Nit-Pickers, 1's and 2's and "Distracting"

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

02/03/2009 10:21:27 PM · #1

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by eamurdock:
we've established that street photography can do well here.

I don't think you've come close to establishing that. By picking a few marginally interesting Street images images that didn't happen to tank doesn't excuse the hundreds upon hundreds of strong images that have. At best you've shown there are some exceptions to the rule and within your examples are a few dolled up shots, that actually conflict with your point.

I've always found it weak when someone makes a respectable point that someone posts an exception or two contrary to the point to counter. There are exceptions to every rule but the rules still stand.

I don't think your posted images are too terribly thought provoking either (including DeSousa's). If you find them deep, what can I say? I don't. I like a few of them and I'm not telling you not to like them but suggesting you look deeper. There's richer work out there on page 8...11 and at a lonely, 63rd and 146th Place...

In other words there are far, far more amazing images that didn't break a 6 than ones that made it to the Top 10 and hundreds of images of no real substance... pure "eye candy" that have ribboned. The balance simply isn't there.

The more you study, if you take the subject with a degree of seriousness, you'll probably find most of what you posted is derivative, pap. Comfort food. People like some of it because they find it familiar and easy to grasp but the cutting edge, more risque work takes a little more effort to get your head around. It's equally as beautiful just by a less understood standard.

On a more fun note, I've met Elliott Erwitt once before, through my friend Bernd Obermann (a good friend of EE) but didn't realize who he was. I'm such an asshole. BUT he has a new book out that I need to pick up and Bernd offered to have him sign my copy. I may be able to meet him again, to have the book signed in person if the timing works out. He's getting old and doesn't get out much anymore...so I have my fingers crossed.

I hope the timing works out for you to have this opportunity too. Fingers crossed for you to get this chance. :)

pawdrix

Nikon D700

02/03/2009 03:56:37 PM · #2

I meant "like a knock-knock joke; you can only stand a certain amount of them until you start to wince"...to steal a quote but you're right.

I know it's a generalization that applies far and wide but the images I'm referring to don't deliver much of a punch line after you've heard the joke told over and over.

Message edited by author 2009-02-03 15:59:49.

FireBird

02/03/2009 03:40:35 PM · #3

Originally posted by pawdrix:

The more you study, if you take the subject with a degree of seriousness, you'll probably find most of what you posted is derivative,

Just about every image posted to DPC is derivative. Much of the original work done 20,000 years ago.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

02/03/2009 01:43:29 PM · #4

Originally posted by eamurdock:

we've established that street photography can do well here.

I don't think you've come close to establishing that. By picking a few marginally interesting Street images images that didn't happen to tank doesn't excuse the hundreds upon hundreds of strong images that have. At best you've shown there are some exceptions to the rule and within your examples are a few dolled up shots, that actually conflict with your point.

I've always found it weak when someone makes a respectable point that someone posts an exception or two contrary to the point to counter. There are exceptions to every rule but the rules still stand.

I don't think your posted images are too terribly thought provoking either (including DeSousa's). If you find them deep, what can I say? I don't. I like a few of them and I'm not telling you not to like them but suggesting you look deeper. There's richer work out there on page 8...11 and at a lonely, 63rd and 146th Place...

In other words there are far, far more amazing images that didn't break a 6 than ones that made it to the Top 10 and hundreds of images of no real substance... pure "eye candy" that have ribboned. The balance simply isn't there.

The more you study, if you take the subject with a degree of seriousness, you'll probably find most of what you posted is derivative, pap. Comfort food. People like some of it because they find it familiar and easy to grasp but the cutting edge, more risque work takes a little more effort to get your head around. It's equally as beautiful just by a less understood standard.

On a more fun note, I've met Elliott Erwitt once before, through my friend Bernd Obermann (a good friend of EE) but didn't realize who he was. I'm such an asshole. BUT he has a new book out that I need to pick up and Bernd offered to have him sign my copy. I may be able to meet him again, to have the book signed in person if the timing works out. He's getting old and doesn't get out much anymore...so I have my fingers crossed.

