| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2002 05:56:59 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by rebeccaleidy:
... I didn't think the idea was to do well so much as to recieve constructive criticism and chat about our different interpretations of the challenges.
It's hard to receive constructive criticism when the critic can't tell that it is a shadow! :-)
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 05:20:34 PM · #2 |
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/18/2002 5:21:41 PM. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 05:19:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by aelith:
Where, please, can I learn the tricks of controling auto focus. didn''t know you could. aelith (Beth)
I''m depending on autofocus myself and next what hokie said, you also have to remember that autofocus is always focusing on the center, even if your main object is not. In that case you should point your camera to the main object, press the shutter-button half way to focus on it and then move the camera to the original position and press the button fully to make the picture.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/18/2002 5:25:48 PM. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:59:03 PM · #4 |
Thanks for the tip, Hokie.
aelith |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:46:34 PM · #5 |
Hey aelith..glad you joined th party!
I agree with exactly your idea. Push the boundaries. It will test your resolve :-)
About autofocus. Remember one thing. Autofocus systems LOVE contrast. They are nothing but simple eyes that rely on reflected edges/contrast. They use contrast and edges to 'HOME IN ON". So when trying to get a specific subject in focus try to aim at the most contrasty/edgy part of the subject you can.
I would bet that shadows were easy for the autofocus of all these digicams to aim on, especially the sharp edged shadows. What better contrast than black/white? |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:39:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by puppet10:
If they rate a photo slightly out of the main definition down, take an even better photo with an even more tenuous connection - make them (even only the few who may pause) think about it, isnt that what art is about even in the context of a limitation? - pushing the boundries of preconceptions and trying to convey an idea.
(or I may have another idea to try to shock the voters out of their narrow mindset, I'll just have to decide)
[/i]
I guess I'm still new enough that I enjoy this discussion on deffinitions. I had considered some but not all of the alternate interpretations. There are a lot less cliches this time around so I think more people did experiment. BUT--- no matter how offbeat the interpretation it has still got to be in my book a complelling image; well designed and well exicuted.
And hay! Some one just said they gave mine a ten. *grin* My self judgement has been vindicated. feels good.
Where, please, can I learn the tricks of controling auto focus. didn't know you could. aelith (Beth)
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:33:35 PM · #7 |
Maybe we should have a bi-weekly challenge. 1 week to shoot, 1 week to vote, 1 week to comment on the previous result (overlapping with shooting the next challenge).
This would hold off discussion of entries until after the entire voting period, and allow people to vote/comment unencumbered by trying to think of/prepare their upcoming entry.
People could get their photo/upload fix during the voting week by preparing modifications of their entry (for the upcoming discussion) based on comments received during voting.
I like things as they are, but it is feeling more like a speed challenge than a forum for mutual education. Of course, maybe if we limit people to 1 hour set-up time and no more than 24 exposures we could...never mind! |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:33:18 PM · #8 |
hey chariot..It doesnt bother me to link to photos. I am glad you found some of my other shots interesting. Rust is always a good subject.
gr8photos and others. I don't want to accuse people of being "narrow minded". As a matter of fact, appreciating art is all about descriminating what you like and what you don't.
But I admit to taking exception at promoting a narrow view as THE view. It's not. I just try to counterpoint arguments that put limits on things.
I didnt't think photography and the challenge was about limits. It's about unlimited thought in a very technical and directed way. I don't see the challenge topic as a school assignment and whoever guesses what Drew and Langdon were meaning gets an A+.
Why can't people take the challenge as a chance to see how other people view an idea. Some are bold, some are conservative, some are subtle, some cliche, some are a twist on a word or a common idea.
I know every week it seems we go through this exercise of "What the challenge REALLY means". And that is a good thing. But do you already know every angle to approach a subject so well that anything that steps outside your lines should be discarded?
I have been studying art for 28 years and I have yet to come to that conclusion.
