| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2009 07:22:56 AM · #151 |
I give this thread a 2....
:-P |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 08:06:27 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
Some people would find the picture incredibly dull and wonder why anyone would ever take a picture of that. That's what they're trying to understand. They're giving you the benefit of the doubt--they're thinking that you saw something worthwhile in your subject, and they'd like to know what that was. |
Well, it's a worthwhile stab, but I don't quite believe this. The subject is clearly there, in the image. It is tack-sharp and surrounded by solid black on three sides. If one accounted for the angle, it would be framed by solid black. The black, in turn, is off-set by textured white which softens the further it is removed from the focused subject (dof). Clearly, whatever it might be that could be worth the attention, is the image itself, either as a whole or, selectively, as that which is emphasized against all other elements by a) focus and b) boldly contrasting double-framing.
So this -as it would be for any other picture- is where the action is. It's not outside somewhere, in someone's mind or soul. So, if one's interest is sincere, why not look at the object of interest directly and without any conjecture?
And leave me out of it. I'm not a sage, just a guy with a camera. Why can't we just look at the picture, and take it from there?
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 12:56:08 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
I was dissapointed to say the least with 5.1 this got.... |
I think I would have scored it more highly if there was a degree of separation of the two riders, or if it had been only of the front rider. Clarity is superb, but I think the overlapping subjects really detract from the impact of the image.
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 17:15:04. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 01:04:51 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Rgarcia:
My gripe is people whose "Avg Vote Cast" is less than 4. IMO people so narrow minded that thinks that only their way of seeing things is the only way, should better not vote at all.
When I see a great photographer in this site with an Avg Vote Cast of 3.58 I sincerely loose any respect I could have for him/her. |
To me, "average" is average for the challenge, not "average compared to David Bailey", and as 5.5 is the mid point, I would expect my average vote to fall around that mark, and by strange co-incidence it generally goes without me even trying. This must be because of the way I vote. The bulk of shots get 5 or 6 from me, the really good ones 7 and 8, and the standout wow shots (generally only a few) a 9 or 10. Below average shots get generally a 4, rarely a 3 hardly ever a 2 or a 1 (but it happens).
My own photography skills are so poor that I don't consider myself anywhere near average, and I'm not rating other shots compared to my own skills. I'm rating them to their peers for each individual challenge. A shot that got 8 in the hidden gem challenge may well have got a 10 in another challenge against weaker competition as being the "standout" image in that particular challenge.
I do sometimes feel that the better photographers out there vote people a lot lower than I would, but I guess that's because they are comparing the shot to their own skills. Hope that makes sense. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 01:18:21 PM · #155 |
| even with all those positive comments I did not make it out of the bottom 17% and almost but not quite to a 5.....I wonder sometimes if any of this is worth anything to me.......but I guess it must be because even though it would appear I sadly lack as a photographer, I keep coming back |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 01:30:07 PM · #156 |
I find that, here, people in general are always looking for a 'subject,' something the image is supposed to be 'about,' whether it be a sunset, a mountain, a pretty girl... When they can't 'see' the subject, they figure the image must 'mean' something. With regard to Zeuszen's image, I see it as a whole - one can't pick it apart because it just is.
the subject and the meaning of an image come from the viewer; ten people can look at the same image and come away with ten different thoughts on the matter. Which is why one will see ones and tens voted on the same image. One can have it 'explained' to them by the artist, but then the image is not the same, is it?
I often tell my husband he isn't listening to me. He states he can hear me fine. There is a difference, and the same goes with visual art; there is a difference between looking and seeing.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 01:40:50 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I often tell my husband he isn't listening to me. He states he can hear me fine. There is a difference ... |
\o/ now this is funny , thanks LOOL (and so true) |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 01:43:47 PM · #158 |
I'm not one to engage in esoteric arguments about photography. Seems all a bit silly to me.