Message edited by author 2009-02-03 14:34:01.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/03/2009 01:03:50 PM · #5

Originally posted by eamurdock:

The assertion that no work with "deeper meaning" can succeed here is equally flawed.

No one asserted that. The assertion was that work with "deeper meaning" is often passed over in the quest for "eye candy."

02/03/2009 12:52:59 PM · #6

While you say you want more kinds of photography to do well here, it seems to me that many different types already do well here, and in fact you're arguing for a more restrictive output.

Nitpick about the definition of "street photography" all you want, we've established that street photography can do well here. The assertion that no work with "deeper meaning" can succeed here is equally flawed.

Look, I don't care for much of what goes on the front page, either. I think, in fact, taste-wise, that we're probably pretty similar. But there's a distinction between taste and quality. There's a difference between saying "Country music sucks" and "I don't like country music". And even if you truly believe that Beethoven is substantively better than, say, Travis Tritt (as I do), people are still going to like what they like. And every so often something comes through that blows me away; at a rate certainly higher than many of the other popular photography sites.

DPC is a community that lets people participate with minimal qualifications. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets to comment on everyone else's work. There is no bar for entry. You can see that as its weakness, but it is also its strength.

02/03/2009 11:51:38 AM · #7

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Ok, so apparently my point was not clear enough: this is not simply a list of pictures that I think are good. Some I do, some I don't care for as much. But they are all street photos that have done very well in challenges. And I didn't have to look very hard to find them. And I didn't use any from the Street Photography challenge.

Edit: Oops, that was supposed to be an edit to the above post. Sorry. Removed the duplicate photos at least.

I also agree with Steve on this one. I also see only 2, respresentations of SP shots. The rest are "on the street" but, not typical of true SP.

Edited to get Steve's name right. :)

Message edited by author 2009-02-03 14:08:24.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

02/03/2009 11:44:56 AM · #8

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
ETA: I would not put user]jjbeguin[/user] in the same category as his work is brilliant! It has depth and a style all its own. But, one can hardly compare the depth behind his work to the stock/advertising style shots that usually achieve the higher scores by comparison. Bequin is accomplished enough for it to appeal to everyone without having mastered the "DPC Look". That is an accomplishment that not many will master in here. He has a talent that transcends the norm looked for because it is appealing and has depth enough to capture most voters IN SPITE of anything else normally looked for.

Umm...

How can it not have "The Look" and still be so readily admired and appreciated?

It sort of seems anathema to what you've been saying.

I think that there have been many images that have artistic integrity on the front page.

Yeah, there are a lot that are more ordinary, exceptionally clean technical images, but I think that you sell the voters a little short.

Let's use this for a minute.....

I don't think the technicals on this are very good, and yet it did well. I wasn't entirely surprised as I really knew that it had something the instant I took it, but I really can't put my finger on WHY it is that it intrigues me.....it just does. I mostly attribute it to my love for derelict machinery.

So why did this nasty piece of machinery do well?

I'll grant you it was an Abandoned challenge, but what is it that makes this cool rather than just a record of something nasty?

I think that there are always going to be exceptions to anything and Beguin's work is usually one of them but, not always. He's had some less than stellar scores as well...as have we all. However, there are those whose work is so different/captivating that people can't help but find it fascinating, whether or not it fits with their usual standards/tastes and whether or not it deviates from "the look". Beguin has been able to transcend the usual with his work for the most part, because it is captivating. Again though, even he's not always been able to do it. :) There are a number of others in here as well who have been able to have that effect, without achieving 'the look'. Can I go through every single one of them and point out why? No. I think a number of factors come into play. It's like having the right subject, in the right challenge, at the right time. Even one of my own that came in top 10, I thought was a piece of garbage in all actuality. The only thing that got me that placing was that I buffed it up to have more of "the look", edited the crap out of it to come closer to that "look". There were other photos that had far more depth and meaning than mine but, because I managed to get that "look", mine scored higher. I fully admit that it was truly a piece of crap! LOL I wouldn't have voted mine that high. I didn't even like it. I felt like I "sold out" on that one. Literally, that's what I did.

