DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> On Bad Taste and Sacrilege
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 66, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/29/2006 10:11:26 PM · #26
People, how many times do I have to repeat myself?
1. I am not bothered, nor am I upset, about the score.
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
I understand (and also came to expect) that some people found it offensive and deliberately lowered their votes, deeming the image sacrilegeous. I've come to this realization early on in the challenge.

2. It's not the score, it's not the comment, heck, it's not even the commenter that I'm having problems with!
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
I wasn't upset at the comment but at the thought behind it.

3. I started this thread not just for my entry but for other entries as well.

Please, please, please. Read what's been said before so as to avoid misunderstandings and bad vibes.

Now I am going to answer the following posts and hope it straightens things out.

Originally posted by GuGi:
Your photo got 7 1's, 12 2's and 27 3's. Now that is outrageous. It is not a bad picture and 1's-3's is what you give bad pictures. The voters are going for content, not the photograph and I am afraid there is nothing to be done about it. Your photograph deserved a higher score.


Thanks, Guðrún. Greatly appreciated. Although I don't reeeally think it "deserved" a higher score. Maybe it did deserve the score it got. I guess I'll just try to do better next time.

Originally posted by TooCool:
Photography is as much if not more about content over the technicals. I can never understand how someone can say a shot doesn't deserve a certain score because of that content. If I can't stand turds and you do a technically perfect photo of a turd, I'm still gonna give it a low score because, well it's a turd. Don't ask me to score it higher because it has perfect DOF, spot on focus, follows the rule of thirds and has incredibly creative lighting. It's still a turd shot...


Ron, dude, (and Laurie also) didn't you think that maybe the photographer didn't like turds as well? And maybe there was something about THIS PARTICULAR TURD that caught his interest? And maybe if you just stopped A BIT and thought about it OR looked harder, you would've seen that "something" as something you may have liked e.g. flowers or ponies or little girl shapes?
And for what it's worth, I never said it deserved a higher score that it did.

Originally posted by nards656:
It doesn't matter WHY I don't like this picture, because I'm going to vote it low regardless of why.

If I take the time to TELL you why I don't like it, you should consider it an added bonus. I would be really upset if I left a comment on your photo and then you jumped into a public forum whining about my comment. That's just rude and inconsiderate, and I wouldn't at all be tempted to be open minded in the future. I probably just wouldn't say anything at all, and the quantity of comments on all photos would sneak downhill a little.

Whining about comments, the quality of, the quantity of, the nature of, etc etc etc, is a long-standing tradition here at DPC - and it ALWAYS gets on my nerves.

Two words, my friend. You went to a lot of trouble to make a photo about something that offended someone. They left you two words. You are apparently even more offended by those two words than they were by your photo. Perhaps YOU need to open YOUR mind to the fact that not everyone agrees with YOU that "this" is OK. Just take it as a lesson, if you care, or ignore it, if you don't. No need for this public embarrassment for the commenter.

My opinion. Take it or leave it.


Well said, Master Shuford. Yes, I may have gone through a lot of trouble but as I have stated preeeviously, it was to put across a point. I started this thread not because of those TWO WORDS but because of a prevalent narrow-mindedness that I have observed NOT just in other entries' comments but in the forums as well.
If you didn't like the picture (this is to continue your previously stated assumption), then go give it a low score (see if it makes you happy...J/K ;P). But if you took the time to tell me why you didn't like it, maybe you SHOULD HAVE also taken the time to think if whether the reason you didn't like it was because what you didn't like about it was what was really being portrayed OR you were just missing the point and misunderstanding the concept.
Also, I wasn't whining. SEE, MY VOICE IS BOOMING. :)

Originally posted by kdkaboom:
There were so many more positive comments than negative! And one of 'em was mine! I feel like you're totally ignoring the positive comments here. Why? What do you expect with a photo like that, anyway? Accept it, dude. People have opinions. They share them because they're proud of them. You have them too. I'm sure somewhere in this world you've spouted opinions at people.... why get angry here? I say you take another look at your comments, take another approach to your reaction to other's having opinions, and just chill.


But Katy, I didn't! I didn't "totally ignore" the positive comments! See, I checked on the little box thingy with the man with a hammer or whatever.
Yes, thank you, THANK YOU very much for commenting constructively. I really, REALLY appreciate them. But thing is, this thread wasn't about just me anymore.
And I was not angry. A wee bit pissed, just a little upset, but never angry. As you have said, people have opinions. The thing is, sometimes, people give out their opinions when they haven't really thought about them.
I started this thread because this was my opinionated opinion on opinions. And I thought about (reeeally thought about with my leeetle brain thing) what I was, and am, going to say before I said/say them. I just wanted people to think first before they give out their opinions.
Like you did. So thanks.

