|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2005 04:56:58 PM · #51 |
In a related vein, an interesting take on the "staged" issue can be seen in the "Pumpkin" challenge. The challenge, of course, absolutely mandated "staged" shots; every single entry required the creation of a pumpkin carving and the placement of it into some sort of a composition. The rules, however, specifically emphasized that this challenge was to be as much about the pumpkin-carving as it was about the photography; the hope was that truly creative carvers would be rewarded.
So look at the winning image:
Coley won by a landslide, with by FAR the most staged of all the shots; his wonderful image was ALL about the staging, the imagined-and-created scene, and only peripherally about pumpkins; the carving of them was very basic, and the shot would have worked as well had he been "juggling" 5 or 6 completely different objects.
So there's food for thought in this, I think...
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 04:57:54 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
That's a good example; on first pass I nearly missed it, on second pass I bumped it to 8.
R. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 07:05:56 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
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.
|
I agree with this, but I think another reason for most voters' lack of appreciation for "natural" photos is because most people don't realize how difficult it is to take a candid shot, let alone an excellent one.
It's scary and nerve-wracking and takes a lot of time and effort - and I think that's why we see loads of "staged" photos as opposed to candids.
From the few candids I've taken, I have a complete adoration for the brave few on this site who are capable & have the guts to do them.
But I think there is nothing more rewarding than successfully capturing a special moment in time, and that's why the 2 challenge entries I'm most proud of are candid shots.
Edit: well, and I'm proud of my ribbon-winning shot, too. :)
Message edited by author 2005-11-30 19:07:33. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 07:13:05 PM · #54 |
And, I would add, nothing more meaningful; the best street shots have an eloquence, a facility with their subject that would be beyond even the most inventive 'stager' - I believe; sure, you could copy the style of an existent street photograph(er), or journalist, documentarist, whatever you want to call these people - but whilst you are doing that, they'll be out there with their eyes open and are more likely to capture something you've never seen before.
I should also add that I'm just about three years into photography in any kind of serious manner - I'm quite prepared for the possible moment when my understanding of staged/set-up/posed/what-you-will photography changes - but it hasn't happened so far, is all.
And where are the genre's defenders? No-one?
E
PS. Oh yes - I don't believe that degree of difficulty should ever be a thought when considering photographs (be they staged or natural).
Message edited by author 2005-11-30 19:15:30. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 07:28:51 PM · #55 |
Which genre are you asking for defenders e? Staged photography? I would highly defend it. I get great pleasure coming up with a crisp, clean, sharp shot where I do a hundred takes, tweaking lights or moving props each time until I "nail it". My people shots are almost always staged as well, even if they are staged to look unstaged.
I do this because I have great respect for the difficulty of a great candid. You not only need "the eye", but you need to "be there". A week to enter a challenge may not be enough to come up with a good candid. And mark my words, while I am trying to have a better eye for candids, there is plenty of junk being entered out there (on both sides of this spectrum). Perhaps a bad candid (ie a snapshot) just stands out more garrishly than a poorly executed staged shot. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:48:46 PM · #56 |
In many ways, I prefer "found" shots to "staged" shots. They do seem to, in general, have a lot more substance and staying power to them, whereas staged shots may often be more about superficial beauty. Don't get me wrong, though, I love to look at great staged shots. They can be truly beautiful.
Here's a thought in defense of staged shots: What about all of the great painters throughout history? Van Gogh, Warhol, Picasso, Dali, Miro, Magritte etc. Surely all of their paintings were staged. They developed an idea in their mind, then used their talents to put that idea onto a canvas in a way that is pleasing or thought provoking to the viewer. In a similar way, a photographer may stage a photograph, coming up with an idea and using his/her talents to translate that idea into a beautifully crafted photo. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:52:21 PM · #57 |
I know this is a matter of personal taste..but I simply am not a fan of the staged shots either. I am guilty of taking too many shots involving my kids..this is simply due to having very little free time to shoot. So while I do use them, I never really fully set it up..I simply let them be themselves, and then sometimes get comments suggesting I have my model do something differently..really this is kind of funny for me, as I am simply trying to get the moment.
I love the shots others take that are found..I love imperfection..
