| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2009 11:05:14 AM · #1 |
There was never a challenge devoted to kids. Trees/animals, millions of dead/abstract/imaginary objects, but never something that is so dear and beautiful as children.
What's wrong with you people, don't you like kids?? |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 11:11:24 AM · #2 |
Actually, kids really don't do too well here outside of the occasional result now and then, that is usually exceptional.
Still, they tend to make their way into every challenge anyway.
One reason is because it's very hard to photograph children in a way that is universally interesting to the masses. Too often you just get parents/relatives taking photos of the children in their lives and not being able to be objective enough to realize that it's just not a very good photo. |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 11:18:35 AM · #3 |
well it would certainly be easy to judge since i would only have to use the 1, 2, and 3 ;)
You have rated 254 of 254 images (100%) in this challenge.
You have given an average score of 2.2544.
just kidding!
i wouldn't be able to participate without seeming really really really creepy and i'd probably abstain from voting, but it would be a good way for people who have kids to think of new and interesting ways to photograph their children. the idea of an anne geddes style challenge makes me cringe though, so add in this extra rule
difficulty: no kids in flower pots and no bare butts. |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 11:34:28 AM · #4 |
| Speaking of creepy- there is the whole issue of posting pictures of kids on-line. Bag of worms. |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 11:46:53 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by justine:
Speaking of creepy- there is the whole issue of posting pictures of kids on-line. Bag of worms. |
What she said: in today's increasingly suspicious/contentious political climate, it's unlikely we'll EVER run a "kids" challenge, because photographing kids is seen by outsiders as a suspicious activity, and posting 'em to the internet is fraught with peril. Not a problem, I guess, for those of us as HAVE 'em, but lawd help you if you shot some kids, at the beach, say, kids that aren't yours, frolicking innocently in a public place, and some random parent saw his/her kid posted to DPC and raised a stink...
R. |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 11:56:40 AM · #6 |
| You are very right. It could lead to an uncomfortable situation – regardless of how good the intentions of members here at DPC. But what about a twist – what about a challenge on the “Essence of a Child” – Take a photo portraying the essence of a child, without having a child in the photo. This could be toys, a favorite child past time, adults showing their inner child, etc. |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 12:05:06 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
You are very right. It could lead to an uncomfortable situation – regardless of how good the intentions of members here at DPC. But what about a twist – what about a challenge on the “Essence of a Child” – Take a photo portraying the essence of a child, without having a child in the photo. This could be toys, a favorite child past time, adults showing their inner child, etc. |
That has been done. Childhood without Children, or something. Too lazy to search for it. lol. |
|
|
|
05/04/2009 12:06:30 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by moriadelacroix:
You are very right. It could lead to an uncomfortable situation – regardless of how good the intentions of members here at DPC. But what about a twist – what about a challenge on the “Essence of a Child” – Take a photo portraying the essence of a child, without having a child in the photo. This could be toys, a favorite child past time, adults showing their inner child, etc. |
Childhood Without Children II |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 11:26:31 AM · #9 |
Oh, c'mon cut this "I'm afraid to shoot kids because somebody may not like it" rubbish. I am sure that even those that do not have kids of their own have numerous nieces, nephews, cousins, or simply kids of their friends or neighbors. And then among pros, it should be one of the most often shot subjects for money.
Just don't post if your are afraid to.
All this "kids without kids" - yeah, how about trees w/o trees, dogs w/o dogs, abstraction w/o abstraction, darkness w/o dark ... It's just pathetic.
Message edited by author 2009-05-05 11:28:56. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 11:50:40 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Contra:
All this "kids without kids" - yeah, how about trees w/o trees, dogs w/o dogs, abstraction w/o abstraction, darkness w/o dark ... It's just pathetic. |
I think we all agree it's pathetic. Unfortunately, it's also the reality we live in.
R. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 11:55:01 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Contra:
It's just pathetic. |
I'm not sure how it's pathetic. There have been over 1000 challenges on this site. Coming up with new ideas is very challenging. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 02:34:22 PM · #12 |
Yeah, coming up with fresh ideas is hard. I had an "inspiration" the other day. Saw a woman with red shoes and thought "Shoes" would be a great challenge. Of course it has been done. I also once suggested a "White on White" challenge (after searching alphabetically to make sure it hadn't been done), only to learn there had been a couple of "Light on White's" already.
As for the kids thing; I was already given a warning once by a suspicious father just for having a camera out (I wasn't even pointing it near his kid). Yeah, it's pathethic, but that debate has been had before, so... c'est la vie. |
|
|
|
05/05/2009 04:11:42 PM · #13 |
I don't know what the law is like in other countries but here in the UK we are generally not even allowed to take
photographs of our children in school plays anymore as we may include images of other children.
It is a very very sad state of affairs in my opinion. Whilst it is meant to protect the young I think it actually promotes suspicion and mistrust.
If things continue along these lines I can see a day when all photography in public places could be banned.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 12:58:25 PM · #14 |
1) The general rule is "if you are in the public place, it's a fare game to shoot pics of you." There is no law that prohibits it.
This site also had a few "Candid" challenges, which just proves the same.
2) As I mentioned above there are always cousins, nephews, kids of friends and neighbors - in case you feel paranoid about somebody complaining.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 13:07:56. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 01:09:32 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Contra:
1) The general rule is "if you are in the public place, it's a fare game to shoot pics of you." There is no law that prohibits it.
This site also had a few "Candid" challenges, which just proves the same. |
It's not so much the *taking* of the pictures that gives one pause as it is the *posting* of them in a public, international competition, and the potential fallout from that for the site's owners. It's not gonna happen. People are REALLY edgy about having their kids' images plastered all over the internet.
R. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 01:10:26 PM · #16 |
I literally don't have family, friends or neighbours with kids I can shoot.
Fortunately, though, the general paranoia hasn't seemed to reach here yet, at least when it's a woman behind the camera. The reaction I usually get when shooting at fairs, in playgrounds and at the beach is for a parent to spot me and smile proudly while I click away. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 05:35:27 PM · #17 |
When I started the thread I did not think it will become such an issue. It just seemed logical why not to have a challenge that has that name. Some of the ever-highest graded pics on DPC were actually pics of kids.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=492106
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111547
After all everybody can and does post kids in "free study," "portraits" of all kinds, "candid," etc. I did the count - on the last "Candid V" challenge only, out of 168 submitted there were 50 pics with kids - about 30%. Apparently people here are not afraid to post the pictures of the kids on the Internet. I am also sure that if the challenge will be announced it will bring lots of submissions of great pictures, far more than only 50.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:31:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Contra:
When I started the thread I did not think it will become such an issue. It just seemed logical why not to have a challenge that has that name. Some of the ever-highest graded pics on DPC were actually pics of kids.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=492106
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=111547
After all everybody can and does post kids in "free study," "portraits" of all kinds, "candid," etc. I did the count - on the last "Candid V" challenge only, out of 168 submitted there were 50 pics with kids - about 30%. Apparently people here are not afraid to post the pictures of the kids on the Internet. I am also sure that if the challenge will be announced it will bring lots of submissions of great pictures, far more than only 50. |
I would have to agree. What's the difference in people posting "children" in every other sort of challenge, and posting them in a "children" challenge.
Miller's Lab (among others) had a huge contest last year that was all children and I never saw or heard of any objections.
Just my 2¢
|
|
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 06:41:31 PM EDT.
