| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2005 08:36:37 PM · #26 |
Lame? You should try looking at it all with the eyes of someone who loathes staged photography. I had a brief moment of hope with gibun' shot, but his notes destroyed that optimism. And yet the word 'creativity' is applied to it over and over again here - whilst to me it seems profoundly sterile.
But - it's self-evidently popular, and this is, after all, a popularity contest.
Ed
PS. I'm not knocking any individuals here - just a whole genre of work. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 08:40:08 PM · #27 |
Mine was original...and It scored lower than most of the "run-of-the-mill" shots I'm sure.
Originality just isn't taken well sometimes on here...and I think that encourages people to do the same thing over and over again in some cases.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 08:41:02 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by e301:
Lame? You should try looking at it all with the eyes of someone who loathes staged photography. I had a brief moment of hope with gibun' shot, but his notes destroyed that optimism. And yet the word 'creativity' is applied to it over and over again here - whilst to me it seems profoundly sterile.
But - it's self-evidently popular, and this is, after all, a popularity contest.
Ed
PS. I'm not knocking any individuals here - just a whole genre of work. |
Someone finally had the guts to say it. Hear, hear Ed. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 08:45:50 PM · #29 |
What this thread discusses is actually a lesson I really value as a member of DPC. As a voter, I see the first, second, third ideas that many people have and act upon. As a photographer (can't believe I just called myself that!) I now take my first, second, third ideas and discard them...even the seventeenth idea can get discarded. This site forces me to look at a challenge topic, look beyond what I think of as the obvious, and try to create an interesting image outside of the mainstream. And THAT's where I get to learn. Not from the scores, because there is a definate DPC aesthetic slant that I don't match. I get to learn from the opportunities to shoot in creative and new ways...for me.
Not to say that scores don't matter to me...go out and vote me some tens! ;-)
Seeing the main ideas executed over and over is a gift for me, and helps my eye to grow and my ideas to expand.
'Nuff said.
Jeannel |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 08:52:40 PM · #30 |
"Profoundly sterile"... That's a hell of a phrase, Ed. I wish I'd said that. I see it the same way; I have studied the archives, the challenge histories, and even in my slightly-less-than-a-year shift here, I've seen a change...
R. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:04:24 PM · #31 |
When I first started here at DP Challenge 3-1/2 years ago I spent about half my time setting shots up because it allowed me to try things I normally would not have.
But, set up shots and heavily processed shots were generally frowned upon by a lot of members and voters.
Times have changed and it seems there is more latitude in voting, which I think is pretty good.
The only thing now is that it seems the pendulum has swung a bit the other way and many "normal" shots might not get the wow factor as much as prepared and processed shots.
My cheater shot was just a fun grab at a playground with some kids goofing around.
 |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:09:07 PM · #32 |
i am pretty new to this site and with my first entry i could discover that thinking out of box is something not appreciated here well. To win you image must be eye candy. I had an interesting composition for single light source that would be very creative. Then i did not shoot that for two reasons:
1. some people would fail to look at the real meaning of it and might have blamed me for being blasphemous. And some might have get offended by its religious intent.
2. That would not have won anyway, because, that would not be eye-candy.
I do have some interesting ideas left but i do not have resource to work with them. In all if one wish to win, creativity is last thing he needs, what he needs is to buy a book by Escher and replicate some optical illusions that surely seems to fetch ribbons (no need to use the brain in thinking new).
Originally posted by quagmatic:
I'm browsing through the cheater contest and every other photograph is a card table or a hand of cards in poker. Has the creative pool of DPC been picked dry or is this just a horrible coincidence I should forgive. I mean come on people, you can't enter these contests and have a shot without being creative. Did you guys really think a run-of-the-mill shot of 5 Aces was going to land you a ribbon??!?!?
-mike j- |
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 09:17:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by quagmatic:
I'm browsing through the cheater contest and every other photograph is a card table or a hand of cards in poker. Has the creative pool of DPC been picked dry or is this just a horrible coincidence I should forgive. I mean come on people, you can't enter these contests and have a shot without being creative. Did you guys really think a run-of-the-mill shot of 5 Aces was going to land you a ribbon??!?!?
-mike j- |
Classic coming from someone who hasn't entered one challenge! I must say though, there are some really bad card cheaters here! I mean, is the dealer blind?!!! I want in on some of these games if you can cheat soooo blatantly! ;) |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:35:01 PM · #34 |
i knew this original post would stir up some activity. i didn't quite know it would turn in the direction of the decline of DPC, and i can't comment on this since i'm fairly new to the site. good healthy discussion never hurt anyone though... i guess...
