|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2008 08:29:41 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you write up such challenge topics and descriptions, they will almost surely be used. If you write up a page on the technique, history, etc., I'm pretty sure we can figure out a way to link to it from the challenge description page, but I'm not sure we can make people read it before submitting, nor if we should ...
If you write up your technique description page as a tutorial, maybe with some suggestions on how to achieve the effect with different subjects, I think you still get a free month membership/extension or a print credit. |
When I was asked by Langdon to help weed through the challenge suggestions, and propose descriptions, I did exactly that: I wrote detailed descriptions designed to get everybody on the same creative page. I was excoriated in PMs for tryijng to "force my interpretation" upon the site.
I understand you mean well by what you are saying, but I wonder if SC attitude has changed so much that y'all are willing to accept rigidly-defined challenges that force a cutting edge of creativity from participants...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 07:01:40 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[quote=GeneralE] If you write up such challenge topics and descriptions, they will almost surely be used...
When I was asked by Langdon to help weed through the challenge suggestions, and propose descriptions, I did exactly that: I wrote detailed descriptions designed to get everybody on the same creative page. I was excoriated in PMs for tryijng to "force my interpretation" upon the site.
R. |
My initial thought was to officially post a Wiki definition (highlighted in green) of whatever topic before a Challenge but if everyone didn't agree with that particular view, post another few that may broaden the flow of ideas. I know there have been Challenge descriptions over the years that have been in conflict with what I understood a genre to be and occasionally there would be an added little thing/twist in a description which really cast some challenges into strange waters. Having said that, projecting one or a groups ideas of a certain genre, technique isn't new...I would just lean a little more on strict but respected encyclopedic definitions to keep things tight and everyone on the same page. I don't know who has the best definitions so a combination of a few would probably suffice. Add links to s few sites that offer images etc.
The other thing to do would be to post accompanying work samples that clearly illustrate the concepts laid forth. So for example, if there were a Street Photography Challenge, along with a specific concept/technique add a Henri-C-B image that best describes that technique or an Erwitt image (which is very different in style from HCB) to illustrate another side of the genre and so on. Don't stop at two samples...illustrate All the angles. Street Photography is a lot richer in texture than simply going out in the street and clicking any old thing, a fire hydrant, a homeless guy or a girl walking down the street on her cell phone. Let's discuss it.
You also don't need to claim ownership of what SP means but simply say here's an SP Challenge and while the genre has many elements these are the ones we are looking for. Even if you honed in on five pr even three aspects you'll still have millions of possibilities within. Call it Street Related but focus in on People, Shadows and Architecture...that would really get people looking deeply.
Rembrandt Lighting: Not Portraits, is the same thing. Perfect idea for a technical Challenge. Maybe call it Dutch Lighting: No Portraits and include an educational/tutorial thread with Vermeers work to broaden things a little but that would be pretty hot.
Another idea. Perhaps you could try foreshadowing a Challenge with an educational tutorial thread (definitions, images, links) posted a few weeks or even a month or so in advance to get the discussion going. Pop the Challenge whenever you want but get some juices flowing. I'd bet a hearty debate will get people digging in far deeper than the way things are set up now.
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 13:04:23. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 08:38:50 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by xakpeet:
through my eyes this was a bit under rated... beyond the usual oohs and ahhs this one has a sense of feeling for me. It oozes energy. maybe one needs be a fan of the slightly more ruckus music to relate? |
Using Shannon's triad of technicals, beauty, and concept: Technicals were spot on - extremely sharp definition in low light shows skill. |
This is in no way a knock on the skill of this photographer (because he is obviously awesome and this shot is amazing) but what I mainly see is a camera that has the ability to take a decent shot at ISO 6400.
ETA: I do mean with the noise issues and shutter speed. Not with technicals.
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 08:39:46. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:06:03 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you write up such challenge topics and descriptions, they will almost surely be used. If you write up a page on the technique, history, etc., I'm pretty sure we can figure out a way to link to it from the challenge description page, but I'm not sure we can make people read it before submitting, nor if we should ...
