| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2002 01:15:20 AM · #1 |
How do you feel about that? Is it ok or do you feel the need to bump your favorite up?
I'm in that boat so far. Of all the photos that I've rated by far my favorite is one that I have only ranked a 9. I like it better than, but don't believe it's a better picture than the couple that I have rated better than it. I think it's cooler but not better if that makes any sense.
I just thought I'd throw something out for discussion. :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:53:56 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Axxon:
How do you feel about that? Is it ok or do you feel the need to bump your favorite up?
I'm in that boat so far. Of all the photos that I've rated by far my favorite is one that I have only ranked a 9. I like it better than, but don't believe it's a better picture than the couple that I have rated better than it. I think it's cooler but not better if that makes any sense.
I just thought I'd throw something out for discussion. :)
I'd bump the favorite up. There is more to photography than the rule of thirds, exposure compensation, depth of field. You can create a technically perfect picture that says absolutely nothing. Player pianos never miss a note, but we don't use them in concerts. The favorite calls to you in a way the others do not. It is art when it speaks to you. Otherwise it is merely a craft. The voting scale is not ranged from perfect to flawed. I believe for good reason.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 02:08:50 AM · #3 |
Sometimes there'll be a photo I only ranked 8 or 9 that I like better than my 10s. I do take technical issues and meeting the challenge into account in some cases, but they'll only ever cost a photo 1 or 2 points in my system of rating (2 points is rare). I usually comment though. To me these photos are cases where I loved what they were reaching for, but didn't think they quite got there.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:00:33 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by Axxon:
[i]
I'd bump the favorite up. There is more to photography than the rule of thirds, exposure compensation, depth of field. You can create a technically perfect picture that says absolutely nothing. Player pianos never miss a note, but we don't use them in concerts. The favorite calls to you in a way the others do not. It is art when it speaks to you. Otherwise it is merely a craft. The voting scale is not ranged from perfect to flawed. I believe for good reason.
[/i]
Succinctly put… I couldn't agree more…
If I really like a picture, then something within the shot must be technically right however much it throws the rulebook out of the window. To look at a shot, smile and keep looking must mean something. If I really like a shot, or if it makes me think, to me it can't be all bad; so even if the shot has easily perceived flaws, I'm likely to score the shot 10…
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:43:34 AM · #5 |
Same for me ... I usually have one 10 only and ten 9s, this week I am probably in the same situation as yours ... my 10 was probably tecnically an easy shot .. the colors could be differents but because they are what they are .. he is my 10 this week.
It's my favorite because probably some specific emotion it create in me .. but then that is part of art as well.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:14:48 AM · #6 |
I think my best analogy to all this is something like figure skating judges. It's sort of like your favorite routine executed well vs. a pretty good routine executed flawlessly. I think art works contrary to sport in that in sport, we start with a perfect score and take off for every mistake. In art (IMO), I start off at zero and build up. It's the initial glance at the shot that starts it. Usually if a shot gets my attention quickly, even at the thumbnail level, I look more and more for things that would merit a better score. If I see a shot and find little or nothing to grab my attention, I start at 4 and work my way down. The deeper meaning shots that score poorly and people gripe about it (seems to happen every challenge), I don't know what to tell these folks. In a photo, you gotta have something to show to attract the attention. If people like to look at it, they will find the meanings. If they don't, they will not spend the time to leave comments, give you your 3 or whatever and move on. That may sound kind of harsh, but that's the reality to me.
As far as favorites... they are the highest rated to me. If they aren't, then they are "would-be-favorites" with some conditions. And that's all I have to say about that...
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:30:45 AM · #7 |
Like the others I would be inclined to add one or two marks to a shot if I really liked it that much.
What Im looking for technically is not perfection. I'm happy as long as the photographer can use their camera. As long as they meet that basic requirement I'm far more interested in their ideas and how well they executed them.
A good example - A Summer Day Awaits by andrewm
I *loved* that shot. Some people might have thought that the over exposed background was distracting from the aparrent subject of the shot - the breakfast cereal. However, what I loved about it was that the out of focus, over exposed background WAS the subject of the shot. The bowl of cereal was almost incidental - just there for context and colour. I just loved that concept and the way Andrew captured the warmth of the atmosphere by using that over exposed light was just wonderful. That shot was an 11 for me.
John |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:41:31 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by inspzil:
The deeper meaning shots that score poorly and people gripe about it
(seems to happen every challenge), I don't know what to tell these
folks. In a photo, you gotta have something to show to attract the
attention. If people like to look at it, they will find the meanings.
If they don't, they will not spend the time to leave comments,
give you your 3 or whatever and move on. That may sound kind of
harsh, but that's the reality to me.
