| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2003 11:33:16 PM · #1 |
I really like your image... I didn't vote in this one but if I did I'd give it a 6 or 7. I like how the book is mimicing the right side of the guitar. I think that the book color or glossyness (or lack thereof) doesn't matter, and in fact I like it that it doesn't match perfectly. It makes the "real" subject, the book and it's message, stand out more from the guitar.
As far as meeting the challenge I think it's a little lacking but still fits. Overall it's a really nice shot. Sorry I missed voting on it! BTW, a 5.2 is a little low overall in MY opinion, but that's probably only because I love music and guitars. :)
Message edited by author 2003-10-22 23:34:51. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 10:07:29 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Music is taught as an art in the U.S. at least in California. It's possible that in other countries it is a part of science.
This could be the reasoning behind not matching the challenge.Anyone in agreement? |
Just for reference, I have a masters degree in historical musicology. So, I'm qualified to talk about this one, at least a little. :)
Music is a humanities subject, separated from sciences. However, as someone pointed out earlier, everything can be studied at the scientific level. Taking that point further and in a different direction from the original point, bear in mind that Ph.Ds are all ostensibly in the same subject: philosophy.
As the third, and highest, level in tertiary education, the doctorate dissects the subject matter on the philosophical plane; it doesn't matter if the subject is music, particles, or photography, there are underlying philosophies, ideologies, principles.
When people hear that my 1st masters is in musicology, they usually stutter at the 'ology' part. Music is entwined into the very fabric of our society - there are deep sociological issues; an understanding of music's phonology requires an understanding of psychology; decoding music's meaning entails semiology.
Bobster's remark that science is an approach refers to the attitude we adopt when studying. Purely intraspective data does not qualify as science, which relies on setting up falsifiable research questions and putting them to the test. Bobster's book probably contains dozens of such questions.
All-in-all, I would have given a 4 for this photograph. Like Pitsaman, I feel that the meaning relies too much on the text, not on other visual information. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 05:22:44 PM · #3 |
Music is taught as an art in the U.S. at least in California. It's possible that in other countries it is a part of science.
This could be the reasoning behind not matching the challenge.Anyone in agreement?
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 12:20:58 PM · #4 |
I like the photo, but I didn't vote on that challenge. At first glance, I would have liked to see the camera zoomed out a little to more strongly show the effect of the book picture of the instrument on the right side of the image matching the instrument shape of the real instrument on the left side of the image. Does that make sense? That would have created more impact for me. That would also have minimized the differences in tone that others have commented on.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 12:10:34 PM · #5 |
a string instrument alone would have made the point to me
strings plucked produce resonating waves - each note a different frequency. a science theme if you ask me.
Originally posted by robsmith:
Photography relies on light, light is physics... |
i would prefer the instrument alone, maybe with one string having been plucked - and out of focus'ish...
soup |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 11:53:46 AM · #6 |
Genuine thanks for all the comments.
It was frustrating having what I thought was a low score with only positive comments.
Now I have comments from a broader base of people, I'm quite happy.
I agree with some points, and disagree with others... but this is subjective and I'm happy to let it go now!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 11:34:03 AM · #7 |
I think it was scored quite fair. The image has no Pazzaz for me. On the 8-10's I would consider having them up in a frame on my wall etc, but for that they must say something or simply look very very nice, which this doesn't to me.
It kind of looks like the book has got in the way of a good picture.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 11:32:23 AM · #8 |
It's a decent photo. I think it probably suffered from lack of strength towards the challenge topic.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 11:29:09 AM · #9 |
I gave it a 7 though I didn't leave comments. Some people probably didn't feel it "met" the challange though to me they all did in one way or another.
Deannda
Very nice shot |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 10:45:02 AM · #10 |
What's wrong with it ? Not much.
But it is mostly a shot of the cover of a book in fairly even light.
What about it do you feel means it should have scored higher ?
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 09:45:34 AM · #11 |
Bobster - I think this may just be a case where your thinking is less universal than in other photos.
You said this image came to mind immediately and epitomizes science to you. It's technically well executed so you reasonably expected it to do well.