Someone said these discussion are like priests arguing the number of angels on top of a pin. I think they were trying to discourage this kind of discussion with that comment. Who better than priests to talk about angels and pins and who better to talk about photographic art than photographers :-) |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:07:51 PM · #9 |
| ugh... my head hurts. I have seen some great pics on this site and it's kind of frustrating that everyone (including me) is bogged down in this "did they or didn't they" follow the challenge. I think I'll go through the old submissions and send out some comments, that way I can avoid the whole mess and let some of you great artists know why I'm inspired by your photos and some of you other great artists know why I think you dropped the ball. Thanks for the welcome gr8photos! :) |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:02:28 PM · #10 |
My problem isnt actually with the score (since I actually expected to get scored lower for my interpretation, and don't really care), although I do think I'm being scored down because of it and not the quality of the picture, IMHO. One reason for this belief is that 6 of my 9 comments are "Wheres the shadow", or "This doesnt really meet the challenge criteria" comments, which I also expected, but still find somewhat disappointing, one comment did give information on what they would have liked to see different.
Mainly I thought I'd just help out any nitpickers who might wander into the forums with a new checklist of alternate shadow definitions since they only seem to know of one ;).
And just because it happens every week doesnt mean that you shouldn't try to enlighten people, in fact I'm contrarian enough to think the opposite - why bow to pressure when you can rail against it.
If they rate a photo slightly out of the main definition down, take an even better photo with an even more tenuous connection - make them (even only the few who may pause) think about it, isnt that what art is about even in the context of a limitation? - pushing the boundries of preconceptions and trying to convey an idea.
I think rather than trying to win votes and come in highest (since theres nothing to win really anyway) more people here should expand the challenge definition to the breaking point to fight the current voter mindset of voting very strictly on the most narrow definition of the challenge.
So my challenge this week is to find a way to take a picture of city life conforming to the challenge, but not including tall buildings, concrete, lots of people, or cars :>.
(or I may have another idea to try to shock the voters out of their narrow mindset, I'll just have to decide)
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 04:01:28 PM · #11 |
Wow Hokie, I was just looking through your "random shots" and I think this one rocks and could have done well for this challenge as well.
Rivets at 4 O''Clock
Does it bother you that I link to one of your pictures? If it does I apologize, I just really like that picture alot.
Originally posted by hokie:
I had direct shadows as part of my 6 other submissions. shadow outakes
DUDE! Billy Bob Thornton, Blue Moon and Gabriel ROCK!!! You rule the world.
Polarized was also great but I wasn''t as interested. A moment of balance was interesting, did you let it fall and snap a shot or are you using an unseen method of holding it up? In the rough is cool in a kind of cartoony way.
You are one of the people on this site that I see as a voice of reason. I would hate to see you go.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/18/2002 4:08:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:59:49 PM · #12 |
hokie, didn''t mean to discourage you from submitting or accuse you (or anyone) of just caring about ribbons. also don''t mean to cut down on photography discussion. sorry if that came across wrong.
however, some of the discussion in this, and other very similar threads, does sound like ''if only you narrow-minded people stopped being so darn narrow minded, everyone would love and appreciate my photo''. (and yes, i''m purposely exaggerating here). at least that''s how it comes across to me.
maybe that''s because it is very hard to discuss a photo that''s still in voting because giving details ruins the anonymity. i actually go back after the results come out to look at the comments for photos that interested me. i learn a lot from the comments other people make about the photos i commented on, and from the description submitted by the photographer as to what his/her intent was.
i''m not sure what the best approach here is. but i guess i should just shut up and stop reading these kind of threads in the forums.
don''t stop posting, hokie, you contribute a lot of great shots to this site (heck, for all it''s worht, your entry last week was in my top 10!)
Originally posted by hokie:
Oh screw it. Trying to discuss this is pointless as it is not seen as anything but an argument on who gets more points or whatever. I guess to strenthen my statement about not caring about the points thing I will not submit anymore photos for voting. I always thought submission was buying a ticket to discuss photography but it really is seen only as caring about some ribbon. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:52:40 PM · #13 |
welcome to dpc, rebeccaleidy!
ideally what you say is true. and i think we do all get constructive criticism out of posting our shots here. but the fact is, many of us also would like to do well, especially when we've entered a photo that we are proud of and that (in our eyes) fits the challenge. it sometimes brings you back to earth to realize that not everyone (or even only the minority of the users of this site) views the subject quite the same way as you.
i guess i'm just getting a little tired of reading a very similar discussion every week.
