| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2006 04:37:21 PM · #1 |
I think we're done here. SpecialK, please review the tutorials on giving (and getting feedback) and the forum rules.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:34:25 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
EVERYONE: Let. It. Go. That means you. And him. And them. Move along. Seriously... |
No! Please don't. I'm loving this thread. It's better than some reality TV I've seen recently...
In fact, we should all be allowed to vote now, to see which photographer has to leave the island... :-)
And then we could all do some sort of challenge - I'm thinking a photograph or two perhaps - and the winner gets immunity from next week's vote...
Certainly more motivation than a virtual blue ribbon... |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:34:09 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Originally posted by cdownie:
I also think it placed where it should have.
If the main subject is the girl, we arent seeing enough of her. If the main subject is the guitar, i should the face of the guitar, not just the top.
As far as the bokeh, my eyes are drawn to the drummer since hes all there, rather than away from it. With the framing the same as it is, I would have liked to see the focus on the drummer with the guitarist as foreground bokeh.
I also think you should lay off the SpecialK when making forum posts :D
Edit- Note the smiley, this signifies humor or sarcasm. You appear to have missed this subtlety in previous posts. Welcome to the internets. |
You can always find something to pick apart in a photo...but saying "the main subject is the girl, we should see more of her" is so closed minded it isn't even funny.
Do you know how many national geographic, magazine, print, potrait, etc. etc. etc. professional photographers have award winning hundred thousand dollar or million dollar prints where the main subjects are only partially shown?
I mean...come on...this is getting absolutely off the deep end. We should see more of her? Are you joking? |
Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer. People have been giving you their honest opinion as to why they thought your photo got a 5+ and yet you berate them and argue with them...what's the point? |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:29:01 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
You can always find something to pick apart in a photo...but saying "the main subject is the girl, we should see more of her" is so closed minded it isn't even funny.
Do you know how many national geographic, magazine, print, potrait, etc. etc. etc. professional photographers have award winning hundred thousand dollar or million dollar prints where the main subjects are only partially shown?
I mean...come on...this is getting absolutely off the deep end. We should see more of her? Are you joking? |
AHHH! You've noticed that DPC is not NG? Then you will also soon notice what kind of shot scores well here, and it may not be the same as what does well at NG.
If you want big money or big scores, you have to make pictures the intended audience wants to see and will like.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:27:11 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Originally posted by cdownie:
I also think it placed where it should have.
If the main subject is the girl, we arent seeing enough of her. If the main subject is the guitar, i should the face of the guitar, not just the top.
As far as the bokeh, my eyes are drawn to the drummer since hes all there, rather than away from it. With the framing the same as it is, I would have liked to see the focus on the drummer with the guitarist as foreground bokeh.
I also think you should lay off the SpecialK when making forum posts :D
Edit- Note the smiley, this signifies humor or sarcasm. You appear to have missed this subtlety in previous posts. Welcome to the internets. |
You can always find something to pick apart in a photo...but saying "the main subject is the girl, we should see more of her" is so closed minded it isn't even funny.
Do you know how many national geographic, magazine, print, potrait, etc. etc. etc. professional photographers have award winning hundred thousand dollar or million dollar prints where the main subjects are only partially shown?
I mean...come on...this is getting absolutely off the deep end. We should see more of her? Are you joking? |
Look, you wanted to know why it scored low. We've told you. You disagree. We get it. Nothing you say is going to make anyone here suddenly smack their foreheads and say, "Man, you're right! Let's start a petition to retroactively give this one a ribbon!" And conversely, nothing anyone tells you is apparently good enough, so as long as you keep this a confrontational "you vs. them" sort of argument, we've reached a stalemate. You can argue over subjectivities all you like, and you will never come to a consensus. And as long as you're unwilling to actually listen to what people are saying, nothing will ever be accomplished by continuing on in this manner. It's frankly quite stupid.
EVERYONE: Let. It. Go. That means you. And him. And them. Move along. Seriously...
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:16:26 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by cdownie:
I also think it placed where it should have.
If the main subject is the girl, we arent seeing enough of her. If the main subject is the guitar, i should the face of the guitar, not just the top.
As far as the bokeh, my eyes are drawn to the drummer since hes all there, rather than away from it. With the framing the same as it is, I would have liked to see the focus on the drummer with the guitarist as foreground bokeh.
I also think you should lay off the SpecialK when making forum posts :D
Edit- Note the smiley, this signifies humor or sarcasm. You appear to have missed this subtlety in previous posts. Welcome to the internets. |
You can always find something to pick apart in a photo...but saying "the main subject is the girl, we should see more of her" is so closed minded it isn't even funny.