I agree with everything you say here, except it doesn't apply to
photos in general, it applies to DPC in particular. People don't
and can't spend much time looking and trying to 'understand' pictures
here. The 'quiet' pictures don't work well in this environment, it
is all about initial impression and then maybe you'll get a second
glance to find something else. In Galleries, exhibitions etc. you'll
find more of the quiet kind of pictures, maybe less initial impact
but often longer term appeal. You usually even have some sort of
details card to explain some of the more subtler points, or the context
the photographer was using within the picture - to me this often
adds a whole lot to the pictures - look at Lisae's great 'Art appreciation'
threads in here for the kind of additional stuff that I mean, to me
this context is what makes a lot of the pictures worth looking at and
thinking about - not just the inital impact/ wow. Of course, often
it can just sound like so much mental masturbation and verbage as well.
But what you say is right, on DPC the quiet photographs don't stand a
chance. Short viewing times and no opportunity to provide the context
simply don't allow it to happen.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 8:40:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:17:10 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I agree with everything you say here, except it doesn't apply to
photos in general, it applies to DPC in particular.
To be honest Gordon, pretty much my appreciation for photography is very new. I never paid much attention to composition, lighting, exposure and all that stuff. I didn't know what macro was until I saw it used in some DPC comments. Negative Space? It meant nothing to me. This IS photography for me right now. Most of the stuff I do appreciate, like music and art, things like that, I feel the same way about. Initially I'm a short attention span if something isn't grabbing me right away. I routinely will fall asleep during uninteresting TV or movies. I'm sure as I get into photography more, I may become more appreciative of the boring stuff, "quiet" as you called it. My life is too short to dwell and hunt for meanings in every picture I run across, not to mention there are so many of them out there. Sometimes, it's like printing a fortune cookie message in the NYC residential phone book.... and then not putting it in there because THAT is the message. Anyway, just my bonehead don't-know-any-better-yet opinion. When I break the top 100, maybe someone will listen...
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:19:32 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by lionelm:
Same for me ... I usually have one 10 only and ten 9s, this week I am probably in the same situation as yours ... my 10 was probably tecnically an easy shot .. the colors could be differents but because they are what they are .. he is my 10 this week.
It's my favorite because probably some specific emotion it create in me .. but then that is part of art as well.
One thing I do that differs slightly from this – it'd be interesting to here any views on this – is that I judge each shot entirely alone and on it's own merit. Although this is a competition in many respects, I don't judge a picture against another; for example I wont give a picture a lower mark because I feel another is better… BTW, I've probably scored somewhere around twenty shots with 10 this week; in my book, if a shot is good enough – it gets max even if I have given out fifty tens…
James
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 12:29:13 PM · #11 |
Ok, heres another take on this. Lets say ( and these are mere examples ) that I don't like flower pictures. I find them boring. I do, however like pictures with babies in them. Is it fair or honest to bump up a picture with a baby that I feel is of inferior quality because I naturally find these pictures more pleasing?
Think of movies, if I like westerns then is a cheap spaghetti western going to score higher than an exquisitely done drama if I'm asked which is the better movie? Is this honest, especially if you know better?
Don't get me wrong here, I make no claims to using techinical criteria in an objective manner because I am just learning them. What I do try to do is open my mind when viewing every photo and think how it would make me feel if I were indeed a fan of that type of picture. With this I form my judgement. In this case, I really am not a fan of one of my 10's. It's of a genre that I wouldn't have in my house but when I first saw it I said "OH WOW" and I still do. Favorite though? No, and I honestly can't say that the one I really like is as good a shot especially given that I dislike the subject of the other photo.
I believe that the technical elements of photography do come into play in how I rate things. After all, the technical elements weren't arbitrarily laid down by the photography 101 team. They were elements that over time people recognized worked in getting others to like their work.
When rating a picture then, it makes more sense to me to use a "viewers eye" for my rating rather than say, "ok, heres a photo, oh darn, the light is bad, should have done this or that etc etc.". Rather, I like to look at it uncritically and once I have done that, use the technical elements to determine why the picture worked or didn't work and use this as the basis of my comments. That is, I'll do the second part when I feel more comfortable with these elements.
Maybe I should just paraphrase the former supreme court justice and say "I don't know what good photography is but I know it when I see it."
:)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 05:13:43 PM · #12 |
Ahhh but you've got to think what question you're asking.
When I vote, I'm not voting for the "best" photograph. I'm voting for the one I like most. Best is entirely subjective, so however unfair it might seem (to follow your example) I would tend to mark the flower pictures down and the baby pictures up even if they were 'technically' equal.