I long for days when I can explore different areas, and be exposed to more variety..and so understand why people would stage their shots..for various reasons not everyone has the freedom to wander..so I don't think of these shots as being less worthwhile, just not my taste..
and I live with the human imperfections in what I do, and know this is not the path to a ribbon, but alas I have to like what I shoot..this is always more important than my score..
so I think my Cheated shot is ok, but I love my one for Pride..the difference is simply having found something, and feeling for that second that I was truly in the moment..
I love that.. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:56:01 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
In many ways, I prefer "found" shots to "staged" shots. They do seem to, in general, have a lot more substance and staying power to them, whereas staged shots may often be more about superficial beauty. Don't get me wrong, though, I love to look at great staged shots. They can be truly beautiful.
Here's a thought in defense of staged shots: What about all of the great painters throughout history? Van Gogh, Warhol, Picasso, Dali, Miro, Magritte etc. Surely all of their paintings were staged. They developed an idea in their mind, then used their talents to put that idea onto a canvas in a way that is pleasing or thought provoking to the viewer. In a similar way, a photographer may stage a photograph, coming up with an idea and using his/her talents to translate that idea into a beautifully crafted photo. |
For the record, don't get me wrong: I have absolutely nothing against fine, staged shots; I have given many of them 10's. My point is that sometimes, even often, an equally fine "natural" shot, a shot that is bolstered by its subtlety, does not receive the respect it deserves. Nothing more than that. I appreciate both kinds, though I prefer to shoot "naturally". That's partly because in my professional career EVERYTHING was staged to some degree, and it got old fast.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-11-30 20:56:29. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 08:58:59 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
In many ways, I prefer "found" shots to "staged" shots. They do seem to, in general, have a lot more substance and staying power to them, whereas staged shots may often be more about superficial beauty. Don't get me wrong, though, I love to look at great staged shots. They can be truly beautiful.
Here's a thought in defense of staged shots: What about all of the great painters throughout history? Van Gogh, Warhol, Picasso, Dali, Miro, Magritte etc. Surely all of their paintings were staged. They developed an idea in their mind, then used their talents to put that idea onto a canvas in a way that is pleasing or thought provoking to the viewer. In a similar way, a photographer may stage a photograph, coming up with an idea and using his/her talents to translate that idea into a beautifully crafted photo. |
Shots that have nothing to do with challenges and are staged can be about the subject, and the artists relationship or interpretation of the subject..somehow with challenges some of this is often lost..the manipulation is more overt, and it ends up feeling more like advertising than art.. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 09:10:02 PM · #60 |
Using my own experience here at DPC as an example I think there is a large prejudice against "found" entries.
I've entered 15 challenges and of these only 3 have been studio shots.
These 3 have been my highest scoring by a very large margin.
Coincidence or prejudice ?
Going forward, my future entries will always be studio shots if possible.
bazz. |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 10:25:26 PM · #61 |
| So, some week the two open challenges should be "Found shots", and "Staged shots"? |
|
|
|
11/30/2005 10:44:42 PM · #62 |
This is an interesting thread.
In reality the basic premise remains the same - whatever photographic decisions are made they allow us to speak visually, communicate and to be spoken to.
To me as a viewer, the issue of style - ("found object art" "staged" "grunge" "impressionism" "pop" "natural" "street" etc.) on a broad scale is open ended, unresolved and probably will never have resolution - my opinion is no one style can ever clearly be better than another, regardless of how different they are. Each can be used to communicatean artist's message, each should be respected including what many describe as the lowly "snapshot" - the root inspiration for many on this site and millions interested in the subject of photography.
I think a style exists in the decisions made by the artist and ultimately by acceptance of an audiance.
Work of any style can be eloquent, profound, good, bad, ugly or lame as in the title of this thread.
Style and methods of work are nothing more than mediums to study & practice, as a tool or a religion they help expand upon our own individual expression, vision and craft.
To me as a photographer, with out a strong interest a commercial pursuit, but still I like to think am workman-like, (an attribute of
BradP which I admire), I make pictures primarily for what I want to look at on a screen or in a print. For images in dpc, a site I enjoy....
I make pictures and submit if I make an effort for the challenge. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 02:22:49 PM  |
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: 03/13/2025 02:22:49 PM EDT.
|
