My TENS in the Yellow Challenge - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/15/2004 09:28:05 AM · #27

I think what Setz is trying to get at here... and what he is trying to elicit comments on... are the fact that each of the shots that he gave tens to have something UNIQUE about them... they are not your average DPC winning shots, but I think that he is trying to push photographers on here to "think outside the box" what takes a good photographer, and makes them better, how can you take average, pretty shots, and make them stand out. Each of these photos, uses a technique that is well suited to the photo, and looks to be very purposefully done. THAT is why he gave them tens. The winning image is a beautiful shot (I love horses) but in the same situation... the majority of photographers would be able to see and make that shot... I am not knocking it, it's beautifully done, kudos to the photographer... but I think what Setz is pushing is the fact that the photos he chose, in the same situation, the majority of photographers would NOT come up with the same thing. I hope I explained that correctly. Now let me just point out the key factors in these shots...

Pedro's flower shot - Of course there is the obvious that probably most people voted on and won him 3rd place... the shot is beautifully composed, well exposed, with excellent DOF... HOWEVER how many photographers in that same situation would have had the eye to see that perfect triangle of light which leads your eye, points... almost directly to the yellow in the photo? Not many!

Beagleboy's rubber duck shot - OK... so there may have been other rubber duck shots which were better composed than this one (I think I saw that in the comments on this page?) BUT it is the light that makes this a beautiful shot... That stream of light coming from the top is absolutely gorgeous... and highlights the duck... not to mention how nice the water looks, the ring around the duck, as well as the perfect reflection. LIGHT however is so important! It is often the hardest thing to see... personally I also feel that many photographers would have shot this at 2.8 to try and blur the background, and the wider DOF is beautiful.

Gaurawa's tomato shot - this is just technically a gorgeous shot - you have five beautiful tomatos which make for a pleasing image... the water droplets are gorgeous. What makes this excellent is the way in which the photographer lit it... wonderful job... NO GLARE! The black background is perfect, and he(she?) achieved almost a 3d look with a larger DOF which is difficuult to do, but the stems really helped. I even like the thin yellow line...

Saggy9999's Iris Shot - What makes this sshot different from other flower shots? I believe for one that it is the use of deeper DOF, added to by the leading lines... EVERY line in this shot leads up to the yellow that is so beautifully highlighted. Also the way the photographer SAW this shot... in terms of leading lines. There was a comment that this shot didn't really go for highlighting yellow, but I disagree... it is BEAUTIFULLY done... everything about it says Yellow... leads up to the yellow in the photo! The lighting is beautiful, composition is beautiful.

I apologize but I did not realize how long this was taking me... and I have a HUGE final to do... I must stop procrastinating... and so like Setz I would like to leave this to you guys to continue with. I guess I'll say though... what really makes these shots UNIQUE? WHY are they deservable of a 10 from Setz (believe me, it's not easy to get!) I know I should have gone backwards and really concentrated on the ones at the end... but I have to study. I'll check back later.

-A voice from the past.

12/15/2004 09:28:27 AM · #28

I am regularly amazed at some of the images that are overlooked. I definitely think that speed voting impacts many results, and subtleties are overlooked. Galen Rowell had some interesting thoughts on image appeal. He broke subjects into two categories: mature and immature.

The example he cited was expedition trekking. Early in his career adventure photography was not widely known, thus it was an immature subject. To create wide appeal he needed to shoot "in your face" direct images that didn't leave much to imagination or interpretation. As his career progressed, adventure trekking had grown in popularity, and the growth of color magazines had spread awareness of the visuals. Thus, to maintain appeal he needed to switch to implied photographs which purposely require use of imagination.

For example, if elephants were not a well known animal (bad example, but only thing I have handy!) this shot would be great for appeal (immature subject) as it isn't subtle - it's all clearly presented:

In contrast, this image of a Canada Goose is a more mature subject (who hasn't seen a goose?), and caters to wider appeal than a direct text-book like shot because of its subtleties:

Not implying that my shots are ideal (hardly!) - just trying to better illustrate the points. But try looking at the images Setzler posted in the context of whether the subject was a mature or immature one in the eyes of this audience, and whether the subject was presented in a blatent, or subtle manner. Just another excercise :)

Rowell was facinated by the cognitive science of photography and put together some fascinating essays about the psychology of images. Some of Setzler's posts on this site have reminded me of the thought process I've come to respect after studying Rowell's work.