As for the old train shot, doing well....well, that shot was intriguing in its own way. It has a certain element to it that allows one to feel as though they are IN that piece. The editing is dynamic and adds to the feel of being part of that train. It was also the fact that amongst the rest of the abandoned shots, it stood out as "different". Had this been placed in a FS, it likely wouldn't have garnered quite the impact that it did in the abandoned challenge. It's all relative to what else any one photo is being compared to as well, I think.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

02/03/2009 06:59:59 AM · #9

I see two Street Photographs, only one of which has some strength as a Street Photo and maybe two others that are possibly in the same vicinity of SP in what you posted.

Discussing SP is a whole different thread that could on on for pages so maybe what we're saying here isn't so ridiculous?

Based on your examples of SP I'd say a deeper discussion and understanding of the genre should be in place and would generate a higher quality vote along with a better splash of comments. If people are willing to study and do the work in understanding what SP is, in even general terms they might even have the tools to go out and take a good Street Photo. It takes work though.

Watch this interview of Henri Cartier Bresson a few times over and then analyze his work for a few hours. Make a mental list or note of what the images have that's special or in common. What makes them diffenrent or stand out? Then do the exact same with Elliott Erwitt, Brassai, Winogrand and Rober Frank. Things will fall into place. Then cast your vote and make your comment.

Message edited by author 2009-02-03 11:16:01.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/03/2009 01:01:09 AM · #10

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/02/2009 09:44:00 PM · #11

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

ETA: I would not put user]jjbeguin[/user] in the same category as his work is brilliant! It has depth and a style all its own. But, one can hardly compare the depth behind his work to the stock/advertising style shots that usually achieve the higher scores by comparison. Bequin is accomplished enough for it to appeal to everyone without having mastered the "DPC Look". That is an accomplishment that not many will master in here. He has a talent that transcends the norm looked for because it is appealing and has depth enough to capture most voters IN SPITE of anything else normally looked for.

Umm...

How can it not have "The Look" and still be so readily admired and appreciated?

It sort of seems anathema to what you've been saying.

I think that there have been many images that have artistic integrity on the front page.

Yeah, there are a lot that are more ordinary, exceptionally clean technical images, but I think that you sell the voters a little short.

Let's use this for a minute.....

I don't think the technicals on this are very good, and yet it did well. I wasn't entirely surprised as I really knew that it had something the instant I took it, but I really can't put my finger on WHY it is that it intrigues me.....it just does. I mostly attribute it to my love for derelict machinery.

So why did this nasty piece of machinery do well?

I'll grant you it was an Abandoned challenge, but what is it that makes this cool rather than just a record of something nasty?

02/02/2009 08:48:04 PM · #12

02/02/2009 08:25:57 PM · #13

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Nobody's saying you shouldn't push yourself to be better, and push beyond what you know. No one is saying that success at DPC is the be-all and end-all of being a good photographer.

Some, however, are suggesting that success at DPC comes at the expense of being a good photographer, and that "good" photos won't succeed here. That the only photos that will work are "stock" photos, where "stock" is carefully used as a pejorative term suggesting a lack of depth. That, frankly, is absurd BS. Working towards success at DPC will make the vast majority of photographers better photographers. Working to improve ones grasp of the fundamentals will make the vast majority of photographers better photographers. You need to understand the rules to break them successfully. You need to have control of your process. Ex post facto rationalizations of your images shortcomings don't count.

There is a great deal of excellent photography that would not do well here. No one disputes that fact. However to make the logical leap that (a) photography that does well here is not excellent, and (b) photography that does poorly here is excellent, is a leap that is not supported by the facts, and which is, no offense intended, an insult to those photographers better than I who share their work and their ideas here, and an insult to photographers like me who are trying to learn.

I don't shape all my work to fit DPC. I don't, actually, shape much of it to fit DPC. But I know that I have much to learn from this community, and I appreciate it for that. If others find that it's not a supportive community for what they need, GO ELSEWHERE. Don't prattle on about how the voters don't get it or claim that your work is being marginalized by the "not meaningful" work of people like jjbeguin.

Please.

