| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2003 07:35:45 PM · #1 |
To me, nature should be in a "natural" setting. I am commenting photos now. If you see a comment from me stating "Removing Flora from the great out of doors feels to me like removing a baby from it's mother's arms (minus 1 point for all studio shots this week from me)." It's exactly that, I'm not scoring these photos as 1's, but deducting one point for the extraction of an essential detail (in my view).
If I'm being a troll about this, please tell me. |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:41:44 PM · #2 |
I don't see anything in the challenge description that suggests that the plants should be photographed in their natural environment.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:43:27 PM · #3 |
Interesiting idea, but i seemed to expect this based on forum threads last week...
I prefer most flower shots that are in a studio environent. Why? Because it's easy to isolate your subject from an environment that may not be conduducive to a great photo.
I'm not saying that natural environment flower shots can't be great because they certainly can and there are some examples of that in this challenge for sure.
When I vote, I just judge what I see. I don't worry about how the photo was executed. If it works, it works... if it doesn't, it doesn't... I let the photo speak to me for what it is. It doesn't really matter to me how it was done.
I certainly don't penalize anyone for choosing their own desired method of making a photo...
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:46:56 PM · #4 |
my thoughts exactly john.
holding my head
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:48:11 PM · #5 |
| Almost afraid to post anything after the last week...but I have to agree with John and Karen. |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:48:11 PM · #6 |
You're a troll :) jk.
I think it's easier to setup flower shots ina studio setting than say in nature, as you can remove distracting elements from it and hav total control over LIGHTING, which is important for flower shots.
However, you can have BETTER lighting than most studio lighting outside if it's cloudy (very diffused light), but you still have to isolate elements.
For that reason I am with you on this, i do vote higher for people with outdoor shots that are great -- however, many of them are not and are MUCH worse than the studio shots and so they got scored lower.
but if it's purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrty, it's a 10 either way :)
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
To me, nature should be in a "natural" setting. I am commenting photos now. If you see a comment from me stating "Removing Flora from the great out of doors feels to me like removing a baby from it's mother's arms (minus 1 point for all studio shots this week from me)." It's exactly that, I'm not scoring these photos as 1's, but deducting one point for the extraction of an essential detail (in my view).
If I'm being a troll about this, please tell me. |
Message edited by author 2003-04-22 19:48:54. |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:53:16 PM · #7 |
Terry - you're absolutely correct. It doesn't say anything about it. This was "my interpretation" of the challenge and my view on nature. My real question stands - I am being trollish/arbitrary? I don't think so, but I needed a "sounding" board.
John - Isolation is good, but nature is far from being isolated. And I'm not saying anything about level of effort or that a "natural" setting cannot produce a decent flora shot. You said "if it works, it works", is it wrong to believe that flora doesn't work for me outside of a natural setting? To me, this isn't a question of method, but equating the two words flora and nature. Removing the nature, seems like removing part of the whole.
This is a forum for discussing ideas and thoughts about the challenge.
Isn't it?
Message edited by author 2003-04-22 19:55:26. |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:58:46 PM · #8 |
I'm wondering why you even posted this. If it's how YOU feel and vote then do it. Why say it's how I feel and am I a troll for it?
I agree with John on this. It's what the end result looks like. Some outside flower photos full of dead leaves in the garden just... well, they suck to be honest.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:59:13 PM · #9 |
When one takes a picture of a flower, one is not simply "recording" a flower image, one is communicating some "essence" of the flower. We want, through our photography, to communicate more than a flower or some aspect of "flower" that expresses our point of view. This is art.
If bringing the flower into the studio is the "best" way to do that, so be it. If it is best to leave it in the wild, that's great too. Karen and John hit the nail on the head: it's just what the image is trying to convey.
Message edited by author 2003-04-22 19:59:59.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:59:27 PM · #10 |
Looks like I may lose a point from you Swash then, I took a studio looking shot Outside...Wow, damn me for shooting outside the box... :)
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 07:59:30 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
John - Isolation is good, but nature is far from being isolated. And I'm not saying anything about level of effort or that a "natural" setting cannot produce a decent flora shot. You said "if it works, it works", is it wrong to believe that flora doesn't work for me outside of a natural setting? To me, this isn't a question of method, but equating the two words flora and nature. Removing the nature, seems like removing part of the whole.
|
I didn't read 'natural setting' in the challenge... It's just your interpretation of it and that's fine... I'm not asking you to change the way you have decided to vote. Everyone is entitled to vote however they like :)
It is not wrong for you to associate flora with a natural environment at all :)
All I'm saying is that I am happier giving lattitude.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 08:01:32 PM · #12 |
swash i dont know why you're asking us to judge, vet, or question your voting method. it's yours and yours alone and between no one but you and the voting page.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 08:04:26 PM · #13 |
I just got an note with a completely different and extremely valid point. It's not spring/happy weather all over the world. I'm sorry.
All of you arguing "the other side" have made extremely good/valid arguements. I thought I was prepared to justify myself, but find I'm lacking.
O.K. I'm a troll. Limiting my voting to my bias's again. I appreciate all of your opinions. I will weigh this out in my thoughts overnight and see how I feel about this in the morning.
(For those that have received my comment, expect a revision of some sort) Rob the Swash |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 08:07:04 PM · #14 |
Well, I, for one, am lovin' the Flora challenge. There are so many amazing shots!! I'm handing out 8's, 9's and 10's left and right!! A pat on the back to all of you!
Swash, vote however you want. It's all in what YOU see, and it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks of how you vote. That's what DPC is! PS - voting *your* way doesn't make you a troll!