-mike j-
//www.pbase.com/mikej86 |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:46:24 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by e301:
Lame? You should try looking at it all with the eyes of someone who loathes staged photography. |
I'm completely with you there. I can't even stomach voting on challenges that I know are all going to be set-up shots. I guess there are two camps, those who like to explore the world and find and those who like to create something specific that they have in their mind for a challenge. That's fine with me but I appreciate challenges where these two camps can compete fairly. It seems hard these days. I didn't quote you on gibun's photo though because although it was posed it had the feeling of a possible candid moment and was still my favorite in the challenge so I'm glad it ribboned. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:49:35 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
I tend to like technical challenges MUCH more where we at least have some freedom in choosing our subject... |
The only limit on topic-based challenges is imposed by your own imagination. You still have complete freedom, and the possibilities equally endless. |
Well, I guess 'theme' is a better word than 'subject.'
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:51:42 PM · #37 |
I'll agree with you guys, but on the other side. I love staged photographs. When I brainstorm I often come up with a picture in my mind and my goal then is to duplicate that picture, if at all possible.
I do agree that the journalistic shots, while I've heard held sway in the past, are often voted on at a discount.
The pendulum will swing back eventually. You saw how Joey captured a backlash against the perfect lighting, white background crowd (of which I'm a guilty member).
Message edited by author 2005-11-29 23:52:26. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:55:03 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by e301:
Lame? You should try looking at it all with the eyes of someone who loathes staged photography. I had a brief moment of hope with gibun' shot, but his notes destroyed that optimism. And yet the word 'creativity' is applied to it over and over again here - whilst to me it seems profoundly sterile.
But - it's self-evidently popular, and this is, after all, a popularity contest.
Ed
PS. I'm not knocking any individuals here - just a whole genre of work. |
How are you defining "staged" photography?
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:57:04 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by dahved:
How are you defining "staged" photography? |
Haha, just click on my profile...I'm sure that's what e301 means... |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 11:57:33 PM · #40 |
I've been shying away from this thread, because I don't like cans of worms... but...
IMHO, part of the challenge is learning what the voters will like. Think of the voters like a client. Clients don't always like what you'd like, so learning to please another (or in this case mass others) is a valuable lesson for any photographer.
And yes, there are a lot of repetitive entries, but do those win? Not usually...creativity even if it is eye candy is still rewarded.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2005 12:45:43 AM · #41 |
| Not all of the 'challenge' is to be creative, but many photos in challenges are trying a new technique or a new idea for the individual photographer. I don't think that there is really a point in putting down other people on the site and therefore discouraging their growth (either in technical, creative, or personal). I usually don't comment on 'can o worms' threads, but since I've been seeing a lot of the same type recently, I thought I would chime in with my two cents. If you are tired of seeing the same types of photos, make it your point to use a unique idea and promote these ideas by example rather than criticizing others. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 01:16:36 AM · #42 |
I thought of the five aces shot too, but rejected it and instead shot something else, which resulted in a boring shot that would have been worthy of nothing except the fact that the idea was original. It resulted in a shot that was so dull that I will never look at it again. This I have learned from DPC. A great idea if repeated enough becomes a bad idea.
One of the first challenges I submitted to was to opposites and I took one of those solidly "inside the box " shots that drew the ire of some voters. Outside the challeng the resulting image of a block of ice holding flame is one of my favorite setup images, a shot I am proud of taking.It may have suffered from comparison to similar shots, but it was a good shot.
It seems to me this thread is saying that the creativity of the site is flagging, because people are shooting in hopes of winning the challenge by pleasing the average voter, then viewing the level of creativty of the concept, solely as it relates to other shots in the chalenge. Isn't this a pardox? Is creativty folowing your ideas to their logical conclusion; or is an idea only worthy of following up if no one else shares it? A good shot of the seventh best idea you had may get you a ribbon, but it will be an inferior shot once removed from the context of this competition. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 01:40:17 AM · #43 |
More specifically, I think, the geenral tenor of this thread is that "found photography" is, on the whole, less-respected by the voters than "staged photography". I'm not sure if this is actually true, but it feels that way sometimes. Personally, I don't "stage" anything but still lifes, preferring to "find" my images in the real world. But, paradoxically, the "less real" I make those shots the better they score, by and large. I have totally natural shots of which I'm very proud that have finished in the middle of the pack and below. I have much more dramatically-manipulated shots that I think are nowhere near as good that finished much higher than I thought they deserved.
For whatever that's worth.
R.
Edit to add: it's almost to the point where I am happy to take a relatively blah shot (in terms of color and light, because that's all Ma Nature gave me that week) because then I'm forced to pull out all the stops on post-processing and these shots frequently do very well.
Message edited by author 2005-11-30 01:44:40. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 10:14:20 AM · #44 |
| My thought on the difference between "staged" and "natural" shots. Think of photography in terms of cinema. There are two different approaches. The actors, who take what is naturally available and use it to express themselves. The directors, who make happen through any (usually artificial) means the environment they want to express. Both jobs are needed for successful cinema. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 03:58:23 PM · #45 |
A couple thoughts on staged vs. "found" subjects.
Firstly, there are obviously some challenges that lend themselves to one or the other. Obviously you don't stage a landscape, other than trying to find an interesting vantage point/time/light for composition; equally obviously, you're not likely to just come upon a 'collection' (in the meaning used in the challenge anyway) as you're going down the street. Having challenges that require both kinds of thinking has been a very helpful learning experience even in the less than a month I've been here.
