| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2007 02:02:33 AM · #1 |
A good number of the photos submitted and some of the winning ones have "photo titles" that are forced into the meaning of the challenge or contest, to make the meaning up.
I do not want to single out any, not right yet; but with the "forced titles" to extract a meaning that does not really exists in these photos, a good number of them may not have a chance to win.
I think a photo should be powerful enough to exhibit the "subject of the challenge"; meaning, when the photo is viewed one should see (Hate, Love, Bad, Portrait, Fruits…, Harsh environment… or what have you) and not be led by the photographer who uses the "photo titles", well enough, to add much power to a photo that should tell all by just looking at it.
A new and good "Extra rule", once in a while, may be to suppress the individual "photo titles" until the voting is over; and monitor the change to the nature of photos that will set on the first top three places.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:05:05 AM · #2 |
This has been discussed many times before and I doubt this thread will be the one to solve the problem...this is an ongoing topic with many on both sides. But no one has been able to come to any agreement.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:07:29 AM · #3 |
| I like having the extra titles, but proposing that it be an extra rule used every so often is not a bad idea. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:13:23 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by TIHadi:
A good number of the photos submitted and some of the winning ones have "photo titles" that are forced into the meaning of the challenge or contest, to make the meaning up.
I do not want to single out any, not right yet; but with the "forced titles" to extract a meaning that does not really exists in these photos, a good number of them may not have a chance to win.
I think a photo should be powerful enough to exhibit the "subject of the challenge"; meaning, when the photo is viewed one should see (Hate, Love, Bad, Portrait, Fruits…, Harsh environment… or what have you) and not be led by the photographer who uses the "photo titles", well enough, to add much power to a photo that should tell all by just looking at it.
A new and good "Extra rule", once in a while, may be to suppress the individual "photo titles" until the voting is over; and monitor the change to the nature of photos that will set on the first top three places. |
Wrong site and wrong set of expectations. I do not say this to be trite but this really is the Wal-Mart of creative photography sites. Do not push the envelope, do not be contraversial, do not imply strong social commentary, do not veer from traditonal technical parameters. This has created an environment that thrives upon recycled themes, ideas and images. Too bad because the venue could support some extraordinary concepts and showcase images that are not reliant upon the description. Oh well. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:16:50 AM · #5 |
LOL
i call this method "shoehorning" ... when someone takes a photo and 'shoehorns' it into the challenge using the title.
i think disabling titles on certain challenges (leaving people with only a photograph) is a fantastic idea.
bring it on!!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:19:28 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by TIHadi:
A good number of the photos submitted and some of the winning ones have "photo titles" that are forced into the meaning of the challenge or contest, to make the meaning up.
I do not want to single out any, not right yet; but with the "forced titles" to extract a meaning that does not really exists in these photos, a good number of them may not have a chance to win.
I think a photo should be powerful enough to exhibit the "subject of the challenge"; meaning, when the photo is viewed one should see (Hate, Love, Bad, Portrait, Fruits…, Harsh environment… or what have you) and not be led by the photographer who uses the "photo titles", well enough, to add much power to a photo that should tell all by just looking at it.
A new and good "Extra rule", once in a while, may be to suppress the individual "photo titles" until the voting is over; and monitor the change to the nature of photos that will set on the first top three places. |
Wrong site and wrong set of expectations. I do not say this to be trite but this really is the Wal-Mart of creative photography sites. Do not push the envelope, do not be contraversial, do not imply strong social commentary, do not veer from traditonal technical parameters. This has created an environment that thrives upon recycled themes, ideas and images. Too bad because the venue could support some extraordinary concepts and showcase images that are not reliant upon the description. Oh well. |
I am sorry, but I did not understand your point of view. Please explain, I am not sure which way you are headed.
Thanks |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:28:18 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
LOL
i call this method "shoehorning" ... when someone takes a photo and 'shoehorns' it into the challenge using the title.
i think disabling titles on certain challenges (leaving people with only a photograph) is a fantastic idea.
bring it on!! |
I wouldn't mind seeing that done on occassion as part of an extra rule but for a different reason. This might help slow voters down a bit since they don't have the "answer" right there in the title. That can't be a bad thing in terms of providing quality judging.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 02:29:28. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:33:57 AM · #8 |
I totally agree. I also think a lot of times people create captions rather than actual titles. And usually the captions are only there to thump home the connection to the challenge.
As an alternative idea, and this may have already been presented, how about this? The title is part of the challenge. The title of your picture is "blah". Take a picture that matches the title.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:33:58 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by TIHadi:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by TIHadi:
A good number of the photos submitted and some of the winning ones have "photo titles" that are forced into the meaning of the challenge or contest, to make the meaning up.