If you write up your technique description page as a tutorial, maybe with some suggestions on how to achieve the effect with different subjects, I think you still get a free month membership/extension or a print credit. |
When I was asked by Langdon to help weed through the challenge suggestions, and propose descriptions, I did exactly that: I wrote detailed descriptions designed to get everybody on the same creative page. I was excoriated in PMs for tryijng to "force my interpretation" upon the site.
I understand you mean well by what you are saying, but I wonder if SC attitude has changed so much that y'all are willing to accept rigidly-defined challenges that force a cutting edge of creativity from participants...
R. |
General
My main point was to make the challenge description more obvious so that it doesn't get overlook which can currently happen and does happen. If we had a page load up about the challenge before you can submit or vote that would eliminate the problem. Now it won't make anybody actually read the content but at least it will be there for all to see and it can't be missed. Who knows maybe it might actually change the habits of people over time to where they start reading those pages to learn what the topic is about. Currently we have no mechnism in place that encourages the photographer to read up on the topics they are suppose to shoot. Shouldn't we have that if we are a learning site?
Second, we should get away from telling people what to shoot and instead just explain the general concepts behind the topic at hand. Too often we have challenge descriptions that start out with "take a photo of..." We need to move away from that sort of directive as it just causes too much problems. Instead we should just make available information about the topic and maybe have some links to learn more.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:55:57 PM · #155 |
| How about placing the challenge description on the voting page below the picture? Where we currently have "for Advanced Editing Challenge Stars". I think a ton of people don't even read the description. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 10:41:42 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[quote=GeneralE] If you write up such challenge topics and descriptions, they will almost surely be used...
When I was asked by Langdon to help weed through the challenge suggestions, and propose descriptions, I did exactly that: I wrote detailed descriptions designed to get everybody on the same creative page. I was excoriated in PMs for tryijng to "force my interpretation" upon the site.
R. |
My initial thought was to officially post a Wiki definition (highlighted in green) of whatever topic before a Challenge but if everyone didn't agree with that particular view, post another few that may broaden the flow of ideas. I know there have been Challenge descriptions over the years that have been in conflict with what I understood a genre to be and occasionally there would be an added little thing/twist in a description which really cast some challenges into strange waters. Having said that, projecting one or a groups ideas of a certain genre, technique isn't new...I would just lean a little more on strict but respected encyclopedic definitions to keep things tight and everyone on the same page. I don't know who has the best definitions so a combination of a few would probably suffice. Add links to s few sites that offer images etc.
The other thing to do would be to post accompanying work samples that clearly illustrate the concepts laid forth. So for example, if there were a Street Photography Challenge, along with a specific concept/technique add a Henri-C-B image that best describes that technique or an Erwitt image (which is very different in style from HCB) to illustrate another side of the genre and so on. Don't stop at two samples...illustrate All the angles. Street Photography is a lot richer in texture than simply going out in the street and clicking any old thing, a fire hydrant, a homeless guy or a girl walking down the street on her cell phone. Let's discuss it.
You also don't need to claim ownership of what SP means but simply say here's an SP Challenge and while the genre has many elements these are the ones we are looking for. Even if you honed in on five pr even three aspects you'll still have millions of possibilities within. Call it Street Related but focus in on People, Shadows and Architecture...that would really get people looking deeply.
Rembrandt Lighting: Not Portraits, is the same thing. Perfect idea for a technical Challenge. Maybe call it Dutch Lighting: No Portraits and include an educational/tutorial thread with Vermeers work to broaden things a little but that would be pretty hot.
Another idea. Perhaps you could try foreshadowing a Challenge with an educational tutorial thread (definitions, images, links) posted a few weeks or even a month or so in advance to get the discussion going. Pop the Challenge whenever you want but get some juices flowing. I'd bet a hearty debate will get people digging in far deeper than the way things are set up now. |
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. I hear all the time that you must learn the rules before you can break them but we never actually get around to explaining the rules ever. Lets at least try to teach the history, show the work of the masters and then let everyone take their shot at it. Right now we just throw topics out there and just let everyone do whatever they want. That's fine for a Rubber Duck challenge and I'm not saying we should get rid of those but lets also have more of the genre/technical challeges and when we do lets do it right.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2008 12:56:12 AM · #157 |
Yes vote on genre/technical challenges. I think some of the best learning can happen when using the masters as a guidepost.
