| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2004 12:28:47 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Artsy and deep (as in thought) go hand in hand. They don't do to well here, this is more of a technical "how'd they do that" place where people try to figure out how one did the shot as opposed to why. Unless of course it is a cat. |
Art and 'deep (as in thought)', IMO, may go together, then again, they may not. Some artists, even great ones, consider 'gravity' a miscarriage of the mind. Art, to me, is more than skin-deep. While it can involve the mind (if then there is one to involve), an addition of 'heart' would make for a more 'complete' experience (opinion, all opinion).
I find that when I separate the 'best' from the great mass of works, including some which may have long been deemed of 'merit', my chances to come across 'art' are increased. The idea that a work of art must, of necessity, be a dull one, is an unfortunately wide-spread myth.
A picture demanding my attention to the point of wanting to know and feel more than what is tangible there is, I believe, a minority of people could potentially consider 'art'. What I look for (in works of art and to attempt some vague sort of definition) is an irrepressible and eternal 'freshness'.
Of course, such pictures fare badly here and elsewhere. Art is serious stuff (even when light or funny) with a function to perform. No one, in his right mind (opinion, opinion!), would make 'art' merely to please people and win contests. Yet, I am grateful for the very few (apparently out of their mind) who make, occasionally, a 'great' picture available just for me and a handful of others to look at and draw from.
So, if you are intent on submitting such a piece, I suggest to be content with no more than the resonance of your own accelerated heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:35:07 AM · #27 |
you are just better off to stay away from artsy. They just dont do well here.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:36:26 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
you are just better off to stay away from artsy. They just dont do well here. |
No, you're better off artsy. Just your scores are effected negatively, your social skills may become impaired a little and your family may feel better off without you.
In the end though, who will have lived more intensely, them or you?
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 00:39:20.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:38:25 AM · #29 |
right on - that's what photography is all about.
do you see what i see?
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Art and 'deep (as in thought)', IMO, may go together, then again, they may not. Some artists, even great ones, consider 'gravity' a miscarriage of the mind. Art, to me, is more than skin-deep. While it can involve the mind (if then there is one to involve), an addition of 'heart' would make for a more 'complete' experience (opinion, all opinion).
I find that when I separate the 'best' from the great mass of works, including some which may have long been deemed of 'merit', my chances to come across 'art' are increased. The idea that a work of art must, of necessity, be a dull one, is an unfortunately wide-spread myth.
A picture demanding my attention to the point of wanting to know and feel more than what is tangible there is, I believe, a minority of people could potentially consider 'art'. What I look for (in works of art and to attempt some vague sort of definition) is an irrepressible and eternal 'freshness'.
Of course, such pictures fare badly here and elsewhere. Art is serious stuff (even when light or funny) with a function to perform. No one, in his right mind (opinion, opinion!), would make 'art' merely to please people and win contests. Yet, I am grateful for the very few (apparently out of their mind) who make, occasionally, a 'great' picture available just for me and a handful of others to look at and draw from.
So, if you are intent on submitting such a piece, I suggest to be content with no more than the resonance of your own accelerated heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:39:20 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by jmlelii:
you are just better off to stay away from artsy. They just dont do well here. |
No, you're better off artsy. Just your scores are effected negatively. |
Thats the whole point of this thread, to discuss the effectiveness of "artsy" pictures in a Challenge, and how they do in challenges, which in general, do quite horrible.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:41:05 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
Thats the whole point of this thread, to discuss the effectiveness of "artsy" pictures in a Challenge, and how they do in challenges, which in general, do quite horrible. |
Of course, you're right, but so am I.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:46:19 AM · #32 |
i could twist it around, and say
do i see what you want to see... and make a score here
but i sort of chose not to, and just keep asking if you see what i see.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:46:55 AM · #33 |
I really only care for the comments, most of my stuff does badly here on DPC, howere it does great with the "artsy" crowd (art directors, photographers, designers, etc.).
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 00:49:09. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:51:29 AM · #34 |
you know how to use a camera ;}...
keep it up.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 12:59:16 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
I really only care for the comments, most of my stuff does badly here on DPC, howere it does great with the "artsy" crowd (art directors, photographers, designers, etc.). |
You're in my favorites, dmitri. Your's was one of the portraits I voted fairly high. I was more disappointed than I thought I would be that my portrait faired pretty much the same as most of my other shots---38%. That number is starting to have a familiar ring. ;-D I've gotten kind of used to placing low but this time around I felt the old sting of bitterness, I'll admit. I wasn't expecting a ribbon but I had that 'no way' feeling as I looked through the entries in their final placings. I did get a wonderful comment from a member whose lovely work I had yet to discover (I placed some of her work in my favorites) and I got some lovely portraits of my daughter so I can't stay bitter for long. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:01:55 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
I was more disappointed than I thought I would be that my portrait faired pretty much the same as most of my other shots---38%. That number is starting to have a familiar ring. ;-D I've gotten kind of used to placing low but this time around I felt the old sting of bitterness, I'll admit. I wasn't expecting a ribbon but I had that 'no way' feeling as I looked through the entries in their final placings. I did get a wonderful comment from a member whose lovely work I had yet to discover (I placed some of her work in my favorites) and I got some lovely portraits of my daughter so I can't stay bitter for long. |
And my Purple score is already dropping from 5.40 to 5.11. Figures. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:03:43 AM · #37 |
hijacked
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 01:04:07.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:05:47 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
I really only care for the comments, most of my stuff does badly here on DPC, howere it does great with the "artsy" crowd (art directors, photographers, designers, etc.). |
I got more comments than usual for my Color Portrait--23. However, there were many that I didn't find too helpful because they were regarding the lighting (the subject's face was half obscured in darkness) which was quite intentional. I suppose I could say to myself, "Well, if that many people think the lighting is off than perhaps I should listen." In this case, I decided to trust my own instincts and taste and disregard those comments as appreciative as I was that the effort was made. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:27:09 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
I really only care for the comments, most of my stuff does badly here on DPC, howere it does great with the "artsy" crowd (art directors, photographers, designers, etc.). |
I got more comments than usual for my Color Portrait--23. However, there were many that I didn't find too helpful because they were regarding the lighting (the subject's face was half obscured in darkness) which was quite intentional. I suppose I could say to myself, "Well, if that many people think the lighting is off than perhaps I should listen." In this case, I decided to trust my own instincts and taste and disregard those comments as appreciative as I was that the effort was made. |
That should have been obviouse to anyone viewing the image, a number of the comments I received in this challenge where usefull; the other ones just nice to read.
