| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/02/2009 06:49:07 PM · #51 |
While the technical comments are spot on, IMO, let's look at the rest of the picture.
I do not belong to the school of thought that thinks a picture is about what the viewer makes it about. I feel in shots like this the artist should have a message and convey the message. The title can help in this regard. IMO, the message is as murky as the picture itself. Is the figure forsaken by the church or by the world? Are they seeking refuge or are they being cast out? There is too little body language in the sillouette to give us any clues. In either case, why is the church in such disrepair? What purpose does that serve in the message?
As far as the aesthetic of the picture (not the technicals). We have three sections to the shot: sky, church, foreground. The sky is interesting, but somewhat flat. The church is, in my eyes, too homogeneous to command such a large portion of the canvas. Even a small window would have helped (not like you could have put one in, but nevertheless). And the foreground is completely uninteresting.
I wouldn't have given it a 2. But I probably would have given it a 4. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:07:46 PM · #52 |
I didn't vote, but I would have to agree with the good doctor, above me.
The church seem to be tilted backwards, tough to correct in basic unless you take care of it with camera and lens to start with. Sky was a bit grainy and I just did not see a strong image that really sold the title. The person seemed to me to be more patiently waiting, than rejected. But that is just me.
What I would like to see, is what the photographer was trying to convey in their own words, and then see if I got that from their image. Too many times the photographer's comments are blank. But then, after a few DQs, I can understand why they shut up.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:09:54 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Usually there at least one or two comments left that should steer you in the right direction or give you enough of a clue as to why something isn't scoring well. |
It would be those two or so reviews I'd be looking for.
Thanks for the colorful reply. And now I'm thinking of cooking a duck for Yule. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:14:58 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Hipychik:
So everyone who likes to cook duck, keep serving it until they learn to like it. LOL |
That's actually Thelonious Monks philosophy, that you have there...believe it or not.
But to answer that question, No. Just keep cooking your succulent Duck and don't worry about what the McNugget eaters think about it. There are plenty of people who can dig a nicely cooked, gourmet meal. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:18:05 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do not belong to the school of thought that thinks a picture is about what the viewer makes it about. I feel in shots like this the artist should have a message and convey the message. The title can help in this regard. IMO, the message is as murky as the picture itself. Is the figure forsaken by the church or by the world? Are they seeking refuge or are they being cast out? There is too little body language in the sillouette to give us any clues. In either case, why is the church in such disrepair? What purpose does that serve in the message? |
Hum, i think i must belong to the polar opposite school of thought then. With regards to art and literature i sometimes tend to think that the artist should be last person to ask about what their art means. They often don't know themselves sometimes. Regardless of that though, why should the artist have to convey a clear message? You ask all those questions as if it is somehow bad that a piece of art may raise questions in its audience. I tend to think that a piece of art that answers all questions and is just laid out is often nothing more than shiny eye candy. There is a place for beautiful images, of course, but for myself i sometimes like to be challenged and have to work a bit when it comes to art.
Message edited by author 2009-12-02 19:19:52. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:27:52 PM · #56 |
.
posted twice by mistake.
Message edited by author 2009-12-02 19:28:43. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:28:14 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Hum, i think i must belong to the polar opposite school of thought then. With regards to art and literature i sometimes tend to think that the artist should be last person to ask about what their art means. They often don't know themselves sometimes. Regardless of that though, why should the artist have to convey a clear message? You ask all those questions as if it is somehow bad that a piece of art may raise questions in its audience. I tend to think that a piece of art that answers all questions and is just laid out is often nothing more than shiny eye candy. There is a place for beautiful images, of course, but for myself i sometimes like to be challenged and have to work a bit when it comes to art. |
Well, this school of thought is fine too, but it's one where the question "why did I get eleven 2s?" makes no sense. The answer is 11 people didn't like what they got out of the picture and gave it a 2. How can you question them with this ideology in mind? (I'm asking in general, maybe you personally aren't asking this).
