bad enough you took a pic of dog shit, but you could have at least focused on it......... >>
[/i]
I quoted this comment made by Scott Loehwing as i thought it was very rude. Today, however, i had occasion to actually see this ? submission and Scott's comment was in fact very to the point and very polite. Ooooops.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2002 03:18:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Just because the photo is they way you intened, does not mean it is pleasing. This seems like an honest critique. You should be sorry.
Originally posted by Scott Loehwing:
[i]" Your image is notin focus and therefore is not pleasant to the viewer."
[/i]
By couching the criticism in the third person ("the viewer") the implicaton is that the criticism is "objective" and would apply broadly. Also, not all photos are intended to be "pleasant."
Photos from A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide by Lonny Shavelson.
P.S. Don't be afraid to check this out -- these are NOT "gross" photos or anything.
I would say something like "I prefer photos in which at least one element is in focus, so I can't rate your photo highly, even though this look may be exactly what you were trying to achieve..."
Expressing opinion as fact is one of the most irritating forms of communication (IMO!).
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/22/2002 12:03:20 AM. |
|
|
|
11/21/2002 11:22:13 AM · #23 |
Just because the photo is they way you intened, does not mean it is pleasing. This seems like an honest critique. You should be sorry.
Originally posted by Scott Loehwing:
" Your image is notin focus and therefore is not pleasant to the viewer."
sorry, but what i wanted in focus IS in focus. just because all you have is a disposable snap-shot camera that won't let you control the DOF does NOT mean that a shot with a shallow DOF is out of focus. this might very well be my last challenge. there are too many people that post shots that have NOTHING to do with the theme of the week, and comments like this just annoy the s**t out of me.
sorry for the rant, but i am just PISSED.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2002 05:35:41 AM · #24 |
I think they already drop scores from people who do things like vote all 1s. I don't think dropping a single high/low score from a photo would make a great deal of difference to it's final mark.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2002 04:51:18 AM · #25 |
The whole average vote of 1.61 brings up an idea, in alot of competition the Highest and Lowest score is dropped, why couldnt DCP Drop the Single Highest Vote of a pic and the Single Lowest Vote for a Pic, with the idea that someone may favor a particular person or dislike a particular person. Wonder if they could script it easily enough?
|
|
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: 04/27/2024 11:26:20 AM EDT.
