| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2006 04:58:41 AM · #1 |
I feel that I have to get this off my chest as it's really annoying me, but I don't really feel the candid III challenge was very fair - as there are several voters who automatically gave someone a one or two points just because they shot an animal. They have also left the same comments for everyone who shot an animal. Just look at any photo of an animal and you will see the same recurring pattern of comments. Most of the photo's featuring animals are very good, and I feel have been marked down unnecessarily!
Nowhere in the challenge rules did it say that the candid shot had to be only of human subjects, so no-one can really say it DNMC if the photo is that of an animal.
I do feel strongly about this, and feel that something should be done about it.
What do others think? |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 05:22:06 AM · #2 |
You have a case - but equally, can you think of anything that can be done? The voters' interpretation of the challenge theme is not always 'correct' in everyone's eyes - but it is a genuine phenomenon, rather than a conspiracy. I'm surprised anyone would think of entering an animal shot into a candid challenge, exactly as much as I would be surprised if anyone entered a human shot into an animal challenge - even though species homo sapiens is obviously an animal.
e |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 05:54:26 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by e301:
You have a case - but equally, can you think of anything that can be done? The voters' interpretation of the challenge theme is not always 'correct' in everyone's eyes - but it is a genuine phenomenon, rather than a conspiracy. I'm surprised anyone would think of entering an animal shot into a candid challenge, exactly as much as I would be surprised if anyone entered a human shot into an animal challenge - even though species homo sapiens is obviously an animal.
e |
Why is candid ONLY associated with humans then?? Are animals not living things with their own personalities? Anyone who owns a pet can tell you their pet acts & behaves in a certain way!
I agree that everyone has their own interpretation of what something is, but something just isn't right for me in this challenge. It feels like people placed a rule that candid can only be a human when that rule wasn't there! I went to the online dictionary, and here is what candid means:
Main Entry: can·did
Pronunciation: 'kan-d&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: French & Latin; French candide, from Latin candidus bright, white, from candEre to shine, glow; akin to Welsh can white, Sanskrit candati it shines
1 : WHITE
2 : free from bias, prejudice, or malice : FAIR
3 a : marked by honest sincere expression b : indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception c : disposed to criticize severely : BLUNT
4 : relating to photography of subjects acting naturally or spontaneously without being posed
Again, it says nothing about the subject being human. Animals can act natural & be spontaneous!
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 06:02:32. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 06:03:35 AM · #4 |
| Perhaps because it carries an implication of 'unaware of the camera' - in the sense of being unaware of the taking of a photograph, of a record of your appearance being made: you'd be hard pushed to successfully argue that a dog, cat, chicken or whatever might behave differently because it knew it was having its picture taken. With the exception of a couple of pugs that we know, of course. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 06:09:21 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by e301:
Perhaps because it carries an implication of 'unaware of the camera' - in the sense of being unaware of the taking of a photograph, of a record of your appearance being made: you'd be hard pushed to successfully argue that a dog, cat, chicken or whatever might behave differently because it knew it was having its picture taken. With the exception of a couple of pugs that we know, of course. |
Animals do act differently if they know you are watching them - a bird flies away, a dog will come up to you and see what the commotion is etc... Why do people have to film in the dark or far away from the subject when they shoot documentaries about animals? Beacuse animals are naturally inquizitive... |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:06:46 AM · #6 |
I was surprised to see so many animal shots in that Challenge and equally surprised to see how many had little candid appeal at that.
e301 made a good point when he said "(he was)surprised anyone would think of entering an animal shot into a candid challenge, exactly as much as I would be surprised if anyone entered a human shot into an animal challenge"
Regardless of definition, when a majority of people think Candid they think people....with the exception of Pugs, of course.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2006 08:52:07 AM · #7 |
Feel free to have me tarred & feathered, beaten with a stick, flamed, or whatever, but I definitely voted shots down in this challenge if I felt they weren't "candid" by the definition I was expecting. This does NOT mean that I was handing out a bunch of 1s, but I was definitely voting things lower if they were not candids in the traditional sense.
As I was voting, I kept a list of things that I felt were either simply not candids at all, or were extremely borderline. Here's that list, which contains things I saw in this challenge -- flame away!
NOT CANDID:
- People looking right at the camera, posing.
- Very young children who don't know how to pose or what a camera is.
- People who are performing in some way or another. (There's the expectation that they're being watched and likely photographed).
- People participating in a sport (ditto reasons above).
- Pets or other animals (Sorry!).
- People way off in the distance.
- The backs of people.
- Large groups of people.
- People who are asleep.
- Plants.
- Landscapes.
- Last but certainly not least: The moon. |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 12:05:20 PM · #8 |
To me, animals are always candid, so to take a photo of them in almost any situation, is not categorizing it any way differently; one from the other. But with people CANDID takes on an entirely different meaning, so I have to go along with alanfreed and say my perception of candid is what he said and I have to add animals to the list too. Sorry.
Message edited by author 2006-04-19 12:07:26. |
|
|
|
04/20/2006 07:48:45 AM · #9 |
I still disagree with the fact you say you don't consider animals to be eligible for the candid challenge! I also feel that it shouldn't be up to the voters to decide what does or does not meet a challenge. There are specific rules set out for each challenge, and in the rules of the candid III challenge it didn't say anywhere what the subject should be.
If I was the only one who used an animal as a candid subject I'd put my hands up and admit I was wrong, but I wasn't the only to do so. If animals do not fit the challenge, then all the entries with animals as a candid subject should be disqualified.
Also I feel that my intelligence is being compromised with and I don't find that very entertaining. I'm merely making a point here, but what gives someone else the right to tell me my photo shouldn't be in a challenge? I'm more than capable in deciding what photo I can or cannot enter in a challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-04-20 07:50:45. |
|
|
|
04/20/2006 08:43:33 AM · #10 |
You have every right to enter an animal shot into a candid photo challenge, and I have every right to disagree about whether it meets the challenge. Welcome to DPC!
My feeling is that animals have no idea how to pose (although I'm sure there are those who will argue that their pet is perfectly capable of posing), so therefore any shot of an animal is technically "candid."
My reason for voting those shots lower is that you simply took the easy way out. Did you feel a little anxious when you took your shot, worried that the subject would see you taking its picture? People who took "true" candid shots probably had some degree of anxiety while doing it.
Anyone can point a camera in front of a dog -- or swan in your case -- and not feel like they're intruding upon its space, or fear that it is going to ask them to put the camera away, or that it will be concerned about how the photos will be used.
The true meaning of a candid shot is to capture someone in their element, going about their daily business in a way that tells a story to the viewer. To do this properly is not necessarily easy, and requires people to leave their comfort zones a bit.
Shooting a picture of an animal does none of that. You took the easy way out, and I voted accordingly.
Originally posted by Apollo2077:
I still disagree with the fact you say you don't consider animals to be eligible for the candid challenge! |
Message edited by author 2006-04-20 08:57:36. |
|
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: 04/25/2024 08:23:38 AM EDT.