I do not want to single out any, not right yet; but with the "forced titles" to extract a meaning that does not really exists in these photos, a good number of them may not have a chance to win.
I think a photo should be powerful enough to exhibit the "subject of the challenge"; meaning, when the photo is viewed one should see (Hate, Love, Bad, Portrait, Fruits…, Harsh environment… or what have you) and not be led by the photographer who uses the "photo titles", well enough, to add much power to a photo that should tell all by just looking at it.
A new and good "Extra rule", once in a while, may be to suppress the individual "photo titles" until the voting is over; and monitor the change to the nature of photos that will set on the first top three places. |
Wrong site and wrong set of expectations. I do not say this to be trite but this really is the Wal-Mart of creative photography sites. Do not push the envelope, do not be contraversial, do not imply strong social commentary, do not veer from traditonal technical parameters. This has created an environment that thrives upon recycled themes, ideas and images. Too bad because the venue could support some extraordinary concepts and showcase images that are not reliant upon the description. Oh well. |
I am sorry, but I did not understand your point of view. Please explain, I am not sure which way you are headed.
Thanks |
It is very difficult to capture the interest of the voters with a message unless the image is either brash or contraversial. The voters do not like these types of images and it has been proven over and over again. Subtle messages are overlooked as the premise of voting is based upon shallow first impressions. We all know how well that works in life and it is no different with art. What , I understand, you wish for is photos shine on their depth and convey a very strong message without the support of a leading and descriptive title. I'm saying the current way this site operates does not allow for that sort of insight. Too many photos to vote on in a very short time and an unwillingness to take the time to examine much more than conservative, traditional and elementary aspects of an image. What you wish for cannot happen here. I wish it could but the challenegs are not set up for that. I wish it were different but I realize it is not. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 02:41:54 AM · #10 |
what you actually want to avoid isn't the titles... but the pictures that don't match the challenge topic. even with such a new rule people will submit more or less everything. I'd rather rate them 1, 2 or 3 for not fit into the challenge. if you think people are treated bad that way you still can include an inofficial "technical" rating in your comments that describes the pure quality of the picture.
"nice picture of your baby girl (9) but doesn't fit the challenge title "city life" (2)" |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:06:11 AM · #11 |
| I disagree with the concept of untitled challenges. Part of the art of exhibiting and photographic competitions in a broader sense is to match the photo with a clever and fitting title. The title is as much a part of the WOW factor as the image in my opinion. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:21:06 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I disagree with the concept of untitled challenges. Part of the art of exhibiting and photographic competitions in a broader sense is to match the photo with a clever and fitting title. The title is as much a part of the WOW factor as the image in my opinion. |
I looked at the titles of your photos, and in your case you are right; you are not trying to make your photos look better by adding "titles" in an attempt to make a photo say what it does not. Your photos are good and the titles you use are objective and descriptive in nature; which is very ok... but other's titles are "like One said: a caption" and most likely "a caption" arrived at after the" irrelevant shot" was taken |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:22:22 AM · #13 |
Hi, I'm new here, but this topic caught my attention. I voted for many photos yesterday and had the experience that many shots didn't fit, or were a real stretch. I found myself doing what RobMcGee suggests, by commenting on the quality, but rating on appropriateness. On the other hand, as Falc says, there are some pictures that would not have made sense to me if it weren't for the title, yet once I read the title i was amazed rather than annoyed. One such entry was Sunshine86's third place "Good" photo, entitled "A Good Laugh": //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=462926
It is an amazing shot, and very candid once paired with the title. Maybe the idea should be to open a new "untitled" challenge category, with the same method of theme assignments being used. This way, the bar will be raised for those photographers up to the challenge of letting the picture do the talking...possibly viewed as an "advanced" contest. Just some thoughts people might want to run with... |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 03:22:30 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by RobMcGee:
what you actually want to avoid isn't the titles... but the pictures that don't match the challenge topic. even with such a new rule people will submit more or less everything. I'd rather rate them 1, 2 or 3 for not fit into the challenge. if you think people are treated bad that way you still can include an inofficial "technical" rating in your comments that describes the pure quality of the picture.