Message edited by author 2004-12-15 09:28:52.

12/15/2004 09:42:46 AM · #29

Originally posted by cghubbell:

To create wide appeal he needed to shoot "in your face" direct images that didn't leave much to imagination or interpretation.

I believe this statement probably sums up the entire issue, after I think about it. I'm not sure why I have such a difficult time letting this sink in.

12/15/2004 09:55:56 AM · #30

If you're interested in seeing more, here's the bibliography from my earlier post:

Galen Rowell's Vision, The Art of Adventure Photography p.24, Image Maturity.

12/15/2004 09:57:04 AM · #31

Originally posted by cghubbell:

If you're interested in seeing more, here's the bibliography from my earlier post:

Galen Rowell's Vision, The Art of Adventure Photography p.24, Image Maturity.

I have read a few of his books :)

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/15/2004 10:02:39 AM · #32

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I believe this statement probably sums up the entire issue, after I think about it. I'm not sure why I have such a difficult time letting this sink in.

I think what makes it difficult to absorb is the tendendcy to aspire to creating images that make people think. In this respect, you inherently think your most obvious images are less "good" than your complex images. In fact, it's not about which type of image is better or worse. It can take the same amount of skill to produce a blatent "text book" shot of an animal as it does to create a subtlely complex "dynamic landscape".

Neither is better or worse, they just have different markets. Yet, to an artist, there often is only good work and bad work. We think as artists more often than we think as psychologists or marketers.

This is how I see the challenge, but perhaps you've transcended that issue since you've been at it longer than I have.

fotodude

Nikon D70

12/15/2004 10:08:38 AM · #33

in think that 1 of the probs. is that to lots of ppl. here the whole stock photo thing has them soooo very caught up in good tech. work that if they see something out side the norm (for just 1 reason maybe) they vote it down it almost seems like they are incapible of looking at a deeper level and thinking "there just might be something to what he/she did there".

don't loose the creative mind in voting on these shots it is important that this be top on anyones critera list for how they vote.

remeber the old multipule choice ?-

image is- a.)everything
b.)nothing
C.)something
_brando_

(my answer is in cap.)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/15/2004 10:23:39 AM · #34

The other element that I fail to grasp completely that has been brough out here is how 'well' a photo meets the challenge. The cases of the purple iris photo is an example of this. There is not a lot of yellow in the photo and that seems to be the main reason that it didn't do as well overall.

The third place photo is much like the iris photo in ths aspect though...

Message edited by author 2004-12-15 10:25:16.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

12/15/2004 10:25:06 AM · #35

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

If the photo had yellow in it it met the challenge for me... :)

12/15/2004 10:26:32 AM · #36

I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten...

12/15/2004 10:27:26 AM · #37

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten...

John, you are an idiot. The challenge topic limits the creativity by specifying that the color yellow is important.

12/15/2004 10:29:06 AM · #38

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten...

John, you are an idiot. The challenge topic limits the creativity by specifying that the color yellow is important.

Yes it does.. let's look at the challenge description:

"Photograph your interpretation of the color yellow. The color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo."

It says to photograph my interpretation of the color yellow. Then it limits my interpretation by specifying that the color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/15/2004 10:30:39 AM · #39

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten...

John, you are an idiot. The challenge topic limits the creativity by specifying that the color yellow is important.

Yes it does.. let's look at the challenge description:

"Photograph your interpretation of the color yellow. The color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo."

It says to photograph my interpretation of the color yellow. Then it limits my interpretation by specifying that the color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo.

Maybe a photo of 'cowardice' would do better if the challenge topic was YELLOW and there was no description provided. Probably not in most cases, but it would allow some people to think differently maybe...

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/15/2004 10:33:06 AM · #40

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Maybe a photo of 'cowardice' would do better if the challenge topic was YELLOW and there was no description provided.

Why wouldn't you try it anyway? Chicken? ;-)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/15/2004 10:34:39 AM · #41

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Oddly, I thought that the violet's yellow was a primary design element, and the purple served to highlight it much like a good depth of field effect cleans a background to clarify the subject. I found that image amazing, and it disappointed me to see people missing the greatness of that image because its color proportions missed their subjective interpretation of an ambiguous contest guideline. I tend to take more of an innocent until proven guilty approach to contest guidelines.

