| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2002 01:26:11 PM · #1 |
This is driving me a little crazy lately. For example - this week's second place photo has some white floaties in the water. Several people commented on them and even noted that while you aren't allowed to spot edit, they would have scored the picture higher if they weren't there. How is that in the photographer's control, and what would you suggest he/she do about it? It doesn't seem fair to penalize a shot for something like that.
"I'd like it if the tree were shorter"
"If those mountains were closer together you'd get a better score"
Okay, okay, so now I'm exaggerating. :-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 01:33:18 PM · #2 |
It's called justifying the unjustifiable.....personal preference. But it is fair to say IF something was slightly more perfect it would have made the shot better..to them :-)
Because there are photos entered everyweek that are just as incredible and difficult to get that may NOT have specks or distracting elements...that photographer may have gotten a bit luckier and great photography has an element of luck :-)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 01:33:45 PM · #3 |
even though it is out of her control, you still have to admit that they effect the photo. Even if she couldnt get rid of them it is true that it would loook better without them.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 01:49:59 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by kathleenm:
This is driving me a little crazy lately. For example - this week's second place photo has some white floaties in the water. Several people commented on them and even noted that while you aren't allowed to spot edit, they would have scored the picture higher if they weren't there. How is that in the photographer's control, and what would you suggest he/she do about it? It doesn't seem fair to penalize a shot for something like that.
"I'd like it if the tree were shorter"
"If those mountains were closer together you'd get a better score"
Okay, okay, so now I'm exaggerating. :-)
I think most people would agree that the picture would look better
with those spots cloned out. (well, lets assume at least 50% of people do)
It is a resonable comment to say 'love your picture, you might want
to consider removing those spots'
Sure you can't do it for a dpchallenge entry, but you certainly might
if you were going to try to sell it, or print it for your wall or
whatever use you feel like putting your pictures to.
You maybe thought the spots were okay, but if you get lots of comments
about them you might want to re-think removing them for example.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:02:23 PM · #5 |
| Another facet of this argument is that maybe if the "bad" can't be fixed, find another picture. I am not referring to ANY of the ones mentioned above, but i have had comments on some of my pictures where it was impossible to change what was mentioned. The next time I shot, those comments were echoing through my mind, and I realized that sometimes choosing another subject is the best course of action. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:06:59 PM · #6 |
How about this comment:
"Your picture would have been better if someone else had shot it" :)
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/24/2002 2:05:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:08:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by konador:
even though it is out of her control, you still have to admit that they effect the photo. Even if she couldnt get rid of them it is true that it would loook better without them.
I don't have a problem with the comments about the spots at all. I do think it's unfair to lower the score when we know spot editing isn't allowed.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:15:20 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MarkRob:
How about this comment:
"Your picture would have been better if someone else had shot it" :)
That is just rude. Maybe you could respond to their comment with "this comment would have been better if someone else had written it" kinda thing.
(Or, i suppose you could just ignore it. sigh, I hate mature decisions)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:16:36 PM · #9 |
But how can you not lower the score if the shot isn't perfect? You can't say "if your shot was perfect, I'd give you a 10.. but I know how hard it would have been to get it perfect, so I'll give you a 10 anyway!"
That's part of the challenge, doing the best you can with the limited resources available. Of course the pictures could be better if you weren't limited by such arbitrary things as a challenge topic, or 1 week, or no spot editing, or digitial cameras. Those are the rules of the game. Sort of like when you play scrabble, you have to actually use real words. Sometimes that's hard...
Chris
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:25:16 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by chrisab:
You can't say "if your shot was perfect, I'd give you a 10.. but I know how hard it would have been to get it perfect, so I'll give you a 10 anyway!"
sure you can! it's completely illogical, but ...
like i just said in another thread, that door swings both ways ...
