| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2008 01:10:05 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I seriously doubt that a self-DQ is considered or weighted the same way as a rules violation DQ. The SC reserves the right to use their judgement in those matters. It's not cut and dry. Either choice you make, I'd suggest you not sweat it too much...unless you're prone to breaking the rules.
|
Actually it does. And, it happened to me, self DQ'd (for personal reasons), got a DQ next challenge and was penalized a week.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 01:19:27 PM · #52 |
Is it just me or have the voters come out in full force. I just reached 100 views..
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 01:21:43 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Most people do not understand what an Environmental Portrait really is. It is a very specific technique that isn't open to a lot of interpretation. Blame it on "lack of openmindedness" or not being able to "think outside the box" if your shot is scoring low if you like. As debated in the prechallenge forum, just becuase you THINK something is an Environmental Portrait doesn't make it one. |
I'm curious to know who you think got together and 'defined' this specific technique.
Here's the American Society of Media Photographers take on 'environmental portraiture'
//www.asmp.org/culture/gallery/environmental.php
3 of the first page wouldn't meet your guidelines and it goes on from there through another 127 images. Many of them certainly are posed, looking at the camera and not candid. Many others are quite different. Some show the back of someone's head. Others are action candids of someone playing on stage. I notice Robert's great basketball shot is in there, too.
Are they just wrong ? |
I think they are all Environmental portraits. I looked at the first 5 pages. I assume are referring to my guidelines in the prechallenge thread, whice 3 did not meet the guidelines I mentioned? The guitar player on the first page is the only borderline one IMO. I never said it had to show a face or the subject couldn't be moving or that the subject had to be looking into the camera.
None of them are candids, the subject is engaged and aware they are being photographed, and they all tell something about the subject in a meaningfull way. And I suspect that each subject had input into how the shot should be staged. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 01:40:56 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I think they are all Environmental portraits. I looked at the first 5 pages. I assume are referring to my guidelines in the prechallenge thread, whice 3 did not meet the guidelines I mentioned? The guitar player on the first page is the only borderline one IMO. I never said it had to show a face or the subject couldn't be moving or that the subject had to be looking into the camera.
None of them are candids, the subject is engaged and aware they are being photographed, and they all tell something about the subject in a meaningfull way. And I suspect that each subject had input into how the shot should be staged. |
One of them at least is a live performance - I guess that's on a 'stage' but I wouldn't consider it a staged shot (I think you already mentioned that a concert shot wasn't an environmental portrait in the earlier thread)
The girl jumping on the bed might or might not be candid. The girl walking away in the water might or might not be candid. Might or might not be aware. I could see both shots being taken in either way - simply put, you can't tell.
There's a similar shot of a painter in her studio that quite possibly is staged but could well be candid and unaware - again impossible to tell from the image. The student reading in front of a wall, may or may not be aware.
All I think that really matters for an environmental portrait is that the environment they are in tells you something meaningful about the person or their character. This whole notion of awareness seems like a non sequitur. More to the point, I don't think it is possible to actually tell. It is a shot of a person and their environment, better if that environment communicates something about the person.
Probably the wrong thread for this, anyway.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 13:47:54. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 01:48:32 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
All I think that really matters for an environmental portrait is that the environment they are in tells you something meaningful about the person or their character. This whole notion of awareness seems like a non sequitur.
It is a shot of a person and their environment, better if that environment communicates something about the person. |
Like I said earlier, and with no disrespect intended, just because you THINK it's an Environmental Portrait, doesn't make it so. Any more than calling a B&W photo a color photo because "black' and "white" are colors.
You can always push the envelope of conventional thinking as in the expamples you mentioned, but you have to have the envelope first. I am merely trying to describe the envelope here.
By your standard any shot of a band in concert is an environmental portrait. I am saying it isn't.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 13:49:42. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 01:49:32 PM · #56 |
Votes: 67
Views: 110
Avg Vote: 6.1791
Comments: 3
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 03/19/08 01:47 pm |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 02:01:27 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
By your standard any shot of a band in concert is an environmental portrait. |
No, far from it. I'm just using a bigger envelope, based on the conventional environmental portraits I've seen. Actually, I suppose it was a different envelope, because random celeb portraits like Leibovitz's didn't fit in it. Mind you, I think pictures of a kangaroo can be environmental portraits too.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 14:22:15. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 02:06:18 PM · #58 |
One of my lower scores, but it's turning out to be the most number of comments I've ever recieved!
Votes: 71
Views: 113
Avg Vote: 4.9718
Comments: 6
BTW - is an environment supposed to be inspiring?