It seems like in many cases a really stunning image will place highly (but maybe not ribbon) as long as it somewhat meets the challenge, but as an image becomes less appealing, it is held more strictly to the challenge guidelines. I wonder if "not meeting the challenge" is easier to articulate than the underlying reason why somone could not connect with an image? I work hard at comments, and yet sometimes I really have difficulty clearly expressing the things that distance an image from me.

lyta

Canon EOS-40D

12/15/2004 10:35:32 AM · #42

Very valid points (by all). -
Different styles - different markets. I scored the rubber ducks high because they were really good pictures of rubber ducks.One of my 10s scored as low as 301st place.
I gave out 31 10's. But I've given out as litle as 3 in a challenge.

There was a time when geat art was limited to mostly religious or mythical subjects. Great works were not dismissed because 'if I see one more picture of the Christ child'.

If one was to use a search engine in a art or photography resource and use almost any noun - it would astound folks how many hits it would receive.All work with the same subject or object in it.

Even with writing - many markets different styles - but essentially there are only so many plots (not as many as one would think), but it's all in the telling.A love story is a love story whether it is found in "war & Peace' or a Harlequinn romance. The style and market is different.Why dismiss the latter oONLY because one's taste doesn't run in that direction.

Actually too - just because the masses might agree that something is good, doesn't really make it good, just makes it popular.
There has been works of art in all fields that are considered to be incredible today, that caused riots when first presented to the public.

It would be interesting to have some challenges that had to be taken of a certain object.1 object. We'd all have to vote on 200 or more photos of the same thing.

Originally posted by cghubbell:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I believe this statement probably sums up the entire issue, after I think about it. I'm not sure why I have such a difficult time letting this sink in.

I think what makes it difficult to absorb is the tendendcy to aspire to creating images that make people think. In this respect, you inherently think your most obvious images are less "good" than your complex images. In fact, it's not about which type of image is better or worse. It can take the same amount of skill to produce a blatent "text book" shot of an animal as it does to create a subtlely complex "dynamic landscape".

Neither is better or worse, they just have different markets. Yet, to an artist, there often is only good work and bad work. We think as artists more often than we think as psychologists or marketers.

This is how I see the challenge, but perhaps you've transcended that issue since you've been at it longer than I have.

bod

12/15/2004 10:38:29 AM · #43

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder if a great photo showing some form of cowardice would be well received? Alternative views of the topic never seem to finish in the top ten...

John, you are an idiot. The challenge topic limits the creativity by specifying that the color yellow is important.

Yes it does.. let's look at the challenge description:

"Photograph your interpretation of the color yellow. The color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo."

It says to photograph my interpretation of the color yellow. Then it limits my interpretation by specifying that the color yellow must lead to the impact of the photo.

Maybe a photo of 'cowardice' would do better if the challenge topic was YELLOW and there was no description provided. Probably not in most cases, but it would allow some people to think differently maybe...

May I have your attention please?
Will the real John Setzler please stand up?
I repeat, will the real John Setzler please stand up?

bod

12/15/2004 10:40:25 AM · #44

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Seriously though, I have exactly the same problem with the pets challenge ... a great idea which gets blown out of the window by the description.

If I get time to shoot I'm gonna shoehorn it in anyway : )

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/15/2004 10:43:33 AM · #45

Originally posted by scalvert:

Why wouldn't you try it anyway? Chicken? ;-)

I'm definitely not chicken.. i have submitted plenty of alternative challenge views in the past :)

lyta

Canon EOS-40D

12/15/2004 10:45:08 AM · #46

I voted the 73rd place one low because I thought it should be crisper and sharper. The tint didn't really do it for me, and there is a bit of glare from the reflections. I thought this could have been a better shot if taken from a more interesting angle, or the 'focus' or subject concentrated on at a different prospective, on a single feature and/or perhaps closer to the subject.

RiderGal

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/15/2004 11:03:49 AM · #47

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I wouldn't call you an idiot... WEIRD... YES... idiot... NO... LOL... let's see here Setz... how many times can you quote yourself in a row... GO! Oh wait... not Weird... DORK!

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

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

12/15/2004 11:54:35 AM · #48

Debating challenge topics is always valuable. But having an argument with yourself about it in the forum thread...

...priceless.

John, per the site rules, please stop all personal attacks against yourself.

the-O-ster

Nikon D70

12/15/2004 12:02:46 PM · #49

this post is summed up in one simple concept. people are different. how many people actually change their opinion after arguing this side or that?