Do you know how many national geographic, magazine, print, potrait, etc. etc. etc. professional photographers have award winning hundred thousand dollar or million dollar prints where the main subjects are only partially shown?
I mean...come on...this is getting absolutely off the deep end. We should see more of her? Are you joking? |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:13:01 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I was one of the many fives you received. I gave you a 5 because there was enough bokeh there to meet the challenge, but ultimately I found the picture uninteresting.
What I really want to know is if you'll be entering the Flowers challenge... |
no. I thought about it, but I don't really live near any exciting flowers...and even if I did I wouldn't just go out and take a picture of a flower on a stem with some nice bokeh or a macro after misting it with a water bottle like 397 of the 400 entries will be.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 16:18:00. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:03:51 PM · #8 |
I was one of the many fives you received. I gave you a 5 because there was enough bokeh there to meet the challenge, but ultimately I found the picture uninteresting.
What I really want to know is if you'll be entering the Flowers challenge... |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:47:35 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by carpents:
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Originally posted by carpents:
So, after you claim that ANY flower shot is deserving of a 3 (my flower did much better than this shot, thank you) you expect this shot to get better than a 5.3? This shot is pretty weak technically - the lighting is too harsh for me, making the colors washed out and there is absolutely NO mood set. Aren't rock bands supposed to play in dark venues?
The guitarist's hand is dead in the middle of the frame, which is where my eye ends up after scanning this picture. Ending up in the middle makes my eye stop, not really scanning the picture for more. Also, the little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all, perhaps from the clothing mark still visible.
I think the underrated example of a similar shot is this one:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=349415
Oh, and thanks for the 3. |
If you are going to spew your hatred and make comments strictly grounded in emotion rather than logic, please go elsewhere.
You are obviously irritated that I gave your flower a 3 (maybe I didn't), so you are trying to get back at me... |
I was quite happy with my results and frankly got the best series of comments yet. I couldn't care less that you gave me a 3, I was responding to your idiotic suggestion that flowers are worthless and your mediocre shot is worthwhile. One of them on its own wouldn't have elicited a response from me, both of them combined did.
Originally posted by specialk0783:
"little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all" - hatred - this has nothing to do with anything...and can you please point out a gut in that picture? |
If you're not seeing, you're not looking.
Originally posted by specialk0783:
and the hand may be in the middle of the picture...so what...the subject is perfectly in one half of the frame, and the other bokeh'd subject is in the other half.
|
Just telling you how I saw the picture - perhaps the confusion is because my view of the picture has a different subject than yours.
I gave it a 4 without knowing the author, so none of these comments were based on 'hatred'. |
I actually didn't vote on your photograph...but keep talking. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:24:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Yeah, sorry you're getting the focus of my grumpiness today. Like I said, it is definitely an attitude I've seen quite a bit here, a few folks who let slip here and there that the value studio above all others, and it always grates on my nerves. |
Check out e301's portfolio. He has gone away from the studio shot to a definite photojournalism genre. His stuff is great and I'm happy when he makes it to the top. It's a nice counterbalance. Personally, I am far stronger at the set-up shot than the candid, but that makes me appreciate the superb candid capture all the more.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:03:15 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by wheeledd:
Added: I had not seen Beetle's response when I wrote this. My posting was delayed because I had to answer the door. |
But you did a better job explaining my thoughts than I did :-) |
Yeah, sorry you're getting the focus of my grumpiness today. Like I said, it is definitely an attitude I've seen quite a bit here, a few folks who let slip here and there that the value studio above all others, and it always grates on my nerves.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:53:07 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
Added: I had not seen Beetle's response when I wrote this. My posting was delayed because I had to answer the door. |
But you did a better job explaining my thoughts than I did :-) |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:51:49 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
"little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all" - hatred - this has nothing to do with anything...and can you please point out a gut in that picture?
|
I noticed the gut and clothing lines, too, and felt it very unattractive. I gave a 4 and I would again. I find the photo boring. The lighting is dull... just nothing here that draws me in. The bokeh isn't too good, either.