Message edited by author 2003-04-22 20:08:59.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 08:16:02 PM · #15 |
| Don't sweat it Swash. In DPC we have roughly two conflicting schools: 1. Anal retentive control freaks - who are offended by the slightest distracting element in that PERFECT photograph. Nature is to be isolated in the studio where all elements can be CONTROLLED. The resulting photo must be absolutely pristine without the slightest relation to a natural setting. 2. Then there is the remainder of the DPC group - ranging from apt to inept - who have a more relaxed view of their photographic worlds...most of whom are here for whatever jollies and learning they can garner from this interesting and informative site. |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:08:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by JEM:
Don't sweat it Swash. In DPC we have roughly two conflicting schools: 1. Anal retentive control freaks - who are offended by the slightest distracting element in that PERFECT photograph. Nature is to be isolated in the studio where all elements can be CONTROLLED. The resulting photo must be absolutely pristine without the slightest relation to a natural setting. 2. Then there is the remainder of the DPC group - ranging from apt to inept - who have a more relaxed view of their photographic worlds...most of whom are here for whatever jollies and learning they can garner from this interesting and informative site. |
I have to say that I find this to be an unfair characterization. I personally prefer studio shots because I think I can take a better photograph with some control over the elements. Ever try to take a macro shot of a flower (like wisteria) outdoors in North Carolina in April? It took 40-50 shots for me to get TWO because the wind is fickle around here. (And no, this is not my flora entry. I didn't enter at all this week, no camera)
I also like studio shots (especially for flowers) because I can buy them at the garden center and not have to ask my neighbors if I can photograph their gardens.
That isn't to say that I don't take 'nature' shots too. I do. I simply prefer studio shots because I think my photographs are better from the studio.
Why does it have to be an all or nothing? Why does it have to feel like an "I'm better because I do it this way" argument. We are individuals first, photographers after and as such we each do things our way. The resulting beauty is what is important...right?
Shari
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:10:49 PM · #17 |
| no offense but why was this thread even brought up? you obviously don't think you are a troll because you premeditated this system to vote by this week. no one can fault you for that. this just puts you in a bad light for no reason i think. save yourself |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:29:36 PM · #18 |
My 2 cents .. I am on swash side on this one .. and to me 'trolling' is puting oil on the fire just for the pleasure of it , not having an opposite opinion or expressing it so .. you're not a troll ;-)
But this seems to be a sensitive subeject this week . .maybe because it's related to flower and something like 'inner beauty' of the flower so maybe people on 'both sides' (if such thing exist) are more sensitive.
Not pretending to be flora but just a flower taken outside, a tulip .. and I like it a lot. tulip(comments welcome but this is probably not in the right thread)
Good luck to everybody regarless of your intertretation of the challenge this week!
Lionel
Message edited by author 2003-04-22 22:32:35. |
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:29:57 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by shareinnc:
[...] The resulting beauty is what is important...right? |
If that's what you wanted to go for, then yes. But if Swashbuckler personally prefers a natural setting over beauty then so be it. It's a pity that somebody has to make sure that he's not accused as a troll for such an opinion. Whether we agree with you or not is a different question, but you can photograph flora during autumn and bad weather, too.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:59:53 PM · #20 |
Actually lots of natural photographs are beautiful (i am talking in general terms here). The problem is excluding the elements away and finding the right time of day/weather condition, for flowers that is.
over half of the photos submitted outdoors are taken during midday when the sun is harsh and renders it badly -- no matter what composition you take, unless it's backlighting and done correctly (easier said than done), it's going to look "bad" because of the harsh lighting.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 11:13:52 PM · #21 |
I refrained from doing a studio shot of "flora" thinking in a purist sense. It seemed to me that if I photographed a flower or a weed or a blade of grass in a studio, it became more of a still life.
I won't determine to deduct any points from a picture made by someone who interpreted differently, however I think I may be influenced by "my interpretation." Am I making any sense???
I found it much more challenging to try to find something in it's natural setting. I also tried to avoid domesticated, garden variety flowers, thinking that perhaps, wouldn't fully meet the challenge. BUT with my purist attitude, my picture is scoring low. lol Not sure why. All the comments, so far, say they like it. oh well...lol
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 11:24:52 PM · #22 |
So, just a little question to confuse the issue a bit more. What about pictures that just look like they were taken in a studio, but actually were taken "outside" (e.g., on a deck, natural light an all)?? Do they get 1/2 point deducted? Hey, I'm tired and this is meant in jest, so don't anybody take it seriously. Time to quit for today.
Ursula |
|
|
|
04/23/2003 01:49:37 AM · #23 |
| This whole thread should be in "Rant", not here where we have to wade through everybodies totally SUBJECTIVE views. |
|
|
|
04/23/2003 04:30:46 AM · #24 |
Just to add my opinion, I feel that it's implicit in 'flora' and 'fauna' that there be some suggestion of environment. Otherwise 'plants' and 'animals' would have been the titles.
To expand on someone else's thoughts (can't remember who or where), if a picture editor asked you to get a shot representative of 'flora' or 'fauna', would you submit to them a studio shot? Personally, I'd expect to have to argue very hard for it ...
Not that this is going to change anyone's opinions, but hey ...
:-)
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/23/2003 08:43:38 AM · #25 |
I'm with Swash on this.
Listen, people who take natural shots of flowers in nature (how dare they!) get docked points in all the other challenges because they fail to eliminate that "distracting" natural background. Personally, i prefer the "essence" of the flower in a natural setting. Now we have a challenge which, IMO, challenges people to take shots in the natural environment and some didn't. I guess they didn't want to challenge themselves to leave the studio.
Same goes with fauna. |
|
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 05:12:02 PM EDT.