Message edited by author 2008-12-19 09:43:57. |
|
|
|
12/21/2008 02:33:27 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by TrollMan:
One of my favorites
It has been said many times that "A picture is worth a thousand words". Not always true. But this one is IMO fully qualified. |
The shot above was one of my top 3. I also really loved this portrait and think it was very underrated:
 |
Thanks! |
|
|
|
12/21/2008 07:45:20 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by edmeng:
I feel like this one deserves much better score
 |
I've gotten quite the range of mixed reactions on that shot - some love it, some hate it (some think it isn't 'photography') The number of 1's and 10's on the voting was certainly split more than usual.
ETA: read a bit more of this thread - I've been away for a bit, still am really - just saw a Koala walk by outside the window, so I'm a bit distracted.
That shot wasn't supposed to be in any way a thumb in the eye - I've been shooting wildly blurry, carefully composed and focused images for years (yes it was very carefully focused...) I've been entering them off and on here for a while too, mostly they haven't been very good. Partly I'm interested in it because my eyesight appears to be heading that way as I'm aging, so I'm exploring that feeling of how scenes sometimes look to me. Also, in a fairly trite way, I really enjoy impressionistic art and so reflect a lot of themes I see in the paintings I've studied in galleries, in the photographs I take. Walking through the gardens that day, the scene of the young woman reading on a blanket under the trees seemed like such a cliched Salon des Refuses scene, that I couldn't resist shooting in that style. The title - it happened to be shot on about the last day of summer in Austin - least it was still about 80F in November that day.
I shoot a lot of blurry shots, some work better than others. Like most things I seem to be improving with practice.
Message edited by author 2008-12-21 20:05:44. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 05:22:02 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Take this famous photo by Robert Capa. By DPC's standards it is a blurry ugly photo and the subject matter is too centered. Many would consider it to have poor technicals. |
I'd be truly curious as to whether Capa, if given access to modern digital equipment, would have much rather preferred to capture it differently? Were these artifacts chosen or where they a product of shooting in 1944? |
as far as I remember about what I've read about those particular images, the lab screwed up the development, they got dropped in the sand, kicked around, the wrong chemicals were used and essentially almost got lost along the way.
So the processing and technicals are all far from what was intended, but maybe that's beside the point. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 05:30:23 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I've always felt that you need to know how to take a technically perfect shot BEFORE you can take an imperfect shot. If you are going to break the rules, you need to know why the rules are there in the first place and when they can be broken. There's no use in going straight there, IMO. If you do, good shots become more accidental than purposeful and that doesn't mean much to me no matter what genre you are in. |
I don't think that's ever been in question. I'm sure most everyone agrees when it comes to learning the basic skills set. |
I've read a fair number of places that question it quite critically. Along the lines that once you've learned all the rules and established conventions, it is already too late. (not just in photography, but art in general) It's a fairly common theme over here, as an example.
You can, I hypothesize, develop your own entirely unique way of composing and seeing and shooting, that would be fully purposeful, not accidental, but developed through trial and error, without any access to a conventional 'rule book'. I don't see that you could dismiss those pictures as 'not meaning much' without really thinking about them. Not learning the rules isn't the same as shooting randomly all day and hoping to get lucky. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 05:39:49 PM · #162 |
On the voting on blurry images front, I noticed something interesting when comparing the comments on my stars entry, vs what I entered in the masters free study.
It seemed like in the 'stars' case a lot of the comments are about what the image should look like and how it should be changed, while the masters free study entry, it felt more people looked at what the picture actually was and commented on that, not on how they thought it should be changed or improved.
I'd love a box that said 'it is supposed to look like that' rather than getting suggestions on how to change technical or compositional things that really were very intentional (the blur, the real tree in front of the fake tree, etc). Maybe if people knew they were how they were, for a reason, they might consider them, rather than thinking how to fix them?
I don't in any way mean to say that you should like them or not, but just recognise that it is that way for a reason and maybe they'd be viewed (and commented upon) in a different way?