Most people, here on DPC, judge solely on the technical merit of the images (which to me most of the time makes a very boring photograph) instead of based on how the image makes them feel. For example not every image in order to be good, or great, must make you stop and look at it for a while; some images are ment to be glanced at and leave a feeling of some kind, the unrepeatable first impression.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:41:01 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
I really only care for the comments, most of my stuff does badly here on DPC, howere it does great with the "artsy" crowd (art directors, photographers, designers, etc.). |
I got more comments than usual for my Color Portrait--23. However, there were many that I didn't find too helpful because they were regarding the lighting (the subject's face was half obscured in darkness) which was quite intentional. I suppose I could say to myself, "Well, if that many people think the lighting is off than perhaps I should listen." In this case, I decided to trust my own instincts and taste and disregard those comments as appreciative as I was that the effort was made. |
That should have been obviouse to anyone viewing the image, a number of the comments I received in this challenge where usefull; the other ones just nice to read.
|
I'm not sure by your wording if you meant if the half lighting was my intent I should have made it more obvious or if you meant anyone viewing the photo should have realized that was my intent. I think you meant the latter (at least, I hope so). ;-D
I got some really great comments, more than I usually get, and the more negative comments really weren't that negative---they were mostly about the lighting, as I said. I expected to place somewhere in the middle but I fell rather below that. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 01:43:54 AM · #41 |
You got my meaning correctly :)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:00:42 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
You got my meaning correctly :) |
That's gratifying. Thanks. Now I'm going to bed. I keep watching my Purple shot go up and down between 5.40-ish and below 5.20.
I hope those who observe the holiday enjoyed their 4th of July celebrations.
Ta... |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 02:19:41 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by soup:
i would have to call that - terrible
sorry - in general her stuff is good. |
I think that is a great picture! It was in my top 3 picks to win a ribbon. What don't you like about it soup?
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:24:12 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by soup:
my idea of artsy...
look closely.
 |
I like the painterly feel to this, however, for me it would work better without the fence and just a touch more focus, not in focus, just a little less out of focus so the shape stands out a bit more.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 09:45:57 AM · #45 |
If the 'artsy-ness' of a photo upstages the subject of the photo, then it won't do well. But I'm still not sure what is meant by 'artsy' here.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 09:54:52 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by soup:
my idea of artsy...
look closely.
|
I have a different idea of artsy, more like things in the abstract challenge.
I would probably rate the one above very low (unless challenge topic was unidentifiable objects behind a fence), I don't know what I am looking at, I see no real subject, it does not have any meaning for me, it does not create an emotion, it does not appeal in shape or color. For me it is just a wired fence with a heavily blurred subject behind it.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 10:19:10 AM · #47 |
- i left a comment on sonifo's photo - it just seems unreal, set up.
i posted my thought here before i saw it was a 3rd place winner.
- if i took the fence out of that shot - then it wouldn't be a boundry, and if i focused on the cow ( which i do have a shot of ) it wouldn't leave anything to your imagination/./.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 10:25:31 AM · #48 |
this leaves nothing to think about.
its the same cow, 5 seconds after the other shot.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 10:30:47 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
I really only care for the comments, most of my stuff does badly here on DPC, howere it does great with the "artsy" crowd (art directors, photographers, designers, etc.). |
You're in my favorites, dmitri. Your's was one of the portraits I voted fairly high. I was more disappointed than I thought I would be that my portrait faired pretty much the same as most of my other shots---38%. That number is starting to have a familiar ring. ;-D I've gotten kind of used to placing low but this time around I felt the old sting of bitterness, I'll admit. I wasn't expecting a ribbon but I had that 'no way' feeling as I looked through the entries in their final placings. I did get a wonderful comment from a member whose lovely work I had yet to discover (I placed some of her work in my favorites) and I got some lovely portraits of my daughter so I can't stay bitter for long. |
I persoanlly believe minority is always right :)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 10:36:11 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by soup:
this leaves nothing to think about.
its the same cow, 5 seconds after the other shot.
|
Do you have one where the cow is a little less out of focus than the original? Also, maybe try doing a slight gaussian blur to the one that is in focus so the emphasis is on shape and colour rather than an actual object. That's what I was getting at in my previous post.
|
|