Originally posted by rebeccaleidy:
I guess being new here leaves me with a lack of history, eh? Anyway, I didn't think the idea was to do well so much as to recieve constructive criticism and chat about our different interpretations of the challenges. Silly me... When I think of "Shadows" in a photograph no one style or approach really comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:50:02 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by gr8photos:
ok, everyone that's been around for a couple of challenges knows: to score well, you have to be literal here. that doesn't mean that your photo isn't good, it's just a reflection of your photo not or only loosely meeting the challenge criteria in the eyes of the majority of voters.
what i don't get, is, everyone knows this. yet every week, there's someone who submits a photo knowing it will receive comments about weak/no connection to challenge and will score lower. yet every week, people do and then complain about the narrowmindedness of the voters.
we just don't learn from history well, do we...
It's not about that. It's not about the scoring by itself. It's about the challenge.
The challenge says "Use lighting to your advantage, and capture an interesting shot of shadows. Let your creativity run wild".
I am gonna say this right up front. I would not personally be here discussing this if a few other photographers had not got here first and started a discussion about what they think is a shadow in such narrow terms.
Oh screw it. Trying to discuss this is pointless as it is not seen as anything but an argument on who gets more points or whatever. I guess to strenthen my statement about not caring about the points thing I will not submit anymore photos for voting. I always thought submission was buying a ticket to discuss photography but it really is seen only as caring about some ribbon. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:46:35 PM · #15 |
| I guess being new here leaves me with a lack of history, eh? Anyway, I didn't think the idea was to do well so much as to recieve constructive criticism and chat about our different interpretations of the challenges. Silly me... When I think of "Shadows" in a photograph no one style or approach really comes to mind. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:36:58 PM · #16 |
ok, everyone that's been around for a couple of challenges knows: to score well, you have to be literal here. that doesn't mean that your photo isn't good, it's just a reflection of your photo not or only loosely meeting the challenge criteria in the eyes of the majority of voters.
what i don't get, is, everyone knows this. yet every week, there's someone who submits a photo knowing it will receive comments about weak/no connection to challenge and will score lower. yet every week, people do and then complain about the narrowmindedness of the voters.
we just don't learn from history well, do we...
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:24:09 PM · #17 |
I had direct shadows as part of my 6 other submissions. shadow outakes
My current entry is getting hurt because of the soft shadow effect and the shadows are not "cast shadows" but part of the texture of the object to create an illusion.
I entered this photo as a twist on people complaining about entering certain photos of certain objects.
It has been said before that to do well at this site you have to be obvious to the point of being a cliche. That is true in a way. General public misconceptions are not what bother me though. It''s when experienced photographers start in on the narrowing of the definition that gets me going. I
They should know better.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/18/2002 3:25:27 PM. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 03:03:29 PM · #18 |
For all you people narrowly defining a shadow as a shaded area, perhaps this definition will help expand your mind :>
shad·ow (shd)
n.
An area that is not or is only partially irradiated or illuminated because of the interception of radiation by an opaque object between the area and the source of radiation.
The rough image cast by an object blocking rays of illumination. See Synonyms at shade.
An imperfect imitation or copy.
shadows The darkness following sunset.
A feeling or cause of gloom or unhappiness: The argument cast a shadow on their friendship.
A nearby or adjoining region; vicinity: grew up in the shadow of the ballpark.
A dominating presence or influence: spent years working in the shadow of the lab director.
A darkened area of skin under the eye. Often used in the plural.
An incipient growth of beard that makes the skin look darker.
A shaded area in a picture or photograph.
A mirrored image or reflection.
A phantom; a ghost.
One, such as a detective or spy, that follows or trails another.
A constant companion.
Sports. A player who guards an opponent closely.
A faint indication; a foreshadowing.
A vestige or inferior form: shadows of their past achievements.
An insignificant portion or amount; a trace: beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Shelter; protection: under the shadow of their corporate sponsor.
v. shad·owed, shad·ow·ing, shad·ows
v. tr.