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 05:44:06 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. No problem with that. But it isn't a way to get good at anything. You need to invest your 10,000 hours to get good at anything, and 'photography' isn't a narrow enough 'thing'. Go to any successful gallery show or visit any real artist's studio. They typically have a monomaniacal focus on something, anything, that they do day in, day out for years until they start getting good at it. Spend 20 years just making model chairs, or 7 years taking pictures of workers around the world. Pick a lens, shoot just the same subject, with that one lens, day after day for a year. Follow a path that doesn't change once a week, and then maybe something interesting might emerge. But changing direction on a bi-weekly basis isn't going to go anywhere fast. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 05:44:19 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I've always felt that you need to know how to take a technically perfect shot BEFORE you can take an imperfect shot. If you are going to break the rules, you need to know why the rules are there in the first place and when they can be broken. There's no use in going straight there, IMO. If you do, good shots become more accidental than purposeful and that doesn't mean much to me no matter what genre you are in. |
I don't think that's ever been in question. I'm sure most everyone agrees when it comes to learning the basic skills set. |
I've read a fair number of places that question it quite critically. Along the lines that once you've learned all the rules and established conventions, it is already too late. (not just in photography, but art in general) It's a fairly common theme over here, as an example.
You can, I hypothesize, develop your own entirely unique way of composing and seeing and shooting, that would be fully purposeful, not accidental, but developed through trial and error, without any access to a conventional 'rule book'. I don't see that you could dismiss those pictures as 'not meaning much' without really thinking about them. Not learning the rules isn't the same as shooting randomly all day and hoping to get lucky. |
But how to do get from not shooting randomly to shooting with a purpose if you haven't learned at least some of the basics? If you give a kid a camera or an adult who has never taken a photo before chances are all they would need is to be shown the shutter button and they will be able to take a picture and do so with an idea of some of the basics already learned such as centering the subject or even off center to get something else in the shot as well, asking people to smile to get more emotion, etc.
Message edited by author 2008-12-22 17:48:30.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 05:53:53 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by yanko:
But how to do get from not shooting randomly to shooting with a purpose if you haven't learned at least some of the basics? If you give a kid a camera or an adult who has never taken a photo before chances are all they would need is to be shown the shutter button and they will be able to take a picture and do so with an idea of some of the basics already learned such as centering the subject or even off center to get something else in the shot as well, asking people to smile to get more emotion, etc. |
Oh you need to learn them, one way or another. But you could learn them by looking at your pictures and working out what works for you, what doesn't work, what communicates what you want to say, or not. That's one way to learn. Or you could just be told 'don't do that' and then all you do is learn the rules and not understand what's good or bad about them.
Centering the subject is a fine example - people get told 'that's bad' all the time, without any understanding of what can make it good or bad, or when to use it or not. (dynamic vs static composition, etc)
All the 'rules' are just observations based on prior results. The distillation of a load of things that worked for specific situations, that you may or may not find yourself in, passed on as if they are absolutes, without the deeper understanding of why the work or not, or how to use and abuse them. You can get all that from just looking carefully in the first place. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 06:40:02 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. No problem with that. But it isn't a way to get good at anything. You need to invest your 10,000 hours to get good at anything, and 'photography' isn't a narrow enough 'thing'. Go to any successful gallery show or visit any real artist's studio. They typically have a monomaniacal focus on something, anything, that they do day in, day out for years until they start getting good at it. Spend 20 years just making model chairs, or 7 years taking pictures of workers around the world. Pick a lens, shoot just the same subject, with that one lens, day after day for a year. Follow a path that doesn't change once a week, and then maybe something interesting might emerge. But changing direction on a bi-weekly basis isn't going to go anywhere fast. |
I agree but how do you suppose we encourage that within the scope of the challenges? The point I was trying to make earlier, and I believe Steve was responding to, was the idea that if this is a learning site then we should teach more. That's pretty much it.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008 06:57:01 PM · #167 |
Gordon, am I right to assume you rather just let people figure things out on their own rather than have the site encourage or teach these things? I agree in that ultimately it's up to the individual to seek out this information and find their own path but don't you think there are opportunities here for the site to help make learning a lot easier? The exposure we give to the ribbon winners does have a strong influence especially on those just starting out. Not saying these are bad photographs just that they are heavily tilted towards stock/advertising fields so when we do something like street photography they end up coming out like stuff geared for commercial work. Photography is much more than just that. It's much more than just learning technicals or learning that you need better equipment but that's basically all you learn here. Well that's not totally true but you have to dig deep and it's only because of certain members like posthumous otherwise you'd have to go elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2008-12-22 19:01:31.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 10:39:32 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. |
I don't like supercial anything. Not cool with me and in my opinion a waste of time.