Message edited by author 2009-12-02 19:28:24. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:29:56 PM · #58 |
So were you talking about this photo of mine (not sure though)? It received 16 votes of 3 or less, which I think was kind of harsh.
Hipchick's picture got a 6 from me. I liked the starkness of it.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think it has anything to do with the technicals. It's not a feel good story for religion so some people are put off by it hence the low votes. My opinion of course. |
I had this thought as well. And the blue, which makes the beautiful St. James Cathedral look entirely menacing, throws in a dash of fire n' brimstone to boot. ;) |
|
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:30:36 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by sonniejake:
Originally posted by BJokerud:
There will always be 2's and 1's (as well as 10'2 and 9's). I heard something about making a surprise for the troll voters so they won't be able to leave a sub 4 score without commenting or something like that. that would be nice! |
That would be nice! Explanation for the low scores will be a great learning experience. I know I need all the explanations I can get. :) |
What kind of explanation do you think you'd get if a comment were forced rather than inspired? |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:40:14 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Hum, i think i must belong to the polar opposite school of thought then. With regards to art and literature i sometimes tend to think that the artist should be last person to ask about what their art means. They often don't know themselves sometimes. Regardless of that though, why should the artist have to convey a clear message? You ask all those questions as if it is somehow bad that a piece of art may raise questions in its audience. I tend to think that a piece of art that answers all questions and is just laid out is often nothing more than shiny eye candy. There is a place for beautiful images, of course, but for myself i sometimes like to be challenged and have to work a bit when it comes to art. |
Well, this school of thought is fine too, but it's one where the question "why did I get eleven 2s?" makes no sense. The answer is 11 people didn't like what they got out of the picture and gave it a 2. How can you question them with this ideology in mind? (I'm asking in general, maybe you personally aren't asking this). |
Good point and one that i don't really have an answer to to be honest. I assume all those 2s were trolls and tactical voters. Don't get me wrong, i'm not being all wishy-washy and saying there is no such this as a bad photograph, there clearly is and i give out my fair share of 4s and sometimes 3s when voting, but a really bad photo, for me , tends to be one where there is nothing there shining through, no inspiration or 'art' really. This is certainly not one of those. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:48:03 PM · #61 |
| I let the untold story intrigue me and draw me in, believe I gave it a 6 or 7. Sadly didn't cast enough votes in that challenge, so it got scrubbed. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:49:21 PM · #62 |
| A really bad photo for one person is a really good photo for someone else. This will always be the case. Not all low votes are from trolls or tactacle voters. I would hazard a guess that most of the ones available to be viewed are not since the vote scrubber runs at the end of every challenge to get rid of the rest. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:49:26 PM · #63 |
double post
Message edited by author 2009-12-02 19:49:43. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:52:01 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
A really bad photo for one person is a really good photo for someone else. This will always be the case. Not all low votes are from trolls or tactacle voters. I would hazard a guess that most of the ones available to be viewed are not since the vote scrubber runs at the end of every challenge to get rid of the rest. |
Thats very true of course. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 08:49:20 PM · #65 |
The more I look at this, the more I think we're bickering over a statistical curiousity and nothing else. (I majored in math -- sorry.) Here's the breakdown:
1 -- 2
2 -- 11
3 -- 6
Of the eleven 2-voters, if two of those had voted a 1 and two of those had voted a 3, the breakdown would like this:
1 -- 4
2 -- 7
3 -- 8
No one would think anything of this. It's still nineteen sub-4 votes which isn't unheard of with a high 5 finish.
Nineteen 1's and NO 2's or 3's would have been something to ponder. This just isn't. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 10:25:06 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bvy:
The more I look at this, the more I think we're bickering over a statistical curiousity and nothing else. (I majored in math -- sorry.) Here's the breakdown:
1 -- 2
2 -- 11
3 -- 6
Of the eleven 2-voters, if two of those had voted a 1 and two of those had voted a 3, the breakdown would like this:
1 -- 4
2 -- 7
3 -- 8
No one would think anything of this. It's still nineteen sub-4 votes which isn't unheard of with a high 5 finish.
