| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2007 01:35:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
...In my opinion, however, most images with removed backgrounds are crippled, and I use the -2 points as a reinforcement to see less of such images at this site. How myopic is this? |
Just wondering if you leave a comment to explain your view whenever you do the -2 thing?
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:38:01 PM · #27 |
I just wish I had the money that it would require to pull stuff like this off in the studio. :-)
agenkin, I like your work, especially your Street Candids, but on the same token I also like Cindi's images with the featureless white backgrounds.
Cindi is a studio photographer, you have more of a journalistic style. But, you both do well with what you do, IMO.
FWIW, the image I just posted of yours, I would score highly in Minimalism II. But, I'd also score this image of mine highly also.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:40:04 PM · #28 |
| I totally disagree that one way is better than the other in any way shape or form. I am constantly reminded of this when I see other peoples work and how their vision is every bit as creative, vastly different and often more effective than my own. How boring things would be if we all did everything the same way. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:40:26 PM · #29 |
This is one of my shots that suffers from the "floating subject" syndrome. I think that the "removed background" is like any other photographic technique. Sometimes it enhances the shot. Sometimes it detracts from it. In this case it hurt the shot. A time and place for everything I guess. (I'm still learning where and when to use them)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:41:03 PM · #30 |
Are you referring to studio set-up shots or photoshopped after the fact shots? Can you always tell the difference by looking at a photo that flashes by as you're voting? I think -2 is pretty harsh but hey....it's your vote.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 13:42:09. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:46:26 PM · #31 |
This idea is growing on me (hey, this is my second post in this thread - imagine that).
I guess I'm sorta tired of seeing so many attempts at studio shots that don't really say much. I guess this thread might just be a reminder that a photograph can be so many things -but steril is not a requirement and not even necessarily a good attribute at all times.
Good photographers and artists will include what they need to include and exclude the rest. But ... some ask: "what is the point of this image?" ... "does this effect me ? ... was the effort worth it?" etc. As has been said, we all have a personal preference. 2 people can review an art show or a play completely differently yet there's a chance that they both enjoyed it also.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:51:11 PM · #32 |
My latest challenge is getting nailed on this background thing. Funny part is that the backgroud was left untouched exactly as my eye saw it in person. It proves you cannot please anybody but yourself when it comes to art.
I think we sometimes over judge technical aspects of images. We don't just judge the photo on it's artistic merit, but we also judge if stuff is "done right". There is no right way to do anything when it comes to communicating your message through your art.
Here is an example of an classic image with tons of artistic merit that would score low here. I could see this being tore up with comments of how it is cropped how it is composed and what the subject is.
It should be about the art, not the process. IMO. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:54:17 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:58:29 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
It should be about the art, not the process. |
I completely agree. I am talking about the aesthetic consequences of removing the background.
p.s. Great example! |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:03:56 PM · #35 |
If it was JUST about the art and not the process, then why do we have all the rules?? If it was just about the end result, then anything goes!
post processing, filters, ect.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:04:35 PM · #36 |
I think that we focus on the score here, and you score better with a clear and detailed subject. If you enter an image that requires thought and study you probably will not score huge.
I think we are trained monkeys, and we gradually gravitate to the types of images that will score high marks. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:05:37 PM · #37 |
I think if this photograph had one of those heavy textured rustic backgrounds that you've posted.... it would have ruined everything about it.
I like to just accept the artists vision as presented and enjoy the softness in this one.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:06:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
This is hardly a "style" that we are talking about - it's a technical trick.
|
Hardly a technical trick. Definition of trick:
"a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud" *1
We are certainly dealing with a craft. To deceive or defraud
I find unlikely. You obviously detect these images so you're
not deceived and certainly not defrauded. My second highest
scoring image might come close to this definition.
I burned an already very dim background of dirt and grass out
of existence. Defraud: "to deprive of something by
deception or fraud" *1 Seems to fit, until you realize the viewers
and voters are entitled only to that which the image creator intends.
So no one has been deprived, or deceived. IMHO
Your voting penalty makes sense to you, so is certainly valid in that
respect. I penalize and reward images for many different reasons
myself. We all do, knowingly or not.
*1 Websters Free Online Dictionary
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:08:40 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by agenkin:
This is hardly a "style" that we are talking about - it's a technical trick.
|
*1 Websters Free Online Dictionary |
You should have probably read on further in your dictionary
A peculiar trait or characteristic; a mannerism
1. A special skill; a knack: Is there a trick to getting this window to stay up?
2. A convention or specialized skill peculiar to a particular field of activity: learned the tricks of the winemaking trade.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:09:07 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
If it was JUST about the art and not the process, then why do we have all the rules?? If it was just about the end result, then anything goes!
post processing, filters, ect. |
True. That is where all these new rule sets are coming from I am guessing. Some people think that there is no room for editing in computers others think that you should be able to create using software. I personally like the idea of being able to use any means I have to create an image. But I also enjoy the challenge that this site provides in me trying to create something artistic while also staying within the rules. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:09:31 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
I think if this photograph had one of those heavy textured rustic backgrounds that you've posted.... it would have ruined everything about it.
