| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2002 08:42:15 PM · #1 |
OK, so I waited a week, and here's what I have to say.
First, I didn't expect this photo to win -- or even to necessarily place in the top 10, 20, or 30. However, I also didn't expect it to come in below average.
First, a discussion of the photo and it's biggest two "problems" in terms of the way I see them. Grain. Yes, it's grainy. It's very intentionally so -- read the details to see what I did to make sure there was grain in the photo. Apparently, the reason for making it grainy wasn't as clear as I assumed it would be. If you've seen the movie, it's grainy. I was recreating the shot from my own mental idea of the picture and part of that recreation included recreating the grain of the movie. It's a legitimate photographic tool. Just because it's grainy doesn't mean it's bad. Most of the people who commented on the grain seemed to pick up on this, but I really can't say that I think everybody did.
Second problem: the extremely subtle figure behind the curtain. There are a number of artistic and realistic reasons for this. I'll admit right up front, my first reason for making it so indistinct is because I'm the model and I'm not comfortable being a nude model -- and yes, I was nude behind the curtain -- I didn't want anything creating weird shades or shapes. ;-) Second, I wanted the figure to be intentionally genderless so that it could be an "Everyman" kind of symbol in the photo. Most people, I'd guess, assume it's a woman, but there's nothing there to suggest it apart from personal expectations. Third, I also wanted to give it a ghosty feeling because this person's link to the world of the living is really quite tenuous at this point in time.
Is this a people picture? You better believe it. This is SO about the "relationship" between two people it practically screams it. (no pun intended.)
I don't feel like this is an "average" picture, but obviously the people voting do and I would just like to understand why. Is it because the person behind the curtain is hard to see? If so, why is that a "sin"? I take pictures that I want people to look at, to stare at, to have an "Aha!" moment with -- one of my comments hits this exactly, "It's neat how the longer I look at it, the more I notice the outlines of the person behind the shower curtain." I'm starting to think people want something that they can "get" in the 5 seconds it takes the image to load, make their vote, and move on. If they don't see it in those 5, then "sucks to be you".
Comments about the photo or about the idea of "instant gratification" or both are most welcome. (As are any comments that sincerely feel "the picture blows" as long as you follow up with a reason why. *wink*)
|
|
|
|
06/02/2002 08:57:11 PM · #2 |
Well, it was my comment you quoted, so it wouldn't be any surprise that I gave you 8. I don't think your photo is average. I stand by the impression I got from seeing the results of the first challenge I voted on, and every one of them since - there are wonderful, exciting photos that rate very low here because they are inaccessible to the majority of voters. People who like creativity will rate them high, people who like flowers and kittens will rate them low, and the latter group win.
But don't let that discourage you because you're in some great company in the bottom end of this challenge. Some of my favourites rated very, very low, and hell, so did I. |
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:03:00 PM · #3 |
This was a photo I had to "appreciate" without "liking" it outright -- I voted an 8 in the end, although I was hovering over the 9 button for a quite a while...I guess I wish your title and image weren''t such a perfect match.
Given your choice to resurrect such an edgy scene, I''d say your execution was virtually flawless; practically the highlight of the challenge (puns intended).
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/3/2002 1:07:00 AM. |
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:03:04 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Patella:
I'm starting to think people want something that they can "get" in the 5 seconds it takes the image to load, make their vote, and move on. If they don't see it in those 5, then "sucks to be you".
I think this is only going to get worse as we get more photos. I've been voting for an hour now (my initial division into low, mid, and high) and I'm only a third of the way through. Don't feel too bad about your score, my current entry in Black and White is running a perfect "1".
|
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:07:40 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by lisae:
People who like creativity will rate them high, people who like flowers and kittens will rate them low, and the latter group win.
Oops, I have to take back the high vote I gave you, Patella. Since I like kittens and flowers (one of my specialties is floral macros), I obviously don't like creativity. ;-)
If "my kind" always wins, why am I always surprised how low my favorite photo scores?
|
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:12:17 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
Originally posted by lisae:
[i]People who like creativity will rate them high, people who like flowers and kittens will rate them low, and the latter group win.