But maybe that's just the way I vote :) |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 05:32:42 PM · #13 |
I understand what you're saying when you ry to vote pictures independantly ... but usually I readjust my scale a little with some pictures when I have gone through them .. for example for the 'creativity' aspect this cannot be judge without the others I think.
For me .. if the shot is 'top' it gets a 9 and usually my favorite gets the 10 thought it has happened I gave three 10, but never like 20 or 30.
somewhere judgment is a matter of expectation as well I think. By giving a score, we judge. For example if somebody's average voting is 3 , that person should probably lower her expectation and if the average is 8 ... raise the expectation ...
ok .. not sure I want to say this as stong as it looks because a good picture has its own quality per se as well but .. what the other did matters I think.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:19:57 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
...Player pianos never miss a note, but we don't use them in concerts
<diversion>...
We call them synthesizers, drum machines, and laugh-tracks...
</diversion> |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:18:33 PM · #15 |
I have to say that when I vote it's a compromise between "I like this" and "I think this is good". That's why my favourites in terms of "I like this" will sometimes not get a 10 because they don't satisfy me in both ways perfectly. On the other hand, a photo that I think is very "good", but I don't like all that much will get 8 at most from me. This isn't always a good indication of how I really felt about the photo, which is why I like the idea of multi-level voting.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2002 12:29:52 AM · #16 |
| This isn't rocket science. I strongly believe in giving a 10 to as many pics as you think deserve it. Give several and don't worry about it so much. If it's your favorite then it probably deserves a 10 from you. |
|
|
|
10/04/2002 01:33:13 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I agree with everything you say here, except it doesn't apply to
photos in general, it applies to DPC in particular. People don't
and can't spend much time looking and trying to 'understand' pictures
here. The 'quiet' pictures don't work well in this environment, it
is all about initial impression and then maybe you'll get a second
glance to find something else. In Galleries, exhibitions etc. you'll
find more of the quiet kind of pictures, maybe less initial impact
but often longer term appeal. You usually even have some sort of
details card to explain some of the more subtler points, or the context
the photographer was using within the picture - to me this often
adds a whole lot to the pictures - look at Lisae's great 'Art appreciation'
threads in here for the kind of additional stuff that I mean, to me
this context is what makes a lot of the pictures worth looking at and
thinking about - not just the inital impact/ wow. Of course, often
it can just sound like so much mental masturbation and verbage as well.
But what you say is right, on DPC the quiet photographs don't stand a
chance. Short viewing times and no opportunity to provide the context
simply don't allow it to happen.
I have to confess that I do not spend an extrodinary amount of time looking for meanings. If there is a hint in the title or presentation I'll spend the time trying to "see the vision". However, it has been my experience that often the message received is not the one the photographer sent. To illustrate... I had an assignment in a class to photograph something with repetition. Where I was living at the time we had communal mail boxes. Large aluminum beasts with many individual doors. Great repetition. I decided to open the door of our mail box to break up the pattern and add a point of interest. While in the process of setting things up, I found a little plastic Leggo Man. He fit nicely in the box, and for extra interest I raised his right arm. (They are moveable at the shoulder.) I thought it to be a bit of humor and would add a little life to the photograph. The result was rave reviews about my photograph illustrating the common man fighting back against the "system", refusing to be "boxed in" and unwilling to be part of a cookie-cutter society. You know, I never had the courage to tell them that there wasn't a message, that I had taken that particular photo to submit because I thought it was cute. That the little man didn't have an upraised fist... He was waving. So, I do not search so deeply for the message I receive may never have been sent.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2002 07:05:11 AM · #18 |
Lol Alex, great story - "Waving, not drowning"!
Regarding judging - I vote a lot like Lisae described. It's a balance between what I think is good and what I like. To get a 10 from me there will always need to be some degree of "like" about it.
Another aspect of my voting, though, is something I've not seen anyone else say and it's a little difficult to put into words. I guess the best way to describe it would be to say "I try to judge people by their own standards". It's like when you go to the movies - if you're going to see Schindler's List you know you're going to see something that is a lot more worthy and "good" than if, say, you were going to see The Matrix. They're both great movies but in a purist sense Schindler's List is a far "better" movie. A mere sci-fi action movie like The Matrix could never come close to exploring the kind of personal stories and ground breaking world events that Schindler's List does. However, The Matrix isn't trying to do those things - it only tries to be exciting, clever and occasionally witty - and by those standards it succeeds admirably.
So to put it back in the context of photography, I'm saying we all set ourselves an objective when we take a photograph. In some cases we're trying to portray a story or a message and in other cases we're merely trying to capture an interesting colour or texture. When voting I try hard to understand what the photographer was shooting for and judge their photo on how well I think they succeeded at that.
Hope that made some sense.
John
|
|
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: 04/26/2024 09:24:59 PM EDT.