But it can only do well if most of the people who vote ALSO think that this epitomizes science and I would guess that's where you lost ground.
Personally I don't think "music and emotion" when I think science. Good thing we don't all think the same anyway.
My opinion.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 09:43:47 AM · #12 |
| I usually give lower scores on photos where is text involved or text is a main focus of the photo! :-( |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 09:25:23 AM · #13 |
I think it's a technically good shot, but I don't think it deserved a high score. The biggest issue is that the main connection to science is in the text on the book. The viewer has to read it to make that connection, it's not conveyed graphically. Secondly, the fact that the book and the cover art figure so prominently in the image makes the viewer question if this work is too dependent upon the image created by another artist (the photographer who shot the cover).
That's just my opinion, and it's worth every penny.
Dan
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 09:09:32 AM · #14 |
| Don't look at me, I gave this a 7, haha. I loved the colors and tones - very warm. And while I did see the music-science connection, it didn't jump out at me for a science topic. Science to me is more about space, labs, etc. If this spoke more science to me, this quality of an image would have been a 9 or 10, I'm sure. But hey, I'm not a professional, just going on my feelings. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 07:55:46 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
How do we recognise the pictures that have a bit more depth? |
It will never happen as it is now, you must remember that the majority of voters & submitters tend to be new to photography, new to art, wanting to learn and wanting to share, enjoy taking and viewing images.
Not pro photographers entering a pro photographic competition each week. Hence the favour for clean sharp images perfectly metered and lit.
A whole heap of the worlds best photographers have some different styles that would be ripped apart by DPC'ers.
- High contrast shots will be marked by some as "shame your contrsat is so un life-like" Failing to understand that contrast is a style sometimes used to display weight or emotion.
Also the popular DOF debate, have a narrow focus on a face so the brow and hair are thrown out of focus and you'll get 'bad focusing' comments from those that don't understand you actually meant to do it and concentrate of the nose-eyes whatever.
The same goes for anyone and anything else that is off the crisp and clear mark.
So, all in all there is no point complaining and feeling hard-done-by. When I submit a shot I like a lot, it tends to do poor, (and one I don't tends to do much beter). But....you will always get someone whom likes it, and if you check their profile you can see his/her images and see how you compare. Chances are on your 'styled' shots, you'll ranked badly but get good comments from some of the photographers you like. Rather that than a 10 from someone with no taste ;) So no worry - be happy Mr. Lobster ;)
Also, I agree with what you have been saying, and would like to see a 'gold members challenge' where only a select group of photographers can vote. They have to meet some criteria, but what that would be is probably the main problem.
Perhaps on average score after 20+ challenges, anything over a 6 and you can vote? Not sure how fair that would work out.
Overall, I think the best image wins here 95% of the time and the worst comes worst 95% of the time so it's pretty fair in the scope of photographers and voters we have on this site.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 07:32:16 AM · #16 |
| To me it expressed a scientific approach to music and how people react to it, from the title of the book, so a good fit to the challenge theme. Personally I would have tried to increase the appeal of the picture by showing more of the warm tones and nice structure of the instrument. The view is currently blocked by the book. The lack of appeal was for me a reason to give it a 6. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 06:45:29 AM · #17 |
Then where is the more highbrow photo competition website?
It doesn't exist, so as long as I'm a member, I'm going to encourage the site to develop in this direction. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 06:33:15 AM · #18 |
| Ahh, but Bobster - would you take your classical music playing, and enter Pop Idol with it? Like it or not, DPC is more of a Pop Idol than a Leeds Piano Competition. I don't think it's ever pretended to be anything else. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 06:16:50 AM · #19 |
| personally I think this Picture is kinda dull |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 06:16:17 AM · #20 |
I didn't want to get back to my photo in this thread, but I will attempt to say why I think it should have done better.
The pictures in my portfolio are arranged by score received in challenges. By comparing the quality of this photo to the others, I think this should have easily been in my top 20. I was really chuffed with my approach to the challenge... this was the image I saw in my head as soon as I saw the challenge title. That's my reasoning.
Now, back to the wider issue.
At the risk of being a snob, I'm going to compare this to music.
