Reflections w/o mirrors challenge

11/10/2006 09:53:44 AM · #27

Originally posted by dallasdux:

it did not use transparency... it has definite WOW factor, IMO, but it failed to meet the requirements of the challenge which is every bit as important...

The challenge was "Use transparency to create the impact of your photo this week. It didn't say ANYTHING about requiring actual, transparent objects. The appearance of transparency unquestionably created the impact here, and IMO it absolutely nailed the challenge. If you're going to be that literal with every topic, then thank goodness you missed the Body Parts challenge! :-/

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/10/2006 11:07:38 AM · #28

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dallasdux:
it did not use transparency... it has definite WOW factor, IMO, but it failed to meet the requirements of the challenge which is every bit as important...

The challenge was "Use transparency to create the impact of your photo this week. It didn't say ANYTHING about requiring actual, transparent objects. The appearance of transparency unquestionably created the impact here, and IMO it absolutely nailed the challenge. If you're going to be that literal with every topic, then thank goodness you missed the Body Parts challenge! :-/

I gotta agree with Shannon. If you don't want to have 396 entries of ducks on water and trees, then you have to have a little leeway in your interpretation. If the general sense is the challenge is going to be interpreted in the tightest possible way, then it's natural everybody is going to enter the tightest possible interpretation...which leads to homogeny.

But don't worry, you are fairly new and it seems the voter goes through an evolution on the site which often starts with very tight DNMC interpretations.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/10/2006 11:43:11 AM · #29

Originally posted by SaraR:

The challenge was to 'creatively photograph a reflecting surface that is not a mirror while keeping your camera out of the shot'; it is very disappointing to see how few entries have taken on board the word 'creatively'!

I'll be very interested to see how you scored my photo when the challenge is over! It's currently running in the low 4s.

Originally posted by scott180:

mine will get posthumous acknowledgement...

just pm me and I'll give you some acknowledgement! hahahahaha

Tamron AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical XR IF Super Zoom for Pentax

11/10/2006 11:50:14 AM · #30

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dallasdux:
it did not use transparency... it has definite WOW factor, IMO, but it failed to meet the requirements of the challenge which is every bit as important...

The challenge was "Use transparency to create the impact of your photo this week. It didn't say ANYTHING about requiring actual, transparent objects. The appearance of transparency unquestionably created the impact here, and IMO it absolutely nailed the challenge. If you're going to be that literal with every topic, then thank goodness you missed the Body Parts challenge! :-/

Thanks Scalvert, but that's why eveyone has a vote and an interpretation of the challenge. To use your words, I'm not that literal on EVERY challenge because some are much more liberal in interpretion than others. I do see your point on this one, but that is one of the problems with the requirements IMO. I'm not sure it can ever be fixed. Perception of what the intent of the challenge requirement is. Transparency vs the Illusion of Transparancy. So, I'll vote my way and you'll vote yours and we'll continue to be the nice, average dysfunctional family we are all used to ;-)

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 11:59:02.

Tamron AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical XR IF Super Zoom for Pentax

11/10/2006 11:53:01 AM · #31

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But don't worry, you are fairly new and it seems the voter goes through an evolution on the site which often starts with very tight DNMC interpretations.

VERY VERY well said. Thank you. I agree I am pretty rigid in my interpretations, but I've already increased my DNMC's from auto 1's to possible 3's not to mention having very few if any in the challenges any more (btw, I'm not voting in any more oxymoron challenges, lol) and am truly working on giving as much flexibility to meeting the challenge as possible. I understand that what was once "cut and dry" is not quite as much so now. My average score given has shown it as well having gone from the low 4's to now over 5.

I'm also finding that the longer I am here, I have to try harder to not start forming negative opinions because someone keeps shooting the same subject in almost the same fashion for numerous challenges or that multiple photographers alternate around a couple of common specific photographic locations. It's not fair to penalize them as they are bound to what is near to them and what photographs well. Also, it becomes "their style". But, I do start to see why some say "we need more creativity". I believe it is possible to be extremely creative and still meet my 'literal' interpretation of the requirements. Me, I'm sticking with the basics as I try to improve my new hobby (even if others find it "boring" or "monotenous").

