| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2015 02:58:05 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Isn't the whole "Challenge" created by the boundaries set in the description... I'm personally more miffed about the editing limitations than anything... If everyone is so worried about creativity, why do we not allow things like colored overlays and motion blurs to be added to photographs? Seems to me that the restrictions a description place on your challenge entry are far less limiting than the restrictions on editing... but I digress...
Think for a minute about the Eyes closed Portrait challenge we just had... In the description, it clearly stated, "photograph a human subject whose eyes are closed.".... BOOM... there it is, the part of the description that rules out 100 photos of your dogs and cats sleeping... It forced you to use a person.
There has to be some limitation to challenge interpretation, or you really end up taking the challenge out of it... |
The challenge title could have been Portrait of a Human With Eyes Closed - title and description covered in one go. |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 08:26:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Historically, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Take Brennan's example of "Red", if we DON'T have a description we get a LOT of examples of lateral thinking, few of which score well unless they are also exceptionally well-done, and most of the high finishes go to more-or-less obvious "red" ideas, like red lips caressing strawberries, whatever. If we use the description "Red as a color" we close the door on lateral thinking, you'd think, but we still get a bunch of really interesting takes on the more-limited definition. And either way, somebody's unhappy, someone's ALWAYS unhappy with a challenge or its description.
Personally I think it's a mistake to think creativity flourishes in a no-boundaries environment. In my experience the opposite is true; for the most part, we see creativity when people need to challenge and overcome limits. I guess it depends on your definition of "creativity", but I can tell you this for sure: you see a lot more "creative" results in challenges that have strict boundaries than you do in Free Studies. Think about that... |
Again, red was just a quick example. I didn't mention creativity in my original post. As someone who votes a lot, I like seeing different interpretations of a challenge. The challenge theme is a boundary, and people are free to create their own boundaries. I also realize nothing will change as to what will make the front page. I/we are just looking for a little more latitude sometimes, just one challenge a week with N/A, and a more articulate description when there are indeed descriptions. Crooked is a prime example of a theme that would have been great with no description. Perhaps it should have been called skewed horizon, wonky POV, etc.
Just one challenge a week with no description...just. one. Then there is happiness for all...maybe, that's probably wishful thinking but it would be nice to try.
: D |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 08:38:23 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by RKT:
Can we have less or no descriptions on more challenges? |
YES Please! |
Part of my yes is due to the fact that the descriptions are often not clear. I'd much rather have nothing than something i don't completely understand. |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 08:55:19 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jomari:
. . .
The challenge title could have been Portrait of a Human With Eyes Closed - title and description covered in one go. |
+
|
|
|
|
07/23/2015 09:01:56 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There are at least two facets to the "learning" on DPC- technicality and artistry. What helps the technical side can stifle the artistic side. |
For the DPC website, yes. For the challenges, seldom for artistry. To me, the challenges are perceived more like a customer order for a stock photograph. You don't fulfill the customer's expectation for the order, you don't get paid (DNMC). Very few people commission art by subject matter, with the primary exception being painted portraits and landscapes (and I would classify these as stock paintings and not art).
Just my humble opinion.
Tim
Message edited by author 2015-07-23 11:24:22. |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 09:05:28 AM · #31 |
This is an nearly absolute truth in my mind. In many aspects of life.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
you see a lot more "creative" results in challenges that have strict boundaries than you do in Free Studies. Think about that... |
The challenge description issue to me isn't that we are restricting creativity, but occasionally the challenge description leads photogs and voters in a direction unnecessarily. I do sort of enjoy challenge descriptions truth be told - but there are a few that would benefit from not having them IMHO:
A few recent challenges this might apply to:
Crooked
Transparency
Human Portrait, Head & Shoulders
On the other hand, I liked the description for "Music" which was "Create an image that sings of "music" in the viewer's eye."
For the most part though, this description was ignored IMHO, because something like this
 would have finished higher in my thinking.
This is an interesting topic (hence all the responses). I usually like to put my 2 cents in when a challenge suggestion comes along ... and this thread will only help do a swell job in the future =)
Message edited by author 2015-07-23 12:57:47. |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 12:32:26 PM · #32 |
Funny thing, I went to see who posted Music III as a challenge suggestion and I see there was not a description given by the op.
So maybe I vote for Langdon to write them all:) |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 12:43:06 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Funny thing, I went to see who posted Music III as a challenge suggestion and I see there was not a description given by the op.