There are popular music competitions, which include things like 'Pop Idol' and 'Fame Academy'.
There are classical music competitions such as the 'Leeds Piano Competition', 'Cardiff Singer of the World' and so on.
I've taken part in a music competition myself for the BBC... it was a classical competition.
When it comes to Photography, I want to be in the equivalent section.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also a rock and jazz guitarist. I don't think classical is necessarily 'better'. But sometimes you want highbrow, and sometimes you want lowbrow.
Message edited by author 2003-10-22 06:17:05. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 06:01:39 AM · #21 |
Bobster, I'm going to turn the table. Can you explain why you think this photograph should have socred higher?
Message edited by author 2003-10-22 06:02:46.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 05:58:00 AM · #22 |
Well, I think there you have the difference between what for the sake of argument I'd call "popular" photography versus "art" photography.
Like it or not, in a weekly (or bi-weekly) competition with 100+ images, voted on by "the public", the pictures that do best are the ones that stand out. The thing about stock photographs is, they have to be able to grab the attention immediately or their not doing their job properly.
I'm not at all worried by it, but that's probably because I aspire more to impactful "stock" photography than art photography (mainly because I lack the depth and artistic talent required :-)). I think threads on individual photographs are perfect for more 'in-depth' examinations of deeper images.
As for the solution (if you see this as a problem - personally I don't) - well I don't think there is one. There is no way I could devote the amount of time required to in-depth examinations of ALL entries (I have a hard enough time getting to vote at all).
People do seem to get frustrated but I never really understand why - it's a popular vote, so obviously the more 'stocky' photographs will do well, because that's what stock photography is all about. For it to be a problem would seem to imply that art photography is somehow a higher form than stock photography which I disagree with - it's just a very different style. |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 05:54:55 AM · #23 |
I do have thoughts on this issue.
However, being able to articulate them and offer constructive comments is another matter entirely.
It seems that modern day society serves up information in nice 30 second digestible chunks. Just look around.. You see/hear sound bites, fast food, MTV, commercials, etc. Why should we expect any different from our photography? In the case of DPC, the winners often are the photos that grab attention the quickest. However, the photos that I enjoy are the ones that make me think and are slightly controversial. However, because of those very qualities they have a much smaller appeal then those that are easily digestible. I don't see that as a failure of DPC, but just as a consequence of society in general.
-Matt
|
|
|
|
10/22/2003 05:32:21 AM · #24 |
Interesting point.
I can see that it requires a closer look to see that it is science. I agree with your other points.
This does raise the issue though of how we look at pictures when voting in a challenge. Is it right that we are encouraging superficiality in our winners here? If a picture has to pull someone in immediately otherwise they aren't going to look more deeply, isn't this worrying?
Yes, there are great pictures which have an immediate impact. These are the pictures that do best at DPC. How do we recognise the pictures that have a bit more depth?
I'm not referring to my picture anymore, I see many photos that are neglected by the voters that I feel should have done better.
Voting on all the pictures takes time, and many of us are very busy with our lives. How can we solve this problem?
This is why many people get frustrated in the forums, and accuse DPC of only catering to those who take stock photography style shots.
Anyone have any thoughts on this issue (not my photo anymore, the issue of seeing every image more deeply when voting)? |
|
|
|
10/22/2003 05:19:37 AM · #25 |
Well, I take your point about the book dealing with the "science" or music, but personally your picture says "music" before it says "science". It may be because I tend not to look too deeply into a picture unless and until it grabs me and pulls me in.
And there, I think, is the problem for me. It's a nice photo, it's technically good, but there's nothing in it that grabs me and forces me to take a deeper look into it. It might be what others have said above, that the book looks a little 'washed out' and that a much richer tone would have caught my eye more.
Hmm.. what else? Well, the book totally dominates the picture, relagating (for me) the instrument to a very incidental background. I see the link you're trying to draw between the book and the instrument but because they're so far apart (to get the sizes to match) it doesn't quite come off.
[there, now I've studied the picture in far more depth than I ever would have when voting on 200+ images!] |
|
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: 04/24/2024 08:46:15 AM EDT.