To cast a shadow on; shade.
To make gloomy or dark; cloud.
To represent vaguely, mysteriously, or prophetically.
To darken in a painting or drawing; shade in.
To follow, especially in secret; trail.
Sports. To guard (an opponent) closely throughout the playing area, especially in ice hockey.
v. intr.
To change by gradual degrees.
To become clouded over as if with shadows: Her face shadowed with sorrow.
adj.
Not having official status: a shadow government of exiled leaders; a shadow cabinet.
Just because the challenge suggested using light in an interesting way, doesn't preclude using it in a way that doesn't cause an interesting shaded area thats just the most obvious way. Most of the other definitions are much harder to photograph and a more interesting interpretation of the challenge.
Just my $0.02 |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 12:27:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]Is it a close up of a stop light? It was not dynamic enough for me, the tones are two subdued. It was definitely unique!
It's a GO LIGHT. Thank you for the nice words. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 11:03:59 AM · #20 |
It is hard to believe that one person didn't think my entry met the challenge! Here are this and another comment on the theme of the challenge that doesn't give anything away.
6/18/2002 (9:32:38 AM) - Not really sure this fits theme for shadows. Good framing and exposure. B&W works well with this subject.
6/18/2002 (12:40:44 AM) - Good expression of the theme combined with simplicity and good composition.
I have been giving benefit of the doubt on meeting the challenge, but how someone could even speculate that there was not a shadow in this photo really baffles me!
I wil reveal the photo at the appropriate time.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 09:29:02 AM · #21 |
Thanks for the tip. I am new here, I saw that everyones pictures were posted by their names, I didn't realize that it was not for the current contest. DUH! Sorry guys.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 09:27:49 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by bhop73:
Originally posted by rkymtndream:
[i]Just voting and checking on comments. Mine is the Shadows of Fire. One of the comments asked if this was the Colorado Hayman fire. Yes it is, we took this coming home from Deckers on I-25 in between Castle Rock and Denver. We drove right through Deckers, some of the shots I got were incredible, just sad that so many photo ops came out of something so devastating.
for future reference, you're not "supposed" to give yourself away till the voting's over. I did that my first contest and had a few complaints. I'm having a hard time not commenting on some of the comments i've received this time.. *must use willpower*[/i]
|
|
|
|
06/18/2002 02:18:35 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by rkymtndream:
Just voting and checking on comments. Mine is the Shadows of Fire. One of the comments asked if this was the Colorado Hayman fire. Yes it is, we took this coming home from Deckers on I-25 in between Castle Rock and Denver. We drove right through Deckers, some of the shots I got were incredible, just sad that so many photo ops came out of something so devastating.
for future reference, you're not "supposed" to give yourself away till the voting's over. I did that my first contest and had a few complaints. I'm having a hard time not commenting on some of the comments i've received this time.. *must use willpower* |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 12:48:42 AM · #24 |
| Just voting and checking on comments. Mine is the Shadows of Fire. One of the comments asked if this was the Colorado Hayman fire. Yes it is, we took this coming home from Deckers on I-25 in between Castle Rock and Denver. We drove right through Deckers, some of the shots I got were incredible, just sad that so many photo ops came out of something so devastating. |
|
|
|
06/18/2002 12:01:57 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by lisae:
I just have no clue how I would go about satisfying all the expectations of the majority of voters.... I only want to take them, not make them. It's a complementary activity for me. It brings me back to the real world.
Lisae, there's just one voter you have to satisfy, and that's yourself. As was noted earlier in this thread you won't ever please everyone here anyway, so you might as well concentrate on the one person you have control over. Next, I think Hokie meant that when you make a photo you enter into a dialog with your subject, be it a road, shadow, whatever. I went to a seminar once with Freeman Patterson and it was amazing. He threw a hula hoop off the deck we were all on, then shot a roll standing in the hoop looking out, then turned around and shot a roll looking into it. His point was there's an infinity of pictures to make in the world. The beauty of photography is that it pushes us to open our eyes and try to see more of them.
|
|
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: 04/25/2024 01:08:05 PM EDT.