I like to just accept the artists vision as presented and enjoy the softness in this one. |
Especially when you know the intended use of the image. Go to the models website for a larger version of this image. She must be very proud to be able to display this work.
[url=//www.myspace.com/Lilipuce23 ]Models MySpace page[/url]
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:12:31 PM · #42 |
My opinion on this matter is that we should enjoy and judge on the merits of the photo we're momentarily viewing. Ideally we could isolate an entry in our minds and vote if this where the only picture in the world. I'm often to biased when it comes to voting and enjoying which has it's foundation in : cat, bird , cat, bird, something else, cat, bird. The "something else" get's the points...but that's not fair if some cat or bird shot would be actually great. Furthermore i don't want to process a complete list from how a picture should be judged:
DNMC?
No background?
Seen that before?
rule of thirds?
is there any depth?
and on and on and on.
If the picture gives me a emotion than it has something, and if it's meet the challenge topic this would even be better. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:12:46 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Hardly a technical trick. Definition of trick: |
I used "trick" in the same sense as "method". Probably this was a bad choice of a word. Can we get out of the linguistic discussion now? :)
Originally posted by fir3bird:
|
I'd better not get started on this one. :) |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:13:35 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
I think that we focus on the score here, and you score better with a clear and detailed subject. If you enter an image that requires thought and study you probably will not score huge.
I think we are trained monkeys, and we gradually gravitate to the types of images that will score high marks. |
Well, I reckon more voters see more images of the "commercial" type in magazines than they do browsing art galleries. Even parody or direct imitation of even well-known "artist" often get hammered. Please the crowd score well, please your artistic interests take a risk. Do what ya gotta do, eh?
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 14:15:06.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:14:16 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by agenkin:
This is hardly a "style" that we are talking about - it's a technical trick.
|
*1 Websters Free Online Dictionary |
You should have probably read on further in your dictionary
A peculiar trait or characteristic; a mannerism
1. A special skill; a knack: Is there a trick to getting this window to stay up?
2. A convention or specialized skill peculiar to a particular field of activity: learned the tricks of the winemaking trade. |
I did. I believed the OP was operating with respect to the definition I used.
I actually believed he thought he was being deprived. Maybe I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:14:20 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
This is hardly a "style" that we are talking about - it's a technical trick. |
you're kidding, right? Of course it's a style. The fact that you choose not to recognize it as one does not make it so.
Originally posted by agenkin:
Deducting 2 points is no more judgmental than the process of voting itself. There is nothing "blind" about my method: as I stated above (and you acknowledged), if a background-less image grabs me, it will get a high vote. In my opinion, however, most images with removed backgrounds are crippled, and I use the -2 points as a reinforcement to see less of such images at this site. How myopic is this? |
In my view the near-sightedness stems from the approach. If all you're actually doing is individually assessing each photo and casting a consequent vote, then I believe you're giving each image the respect it deserves. However, what you said is that you are systematically deducting two points to reinforce your point (excepting those privileged few that you'll overlook). That my friend, is myopic. You're pre-judging the photo based on your personal bias before you've even seen it.
I'm not debating my feelings about the respective styles in question. I have an equal appreciation for both. To dismiss it as a 'technical trick' is either egotistical or ignorant...I can't decide which. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:14:28 PM · #47 |
In this image I felt I needed to have the background to make the shot work. I also felt the background needed something so I overlayed a photo of tree bark to add to the texture of the photo. I wanted the shot to have a dated, painted feel.
In this image it was all about the mood to me. I took all background out to create a "Jazz club" feel. I really did not want anything distracting the way the light was hitting the drum. So for me this shot was about expressing my vision. This is one of the only shots I "saw in my head" before I took it.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 14:15:40. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:16:25 PM · #48 |
Sorry dude but I don't see how an "interesting" background would've worked in any of those shots. Frankly, I think a subjected background would've taken away from all of them.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:16:50 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Hardly a technical trick. Definition of trick: |
I used "trick" in the same sense as "method". Probably this was a bad choice of a word. Can we get out of the linguistic discussion now? :)
Originally posted by fir3bird:
|
I'd better not get started on this one. :) |
If you mean the image. By all means, I welcome any input. Perhaps private
message or email so we don't bore the rest.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 02:17:36 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
is either egotistical or ignorant...I can't decide which. |
Well, let me know when you decide. In the meantime, I've had enough of your condescending attitude. |
|
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 10:21:29 AM EDT.