So maybe I vote for Langdon to write them all:) |
I wrote that description, actually. SC are the ones that enter challenges in the queue. |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 12:46:10 PM · #34 |
| i agree with Robert, i like confining topics. i just want more freedom with editing. |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 08:44:21 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Funny thing, I went to see who posted Music III as a challenge suggestion and I see there was not a description given by the op.
So maybe I vote for Langdon to write them all:) |
I wrote that description, actually. SC are the ones that enter challenges in the queue. |
Congratulations... a topic with context. So can you do that more often? |
|
|
|
07/23/2015 10:26:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally I think it's a mistake to think creativity flourishes in a no-boundaries environment. In my experience the opposite is true; for the most part, we see creativity when people need to challenge and overcome limits. I guess it depends on your definition of "creativity", but I can tell you this for sure: you see a lot more "creative" results in challenges that have strict boundaries than you do in Free Studies. Think about that... |
restrictions can encourage creativity, but not at dpc. I completely disagree that you see more creative results in strict challenges. very few rise to the occasion. and then the supposed lovers of intellectual property rights give ribbons to blatant copies of images they googled. remember the fish swimming in a frying pan sea? |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 09:56:43 AM · #37 |
Personally, if I know someone has completely ripped off an idea, I'll reduce the score I give. This usually doesn't register in my mind during voting though - although when there are 2 owls with coffee-cup eyes in the same challenge, that's a giveaway! ;D
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally I think it's a mistake to think creativity flourishes in a no-boundaries environment. In my experience the opposite is true; for the most part, we see creativity when people need to challenge and overcome limits. I guess it depends on your definition of "creativity", but I can tell you this for sure: you see a lot more "creative" results in challenges that have strict boundaries than you do in Free Studies. Think about that... |
restrictions can encourage creativity, but not at dpc. I completely disagree that you see more creative results in strict challenges. very few rise to the occasion. and then the supposed lovers of intellectual property rights give ribbons to blatant copies of images they googled. remember the fish swimming in a frying pan sea? |
Message edited by author 2015-07-24 09:56:56. |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 12:33:05 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by tate:
Personally, if I know someone has completely ripped off an idea, I'll reduce the score I give. This usually doesn't register in my mind during voting though - although when there are 2 owls with coffee-cup eyes in the same challenge, that's a giveaway! ;D
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally I think it's a mistake to think creativity flourishes in a no-boundaries environment. In my experience the opposite is true; for the most part, we see creativity when people need to challenge and overcome limits. I guess it depends on your definition of "creativity", but I can tell you this for sure: you see a lot more "creative" results in challenges that have strict boundaries than you do in Free Studies. Think about that... |
restrictions can encourage creativity, but not at dpc. I completely disagree that you see more creative results in strict challenges. very few rise to the occasion. and then the supposed lovers of intellectual property rights give ribbons to blatant copies of images they googled. remember the fish swimming in a frying pan sea? |
|
It's reasonable enough to say that voters don't know something's been copied, but there's no outrage after it's found out or admitted to in the notes. But sorry for hijacking this thread. Back to descriptions... |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:01:47 PM · #39 |
regarding "ripping off" an idea; as a "learning site", recreating certain images is helpful in skills building.
having Gyaban or Samantha recreate an image someone else did in expert might not be much of a learning exercise, but someone like myself, or jgirl (to pick known "trying to improve on skills" photographers) trying to emulate a shot to figure out how it was done in a "real world" or "particular type of editing" sense is not as much about plagiarising the work as it would be about building up another facet to draw upon, and using a milestone as the marker.
sometimes something that looks so simple, or even to many people IS so simple, can be difficult for another to do, or to understand without going through the same steps; but once done, can be used in individually creative exercises at a later point.
I, personally, feel that too many people are used to the same old images from the same old people, and seeing the same old thing again and again is negatively affecting the perception of the image.
I'd like to do a waterdrop image, or series even; they look fun to mess with. does that mean that if I put one in you're going to look and say "oh, that's just (User) phoning it in, 5"? For many, yes, and then when I check my score I wonder why so many people low voted it, I assume it's because what I produced isn't up to par (lets step outside the box and assume that in this example what I produced is up to par for the sake of the discussion). Is that going to encourage me to do more drops in an effort to perfect it? likely not for me, personally, I don't like to make the same mistake twice, so I'm going to leave that water drop stuff alone, when if you knew it wasn't (user) and was someone learning to do this technique, your 5 might've been a 7, and it might've actually encouraged me to work on refining the skill with a positive attitude to it.
