DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> The Wow Factor
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 118, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/19/2013 02:28:39 PM · #1
... It's strangling photography.
 11/19/2013 02:32:01 PM · #2
Please expand. What is your interpretation of "wow factor"?
 11/19/2013 02:37:03 PM · #3
Wow factor = Eye candy?
 11/19/2013 02:55:45 PM · #4
instant gratification
 11/19/2013 03:00:21 PM · #5
My scores (here) would seem to indicate I'm doing my best to apply mouth-to-mouth resuscitation ...
 11/19/2013 03:07:19 PM · #6
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
instant gratification


Wouldn't that and the definition of "Wow factor" be in the eye of the beholder, though? We all have our idea of what is appealing photography. For some, its a pretty picture, for others its a technical picture, and for yet other more, its a picture that has deeper/emotional content.

I don't argue who is right, only that we are different. On this site we have everything from bright and colorful, to dark and edgy to unintelligible and everything inbetween. Me, I like the dark and edgy, but appreciate the rest for what it is.
 11/19/2013 03:10:45 PM · #7
Originally posted by Garry:
Me, I like the dark and edgy ...

:-) Edgy
11/19/2013 03:19:41 PM · #8
At DPC the wow factor is Lonnie Anderson.
We need more Bailey Quarters,(equally hot but in a more demure and intelligent way.)

(Sorry for the 1980's obscure, testosterone driven WKRP reference, but it's spot on)
 11/19/2013 03:27:31 PM · #9
Originally posted by blindjustice:
At DPC the wow factor is Lonnie Anderson.
We need more Bailey Quarters,(equally hot but in a more demure and intelligent way.)

(Sorry for the 1980's obscure, testosterone driven WKRP reference, but it's spot on)

I gotcha. Mary Ann, not Ginger. Janet, not Chrissy. Kate, not Farrah. etc. :)
 11/19/2013 03:30:33 PM · #10
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
At DPC the wow factor is Lonnie Anderson.
We need more Bailey Quarters,(equally hot but in a more demure and intelligent way.)

(Sorry for the 1980's obscure, testosterone driven WKRP reference, but it's spot on)

I gotcha. Mary Ann, not Ginger. Janet, not Chrissy. Kate, not Farrah. etc. :)


Sorry -- I'll go for Han over Luke any day, and Rhett over Ashley...
 11/19/2013 03:31:52 PM · #11
And I'll take the goth in the corner over the cheerleader any day...

Message edited by author 2013-11-19 15:35:54.
 11/19/2013 04:13:23 PM · #12
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
At DPC the wow factor is Lonnie Anderson.
We need more Bailey Quarters,(equally hot but in a more demure and intelligent way.)

(Sorry for the 1980's obscure, testosterone driven WKRP reference, but it's spot on)

I gotcha. Mary Ann, not Ginger. Janet, not Chrissy. Kate, not Farrah. etc. :)


Sorry -- I'll go for Han over Luke any day, and Rhett over Ashley...


Mickey, Michael, and/or Peter over Davy :D
 11/19/2013 04:34:50 PM · #13
The "wow" factor in the broadest sense has ALWAYS been the choice of mainstream. Even artists with an off-kilter aesthetic tend to be drawn towards center if they achieve "success".
 11/19/2013 04:46:41 PM · #14
Are there not different, personal interpretations of "WOW"?

For some, the "WOW" is a sunrise, or sunset, other, it's a bird or a flower. Others, still, are WOWed by a grainy, out of focus picture of who knows what, converted to black and white and darkened.

We all have our own WOW. Just because not everyone shares your WOW doesn't mean that "The WOW factor" is strangling photography.

Message edited by author 2013-11-19 16:47:19.
 11/19/2013 04:47:29 PM · #15
But why does it have to be "wow"? Why can't other ways of interacting with the viewer be considered? Why does a challenge about negative space have to "wow" the viewer? Why would you write "wow" into that challenge description?
 11/19/2013 04:48:26 PM · #16
I've been thinking about this all day...
 11/19/2013 04:50:49 PM · #17
Originally posted by posthumous:
But why does it have to be "wow"? Why can't other ways of interacting with the viewer be considered? Why does a challenge about negative space have to "wow" the viewer? Why would you write "wow" into that challenge description?


But, Don, did not all the entries that you awarded a PH to "wow" you in some manner?
 11/19/2013 04:51:42 PM · #18
Originally posted by posthumous:
But why does it have to be "wow"? Why can't other ways of interacting with the viewer be considered? Why does a challenge about negative space have to "wow" the viewer? Why would you write "wow" into that challenge description?


This is a good point.

I wonder if part of this concept springs from the saturation of imagery and video in our daily lives. Not a matter of "short attention span," as some may argue, but that there is SO MUCH that we can only really pay attention to that which grabs us- hence everything begins an attempt at "wowing" us so we'll actually acknowledge its existence.
 11/19/2013 04:57:59 PM · #19
Originally posted by Garry:
Originally posted by posthumous:
But why does it have to be "wow"? Why can't other ways of interacting with the viewer be considered? Why does a challenge about negative space have to "wow" the viewer? Why would you write "wow" into that challenge description?


But, Don, did not all the entries that you awarded a PH to "wow" you in some manner?


No.

This photo did not wow me. This photo had lunch with me, then dinner. It talked to me, played me a song I needed to hear. I felt ocean spray on my face and I could smell it. No wowing involved.

This photo doesn't wow me. It's just beautiful, like listening to a good song without vocals.

This doesn't wow me. It almost puts me to sleep, perchance to dream.

No wow here. This is a slow invasion of light. A soft call across distance. A breeze.
 11/19/2013 05:04:29 PM · #20
Yet they moved you on some visceral/emotional/sub-conscious level. No?
 11/19/2013 05:06:16 PM · #21
The odd thing I find is that the "Wow" factor in on line photography had had an inverse relationship in gallery work. Most photography shows I see locally tend to be huge prints of very quiet images that often lack a central point of interest. Works with similar effects as the work of Andreas Gursky are all I seem to find. They do wow by technical mastery, and depth of detail, but are very quiet contemplative works that only give up their pleasures with time and contemplation.

So yes, the wow factor is flattening photography, but in both directions. You must wow on screen, you may not wow and get in a good gallery.
 11/19/2013 05:08:29 PM · #22
In reality, "wow" is just a synonym for whatever makes each of us stop and appreciate/inspect/explore/etc. an image.

Don, you are so poetic!
 11/19/2013 05:18:28 PM · #23
Originally posted by Garry:
Yet they moved you on some visceral/emotional/sub-conscious level. No?

I'd say being moved and being walloped are quite different things. But I'll let Don answer for himself.
 11/19/2013 05:25:25 PM · #24
11/19/2013 05:26:46 PM · #25
Originally posted by posthumous:
No wow here. This is a slow invasion of light. A soft call across distance. A breeze.

To me, this one said "Where's the beef?? .....................oh, there it is."
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:09:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/19/2024 07:09:49 PM EDT.