"if your shot sucked, I'd give you a 1.. but I like cats/bugs/flowers/anything better than your subject, so I'll give you a 1 anyway!" |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 02:43:53 PM · #11 |
I have been back to look at Indigo's photo... Those specs in that image don't really bother me at all. It's what I would expect to see in a scene of this nature. The specs aren't distracting to me and the make me feel like I'm underwater rather than in outer space :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 03:06:46 PM · #12 |
You mean to tell me that it isn't a real UFO? I thought the speck was just a smaller UFO : ? )
It's a great shot!
T
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 03:28:50 PM · #13 |
Kathleenm - I've gotten silly comments like this myself. One of my better shots, Water Lilly, received several comments that told me there were too many lilly pads in the shot, as if I were wearing hip waders and could barge into private property and arrange it the way I wanted it. The shot was of a water lilly, for god's sake! That week left me asking myself, do I have to bleed for DPC? Let's not even go on to the bumble bee I let wander on my arm and the comments about wanting it to sit up and beg or sting me or some other sillyness.
Bottom line (as always) - Filter the comments, ignore the trolls and gleem the goodness from the people that care enough to think about their words. And try to have fun, even with the trolls of this world!!
I find backspacing is very useful.
Originally posted by kathleenm:
This is driving me a little crazy lately. For example - this week's second place photo has some white floaties in the water. Several people commented on them and even noted that while you aren't allowed to spot edit, they would have scored the picture higher if they weren't there. How is that in the photographer's control, and what would you suggest he/she do about it? It doesn't seem fair to penalize a shot for something like that.
"I'd like it if the tree were shorter"
"If those mountains were closer together you'd get a better score"
Okay, okay, so now I'm exaggerating. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 03:42:03 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kathleenm:
This is driving me a little crazy lately. For example - this week's second place photo has some white floaties in the water. Several people commented on them and even noted that while you aren't allowed to spot edit, they would have scored the picture higher if they weren't there. How is that in the photographer's control, and what would you suggest he/she do about it? It doesn't seem fair to penalize a shot for something like that.
"I'd like it if the tree were shorter"
"If those mountains were closer together you'd get a better score"
Okay, okay, so now I'm exaggerating. :-)
I have gotten comments like that and I've made comments like that, where I think it is something within the photographer's control. But, at the same time I don't lower the score just because there may be an alternate shot that I think might work as well or better. I only make those comments as suggestions - another way to compose a shot which may make it better.
Mark
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 03:50:14 PM · #15 |
I believe that these comments come mostly from people who
A)don't own a camera & have no idea what photographing nature is like
B)are "studio" photographers, where the entire environment is controlled by the photographer.
C)just feel the need to justify their low scores that they hand out.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/24/2002 3:48:52 PM. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 05:03:49 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
Let's not even go on to the bumble bee I let wander on my arm and the comments about wanting it to sit up and beg or sting me or some other sillyness.
Oh my GOODNESS. Three people actually DID suggest that you try the shot while the stinger was going in!!! What are people THINKING? or not thinking as the case may be... Really, at least those comments were good for comic relief!
Dawn |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 05:42:46 PM · #17 |
Just-Married - The bee stinging comments were meant as jokes, as I asked after the Challenge week to please explain yourselves. I am now in the habit of sending thank you notes to everyone that took the time to place a comment on my photo(s). While doing the thank you notes, if I have any issues with the comments left, I raise them.
The sit up and beg thing was an exaggeration, but not the stinging part. You gotta keep your sense of humor at this site!
Originally posted by just-married:
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]Let's not even go on to the bumble bee I let wander on my arm and the comments about wanting it to sit up and beg or sting me or some other sillyness.
Oh my GOODNESS. Three people actually DID suggest that you try the shot while the stinger was going in!!! What are people THINKING? or not thinking as the case may be... Really, at least those comments were good for comic relief!
Dawn[/i]
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 05:43:20 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by waltoml:
I believe that these comments come mostly from people who
A)don't own a camera & have no idea what photographing nature is like
B)are "studio" photographers, where the entire environment is controlled by the photographer.