Oops, I have to take back the high vote I gave you, Patella. Since I like kittens and flowers (one of my specialties is floral macros), I obviously don't like creativity. ;-)
If "my kind" always wins, why am I always surprised how low my favorite photo scores?
[/i]
Hehe, I think you meant me there, not Patella. You know I was being facetious, don't you? :P
If I wanted to really analyse the photos that most people rate high (those who find the edgier photos inaccessible), it would not be kittens and flowers, but things that could be considered aesthetically pleasing, photographed in a safe way, that doesn't require too much thought to appreciate. A black and white photo that features a sharp knife at a rakish angle with intentional graininess is not like this.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:19:19 PM · #7 |
People here don't like any photos unless they're somehow cute and or otherwise completely inoffensive. It's just something you need to get used to. That, or change your style to appease the masses. You think all those church moms care it's a good photo? They have to give the concept of murder or 1 or else they go to hell.
I really liked your photo and i gave it a 7, which was pretty high for me in this challenge. Of course, my favorite came in at #99, so i suppose my taste is a little skewed (i'm still completely dumbfounded how the #3 photo actually got that high.. it looks like it was taken at Sears). |
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:25:59 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by lisae:
If I wanted to really analyse the photos that most people rate high (those who find the edgier photos inaccessible), it would not be kittens and flowers, but things that could be considered aesthetically pleasing, photographed in a safe way, that doesn't require too much thought to appreciate. A black and white photo that features a sharp knife at a rakish angle with intentional graininess is not like this.
I have to agree - and I know what you mean about "cuteness". So many of the kids in both "People" and now "Black and White" are simply snapshots of someone's kid. Some of the kid photos are well done and deserve to rank well (like the winning photo), but some of them surprised me with how well they did.
I've been thinking that if we need to split up photographers into groups, maybe we should split them based along these lines. The people who want to rank kid pics will be in the "Cute" group. The people who want to rank pics of people puking will be in the "Gross" group. The people who want to rank pics that make references to ancient poetry will be in the "Obscure" group. :-)
|
|
|
|
06/02/2002 09:50:11 PM · #9 |
Well, I've gone over the thumbnails a couple of times for the black and white challenge now (I always do that 4 or 5 times before I start voting to get over being intimidated by the number of photos... this time even moreso). The major themes are cats, dogs, flowers, babies and pretty girls. Well, my photo would fall vaguely into one of those categories too, but not entirely, so I'm not that different I guess. Plus, I had a backup photo of my cat to use if I didn't get anything better, thinking I'd experiment with the cat factor and see if it raised my score. It's here if anyone would like to see - "Molly-On-A-Log". I'm glad I didn't use it now :). It probably would have rated higher than my current one (which seems to be around a 4 so far, as usual), but I like my submitted photo more.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2002 02:45:00 AM · #10 |
I don't feel like this is an "average" picture, but obviously the people voting do and I would just like to understand why. Is it because the person behind the curtain is hard to see? If so, why is that a "sin"? I take pictures that I want people to look at, to stare at, to have an "Aha!" moment with -- one of my comments hits this exactly, "It's neat how the longer I look at it, the more I notice the outlines of the person behind the shower curtain." I'm starting to think people want something that they can "get" in the 5 seconds it takes the image to load, make their vote, and move on. If they don't see it in those 5, then "sucks to be you".