That said, I agree with dahkota. Well said.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 02:07:23 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I find that, here, people in general are always looking for a 'subject,' something the image is supposed to be 'about,' whether it be a sunset, a mountain, a pretty girl... When they can't 'see' the subject, they figure the image must 'mean' something. With regard to Zeuszen's image, I see it as a whole - one can't pick it apart because it just is.
the subject and the meaning of an image come from the viewer; ten people can look at the same image and come away with ten different thoughts on the matter. Which is why one will see ones and tens voted on the same image. One can have it 'explained' to them by the artist, but then the image is not the same, is it?
I often tell my husband he isn't listening to me. He states he can hear me fine. There is a difference, and the same goes with visual art; there is a difference between looking and seeing. |
You see, we should introduce our respective spouses and have them go out on a date. People who don't know how to see should be shown where to look first. Frank (O'Hara) should paint and we could take pictures without talking. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 03:35:46 PM · #160 |
My gripe with the scores is that I didn't enter because I couldn't come up with a good concept for a Hidden Gem. I took the title literally and never looked at the description!
"What the heck am I supposed to use as a gemstone? I don't wear jewelry and I don't have an SO that does either. I guess I could rent something from a costume shop. If I try to use the "hidden gem" euphemism, then I'll get a bunch of DNMCs. Oh well. I'll skip this one." |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 04:23:19 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
This has nothing to do with my entry, but I'm shocked that this one got a 1, a 2 and a handful of 3s. I'm sure those scores are statistically insignificant, but how could anybody score this image so low?
 |
I don't know but I found the overt and not particularly subtle dodging in the sky to be quite distracting. The landscape component is great but it seems like the lousy editing of the sky was completely ignored, its most certainly not deserving of 1s 2s or 3s but i was suprized it did so well. Its a top 10 image no question but many behind it seemed better to me, but thats just MHO.
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 20:28:52.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 04:31:38 PM · #162 |
I believe I read in another post somewhere (and maybe someone will post it here) that the sky isn't dodged. That's unedited. It's because at that altitude there's little light dispersion to create the light blue sky we're all used to seeing.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 04:37:05 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Yandrosxx:
I believe I read in another post somewhere (and maybe someone will post it here) that the sky isn't dodged. That's unedited. It's because at that altitude there's little light dispersion to create the light blue sky we're all used to seeing.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. |
Yeah i saw that but it looked like speculation to me. The areas around the mountains show plenty of blue if it were an altitude thing wouldnt you expect the upper areas to be dark with an even blend to bluer and bluer, also there were strange dark areas in the lower left section as well. I would love to see the original unedited shot, maybe it is real, it just looked very artificial to me, of course I also thought my shot was a pretty nice capture and it got hammered, shows what I know I guess.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 04:46:44 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I don't know but I found the overt and not particularly subtle dodging in the sky to be quite distracting. The landscape component is great but it seems like the lousy editing of the sky was completely ignored ... |
According to the photographer's post-processing notes submitted with the original for validation, the image is an HDR composite of three original JPEGs, but there was no dodging/burning applied to the sky or anywhere else.
I already mentioned earlier that the sky at high altitude is a different blue than we normally see in a photo -- you can also get a tone similar to that using a polarizer.
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 20:48:22. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 06:38:52 PM · #165 |
| can anyone else not see their scores on the gem photos? i voted on 78% or so, but the scores show up as n/a unless i click on the photo itself |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 06:43:22 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
can anyone else not see their scores on the gem photos? i voted on 78% or so, but the scores show up as n/a unless i click on the photo itself |
Apparently this was turned off because it was slowing the process too much and will be back to normal once the interest in the challenge has died down a bit.
There is a thread on it somewhere.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 06:47:22 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
can anyone else not see their scores on the gem photos? i voted on 78% or so, but the scores show up as n/a unless i click on the photo itself |
Apparently this was turned off because it was slowing the process too much and will be back to normal once the interest in the challenge has died down a bit.
There is a thread on it somewhere.
Ray |
thanks! ive been avoiding the site for a while since it was so slow, and im not in a challenge right now. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/05/2025 02:50:58 AM EDT.
