pekesty - "I knew we were closed minded around here"

01/20/2010 11:36:49 AM · #1

Originally posted by zeuszen:

PM sent, David.

Thanks Z, much appreciated.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/20/2010 11:23:46 AM · #2

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
...If you think about it, after this or any other challenge is completed, if you found one of my entries deserving of a 1 or 2 based on your criteria stated above, could you take the time to tell me why you felt that way?

Could be done in a private PM or on the image itself...

Chances that it was a "1", are low, David, but, regardless, I'd be happy to compare mythologies after the challenge is over.

PM sent, David.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/15/2010 05:25:28 PM · #3

Reading through all this did take me awhile. There have been a lot of well thought out responses posted here, and that's the most crucial thing to me. Photography, to me, is about sharing something, and invoking something in the viewer. At it's heart, a photo is neutral, as

zeuszen said, simply an object. It is alive when it becomes something more to the viewer. To continue ZZ's comment about a photo as an object, I feel that a photo becomes akin to a stone that is "abused" and placed in a road when it influences the viewer to think, or consider, or invoke an emotion. Impact. It's not universal because each of us bring a new puzzle to the table. Sometimes the photo fits into that puzzle, often it doesn't. Life is an aggregation of experience just as roads are aggregations of stones and earth and oil; and later that which trods upon them.
I don't think people should feel the need to cram all these pieces into themselves. What fits, does. Love this fit. Do not hate it if it doesn't. That's all.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/14/2010 07:21:48 PM · #4

Originally posted by pawdrix:

I always figure if you get a poem or a nice comment you're doing fine and everything else is a 2 or a 3. Not that I ever did the Vulcan Mind Meld with Zeus but that's how I'll play it.

'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'

That's a pretty potent way to put things in perspective and I'd bet every single one of us could use those words and self edit our own work.

Yeah, that's probably where I run into trouble.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/14/2010 06:20:19 PM · #5

01/14/2010 06:02:45 PM · #6

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Mythology comparision - one of my favorite pastimes. ;-)

01/14/2010 06:00:15 PM · #7

Originally posted by RayEthier:

[quote=scarbrd]...What you are asking here is somewhat akin to asking people to define just what "IS" is...

Funny, you should say this... I have a work in progress with precisely that title.

01/14/2010 05:57:42 PM · #8

Originally posted by scarbrd:

...If you think about it, after this or any other challenge is completed, if you found one of my entries deserving of a 1 or 2 based on your criteria stated above, could you take the time to tell me why you felt that way?

Could be done in a private PM or on the image itself...

Chances that it was a "1", are low, David, but, regardless, I'd be happy to compare mythologies after the challenge is over.

01/14/2010 05:48:59 PM · #9

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
...What I find curious and want to ask Zeus is, in light of your statements below, do you really find that the overwhelming majority of entries here at DPC have little or no value?...

Yes, I would say that. Of course, I would say the same about the majority of images in my own portfolio here.
As to awarding 1s to images when voting, I can only quote from my often-posted credo on the matter:

This is how I try (very hard) to vote:

1 > a technically (exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, focus, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo without hope for any sensible interpretation or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to image size), one 'offensive' to civilized nature or even a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'

Thanks for replying, I really appreciate it.

If you think about it, after this or any other challenge is completed, if you found one of my entries deserving of a 1 or 2 based on your criteria stated above, could you take the time to tell me why you felt that way?

Could be done in a private PM or on the image itself. I completely understand if you chose not to.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/14/2010 05:39:53 PM · #10

Originally posted by scarbrd:

...What I find curious and want to ask Zeus is, in light of your statements below, do you really find that the overwhelming majority of entries here at DPC have little or no value?...

Yes, I would say that. Of course, I would say the same about the majority of images in my own portfolio here.
As to awarding 1s to images when voting, I can only quote from my often-posted credo on the matter:

This is how I try (very hard) to vote:

1 > a technically (exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, focus, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo without hope for any sensible interpretation or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to image size), one 'offensive' to civilized nature or even a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/14/2010 04:06:20 PM · #11

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

This is where I run into confusion.....I oftentimes "miss" the message with images, but sometimes it also seems to me that it's readily apparent that the image is just for visual satisfaction.