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 14:14:07. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 02:25:54 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
By your standard any shot of a band in concert is an environmental portrait. |
No, far from it. I'm just using a bigger envelope, based on the conventional environmental portraits I've seen. Actually, I suppose it was a different envelope, because random celeb portraits like Leibovitz's didn't fit in it. Mind you, I think pictures of a kangaroo can be environmental portraits too. |
You are correct about the different envelope, especially with the inclusion of a kangaroo but the exclusion of anything from Annie Leibovits. I wish you the best of luck with your envelope, but don't be surprised if you don't get much consensus. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 02:47:19 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
By your standard any shot of a band in concert is an environmental portrait. |
No, far from it. I'm just using a bigger envelope, based on the conventional environmental portraits I've seen. Actually, I suppose it was a different envelope, because random celeb portraits like Leibovitz's didn't fit in it. Mind you, I think pictures of a kangaroo can be environmental portraits too. |
You are correct about the different envelope, especially with the inclusion of a kangaroo but the exclusion of anything from Annie Leibovits. I wish you the best of luck with your envelope, but don't be surprised if you don't get much consensus. |
On several occasions I said that plenty of Annie Leibovitz's work is environmental portraiture. Just not the stuff where she has actors or celebs acting out roles. From your comments I'd assume her recent shoots for Disney would be environmental portraiture too ? That particular kangaroo seems very much like all the other examples of environmental portraiture posted. I think it easily qualifies. Mind you if it isn't an EP, then I certainly have no idea what the actual definition should be. it speaks volumes to me about the person in it.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Like I said earlier, and with no disrespect intended, just because you THINK it's an Environmental Portrait, doesn't make it so |
I'd agree on this certainly. Isn't the opposite also true ?
To keep the thread on track, my more prosaic EP is trundling along at 6.4, 77 votes, 109 views, 3 comments.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 14:51:40. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 02:58:11 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by slide12345678:
Votes: 67
Views: 110
Avg Vote: 6.1791
Comments: 3
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 03/19/08 01:47 pm |
Looks like this will make your PB lineup, eh? Cool! |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 02:59:34 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Votes: 56
Views: 93
Avg Vote: 6.8393
Comments: 3 |
That's pretty sweet! Surviving the afternoon ok so far? Maybe tickle that 7? :-) |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:06:39 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
That's pretty sweet! Surviving the afternoon ok so far? Maybe tickle that 7? :-) |
Going in the right direction for sure.
Votes: 71
Views: 123
Avg Vote: 6.8732
Comments: 7 |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:29:30 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
By your standard any shot of a band in concert is an environmental portrait. |
No, far from it. I'm just using a bigger envelope, based on the conventional environmental portraits I've seen. Actually, I suppose it was a different envelope, because random celeb portraits like Leibovitz's didn't fit in it. Mind you, I think pictures of a kangaroo can be environmental portraits too. |
You are correct about the different envelope, especially with the inclusion of a kangaroo but the exclusion of anything from Annie Leibovits. I wish you the best of luck with your envelope, but don't be surprised if you don't get much consensus. |
On several occasions I said that plenty of Annie Leibovitz's work is environmental portraiture. Just not the stuff where she has actors or celebs acting out roles. From your comments I'd assume her recent shoots for Disney would be environmental portraiture too ? That particular kangaroo seems very much like all the other examples of environmental portraiture posted. I think it easily qualifies. Mind you if it isn't an EP, then I certainly have no idea what the actual definition should be. it speaks volumes to me about the person in it. |
If you want to call it an EP of the person in the background, maybe. But an EP of the kangaroo, no. While this is also debated, an EP must be an image of a person. period. Rant on that one if you want, but every image in that EP gallery linked previously was of a human.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Like I said earlier, and with no disrespect intended, just because you THINK it's an Environmental Portrait, doesn't make it so |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'd agree on this certainly. Isn't the opposite also true ? |
The difference is I am not basing my statements on what I think it should be but rather what is the accepted definition from many sources. I'm not saying I am authoratative on the subject, I wouldn't presume that at all. No more than I would presume to define what Low Key photography is, or what Green means.
Originally posted by Gordon:
To keep the thread on track, my more prosaic EP is trundling along at 6.4, 77 votes, 109 views, 3 comments. |
My score is 6.25. While it undoubtedly fits as an EP, it is not as compelling as I had hoped. And I am sure several non-Environmental Portraits will out score my entry. By my view of the thumbnails, I'd say no more than 20% truly qualify as EPs. By the same token, I think most people here don't understand the technique at all.
