DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Urban landscapes
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 58, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/08/2003 10:30:04 AM · #26
What if you live in an ugly town like I do? We have nothing that would look intersestingly good as a landscape, a few old buildings but mostly blah. I should have driven to Colorado Springs or Denver, or even Aspen, Vail,.. too far. May be next time. Van
10/08/2003 10:37:30 AM · #27
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

i thought there was a fairly well defined genre known as 'landscape' photography that was pretty different from closeups.



It seemed to me that by throwing 'urban' into the challenge, and given the description...this opened up to be a wider invitation for creativity.
But, by my number..I see I am..once again..not able to get my feeling across!
10/08/2003 10:56:32 AM · #28
For a community of photographers, from professional to hobbyist, there needs to be more encouragement here.

I thought artistic people were supposed to be open minded, willing to accept personal interpretation? Doesn't appear to be the case to me.

If there were some prize at stake in these competitions, I could see being very literal in your voting and trying to manipulate the outcome of a contest to win...but this is just for fun.

Why don't we try to accentuate the positive rather than rip someone's work to pieces. When you comment, try to include some positive feedback, as well as some negative criticism. That is the only way people can get better. But maybe I'm just being too generous here.
10/08/2003 11:19:34 AM · #29
Originally posted by EL-ROI:

For a community of photographers, from professional to hobbyist, there needs to be more encouragement here.

I thought artistic people were supposed to be open minded, willing to accept personal interpretation? Doesn't appear to be the case to me.

If there were some prize at stake in these competitions, I could see being very literal in your voting and trying to manipulate the outcome of a contest to win...but this is just for fun.

Why don't we try to accentuate the positive rather than rip someone's work to pieces. When you comment, try to include some positive feedback, as well as some negative criticism. That is the only way people can get better. But maybe I'm just being too generous here.


Hear, hear EL-ROI. Well said.

I almost get the impression sometimes that some people (not many) complain that too many shots are off topic when they start realizing that "their" interpretation is not getting noticed or overlooked.
10/08/2003 11:22:58 AM · #30
there's nothing about this site that says it's for 'artists' thought.

anyone with a digital camera can participate.

last time i checked , digital camera sells are the fastest growing segment of consumer electronics.

same way anyone who buys a cam corder isnt a 'film maker' everyone with a digital camera probably isnt even a self-styled artist.


10/08/2003 11:36:46 AM · #31
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

same way anyone who buys a cam corder isnt a 'film maker' everyone with a digital camera probably isnt even a self-styled artist.


I like to think I'm self-styled!
10/08/2003 11:45:02 AM · #32
Originally posted by vtruan:

What if you live in an ugly town like I do? We have nothing that would look intersestingly good as a landscape, a few old buildings but mostly blah. I should have driven to Colorado Springs or Denver, or even Aspen, Vail,.. too far. May be next time. Van


Every subject can look very interesting with an interseting light on it!
Here is boring Sycamore at sunset light!
10/08/2003 12:44:13 PM · #33
Has anyone notice that there are 2 night shots of the EXACT same intersection BOTH taken with a long time exposure setting in here? One is just slightly zoomed closer than the other?
10/08/2003 01:20:46 PM · #34
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

there's nothing about this site that says it's for 'artists' thought.

anyone with a digital camera can participate.

last time i checked , digital camera sells are the fastest growing segment of consumer electronics.

same way anyone who buys a cam corder isnt a 'film maker' everyone with a digital camera probably isnt even a self-styled artist.


Perhaps, if you are not an artist, you should not make judgements on the artistic interpretation of others. What they interpret the definition of "Urban Landscapes" is okay.
In reality, landscape has 4 defininitions, two of which rule out "urban" completely (see the "irony" competition). Another definition states that landscape is: "relating to the orientation of a page such that the shorter side runs top to bottom." Technically speaking, if I want to interpret "urban landscapes" as any image in an urban setting that is oriented in landscape view, that's okay. It is my choice to shoot that or vote that way.
Lets just rate these pictures out of fun, not defend our position on politics or whatever. Does the definition really matter when photographing anyway?
10/08/2003 01:26:00 PM · #35
"Lets just rate these pictures out of fun, not defend our position on politics or whatever. Does the definition really matter when photographing anyway?"