C)just feel the need to justify their low scores that they hand out
or D) People who do have a camera, are not studio photographers, and actually give it a fairly decent score if not great, but are just trying to suggest things that possibly the photographer didn't notice because as a voter we can't read the minds of those taking the pictures. (most of us can't anyway)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 06:10:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by waltoml:
or D) People who do have a camera, are not studio photographers, and actually give it a fairly decent score if not great, but are just trying to suggest things that possibly the photographer didn't notice because as a voter we can't read the minds of those taking the pictures. (most of us can't anyway)
Actually you are correct. I was just being bummed out because I really wanted to hit a 6 on my last photo and I only made it to 5.994.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/24/2002 6:10:00 PM. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 06:34:37 PM · #20 |
this is an interesting thread. in some ways it's kind of a backlash against constructive criticism : ). And in other ways it's like an open question about how much crit is too much.
i think all constructive criticism you receive is basically someone riffing off of what you showed and saying that what it would take to make this a truly stellar picture would be 'x'.
ok maybe at that moment you didnt have 'x' handy. then you have to take responsibility that your pic could be improved, ie is not yet perfect.
I mean isnt that why we're all here>? To hear suggestions about how our pics could be improved? Or are we secretly here only to have our genius recognized? : )
Disclaimer: This is all just philosophical hypothesis and is not directed at any particular individuals. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 06:43:14 PM · #21 |
Well, um, sort of. I wasn't really talking about constructive criticism "if you tried this it might be good" kind of comments. I'm talking about flotsam (which are normal to underwater shots as John said) that can't be edited out per our rules - things the photographer has no control over. Sure you can change the angle of a shot or perspective and you might get a better picture. That's a different banana altogether. :-)
Dang, wish I could think of more examples. lol |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 07:17:13 PM · #22 |
As you point out, Kathleen, the photographer does have control over what's in his/her shot. The floatsam is a small example, but if you say "I'm not going to deduct for things that would have been hard to change", you can carry that to logical extremes. Eventually any old photo, no matter how ugly, is potentially beautiful "if only....". As a photographer, you have the ultimate power.. you can choose to take the picture or not. Just because it's the best you could get out of the scene doesn't mean it's art. There's no A for effort.
By the way, this is purely academic. I gave UFO one of my 2 10s of the week. And the floating stuff didn't detract from the shot at all for me.
Chris
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 07:26:43 PM · #23 |
You want examples? Look to my profile. Pick a picture, just about any will do, and read the comments. You'll find plenty of examples of silliness. :)
Originally posted by kathleenm:
Well, um, sort of. I wasn't really talking about constructive criticism "if you tried this it might be good" kind of comments. I'm talking about flotsam (which are normal to underwater shots as John said) that can't be edited out per our rules - things the photographer has no control over. Sure you can change the angle of a shot or perspective and you might get a better picture. That's a different banana altogether. :-)
Dang, wish I could think of more examples. lol
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 07:40:41 PM · #24 |
Chris, I understand this philosophy of self discipline in photography. But a lot of non studio shooting is 'capture of the moment.'
You simply can not wait for your subject to be perfect because it will never be just what caught your eye again.
Here's my philosophy,for what it is worth. Waiting for perfection will get you nothing. Reaching for perfection will get you something. Something is better than nothing. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 08:16:06 PM · #25 |
I'm all for capturing something rather than nothing! But just because it's something doesn't mean you have to rate it as everything!
I mean, if there had been a big giant tuna in the upper left corner of UFO, banging his lips against the glass, I would have given the shot a 3. You can't just say "well, there were a lot of tuna in the water that day, so I'll just imagine it's a 10...".
I'm just saying, you get credit for what the image is, not what it could have been. That's the challenge. Sometimes it takes work.. pre-visualize, set up the shot, wait .. and wait .. The people who put in the best work (and get a little lucky) to get the shot just right should score better.
|
|
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: 04/23/2024 07:19:46 PM EDT.