I have been entering photo contests for a good many years now, mostly conventional a now a few digital. One thing I have learned is that you can not be thin skinned. Many times the pictures you put the most effort in are rated low and something that was a casual shot is rated higher. You must keep in mind that things like recreating a movie scene, no matter how well done, may just not strike the same cord in the viewer as it did in you when you planned and/or took the picture. I have a lot of shots that I really like for some special reason and I would be nice if every on that viewed them "got them" the way I do, but that is just not going to happen. With the number of pictures now being entered here, I think, you must consider initial impact when picking your entry. Most people are just not going to spend that much time studing every entry for sutle things.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2002 03:05:31 AM · #11 |
Of course, my favorite came in at #99, so i suppose my taste is a little skewed (i'm still completely dumbfounded how the #3 photo actually got that high.. it looks like it was taken at Sears).[/i]
Ryano, if you find out which Sears that is, would you let me know? I would love to have my photo done at Sears if it can be done that well. I didn't know that Sears had such high quality photographers! Thanks for the information. |
|
|
|
06/03/2002 04:58:40 AM · #12 |
I guess the reason your image came in so low was down to personal opinion. We are all individuals and all see things differently. I think I gave your image 8 or 9(Can't remember, so many) because I liked the symbolic message that jumped out of the picture at me. I saw where you were coming from and I understood. I also gave a 9 to the image "Misery" which came in at 99. Yes it was grainy, yes it was black and white and yes it had text on it, but what an emotive image.
Better luck next time guys. Keep ya chins up, its only a bit of fun. If they don't get it, so what. If only one person understands where you are coming from, then you have achieved your objective. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 02:57:10 AM · #13 |
| i don't think i'm with the "cats and kids" crowd, but i do have to say that i somehow missed your photo. too many pics, too little time? anyways, don't get discouraged. it *is* a great photo, thanx for writing and giving me a second chance to look at it. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 03:47:00 AM · #14 |
I have to say that I don't think your photo deserved anything less than a 6. I commented on how much I liked the angle and the grainy effect....but I also commented that I'd like to be able to see the figure behind the curtain more. I guess to each, his own. I even came back and upped my vote on this pic because I had to study it several times.
As for my own photo, I was really blown away by how well it did...and I thank all the people who gave the comments and voted....just the same as I've been thankful for all the people who gave comments on the photos I've submitted that have ranked 58th...and well..really low. It was the first photo I've had here that didn't get a one, though.
I don't know what else to say...I just think you have to roll with it. I get criticized a lot in my job and on my work...some constructive and sometimes you'd just like to say..."what do you want???" after trying so many times.
Anyway....I'm a "church mom" *gasp* and no...I don't feel like I'm gonna go to hell because of how I see things. :)
Photos should move you, they should shock you...they should excite you, make you laugh, cry or think....but no one feels the same about anything.
Just..keep up the great work. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 04:49:42 AM · #15 |
KD...it was nice to see you get that award. Its always good to see some new faces in the top ranks. It just shows that you can do it and others can too.
The Homage to Hitchcock was a nice photo, certainly deserving better than the place it got but then again, out of my 10 to 15 favorite photos each week I always see at least half or them a lot lower than I think they deserved. :-)
Unless I think you're in my top 15 or so I usually don't go into what I think about the photo. Why? What I have come to find out is that we are all pretty smart here and anything I can tell someone in a paragraph is easy to find out on their own simply by comparing their photo to the other entries and learning by reading great books and studying a wide range of photographers.
If you're not smart enough to figure it out on your own I have found that anything most people say here isn't going to change your mind much. And then we get into this whole persons taste discussion which I find leads to nowhere.
Heck, a lot of times when someone gets a negative comment during voting they come here and get angry about it. I think a lot more can be learned from talking about the positive aspects of a photo than the negative anyway.
Just my 2 cents....and 2 cents don't buy much anymore :-) |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 05:47:07 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by hokie:
KD...it was nice to see you get that award. Its always good to see some new faces in the top ranks. It just shows that you can do it and others can too.
Thanks :0)
There's nothing like seeing your numbers high. I checked my score every five minutes last week...lol. I'm not doing so well this week but it does make you want to strive to be better...and learn more. I've even dusted off my old college photography book this week.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 06:16:53 AM · #17 |
Hokie,
To be honest, I'm not sure how to read your last post to this thread. I can't tell if it's a veiled attack on my intelligence (whether personally meant or not) or if it's simply a statement about how you comment.