Let's look at it this way: Before I got "into" photography -- say two years ago -- if I'd wanted to document the fact that someone had collected quite a lot of one thing, I'd just, well, put the things all together and take a picture of it however. Looking at "staged" shots here, among a lot of other things, has helped me to learn how to make that same idea -- I want to have documentation of how many of those things someone has collected -- into not only a memory but also an artistic and interesting-looking photograph. Likewise, with landscapes, before I started learning photography I'd see interesting scenery and snap a picture, and if I was lucky it'd be decently exposed and not blurry. Now I think about: Where can I stand to block out distractions? What angle gives me the best light? Should/can I come back here at a different time of day or in another type of weather? My 'learning curve' has gone nearly vertical in the last few weeks, with so many examples in front of me of what can be done, and how.
And these are just two examples. Each challenge is an interesting learning experience for me, and it should be the same for everyone here. You're never so good at photography that you can't improve yourself, right?
I guess another thing I'm trying to get at is that there's room for both kinds of photography and that neither is necessarily better than the other. Also, rather than looking at a challenge as a whole and thinking, 'man, there are a lot of similar-looking staged images here', I try to look at each individual photograph, the effort and ingenuity and thought and artistry that went into it.
And there are my rambling two cents. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:13:04 PM · #46 |
| OK, there is staged and "found" shots, but what about "snapshots". What is the definition of a snapshot? In the current challenge I was given a 1 because the voter considered the photo a snapshot presumably as apposed to a real photo. My interpretation of a snapshot is just that, a moment in real time, what photography is all about capturing a moment in time. I would love to know what people consider a snapshot is. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:25:35 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Steveinnz:
OK, there is staged and "found" shots, but what about "snapshots". What is the definition of a snapshot? In the current challenge I was given a 1 because the voter considered the photo a snapshot presumably as apposed to a real photo. My interpretation of a snapshot is just that, a moment in real time, what photography is all about capturing a moment in time. I would love to know what people consider a snapshot is. |
It has to do with carelessness and thoughtlessness - or more rather, the appearance of those things. In the sense of a 'moment in time' only, then most of Henri Cartier-Bresson's stuff is snapshots - the thing not to forget, however, is how much stuff an experienced photographer can consider and evaluate in the split second of raising the viewfinder to his/her eye.
Ed |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:30:05 PM · #48 |
To me a snapshot can be most defined by the lighting and the background. If a picture has poor lighting or a distracting background and looks like even a little thought could have made it obviously better, it's a "snapshot".
Now on the otherhand, some "snapshots" are good. I think the word was meant to mean that you are capturing a slice of life. So candids, to me, qualify as good snapshots. The lighting and background are less important than the look, glance, or action that is forever caught in time.
I guess if you look further into what I said, I would find it hard to have a "good" snapshot that does not include people or animals... |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:49:15 PM · #49 |
"Snapshot" in the perjorative sense is used to denote any image that appears to have been captured without thought or craft going into the making of it.
"Snapshot" has a broader meaning of "any image captured on the fly" and certainly Cartier-Bresson or, for that matter, any great photojournalist has many images that fall into this category. It's just dangerous to CALL them "snapshots" because of the negative connotation of the term. Any image caught on the fly that has great emotive or technical merit transcends what we think of as a "snapshot".
Getting back to the gist of this thread, "staged" versus "real", Rachellen makes a valid point that some challenge topics more invite staged photography than others. And even in landscapes, a certain amount of staging can often improve an image, notably in the careful placement of human elements in the image for a sense of scale. Zoomdak has a number of excellent examples of this approach, to name one DPCer.
However, I think the point being made here is that there's a sense that the "average" DPC voter places a higher value on "artifical" images versus "natural" ones. It may not just be the element of "staging"; aggressive post-processing, hyper-saturation of colors especially, "sells" here, as does the use of photoshop effects like gothic glow, midnight sepia, grunge, what-not. That these images seem to do disproportionally well is a measure of their photographic "sex appeal" more than it is of their photographic merit on any objective scale.
There's really no way around this; the voting bloc is very large, and mass appeal is needed to win. It's no surprise that the top-scoring images tend to reiterate subjects and techniques that have proven succesful. Had we gone ahead with the ill-fated "juried competition" experiment, I'm sure we'd have seen a different set of "winners" but that's neither here nor there: the voters, as a group, would not have "agreed" with these choices, right? So what would we have proved? Not a lot, really, except possibly that individual taste is frequently more focused than mass taste on more subtle manifestations of our art.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:55:13 PM · #50 |
I am going to redouble my efforts to give these type of pictures (natural) a bit of affirmative action.
I had been trying a little before this thread, but I'm gonna make it a bit more of a point. I almost gave e301's "Night Watchman" a typical 5, but then stopped a second and looked at it. I liked it more and more and wound up giving it a 7. |
|