So, to hear people talk about plagiarising images on the site makes me think people have it at a base level of thought that everybody here is (or should be) on a perfectly equal level in terms of competency and therefore have no need to bother with stuff like "benchmarking for the sake of learning", or "trying to see if a different style works with how they like to shoot or their equipment".
I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a soft focus or blurred image; this is someone trying to copy Don, or jmritz, and i'll score them accordingly for daring to plagiarize another photographer's work. :p |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:08:02 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
I'd like to do a waterdrop image, or series even; they look fun to mess with. does that mean that if I put one in you're going to look and say "oh, that's just (User) phoning it in, 5"? For many, yes, and then when I check my score I wonder why so many people low voted it ... when if you knew it wasn't (user) and was someone learning to do this technique, your 5 might've been a 7 ... |
Can I point out that voting like this -- "adjusting" the vote based on the photographer's (perceived) identity -- is a clear violation of the voting rules, and is not all that likely to be as prevalent as you might think. |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:19:25 PM · #41 |
By all means, building on your skills is a worthy task that can pay off.
But we are talking about DPC - and personally all other things being equal, I would give an image I perceive as original a higher score than one that I see as a copied idea.
Naturally there are other criteria. But a unique image is preferred when voting (for me at least). =)
Originally posted by RyanW:
regarding "ripping off" an idea; as a "learning site", recreating certain images is helpful in skills building.
|
|
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:35:54 PM · #42 |
I guess much of this depends on ones perception of 'ripping off'? Keeping with the water drop analogy, I guess a drip with a crown of cream in a coffee cup would be seen as a 'copy' of many peoples work and doubt it was done first on dpc. I've done it and crossed it off my (long) toshoot list ;)
Now, no 2 drops are the same so guess it's the surrounding setup that would be seen as copying?
I think something totally new is a rare thing so yes, if shot well it should be rewarded however that doesn't happen very often imho. Looking at the current front page the only 2 images that I don't remember seeing similar versions of are the 4th and 5th placed shots in side by side but am sure something similar has been photographed before somewhere by someone?
Originally posted by tate:
By all means, building on your skills is a worthy task that can pay off.
But we are talking about DPC - and personally all other things being equal, I would give an image I perceive as original a higher score than one that I see as a copied idea.
Naturally there are other criteria. But a unique image is preferred when voting (for me at least). =)
Originally posted by RyanW:
regarding "ripping off" an idea; as a "learning site", recreating certain images is helpful in skills building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:36:38 PM · #43 |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:52:44 PM · #44 |
| I created a new thread for this hijack. Sorry, RKT, I was too slow. |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:53:01 PM · #45 |
comment moved to new shiny thread ! ...
Message edited by author 2015-07-24 14:59:41. |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 02:57:21 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RyanW:
I'd like to do a waterdrop image, or series even; they look fun to mess with. does that mean that if I put one in you're going to look and say "oh, that's just (User) phoning it in, 5"? For many, yes, and then when I check my score I wonder why so many people low voted it ... when if you knew it wasn't (user) and was someone learning to do this technique, your 5 might've been a 7 ... |
Can I point out that voting like this -- "adjusting" the vote based on the photographer's (perceived) identity -- is a clear violation of the voting rules, and is not all that likely to be as prevalent as you might think. |
of course; I was trying to emphasize a point, not promote behaviour.
I vote the way I vote, and that is entirely based on how I feel at the time i'm pressing the buttons on the keyboard. |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 06:04:52 PM · #47 |
I still like detailed descriptions.
Consider the current challenge: "Aliens. Show us what an alien from another planet or solar system might look like."
Without that description, we would still get a number of highly entertaining weirdo creatures, but we'd also get a ton of ordinary portraits, with people defending those by saying: he/she isn't American, so therefore is an "alien". |
|
|
|
07/24/2015 11:15:05 PM · #48 |
While I have to confess to being underwhelmed by some of the recent challenges. I still favor more detailed descriptions. If we are after the broadest possible interpretations, we can just call them all free study.
Note to add that while I have been underwhelmed, that doesn't mean they were bad challenges, or bad ideas. I just was not excited about them. I'm sure there have been challenges I loved, that did nothing for others. It's all good. |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 01:28:11 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
07/29/2015 03:09:32 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Simple
N/A
I like. |
It's 'Simple' alright. Wide open door for DNMC votes I think. :-( |
|