Is it a requirement of a good image to tell a story?

This is a glimpse, a story, visually delightful, and all those things....

But this one......

.....is a picture of a flower. Yes, it's exquisite, the definition & color/tonality is off the charts, but......it's still a flower and I don't get deep meaning, "the feeling", or a story with it.

ETA: I *love* this flower image and faved it.

What am I missing?

You're not missing a thing. It's different for different people. Some people want to be reached at an emotional level, some at an aesthetic level, there are all sorts of components that combine to make up one's definition of a good photo.

R.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/14/2010 02:59:51 PM · #12

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I noticed that Zeus was on line. I looked at his profile page and noticed that his average vote cast is in the mid 3s.

What I find curious and want to ask Zeus is, in light of your statements below, do you really find that the overwhelming majority of entries here at DPC have little or no value?

A 1, 2 or a 3 vote tells me the voter thinks the image was a near or total failure. At least that is how I read it. So, as a read below, this is someone whose opinion I would value, so if something I entered was a failure in his eyes, I'd really like to know why.

Zeus, if you care to respond, I would be very interested in your evaluation process and why you find that most of the entries here worthy of very low votes. If you do not care to respond, I completely understand and respect that.

I can't speak for Zeus nor can I pretend I understand his logic, therefore I shall limit my comments to my personal views on this matter.

What you are asking here is somewhat akin to asking people to define just what "IS" is.

The answers you recieve will vary depending on who you ask and under which circumstance you posed the question.

Votes are opinions, and each opinion is affected by a multitude of situational factors and one's personal state of mind at the time the issue is raised. You could ask me to comment on or judge an image on several occasions and conceivably garner different scores and/or comments in each instance.

I realize that this does not even to begin answering your question, but I am hoping that you understand that you are asking a question that few could realistically answer with any modicum of exactitude and clarity.

Ray

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/14/2010 01:09:51 PM · #13

I commented on Zeus' words below earlier with one word. "Awesome" because it spoke to me about how a photographer comes to realize an image. Even ones that score low here on DPC often have depth and a story to tell. I was impressed with how he walked us through his process or vision for considering a photograph either taken by him or as he would observe others.

Very insightful.

Then, as the voting started up for the Signature Style challenge, I was watching the votes go by. My image was and is doing fairly well. Not going to win a ribbon, but still North of 6 by a comfortable margin.

I was watching the 6s, 7s. and 8 votes go by along with some comments like "My heart skipped a beat", and "Flawless". Hyperbole aside, the image obviously touched some people. Then, within a range of 7 votes, I get couple of 1 votes.

I usually consider 1 votes as legitimate as 10 votes. By that I mean I haven't seen a worthless image or a perfect image. Of course we all prefer the 10 votes for obvious reason. Also while this was going on, I noticed that Zeus was on line. I looked at his profile page and noticed that his average vote cast is in the mid 3s.

Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I am not calling Zeus out for his voting average, nor am I saying he was one that gave me a 1 vote. I really don't care.

What I find curious and want to ask Zeus is, in light of your statements below, do you really find that the overwhelming majority of entries here at DPC have little or no value?

A 1, 2 or a 3 vote tells me the voter thinks the image was a near or total failure. At least that is how I read it. A 1 vote, in particular, tells me the voter thinks so little of the entry that if something lower than 1 was available they would use it. To me, a 1 vote sends a clear message. A 1 vote tells me much more than a vote of 5.

Now I figure there are some that throw around 1 votes just to imagine the look on the people�s faces as they see their score drop. But Zeus does not strike me as that kind of voter. So, as a read below, this is someone whose opinion I would value, so if something I entered was a failure in his eyes, I'd really like to know why.