Here's an example that should hit home. ;-) Your stellar Painting With Light image certainly qualifies and the score backs that up. But I think largely due to the success of that entry, DPCers assume or reward images with the light source in the image. Again, Light Painting is a very specific photographic technique that in no way requires the light source to be visible. But images using a hand held light source to illuminate the subject yet didn't show the actual light source did not score very well. Some high scoring images were blatant DNMCs. That, however, doesn't change the definition of the technique of Light Painting.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:41:05 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Here's an example that should hit home. ;-) Your stellar Painting With Light image certainly qualifies and the score backs that up. But I think largely due to the success of that entry, DPCers assume or reward images with the light source in the image. Again, Light Painting is a very specific photographic technique that in no way requires the light source to be visible. But images using a hand held light source to illuminate the subject yet didn't show the actual light source did not score very well. Some high scoring images were blatant DNMCs. That, however, doesn't change the definition of the technique of Light Painting. |
The light source is not visible in any way, at any point of time in my painting with light image.
This is kind of at the basis of my point here. In both cases you are making definitions that are actually a series of subjective judgments, based on things you have no way of actually telling from the image.
Is the subject aware or not. Is the image candid or not. Is the light source visible, or not.
Things you can't actually tell. Things you think it might be.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 15:42:11. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:45:42 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The light source is not visible in any way, at any point of time in my painting with light image. |
That was my point.
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is kind of at the basis of my point here. In both cases you are making definitions that are actually a series of subjective judgments, based on things you have no way of actually telling from the image.
Is the subject aware or not. Is the image candid or not. Is the light source visible, or not.
Things you can't actually tell. Things you think it might be. |
In this case, perception is reality. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:47:12 PM · #67 |
| Its my first entry since september 2006. Not doing to well.........its beautiful shot without enough environment is the general feedback. Things havnt changed much.....including my scores! 5.5ish? Its good to see all this great photography again though. Inspirational for sure! |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:50:42 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The light source is not visible in any way, at any point of time in my painting with light image. |
That was my point. |
Your point was that you can't see the light source ? I must just not be able to read. Explains a lot.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
images using a hand held light source to illuminate the subject yet didn't show the actual light source. |
This an accurate description of my entry.
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 15:55:23. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:54:53 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by parrothead:
Its my first entry since september 2006. Not doing to well.........its beautiful shot without enough environment is the general feedback. Things havnt changed much.....including my scores! 5.5ish? Its good to see all this great photography again though. Inspirational for sure! |
Now thats a big break away!! Welcome back.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:58:15 PM · #70 |
Votes: 77
Views: 103
Avg Vote: 6.1688
Comments: 4
6.16 won't put this entry in my top 4 however it would be my first 6+ since last August.
btw...welcome back parrothead!
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:59:39 PM · #71 |
Well, evidently I need to wear my glasses more. my biggest problem is that my pic is OOF (every comment says so). It's very disturbing though because I see the other photos and know that aside from the slight OOF mine will tank because of the scoring..... Anyway, here's hoping some people can judge a photo on more than one aspect.
Votes: 76
Views: 114
Avg Vote: 4.8816
Comments: 6
Favorites: 0
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:04:34 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The light source is not visible in any way, at any point of time in my painting with light image. |
That was my point. |
Your point was that you can't see the light source ? I must just not be able to read. Explains a lot.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
images using a hand held light source to illuminate the subject yet didn't show the actual light source. |
This an accurate description of my entry. |
Maybe I wasn't clear. I think your image is a perfect exapmple of light painting, and your lireral interpration was outstanding.
What APPEARS to be light in you image was used by several people in later challenges, but instead of painting the light they had the light source in the image, no hand held lighting at all. These did very well, and others there were done in the same manner as yours but not as obvious did not do as well, eventhough they were truely painting with light, as you did in yours. I really didn't mean for this to be a criticism. I love the image and it dead on meets the challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:05:08 PM · #73 |
Light painting? Huh?
ETA (Post topic is..."Environmental Portrait II scores anyone?")
Message edited by author 2008-03-19 16:08:56. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:15:36 PM · #74 |
Votes: 75
Views: 104
Avg Vote: 6.1600
Comments: 3
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 03/19/08 04:11 pm
Went down quite a bit from last night, but I'm still very very pleased being only my 3rd challenge to enter. Very nice comments also. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:16:08 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Light painting? Huh?
ETA (Post topic is..."Environmental Portrait II scores anyone?") |
Votes: 76
Views: 111
Avg Vote: 4.9079
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 03/19/08 04:10 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: 03/12/2025 05:54:09 PM EDT.