No one is marginalizing the work that anyone does in here. At least, I'm not. That isn't the point behind some of this discussion at all. There are quite a number of fabulous shots in DPC that are worthy of praise and adoration. What is being discussed is the idea that there is certain bias towards a certain type of "look" that goes with the higher scoring shots and the fact that it is because of that "look" that they score that high. It also leaves no room for anything outside of that look to do well. Street Photography, for instance does not do well in here because it doesn't achieve the DPC look. As has been discussed, one can "fit" SP into the DPC look with careful work but, then it's not really considered true SP when that is done.

There are a number of professional photographers in here who earn their livings with their photography quite well and cannot crack a decent score in DPC. Why? Because they are not achieving the look that the majority of voters have become trained to look for in a shot. There is a certain look.

No one (again not me anyway) is disputing the fact that there are things to be learned from DPC. If one wants to learn technicals, one is in the right place for it most certainly, amongst a few other things but, the fact remains that there isn't a lot of room for one to do well in challenges unless one is to both photograph and edit within a certain style that DPC has become known for.

ETA: I would not put [user]

jjbeguin[/user] in the same category as his work is brilliant! It has depth and a style all its own. But, one can hardly compare the depth behind his work to the stock/advertising style shots that usually achieve the higher scores by comparison. Bequin is accomplished enough for it to appeal to everyone without having mastered the "DPC Look". That is an accomplishment that not many will master in here. He has a talent that transcends the norm looked for because it is appealing and has depth enough to capture most voters IN SPITE of anything else normally looked for.

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 20:45:33.

02/02/2009 08:22:00 PM · #14

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!!

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...the bottom line is that they are great *eye candy" shots. They lack "depth of meaning" in a number of ways. They are great for magazine advertisements or billboards but, in the grand scheme of things, they have little mind stimulation...except, of course, to those who wonder what SS or Apt. they used to get the shot.

Just curious, how long did you spend with all the ribbon pictures before you judged them to be lacking in "depth of meaning"?

Had you quoted my full statement, you would have included the part where I had said "On the front page now". :)

1) how does that alter my statement in the least?
2) The whole point of your post was to make some broad statement about DPC and how success here requires a lack of depth.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Members (in general) tend to become trained to look for a certain look, rather than appreciate the entire photo. Technicals play a big part, yes but, there's more to it than that. Unfortunately, anything that doesn't have that "look" tends to get passed by and not truly looked at by quite a number of voters. Meanwhile, those of us who want to see more in a photo and with more "depth" either resign ourselves to side challenges or other sites to fulfill that need and express it in our own work. Most members who want to deviate from the DPC Look, enter the challenges either resigning themselves to getting low scores or, to learning to brush off the comments in the hopes that some will see the beauty in their work and garner a few great comments that demonstrate that someone has "seen" their photo. Some of us enter what we want, in the hopes of eventually presenting enough "different" that voters may start to appreciate "different". Or, we fall into the trap of score chasing and lapse into trying to achieve what voters want to see. The rest of us, find solace and companionship in thinking in side challenges where there's a sense of openness towards a realm outside of "the look".

02/02/2009 08:15:39 PM · #15

Originally posted by digifotojo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch.

The journalist who shot that photo and won the Pulitzer, Kevin Carter, committed suicide because he couldn't handle the celeb status he received as a result of that shot and live with the human misery that surrounded him. He was a tortured soul. Many people have asked about the Sudanese child in that photo, who was on her way to a food bank but too weak to barely crawl. This depicts the human condition in its purest form. There are many sides to photography and this is one of the more graphic. I agree that this photo would not garner much attention from DPC voters and perhaps that's part of the problem.

Ever notice that when a point can't be picked apart to suit a certain point of view...it's suddenly said..."that's not a good example...let's forget that one"? LOL ;)

02/02/2009 08:12:55 PM · #16

Originally posted by fir3bird:

HUH?

02/02/2009 08:12:05 PM · #17

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!!

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...the bottom line is that they are great *eye candy" shots. They lack "depth of meaning" in a number of ways. They are great for magazine advertisements or billboards but, in the grand scheme of things, they have little mind stimulation...except, of course, to those who wonder what SS or Apt. they used to get the shot.

Just curious, how long did you spend with all the ribbon pictures before you judged them to be lacking in "depth of meaning"?