My goal with starting this thread was because I got what I felt were a number positive comments without enough negative comments to justify the score I saw. So, when I'm asking for an explanation I'm not asking for a discussion of technique or to have someone tell me/teach me how to take a better picture. I know the technical aspects of the craft -- I apparently don't know what people think. I'm a magician (for real) not a mind reader. As such, I'm trying to elicit the negative comments I apparently didn't receive during voting in an attempt to understand what other people are thinking about my shot.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 06:34:19 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Heck, a lot of times when someone gets a negative comment during voting they come here and get angry about it. I think a lot more can be learned from talking about the positive aspects of a photo than the negative anyway.
And you know what, that's annoying.
People need to learn to deal with contructive criticism. If the comment is an attack, as I have recieved in the past, deal with it after the week is up.
Also, I personally think, and at least one other person on here has mentioned it, that anyone who votes 3 or lower, or maybe even 4 or lower should be asked to leave a comment. My reasoning for this is that at the beginning of the week I have this grade that I'm pretty happy with and as the week progresses it just goes down and down and down. Do the optimists only vote at the beginning of the week? I feel that my photo is worth at least as much as the score I already have. A problem I do have with forcing people to leave comments is that then they'll just enter one word or they'll just give you a score which doesn't require a comment. Perhaps some wording on the vote page would be good "Commenting on photos which you give a grade of 4 or lower is encouraged but not required". Maybe even "Constructive Criticism is encouraged, though comments are not required."
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 06:35:15 AM · #19 |
I am not making an attack on your intelligence, veiled or unveiled.
Mainly what I guess I am saying is if your smart enough to get anything from this site you'll probably be smart enough to figure it out on your own anyway. If you are continually frustrated at this site I don't think this site is gonna change enough to alleviate the frustration.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:01:48 AM · #20 |
| Hey! I really loved your photo and gave it a "9," but I have to say that you're sounding kinda whiney on this thread. If you can't take the criticism, then maybe you should not be posting your photos here. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:13:42 AM · #21 |
Patella, you don't sound whiney, I know you're just trying to get an explanation because it IS very confusing when your score is low but your comments are positive. There's a good reason. Check out the way the top 5 photos are broken down by various categories now on the bottom of the results page. Compare the scores given by people who commented to the averages, and those of people with cameras compared to those without cameras. The people who comment are a pretty specific group, generally people who (think they) know a thing or two about photography, and they seem to rate a lot higher than average (but maybe that's just for the top rated photos, we can't tell). From the posts here, many regular commenters have said they liked your photo. It all adds up.
Basically, take the comments to be the real input and forget about the score. The score is a popularity contest, the comments are the real thing. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:27:56 AM · #22 |
I agree lisae...
Patella..you don''t whine..........much :-P
Don''t you change one bit..if you do we will hunt you down and make you take pictures of fuzzy bunnies and family reunion pictures till you beg for mercy (or more if you''re into that stuff :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/4/2002 11:28:10 AM. |
|
|
|
06/04/2002 07:29:53 AM · #23 |
OOP! I guess my monitor sucks ass. I didn't see the person in the shower :( When I look at it now I can see a vague shape but it doesn't look like a person. Sorry :(
It definitely changes the whole complexion of the composition with a person inside the shower. I guess my monitor is getting kinda old (21" NEC and it has been calibrated with photoshop software). Once again I must apologize because I would've definitely scored it higher if I saw a person in the shower.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 11:32:25 AM · #24 |
seems like the worse a pic of mine does the more positive comments it gets.
maybe it's people voting me low and trying to make up for it by throwing me a "comment bone." I wouldn't doubt that.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2002 11:46:36 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
seems like the worse a pic of mine does the more positive comments it gets.
maybe it's people voting me low and trying to make up for it by throwing me a "comment bone." I wouldn't doubt that.
then again there are probably people like me who scored it a 9 but didn't get a chance to comment! i really liked this picture--she reminds me of a friend i had in asheville who mainly listened to the cure and skinny puppy. naturally her attire reflected this--much like your model--except pepsi (really her name!!) would have thrown on a pair of plaid tights and a pair of Doc boots!
|
|