I did suggest somewhere that certain Challenges should or could go on for a longer period of time. A month long Street Challenge for example, along with a discussion will produce better images across the board and hopefully a deeper understanding of the genre and a paired with the discussion thread, people might see multiple images OUTSIDE of DPC with other links that might take hold. I got reemed a bit for voicing my opinion but the last Street Challenge's top placer with a few exception really bothered me.
I think the site should focus on things like HCB's "the decisive moment" concept and obsess less on noise and sharpness.
Also I feel people mix up mechanics with rules. Understand visual dynamics and then why the "rule of thirds" works in SOME cases but also why a photographer would choose a centered subject instead or a square crop...
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 10:57:33. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:00:31 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. |
I don't like supercial anything. Not cool with me and in my opinion a watse of time.
I did suggest somewhere that certain Challenges should or could go on for a longer period of time. A month long Street Challenge for example, along with a discussion will produce better images across the board and hopefully a deeper understanding of the genre and a paired with the discussion thread, people might see multiple images OUTSIDE of DPC with other links that might take hold. |
How we learn (or not) is up to each individual. When there are techniques or subjects that I want to learn about it is very useful to go through and study what has worked well and what has not in past challenges (and that makes photographers' comments sections extremely useful when they're willing to share their thoughts & techniques). When I enter a challenge it is all the more useful to learn what I can, shoot my best, and then learn from the results & from the masterful examples others entered. Perhaps some people are more interested in just entering challenges for the sole sake of competition or just to participate. That doesn't seem like a good way to learn imho, but it's up to each individual to decide how to use & participate in DPC. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:08:00 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I've always felt that you need to know how to take a technically perfect shot BEFORE you can take an imperfect shot. If you are going to break the rules, you need to know why the rules are there in the first place and when they can be broken. There's no use in going straight there, IMO. If you do, good shots become more accidental than purposeful and that doesn't mean much to me no matter what genre you are in. |
I'd rather have your opinion of CRESTOR® |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:14:10 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. |
I don't like supercial anything. Not cool with me and in my opinion a watse of time.
I did suggest somewhere that certain Challenges should or could go on for a longer period of time. A month long Street Challenge for example, along with a discussion will produce better images across the board and hopefully a deeper understanding of the genre and a paired with the discussion thread, people might see multiple images OUTSIDE of DPC with other links that might take hold. |
How we learn (or not) is up to each individual. When there are techniques or subjects that I want to learn about it is very useful to go through and study what has worked well and what has not in past challenges (and that makes photographers' comments sections extremely useful when they're willing to share their thoughts & techniques). |
John-I agree it's up the the individual how much they want to learn. Personally I don't wish to engage skimmers nor hear what they think of my work. I know that's sounds strong and probably mean but I'd rather engage people who are aiming higher. People can certainly do whatever the like.
Checking out past Challenges to see what does well to me is the equivalent of studying Britney Spears to learn about music. Again, I don't have the time or energy for that. For the record, I put a lot of time into studying this stuff outside of DPC (online, books, gallerys, etc) and it's more engaging playing ball with people who do the same...at least to the best of their ability. There's nothing wrong with taking this stuff seriously, I hope.
Honestly, I'm at a point where I don't like comments or ones on a mechanical level. I find most of that pretty silly and I believe it may have value to some or to a degree but I believe it's intensely stifling (for me)in the long run. I'll also go as far as to say I probably learned all I needed to know about "the rules" within the first 20-30 "rules" type of comments I'd received (within 8-10 Challenges) and after that is was redundant. I listened...I understood and that was that.
I wish to hear from people who tell me what they see in an image...NOT what they want to see or how they want to see it. If an images doesn't move you just leave it alone. That's why I rarely, if ever enter Challenges BUT if the general population of voters were operating at a more educated level Challenges might have more value to me. However, if a good deal of the voters or entrants operate based on past winners, the whole experience is limited to a very small circular pattern and that doesn't help me develop at a level or pace that I wish to go.