Frankly, you have the completely wrong attitude to be here. This is a site where people come to learn and it seems as though you feel that you know it all already. You aren't going to do as well as you would like in every challenge no matter who you are- professional or otherwise. So, if you can't come here with an open mind willing to take into consideration the things people are telling you then you should move on. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:49:05 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by Beetle:
I often admire the effort people made in creating a shot more than I admire snapping something that happened to be there. |
This mentality actually bothers me a bit. Learning to set up a shot is an acquired skill, yes. However, if it "just happened to be there", it is somehow less worthy? What if I drove three hours into the middle of nowhere and camped out for the right lighting to shoot something that "just happened to be there"? Is my effort any less valuable than the shot it took you three minutes flat to set up? Why is that more worthy of admiration? Sorry, this just irritates me since it implies that studio is somehow superior to nature and doesn't take the effort of finding into account. I see that you qualify the statement with "often", meaning "not always", but I see this train of thought constantly and it really hurts sometimes to think the effort I put into my nature shots is less of an artform or skilled or valuable or what have you. |
I didn't think that Beetle was saying that studio shots are better in general than outdoor shots. I don't like shots that look like "snaps" that just happened to be there. For instance, if you step out your front door and see a beautiful sunset, you can snap it and get a nice picture. But I don't think you would do that--you would search around for a vantage point that showed a foreground that was enhanced by the colors of the sky. Your effort would produce an image that didn't look anything like a snap.
--DanW
Added: I had not seen Beetle's response when I wrote this. My posting was delayed because I had to answer the door.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:51:36. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:28:02 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by Beetle:
I often admire the effort people made in creating a shot more than I admire snapping something that happened to be there. |
This mentality actually bothers me a bit. Learning to set up a shot is an acquired skill, yes. However, if it "just happened to be there", it is somehow less worthy? What if I drove three hours into the middle of nowhere and camped out for the right lighting to shoot something that "just happened to be there"? Is my effort any less valuable than the shot it took you three minutes flat to set up? Why is that more worthy of admiration? Sorry, this just irritates me since it implies that studio is somehow superior to nature and doesn't take the effort of finding into account. I see that you qualify the statement with "often", meaning "not always", but I see this train of thought constantly and it really hurts sometimes to think the effort I put into my nature shots is less of an artform or skilled or valuable or what have you. |
No need to worry on MY account.
I made the point strongly to counteract the OP's disdain for set-up shots.
As I said in the same post - BOTH types of images have their place, and BOTH of them can be good OR bad. I will admire a good image no matter which way it came about, but yes..... at times I am very impressed by the effort people go to - such effort deserves recognition, too.
The end result is what counts - a combination of all its parts, judged both as an image in its own right, and as a submission in a challenge with all the topic restrictions that this brings with it. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:27:31 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by specialk0783:
I am truly upset with how this challenge was perceived by voters and how the meaning of bokeh is completely out of whack in most peoples perception of it. When a completely blurred, nearly solid color bg gets 71st in a bokeh challenge and my entry gets 201st....I just can't possibly be happy with the voters. |
Is that you Rose? |
LOL! I was wondering this...except more in line with (song by Alanis Morrisette)..."Isn't it....eyeronik" :)
PS to Add: There's this excellent book on Amazon that you might want to check out.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:28:23. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:23:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by specialk0783:
I am truly upset with how this challenge was perceived by voters and how the meaning of bokeh is completely out of whack in most peoples perception of it. When a completely blurred, nearly solid color bg gets 71st in a bokeh challenge and my entry gets 201st....I just can't possibly be happy with the voters. |
Is that you Rose? |
 |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:17:05 PM · #18 |
You want higher scores?
Enter nudes of your girlfriend.
She looks pretty good. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:15:53 PM · #19 |
I also think it placed where it should have.
If the main subject is the girl, we arent seeing enough of her. If the main subject is the guitar, i should the face of the guitar, not just the top.
As far as the bokeh, my eyes are drawn to the drummer since hes all there, rather than away from it. With the framing the same as it is, I would have liked to see the focus on the drummer with the guitarist as foreground bokeh.
I also think you should lay off the SpecialK when making forum posts :D
Edit- Note the smiley, this signifies humor or sarcasm. You appear to have missed this subtlety in previous posts. Welcome to the internets.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:18:41. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:14:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I often admire the effort people made in creating a shot more than I admire snapping something that happened to be there. |
This mentality actually bothers me a bit. Learning to set up a shot is an acquired skill, yes. However, if it "just happened to be there", it is somehow less worthy? What if I drove three hours into the middle of nowhere and camped out for the right lighting to shoot something that "just happened to be there"? Is my effort any less valuable than the shot it took you three minutes flat to set up? Why is that more worthy of admiration? Sorry, this just irritates me since it implies that studio is somehow superior to nature and doesn't take the effort of finding into account. I see that you qualify the statement with "often", meaning "not always", but I see this train of thought constantly and it really hurts sometimes to think the effort I put into my nature shots is less of an artform or skilled or valuable or what have you.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:18:17.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:13:40 PM · #21 |
SpecialK, if you're the masked voter who left me the following comment on Motion Blur, please go back and check the images you've voted low there for not following the rules. I actually had my image validated (first time ever to do this) because of the following comment:
Originally posted by mystery voter:
I have a real problem believing that this motion blur was created in camera. I absolutely LOVE this image, but I have to vote believing that this was created in PP. If you did this in camera then please accept my deepest apologies. |
Kdsprog is correct - there is a guideline that says not to vote down images for rules violations. To assist you, I've made a screenshot. This link is visible under every image in the voting pages. Hope this is helpful for you. 