Zeus, if you care to respond, I would be very interested in your evaluation process and why you find that most of the entries here worthy of very low votes. If you do not care to respond, I completely understand and respect that.

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by RKT:
...There will always be a divide, no doubt about it. But many people do "cross over", so to speak. What is that thing that nudges someone from being a voracious eater of eye candy, to a more finicky sort of viewer...

Most of us, I think, habitually look for a subject when we look at a photograph, i.e. "this is a picture of a cat", that "a picture of a tree". Someone, somewhere in this thread went out of his way to stress the importance he places on a subject when considering the value of a photo. Of course, we see what we look for. Since most photographs are pictures of more or less tangible things, creatures and events, identifying and considering their subjects is a popular and obvious diversion.

If, however, for a moment, we could imagine pictures themselves as objects, the way, say, a rock is until it is abused for some road or wall or the way a piece of wood is what and how it is, wherever it's is found or scattered, that rough shape and weight, then it should not be much of a stretch to also recognize a photograph as intrinsically fresh, unique and equal to other objects in nature, without having to surrender any sense of imitation, dilution or memento.

There are images that will not benefit from such an exercise. These are the kind of "painted wonders" Bear ( Bear_Music) is talking about, usually photographs that borrow inspiration and manner from a familiar or given aesthetic, such as gorgeous landscapes, solemn still lives or images celebrating the human form. In these images, the subject clearly dictates approach, treatment and manner of processing, while allowing for some degree of diversity of opportunity, skill and experience among their respective authors.

The image here, at the root of this lengthly discussion, is clearly not one of these "painted wonders". It has, by the look and sound of the comments that followed it, pleased some and agitated others. It is and, apparently, remains inaccessible to a share of viewers. To quote one of the comments: "No idea what the concept of this is. No idea what the title says much less means. All I see is an upside down image, from my perspective. That being said, I don't think this really is anything. For me it does not say anything do anything and makes no sense. I would pass by this every day and never notice it once".

My response can only be this: There is and never was any preconceived idea that motivated or came into the making of this shot. My wife put up a sheet of plastic in front of a drafty window to block the snide North wind from blowing down her neck. I had previously sealed that window, but, apparently, to no avail. Being who I am, the plastic tacked to our fine cedar-framed window bothered me to no end. Since I wasn't inclined to jeopardize my marriage over a sheet of plastic, there was nothing else I could do but photograph it. The resulting image appears upside-down, because the poly was hung upside-down; no deliberation in this fact.

So, yes, the subject (if we're talking about a tangible, material subject outside of the image) is transparent enough, and, yes, it isn't much compared to the sight of an active volcano at night or the breasts of the Medusa. It certainly is mundane enough to ignore it, but I chose not to ignore it but to use, use, use it to make it into what it is now. The fact that one would pass something "every day and not notice it once", was in no small way what alerted me to the possibility of an interest sufficient to warrant a photograph in its own right. I am quite happy, actually, to have managed to show you something some of us would otherwise not ever have noticed.

Don't get me wrong, I truly value this comment. It sounds compellingly sincere to me, if not a little perplexed and, well, near-angry. Suffice to say, a viewer's frustration with an image, or a particular kind of image, can hardly be better articulated.

I'm afraid I cannot do much to alleviate the irritation. What I can do, however, is offer a little insight into how one thing can lead to another until something mysteriously appears at your doorstep and, if you should find yourself challenged by the packaging, into what tools are available to open the box.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/12/2010 08:02:22 AM · #14

Originally posted by Jac:

I still see a toilet bowl from the 50's.

Louis, it strikes me as odd that you would give a high vote on an image just because you know the photographer is good. If the exact same photo were taken by me or someone you know who is not good, you would be inclined to give it a lower score based on your knowledge that the photographer isn't good, or that you didn't know he was good.

Help me here Louis, you say things I want to understand but your words don't match the thoughts you're provoking in me.