I know that may have come across as being harsh but by wording it strongly I thought I'd hit the bullseye with a few darts. Please don't take offense but if you're trying to learn how to cook a gourmet meal you'll never get there by cooking for an audience that doesn't like, appreciate or understand top notch food.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 13:34:08. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:15:21 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. |
I don't like supercial anything. Not cool with me and in my opinion a waste of time.
I did suggest somewhere that certain Challenges should or could go on for a longer period of time. A month long Street Challenge for example, along with a discussion will produce better images across the board and hopefully a deeper understanding of the genre and a paired with the discussion thread, people might see multiple images OUTSIDE of DPC with other links that might take hold. I got reemed a bit for voicing my opinion but the last Street Challenge's top placer with a few exception really bothered me.
I think the site should focus on things like HCB's "the decisive moment" concept and obsess less on noise and sharpness.
Also I feel people mix up mechanics with rules. Understand visual dynamics and then why the "rule of thirds" works in SOME cases but also why a photographer would choose a centered subject instead or a square crop...
|
I so agree with that last paragraph there. I have had so many voters give me lower scores because they feel that i didnt follow some technical rule (like rule of thirds).
Rules in photography (like rules of thirds) are merely suggestions or guidelines to follow, but in no way are concrete to determine what is a good photo or not. I have seen some excellent centered or off centered photos. Sometimes it just looks better that way. Not everything has to be in the rule of thirds. I wish some understood why photographers decide to break the rules of technicalities instead of blindingly thinking...."beautiful photo, but this doesnt fall into the rule of thirds , so you get a 3"
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 12:24:43 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Rules in photography (like rules of thirds) are merely suggestions or guidelines to follow, but in no way are concrete to determine what is a good photo or not. I have seen some excellent centered or off centered photos... |
The word "rules" is somewhat of a misnomer. I think tools is so much more appropriate. Different tools accomplish different tasks, per se. Take image I posted above; I wanted to show the mans fiery eyes. So I croped in a certain way and I used the square frame to emphasize what I wanted...with intent. So the rule of thirds may not have been the best choice or "tool" for what I wanted to accomplish.
Message edited by author 2008-12-23 12:32:52. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 02:14:47 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I've ranted a number of times regarding Challenges where the learning experience seemed pretty superficial. Like the Street Challenges where a very rich subject yielded fairly wimpy results that IMO didn't reflect or show any understanding of the genre.
Sure, people toy with the idea of bluring for a week and then vote on it but do they really come to understand it's power or charm? Once the Challenge is over they revert back to bur is bad or distracting.. |
The whole concept is superficial. If you change focus once or twice a week, all you will ever get is a superficial understanding. Which is fine. |
I don't like supercial anything. Not cool with me and in my opinion a watse of time.
I did suggest somewhere that certain Challenges should or could go on for a longer period of time. A month long Street Challenge for example, along with a discussion will produce better images across the board and hopefully a deeper understanding of the genre and a paired with the discussion thread, people might see multiple images OUTSIDE of DPC with other links that might take hold. |
How we learn (or not) is up to each individual. When there are techniques or subjects that I want to learn about it is very useful to go through and study what has worked well and what has not in past challenges (and that makes photographers' comments sections extremely useful when they're willing to share their thoughts & techniques). |
John-I agree it's up the the individual how much they want to learn. Personally I don't wish to engage skimmers nor hear what they think of my work. I know that's sounds strong and probably mean but I'd rather engage people who are aiming higher. People can certainly do whatever the like.
Checking out past Challenges to see what does well to me is the equivalent of studying Britney Spears to learn about music. Again, I don't have the time or energy for that. For the record, I put a lot of time into studying this stuff outside of DPC (online, books, gallerys, etc) and it's more engaging playing ball with people who do the same...at least to the best of their ability. There's nothing wrong with taking this stuff seriously, I hope.
Honestly, I'm at a point where I don't like comments or ones on a mechanical level. I find most of that pretty silly and I believe it may have value to some or to a degree but I believe it's intensely stifling (for me)in the long run. I'll also go as far as to say I probably learned all I needed to know about "the rules" within the first 20-30 "rules" type of comments I'd received (within 8-10 Challenges) and after that is was redundant. I listened...I understood and that was that.