"nice picture of your baby girl (9) but doesn't fit the challenge title "city life" (2)" |
That too; but a step in the right direction does not hurt; wouldn't you say? |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:22:53 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by jimmyjazz78:
Hi, I'm new here, but this topic caught my attention. I voted for many photos yesterday and had the experience that many shots didn't fit, or were a real stretch. I found myself doing what RobMcGee suggests, by commenting on the quality, but rating on appropriateness. On the other hand, as Falc says, there are some pictures that would not have made sense to me if it weren't for the title, yet once I read the title i was amazed rather than annoyed. One such entry was Sunshine86's third place "Good" photo, entitled "A Good Laugh": //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_[thumb]ID=462926[/thumb]
It is an amazing shot, and very candid once paired with the title. Maybe the idea should be to open a new "untitled" challenge category, with the same method of theme assignments being used. This way, the bar will be raised for those photographers up to the challenge of letting the picture do the talking...possibly viewed as an "advanced" contest. Just some thoughts people might want to run with... |
I am not sure how you display a photo here, I think you only put the ID number.
:
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 04:24:16. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:27:47 AM · #16 |
Wrong site and wrong set of expectations. I do not say this to be trite but this really is the Wal-Mart of creative photography sites. Do not push the envelope, do not be contraversial, do not imply strong social commentary, do not veer from traditonal technical parameters. This has created an environment that thrives upon recycled themes, ideas and images. Too bad because the venue could support some extraordinary concepts and showcase images that are not reliant upon the description. Oh well.
Well said. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:43:34 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by jimmyjazz78:
Hi, I'm new here, but this topic caught my attention. I voted for many photos yesterday and had the experience that many shots didn't fit, or were a real stretch. I found myself doing what RobMcGee suggests, by commenting on the quality, but rating on appropriateness. On the other hand, as Falc says, there are some pictures that would not have made sense to me if it weren't for the title, yet once I read the title i was amazed rather than annoyed. One such entry was Sunshine86's third place "Good" photo, entitled "A Good Laugh":
It is an amazing shot, and very candid once paired with the title. Maybe the idea should be to open a new "untitled" challenge category, with the same method of theme assignments being used. This way, the bar will be raised for those photographers up to the challenge of letting the picture do the talking...possibly viewed as an "advanced" contest. Just some thoughts people might want to run with... |
Hmmm…. I disagree with what was said here, and I think it is totally the opposite. This is one photo that does not have to do anything with "Good". The title reads "Good laugh", but since when do Wolves laugh, Hyenas do, wolves don't; and this particular wolf may have been yawning; and definitely not laughing.
So here we have an example of a caption that steered voters in a direction which I am not so sure was the right one.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 04:44:30 AM · #18 |
| I think that if the title has more impact on you than the photograph something is wrong with both. A title should compliment not cover-up or distract. Sometimes a creative title is a nice touch but it never changes my vote. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:22:56 AM · #19 |
Simple solution is to not read the titles when voting. I never read the titles.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 07:23:22. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:17:49 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by fkahhaleh:
Hmmm…. I disagree with what was said here, and I think it is totally the opposite. This is one photo that does not have to do anything with "Good". The title reads "Good laugh", but since when do Wolves laugh, Hyenas do, wolves don't; and this particular wolf may have been yawning; and definitely not laughing. So here we have an example of a caption that steered voters in a direction which I am not so sure was the right one. |
agreed ... no offence to the photo, but without the title, this photo would have done poorly and nobody would understand the reference ... therefore the photo is TITLE DRIVEN.
the point of untitled photo challenges is to make the challenge PHOTO DRIVEN ... which i think is a fantastic idea.
why can't 1 challenge per month be challenge where entering titles is impossible ... let the photo do the talking!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:38:19 AM · #21 |
Titles used to be above the photos; they were move to below so users who didn't want to read (be influenced by) the titles wouldn't have to. I think that was a logical solution. I personally love to read the titles and if I think a title sucks it does affect my view of the image -- same with any titled piece of art. We should all choose our titles with care.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:46:13 AM · #22 |
| i wouldn't have dared to give an explicite example, but the one that came up is a good one. I think I gave it a 6 because I couldn't totally resist to the charming title. I should have rated it lower though if were strict. I don't know, maybe we leave it as it is and "someone" will start challenges without titles once in a while. I'd have missed a few "good laughs" if titles hadn't been allowed in the past...so. Rate low if you think a picture doesn't belong there and explain yourself in your comments. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:57:33 AM · #23 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 12:18:28 PM · #24 |
I totally agree about titles 'leading' voters....Whilst the example of the wolf is a terrific image, without the title it bears no significance to the challenge at all.
IMHO there are better images (mentioning no names here)that better represent the challenge than those in the top 10.
The winning image, again, great shot, but without the title its just a shot that can be soooo subjective in its meaning. The title should not have to explain the image to the voter, the image should explain itself. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 12:21:31 PM · #25 |
| Simple have a challenge where anything other then a blank title gets a DQ. And make it a hard subject to shoot without a title! |
|