I'm assuming you're referring to this quote:

Originally posted by Louis:

Exactly, though I did vote this a seven because the photographer is obviously incredibly talented, even though the image meant nothing to me. Note my in-voting comment on that one, as it sums things up.

His comment on the image:

Originally posted by Louis:

Technically wonderful and professionally executed, and a unique and perfectly done duotone, but nothing for me to connect with. 7 for the technicals.

Okay.....it's a portrait, composed so that it seems apparent (At least to me) that the jacket is the focal point......is this supposed to, or does it need to, really speak anything?

This is where I run into confusion.....I oftentimes "miss" the message with images, but sometimes it also seems to me that it's readily apparent that the image is just for visual satisfaction.

Is it a requirement of a good image to tell a story?

This is a glimpse, a story, visually delightful, and all those things....

But this one......

.....is a picture of a flower. Yes, it's exquisite, the definition & color/tonality is off the charts, but......it's still a flower and I don't get deep meaning, "the feeling", or a story with it.

ETA: I *love* this flower image and faved it.

What am I missing?

Message edited by author 2010-01-12 08:03:18.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/12/2010 07:39:04 AM · #15

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/12/2010 04:52:33 AM · #16

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm curious what you saw in the pic Bear, since you called it "thought provoking". What did it provoke in you?

I must confess. When I first saw the image I didn't think much of it. However, after reading this thread I have found new meaning in the photograph. Where I saw numbers I now see votes but they're fading... Where I saw arrows pointing to a block I now see two sides coming together forming the first brick to understanding. The score this photograph received does say something as does the 200 replies.

Message edited by author 2010-01-12 04:54:04.

salmiakki

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

01/12/2010 12:32:02 AM · #17

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
Most of us, I think, habitually look for a subject when we look at a photograph, i.e. "this is a picture of a cat", that "a picture of a tree". ....

...What I can do, however, is offer a little insight into how one thing can lead to another until something mysteriously appears at your doorstep and, if you should find yourself challenged by the packaging, into what tools are available to open the box.

In its entirety, one of the great posts in DPC history. Well-spoken, friend!

R.

What Robert said :)

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

01/11/2010 08:00:56 PM · #18

Yes,

zeuszen's post is most welcome. (Love the story of the homely genesis of the photo in question).

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

01/11/2010 07:57:52 PM · #19

I feel all warm and fuzzy now. :-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/11/2010 07:38:14 PM · #20

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Most of us, I think, habitually look for a subject when we look at a photograph, i.e. "this is a picture of a cat", that "a picture of a tree". ....

...What I can do, however, is offer a little insight into how one thing can lead to another until something mysteriously appears at your doorstep and, if you should find yourself challenged by the packaging, into what tools are available to open the box.

In its entirety, one of the great posts in DPC history. Well-spoken, friend!

R.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/11/2010 06:23:18 PM · #21

This has been an awesome exchange. For me, the discussion is similar to the struggle that's been going through my head as I learn and acquire some experience. It's nice to hear so much of the same frustration I've gone through, the enthusiasm of the recently awakened, and the quiet wisdom of the more experienced.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/11/2010 05:28:33 PM · #22

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

ETA: In other words, he would "normally give" a technically superior image with zero emotional content a low score, that's the way his aesthetic functions.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/11/2010 05:26:48 PM · #23

Originally posted by littlegett:

All you said is in your opinion the screens are 'pretty' astute and are not 'posers' but of course you would say that if you have not been rejected in a while. Rejected for what? post cards? a wall calendar? To have your image printed on the side of someones shoe?

It was a joke meaning that I do get rejected there often and it had been a while since I offered up a shot for them to reject...happens quite often.

Strong words are cool. I was speaking to accuracy. I don't think anyone here is "forcing" you to do anything. I think many of the posters who like the image or posting on it's behalf have been addressing an appreciation or lack of, that some folks have for something they might simply not understand. There's also a small tendency to call people that do find something in an image, such as this, snobs..."art snobs"..."artsy," whatever and that's a little annoying.

Message edited by author 2010-01-11 21:38:50.