I wish to hear from people who tell me what they see in an image...NOT what they want to see or how they want to see it. If an images doesn't move you just leave it alone. That's why I rarely, if ever enter Challenges BUT if the general population of voters were operating at a more educated level Challenges might have more value to me. However, if a good deal of the voters or entrants operate based on past winners, the whole experience is limited to a very small circular pattern and that doesn't help me develop at a level or pace that I wish to go.
I know that may have come across as being harsh but by wording it strongly I thought I'd hit the bullseye with a few darts. Please don't take offense but if you're trying to learn how to cook a gourmet meal you'll never get there by cooking for an audience that doesn't like, appreciate or understand top notch food. |
Not harsh at all imho. I see your point Steve and it makes sense to me that there are many important aspects of the artful side of photography that challenges don't cater to so well. The vote is certainly a limited metric that only tells me what was popular to DPCers for one short week, so I didn't mean that I necessarily learn the most from who ribboned before. Many of the photos I learn most from don't make the front page at all. I do look through the photos looking for what is inspiring to me and try to learn from those as best as I can. I also try to get an idea why people like the top scoring images (particularly when it's not "eye candy") No doubt outside DPC sources are also useful and it's refreshing sometimes seeing non-DPC tailored art (and there are some non-DPC friendly entries in many challenges that are very artful).
For every area of art there may be a never ending struggle balancing between things like being popular, original, classic, and just saying what we as artists want to say. It seems clear to me that the DPC format emphasizes popularity of images and it's nearly impossible for any one of us to educate voters the way we might want them to be educated on how to select what is popular here. Recognizing that, it's also nice to see that the DPC community includes some people who are happy to sacrifice DPC popularity for other artistic merits. I believe some of those folks here are better than Brittany Spears photography equivalents & I'll gladly learn what I can from them. None the less, the frustration you're voicing makes perfect sense (although my photography is not at a level where I've run out of basics to learn yet - I'm still trying to learn how to sing in tune :P). |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 02:33:17 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by JMart:
For every area of art there may be a never ending struggle balancing between things like being popular, original, classic, and just saying what we as artists want to say. It seems clear to me that the DPC format emphasizes popularity of images and it's nearly impossible for any one of us to educate voters the way we might want them to be educated on how to select what is popular here. Recognizing that, it's also nice to see that the DPC community includes some people who are happy to sacrifice DPC popularity for other artistic merits. I believe some of those folks here are better than Brittany Spears photography equivalents & I'll gladly learn what I can from them. None the less, the frustration you're voicing makes perfect sense (although my photography is not at a level where I've run out of basics to learn yet - I'm still trying to learn how to sing in tune :P). |
Not picking on you John, but just using your post as a launching pad for a few thoughts.
1) I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "educating the voters the way we might want them to be educated". How would that even look? High art, by definition, only appeals to a select few. Photography is no different. Why should we assume that "just saying what we as artists want to say" ought to be greeted with open arms? Some things artists will say will resonate with some people. Some things artists will say will resonate with very few people. Is it the fault of the audience or the artist if the latter is true? Seeming randomly, while reading the wiki on truffles today, I came across an apt quote about the attempt to cultivate truffles which can command $2000/pound.
"The most learned men have sought to ascertain the secret, and fancied they discovered the seed. Their promises, however, were vain, and no planting was ever followed by a harvest. This perhaps is all right, for as one of the great values of truffles is their dearness, perhaps they would be less highly esteemed if they were cheaper.
"Rejoice, my friend," said I, "a superb lace is about to be manufactured at a very low price."
"Ah!" replied she, "think you, if it be cheap, that any one would wear it?"
The point is that this "photography for artists", if it gained wide approval on DPC, might ironically no longer qualify as "photography for artists".
2) A challenge in the format of DPC is about the worst medium for photography that tries to convey the artist's message. We get nothing but the title to know where the artist wants to take us and the shot is lost in a group of 100-400 other shots. How is this EVER going to benefit the artist with a message? Why are we trying to cram a square peg into a round hole? The better and proper venue for such photos is side challenges or individual threads. The niche audience that the photo speaks to will seek their own and congregate in such places. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:49:42 PM  |
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 12:49:42 PM EDT.
|