Nope. it doesn't. you are making the same point as I am, even though you sound like you are contradicting yourself in a couple places :)..

Be that as it may, how are we going to ever put a sign up that says 'artists only'? how are people even supposed to prove they are artists. this site is what it is, for better or worse. we can work to change it but the first step to change starts with accepting present reality.

cheers.

Message edited by author 2003-10-08 13:28:04.
10/08/2003 01:33:09 PM · #36
I looked up Urban Landscape in one of my photography books which had a chapter of about 6 pages on the subject. They included photos of building details with neither land nor sky in them. Though I had doubts that my photo would do well here, I decided if it fitted into what they showed there, I would rather enter a photo I liked than an inferior photo that seemed to fit the challenge better.
10/08/2003 02:05:06 PM · #37
One legitimate reason for someone to (complain about and/or object to) off topic entries (I'm sure there are others) would be that they had rejected entering a shot of the same type because they wanted to be more "on topic". I don't disrespect the ones that are a different interpretation of the theme than my own but vote pretty harshly on the ones I feel are not at all related to it. Irony was a difficult topic, Urban Landscape wasn't.

No clauderbaugh, I haven't found those two yet. Please point them out after the voting is over.

vtruan, you can't get off the hook that easily. A great picture of an Urban Landscape could come from an ugly town as well as any where else.

I am hear to learn and learning how the voters will interpret the topic is part of the assignment. Always remember that the internet is not the same thing as real life.
10/08/2003 04:08:33 PM · #38
Originally posted by chiahead:

In reality, landscape has 4 defininitions, two of which rule out "urban" completely (see the "irony" competition). Another definition states that landscape is: "relating to the orientation of a page such that the shorter side runs top to bottom."

I think my actual entry meets every definition of urban landscape except this one ....

Not my entry:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/41322.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/41322.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2003-10-08 16:09:00.
10/08/2003 04:17:34 PM · #39
Hey Coolbar, your right, I just couldn't find what I think the definition of a urban landscape fits here, so I just shot the local river. Van
10/08/2003 04:21:24 PM · #40
TBH agree with some of the points raised above and some i dont ,

Good shots in my opinion are:
Good close in shot with good artistic merit gets good marks
General Lanscape wide angle city scapes get good marks ( if shot well )
Colourful buildings zoomed in with a good crop and nice angles

Bad Urban Landscape shots in my opinion are
Pictures with no buildings ( i saw 2 or 3 in the bunch )
overgrown fields with a small house that you have to be told its a house or building.
A shot with lots of camera shake or Blur.


I wont go on but theres my thoughts... Everyones opinions are differing and that whats so good, i also understand alot of ppl dont live in a city or a big town and have to get what they can. Shooting a picture of a wall and nout else to me is boring and lifeless and worthy of a low mark. Everyone also takes the meaning of the topic alot different from the next person, hence why we get so many differing views into the real world.

I am new here but did study art for 3 years. This does not make me any better or worse than anyone else - heck my Neice is 4 years old and takes some great shots at times :)

Just let everyone shoot what they want to shoot and if you dont like it or think its unworthy of what it is either dont vote on it or just do as you feel.

Thats my 2 cents anyhow...
10/09/2003 12:23:41 AM · #41
I spent the day driving to Los Angeles with a friend and shooting pictures for no reason at all. It was cool walking around with gear and shooting stuff and having nowhere to be. This guy who had a few too many and 1 in his hand (I think he was on his coffee break from work or something) came up and asked why we were taking pictures. We told him, "No reason!" but he wouldn't buy it. We had a great, relaxing, awesome time and nobody died. Thats all that really matters.
10/09/2003 12:28:05 AM · #42
Originally posted by GeneralE:


Not my entry:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/41322.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/1031/thumb/41322.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


I really like that one. I give it an 8. :P

Message edited by author 2003-10-09 00:31:06.
10/09/2003 12:29:08 AM · #43
For a community of photographers, from professional to hobbyist, there needs to be more encouragement here.