Had you quoted my full statement, you would have included the part where I had said "On the front page now". :)

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/02/2009 07:45:21 PM · #18

No worries-- the picture haunts me and I didn't even take it. And you are probably right about the technical comments. :( I say, "Who cares about technicals? What about the picture?" :)

Maybe this isn't true, but I think that the DPC community is more educated then they are given credit for. Not saying the site doesn't cater to flashy or pretty pictures...

I appreciate the people here who stimulate us(me) to think in a different way. Welcome back and I agree, it is definitely nothing over which to get some fabric all bunched up!

Message edited by author 2009-02-02 19:46:24.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/02/2009 07:41:01 PM · #19

jjbeguin.

Please.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

02/02/2009 07:05:04 PM · #20

Originally posted by mpeters:

At the risk of being argumentative, really???? :) I'd bet my 5D that this photo would grab our (the collective DPC voters) attention like few others ever have. Raw photography at its best.

I think there would be quite a few who would see what was really going on in the image, and quite a few who would comment on it. I still hold that a group of people would remark on 1) Whether or not it fit the challenge; 2) Technical Aspects in which they think it is lacking. Additionally, there would be people who would just, in their two seconds of looking at the image, hit a number between three and five and move on, not really aware of what they were seeing. Here, in this forum, are people who are taking the time to click on the link. With the set-up I gave it, they are already expecting something they need to see rather than just look at quickly.

I completely agree that it is photography at its best. It is what photography was invented to do: capture life. But DPC, as a collective, prefers meta-life, or hyper-life if you prefer. And I'm not saying that there aren't individuals here who feel otherwise; on the contrary, there are many, many people who can capture photography such as this and many who appreciate photography such as this. That is why I came back after a year of absence - there is no better place to explore the world than here, when one is stuck behind a computer rather than out in it.

I believe that DPC is a great place to learn. I think trying to shoot high scores for a challenge is a great way to learn technicals and to learn how to appeal to the masses. But, you need to allow yourself to move beyond that. If DPC is your goal, then that is fine. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I know quite a few musicians who are perfectly content being very technically sound while playing the songs of others. They have no desire to write their own. Its the path you choose. I view photography as an art. Art is not stagnant, it always moves forward. If you don't move past what you know, you don't move forward.

You all may disagree with me all you like; all it is is my opinion. It doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, and certainly nothing to get your panties in a bunch.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/02/2009 06:53:38 PM · #21

I realize I'm nitpicking :) at dahkota's statement--I tend to agree with her, but maybe this photo wasn't the best illustration. Same goes for the WW2 photo and the Vietnamese child.

Anyway, I'd like to think the DPC community isn't totally clueless! ;)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/02/2009 06:41:56 PM · #22

Originally posted by dahkota:

Here exists an image that doesn't 'meet' DPC standards, is not eye-pleasing in the least, and would garner little attention from the majority of DPC voters. Eye pleasing has nothing to do with a good photograph and people who look for eye pleasing images are typically the same ones who choose a painting because it goes with their couch.

Originally posted by digifotojo:

The journalist who shot that photo and won the Pulitzer, Kevin Carter, committed suicide because he couldn't handle the celeb status he received as a result of that shot and live with the human misery that surrounded him. He was a tortured soul. Many people have asked about the Sudanese child in that photo, who was on her way to a food bank but too weak to barely crawl. This depicts the human condition in its purest form. There are many sides to photography and this is one of the more graphic. I agree that this photo would not garner much attention from DPC voters and perhaps that's part of the problem.

Originally posted by mpeters:

At the risk of being argumentative, really???? :) I'd bet my 5D that this photo would grab our (the collective DPC voters) attention like few others ever have. Raw photography at its best.

My sentiments exactl, but I didn't want to be the first to say it.......8>)

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/02/2009 06:32:15 PM · #23

Originally posted by digifotojo:

At the risk of being argumentative, really???? :) I'd bet my 5D that this photo would grab our (the collective DPC voters) attention like few others ever have. Raw photography at its best.

digifotojo

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 III

02/02/2009 06:15:44 PM · #24