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Also, you should go back and read the rules again. You should not be voting someone down if you think they broke the rules. Vote as if what you see is legal, if you suspect it isn't report it!
Comment:
This would have been great had the rules been followed.
Comment:
The bokeh in this photo looks photoshopped...if im wrong im wrong and I apologize...but it looks fake so I have to vote that way.
Comment:
Selective Desat...is this against the rules? Looks like some other filters have been applied here.
Comment:
I would like this...but I think you broke the rules? |
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:12:50 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Originally posted by carpents:
So, after you claim that ANY flower shot is deserving of a 3 (my flower did much better than this shot, thank you) you expect this shot to get better than a 5.3? This shot is pretty weak technically - the lighting is too harsh for me, making the colors washed out and there is absolutely NO mood set. Aren't rock bands supposed to play in dark venues?
The guitarist's hand is dead in the middle of the frame, which is where my eye ends up after scanning this picture. Ending up in the middle makes my eye stop, not really scanning the picture for more. Also, the little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all, perhaps from the clothing mark still visible.
I think the underrated example of a similar shot is this one:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=349415
Oh, and thanks for the 3. |
If you are going to spew your hatred and make comments strictly grounded in emotion rather than logic, please go elsewhere.
You are obviously irritated that I gave your flower a 3 (maybe I didn't), so you are trying to get back at me... |
I was quite happy with my results and frankly got the best series of comments yet. I couldn't care less that you gave me a 3, I was responding to your idiotic suggestion that flowers are worthless and your mediocre shot is worthwhile. One of them on its own wouldn't have elicited a response from me, both of them combined did.
Originally posted by specialk0783:
"little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all" - hatred - this has nothing to do with anything...and can you please point out a gut in that picture? |
If you're not seeing, you're not looking.
Originally posted by specialk0783:
and the hand may be in the middle of the picture...so what...the subject is perfectly in one half of the frame, and the other bokeh'd subject is in the other half.
|
Just telling you how I saw the picture - perhaps the confusion is because my view of the picture has a different subject than yours.
I gave it a 4 without knowing the author, so none of these comments were based on 'hatred'.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:10:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Originally posted by carpents:
So, after you claim that ANY flower shot is deserving of a 3 (my flower did much better than this shot, thank you) you expect this shot to get better than a 5.3? This shot is pretty weak technically - the lighting is too harsh for me, making the colors washed out and there is absolutely NO mood set. Aren't rock bands supposed to play in dark venues?
The guitarist's hand is dead in the middle of the frame, which is where my eye ends up after scanning this picture. Ending up in the middle makes my eye stop, not really scanning the picture for more. Also, the little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all, perhaps from the clothing mark still visible.
I think the underrated example of a similar shot is this one:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=349415
Oh, and thanks for the 3. |
If you are going to spew your hatred and make comments strictly grounded in emotion rather than logic, please go elsewhere.
You are obviously irritated that I gave your flower a 3 (maybe I didn't), so you are trying to get back at me...
"little bit of gut protruding isn't attractive at all" - hatred - this has nothing to do with anything...and can you please point out a gut in that picture?
and the hand may be in the middle of the picture...so what...the subject is perfectly in one half of the frame, and the other bokeh'd subject is in the other half. I think you need to work on your image evaluation skills before you make comments that direclty go against basic rules of photography. The center of the main subject is directly on the right "thirds" line and the center of the second subject is directly on the left thirds line. The guitar is split perfectly down the center...my eye flows through the image wonderfully.
Please stop using emotion to make your judgements...start using logic. |
Um, perhaps you should take your own advice instead of attacking people who return your equally bitter volley? Please, just move on.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:04:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by rswank:
But maybe we should give him some slack, after all he is 22. |
I disagree. 22 is plenty old enough to be able to show consideration of others and to accept constructive criticism.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:05:06. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 01:59:05 PM · #25 |
IMHO, all of these 'this photo is underrated' threads miss one important fact, and that is that the voters decide the rating for any and all photos in a challenge. A photo can only be underrated if the votes are not counted correctly.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the voters know their ass from a hole in the ground, but, if everything is working as it's supposed to, they are the ones that decide the rankings.
Just my $0.02
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 14:01:12.
|
|