I thought artistic people were supposed to be open minded, willing to accept personal interpretation? Doesn't appear to be the case to me.

If there were some prize at stake in these competitions, I could see being very literal in your voting and trying to manipulate the outcome of a contest to win...but this is just for fun.

Why don't we try to accentuate the positive rather than rip someone's work to pieces. When you comment, try to include some positive feedback, as well as some negative criticism. That is the only way people can get better. But maybe I'm just being too generous here.


Everyone has a different interpretation of "Urban Landscape." I happen to be from a major city and I did not interpret Urban and Landscape as two different words. Urban Landscape as I have always seen it used and discussed could be falling down buildings, homeless people on the street, commuters running for the train or bus, concrete yards filled with trash, alleyways with overflowing trash bins and/or rats, lots of neon signs, huge apartment or office buildings, graffiti, etc. However, since the instructions plainly stated to have buildings in the photo I did not think that pictures of fields with one old shack or photos of rivers etc. were what I thought an urban landscape was. I did my judging accordingly since I can only interpret someone else's work through my eyes.
10/09/2003 12:31:02 AM · #44
Has anyone notice that there are 2 night shots of the EXACT same intersection BOTH taken with a long time exposure setting in here? One is just slightly zoomed closer than the other?



Yes I did notice that and thought it was very strange. I was wondering what the possibility of two different people taking that same shot would be and decided it was way too high for it to be a reality. Guess someone has two subscriptions.
10/09/2003 12:38:46 AM · #45
Originally posted by sonnyh:

Has anyone notice that there are 2 night shots of the EXACT same intersection BOTH taken with a long time exposure setting in here? One is just slightly zoomed closer than the other?



Yes I did notice that and thought it was very strange. I was wondering what the possibility of two different people taking that same shot would be and decided it was way too high for it to be a reality. Guess someone has two subscriptions.


Realistically, two people could shoot together (cameras side by side). My friend and I shot pictures together all day long. However, we used different cameras, shot different ways using our own ideas and even still, we purposefully didn't submit the same pics. In fact we didn't even know which images each other submitted, but I ruled out any that I knew he had.
I doubt two people could or would submit the same picture, even if they shot together, unless they have a common brain (or common lack of 1). I also doubt that anyone would submit the same image cropped differently and try to pass it off. Therefore, it must not be real.
10/09/2003 01:04:39 AM · #46
Since you can now SEARCH the forums, go to the main page and search for "coincidence" or something similar.

There was a previous thread like this one in which there were several instances cited where DPCers unknown to each other to exceedingly similar photos, as well as several where different family members each submitted their "own version" (sometimes without the knowledge of the other!).

I believe checking for multiple accounts is one of the activities the admins DO do ....
10/09/2003 01:06:05 AM · #47
Landscape = foreground, middleground, background.
10/09/2003 01:11:43 AM · #48
Originally posted by irockstars:

Landscape = foreground, middleground, background.

Then I should be winning ....
10/09/2003 01:58:21 AM · #49
Realistically, two people could shoot together (cameras side by side). My friend and I shot pictures together all day long. However, we used different cameras, shot different ways using our own ideas and even still, we purposefully didn't submit the same pics. In fact we didn't even know which images each other submitted, but I ruled out any that I knew he had.
I doubt two people could or would submit the same picture, even if they shot together, unless they have a common brain (or common lack of 1). I also doubt that anyone would submit the same image cropped differently and try to pass it off. Therefore, it must not be real.


It's the exact same picture just closer in by a hair.
10/09/2003 02:22:57 AM · #50
Just check out the past "Speed" challenge for coincidence. Read alansfreed post.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/112/thumb/27037.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/112/thumb/27037.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/19/2019 07:00:28 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/19/2019 07:00:28 AM EDT.