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 12:11:17.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/10/2006 12:23:17 PM · #32

Originally posted by dallasdux:

I'll vote my way and you'll vote yours. :)

Fair enough. I just get annoyed when people claim an entry HAS to fit a certain mold. The reality is that challenge interpretations usually have some inherent flexibility, and the appearance that your entry meets the challenge is generally the most important consideration (kinda' what you'd expect in a photography contest). That's not to say the challenge topic can be ignored, just that if a photo looks like it meets the challenge, then it does. Imagine the photo in an art gallery with no explanation... because that's exactly what our voting pages are. If the challenge is Sunrise and you win with a photo that was actually taken at sunset, then you met the challenge visually and got to sleep in. It's not against the rules and no more "cheating" than shooting mashed potatoes instead of ice cream, glycerin instead of water or acrylic cubes instead of ice (all common tricks of photography). As Agassi used to claim, "Image is everything!"

This is one of the most-often pummeled dead horses on the site. I got into a heated debate with EddyG years ago over the Miniature challenge. He claimed that the subject of your entry HAD to be something miniature to meet the challenge, and I said it only had to LOOK miniature. I set out to prove it and just barely missed a ribbon. ;-)

Tamron AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical XR IF Super Zoom for Pentax

11/10/2006 12:34:46 PM · #33

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dallasdux:
I'll vote my way and you'll vote yours. :)

Fair enough. I just get annoyed when people claim an entry HAS to fit a certain mold. The reality is that challenge interpretations usually have some inherent flexibility, and the appearance that your entry meets the challenge is generally the most important consideration (kinda' what you'd expect in a photography contest). That's not to say the challenge topic can be ignored, just that if a photo looks like it meets the challenge, then it does. Imagine the photo in an art gallery with no explanation... because that's exactly what our voting pages are. If the challenge is Sunrise and you win with a photo that was actually taken at sunset, then you met the challenge visually and got to sleep in. It's not against the rules and no more "cheating" than shooting mashed potatoes instead of ice cream, glycerin instead of water or acrylic cubes instead of ice (all common tricks of photography). As Agassi used to claim, "Image is everything!"

This is one of the most-often pummeled dead horses on the site. I got into a heated debate with EddyG years ago over the Miniature challenge. He claimed that the subject of your entry HAD to be something miniature to meet the challenge, and I said it only had to LOOK miniature. I set out to prove it and just barely missed a ribbon. ;-)

Agreed on most all points you make here. And as I mention below, I know that my perception of challenge descriptions has been rigid and I really am trying to be more "open-minded".

The only 1 comment I disagree slightly on that you make above is the voting pages being a gallery with no explanation. I find that to be a misperception as in order to vote, you must click on which challenge you are going to vote on and the first thing you see is the Challenge Title and the description of the challenge so you have at that point been given an 'explanation' of the challenge,IMO. With that said, at that point it becomes, does the image convey to "you" what you just saw as the Challenge Title/criteria. That's when it becomes a "to each their own" IMO and there are those like me who start with more firm ideas of what to expect than perhaps what others might think.

Another draw back to the photographer who may have been trying something complex is, you are competing against 100 or hundreds of other entries. I make it a point to vote on 100% of the entries when I vote as to give everyone an equal opportunity. Due to simple time constraints, if an image cannot pull off the task of immediately or at least very quickly convincing the viewer that it 'meets the challenge', it may or may not get additional time to do so.

I agree the issue of DNMC gets beaten up often and badly around here and I know I am a culprit simply by even this post. I don't think it will ever go away, but for me, it is becoming less and less of an issue as I try to improve my 'artistic understanding' in relation to challenge criteria.

:)

Edit: gramatical errors and a few extra words for clarification.

Message edited by author 2006-11-10 12:39:26.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/10/2006 12:40:24 PM · #34

Well I meant that there's no explanation from the photographer of what he did. The comments aren't visible during voting.