Nineteen 1's and NO 2's or 3's would have been something to ponder. This just isn't. |
More numbers. :D
9% of voters gave you a 3 or less. 91% of voters gave you a 4 or better. 62% of voters gave you a 6 or better. 37% gave you a 7 or better.
Message edited by author 2009-12-02 22:27:27. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 01:16:36 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
So were you talking about this photo of mine (not sure though)? It received 16 votes of 3 or less, which I think was kind of harsh.
|
This one got a 4 and that was lucky.
It is a boring, blah lightened, tight cropped center focused image that looks to be neatimaged to hell.
While that may sound harsh, it is exactly how I see it and it is actually not insulting.
In the past I used to say this in the comments, but nobody marks it useful and causes some people to send PM's. Which leads me to simply leave a low vote and say nothing.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2009 08:16:57 AM · #68 |
| I didn't vote in the challenge, but scrolled through the results yesterday ... I loved this one and would have given it a 7 ... I don't know where the 2's came from, I think it's great |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 09:16:43 AM · #69 |
| I like that a troll has become anyone that doesn't like an image, or votes under a 5. How dare they use the full voting scale and not love everything I create! |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 09:25:57 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
It is a boring, blah lightened, tight cropped center focused image that looks to be neatimaged to hell.
While that may sound harsh, it is exactly how I see it and it is actually not insulting.
In the past I used to say this in the comments, but nobody marks it useful and causes some people to send PM's. Which leads me to simply leave a low vote and say nothing. |
I've never gotten one of those nasty PM's and I leave as many critiques as anyone else does. Either I have just been fortunate or you and I are doing something differently when we leave those critiques. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 09:35:35 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
So were you talking about this photo of mine (not sure though)? It received 16 votes of 3 or less, which I think was kind of harsh.
Hipchick's picture got a 6 from me. I liked the starkness of it.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't think it has anything to do with the technicals. It's not a feel good story for religion so some people are put off by it hence the low votes. My opinion of course. |
I had this thought as well. And the blue, which makes the beautiful St. James Cathedral look entirely menacing, throws in a dash of fire n' brimstone to boot. ;) |
|
In fairness there's nothing that shouts 'religion' about this photo other than the title. That could be a state building like a treasury or a museum - anything. So for that reason, I don't think low scores are unwarranted as some stick to the challenge theme more strictly than others.
I originally had this down as a 6 but later changed to an 8 after I'd had time to reflect on the image and moderate the scores. To get more it would have need to convey something more about religion other than the scale and grandeur of the building. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 09:39:21 AM · #72 |
I got 11 2's with this one, not to mention 8 1's and 8 3's... And I thought it was a thoughtful image, not entirely out of the box, that might garner some bemused respect from the voters as a group, but apparently that was wishful thinking :-) Can't say I'm surprised by that, wishful thinking is my nominal state of mind...
R. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 09:42:10 AM · #73 |
I beat you : 11 1's , 14 2's and 23 3's
And I didn't got the brown ... :(
 |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 10:40:18 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
I like that a troll has become anyone that doesn't like an image, or votes under a 5. How dare they use the full voting scale and not love everything I create! |
Yeah, I have to agree with that. It's pretty tiring seeing people bandy the word "troll" around, especially considering the poor quality of the majority of photos in the open challenges. |
|
|
|
12/03/2009 10:52:53 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I got 11 2's with this one, not to mention 8 1's and 8 3's... And I thought it was a thoughtful image, not entirely out of the box, that might garner some bemused respect from the voters as a group, but apparently that was wishful thinking :-) Can't say I'm surprised by that, wishful thinking is my nominal state of mind...
R. |
I thought this one was particularly well done. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 08:53:56 PM EDT.