Originally posted by sabphoto:
I've thought the same thing. I have even gotten comments against my American flag image that were just barely helpful...see webster's.

We (or at least I) am here to learn and grow in something I love to do but don't have the means or really opportunity to go to formal school for. We (I am) are submitting for a virtual ribbon but more than that we/I want technical help. People should vote on whether I got the lighting right, whether I totally framed it wrong...no one is going to like what every image stands for but they should be able to vote on its technical merits...and yes I did get a lot of technical help from voters on this image but that one comment was totally uncalled for.

and by the way BRAVO on your submission


Yes, thank you. Thank you Scott. I'm glad we share the same sentiments. Good luck to you and yours.

Originally posted by eschelar:
The picture did not "deserve" a better score, it got the score it got because of the content and the context as well as the group of voters.

You want to know how the picture would be viewed by a random cross-section of photographers and people interested in photography, you got your answer.

Some shots get hosed out of a better score because there is some extra meaning that isn't immediately apparent to voters in the picture alone. For instance a picture not too long ago that was quite heartbreaking taken by a photographer in the last few hours he spent with his father in the hospice. The picture got a major new dimension after the voting. As such, it may have "deserved" a better score than it actually got. That example touches on context rather than content.

There may be content related reasons that also might affect the score "deserved" as opposed to the score "received". One-in-a-million shots that are captured in uncontrolled and chaotic circumstances as opposed to in a contrived studio setting are a good example of this.

Such situations are naturally quite rare and the "deserved" score is generally quite an irrelevant concept. It's usually just an expression of a feeling.

This shot has nothing to it outside of the image. There is enough in the image to judge the picture on it's own merit.

Technically, it's above average. It's not stunning, but it seems fairly well composed and focused. The red could have been deeper and more consistent over the palm.

Content DOES need to have some role to play in the voting and in this case, probably takes MORE of a role than usual because there is nothing really amazing in the technical aspect of it. As for the location of the hole, I've always heard from history teachers and religiously oriented folk that the hole was more likely slightly below where the palm meets the wrist which would provide a much stronger support for the weight of the body (mode of killing in this case was suffocation/exhaustion as practiced by the Romans at the time, with the hands held together above the head - courtesy Grade 8 History teacher with PhD in History), while also not conflicting with the word used to describe Thomas's request to view the 'wounds' in the resurrected Jesus.

So what of the content? I didn't vote and while I'm a pretty religious guy, I can tell you that personally, I was not offended by the picture in the slightest. On the other hand, I found the concept stupid and pointless. Is there a secret hidden message here? Is there anything at all relevant to me? Is there anything I can think of that might be relevant to the average Joe walking down the street? Is it even interesting?

It's got interest to you and if you like it, then be happy with that. You might have some friends who like it too. If you want it to have meaning to a wider group or a more educated group, you're going to have to start by doing more homework :).

I probably would have given it a 2-4 vote depending on how much I thought about it. Thinking more about it probably would have lowered the vote.

Sorry if this bothers you and it is nothing at all against you as a person. I don't think it means that you suck and shouldn't go on taking pictures. Or that you should stop taking pictures that have an edge in your own viewpoint.

I'm just saying that I don't like it and it has nothing to do with the religious offense aspect.

EDIT:
Originally posted by blackendwhite:
C'mon, what could anyone possibly glean from "Bad taste."?


Easy. You can learn that when you put a picture with strong connection to highly controversial topics, you can expect people to feel strongly about it.

There will always be people who dislike your pictures, just as there will probably also be people who like them. Put something out there on a topic like this and people will feel more strongly about it. They will therefore be more likely to say something and do something in response.

It's always good to examine your picture as to what it's central core is before putting it to other's opinions. When the topic is sensitive, it's doubly important.

It's good for people to think about their religious views and stands, but exactly WHAT and HOW are you trying to make people think with this picture?

I can't think of anything deep, let alone worthwhile myself.


Master Keiran, yes, yes, yes, I know of these things. I believe I have answered most of what's been said here in my past statements. And no, I am not bothered by your comments. In fact, like most of the comments here on this thread, they were greatly appreciated.
Now, regarding on which part of his arm, or hand He was nailed, yes, I also know of this. I've read on it on my high school theology class. I also believe that the nail was hammered at that part near the wrist where medical people check for a pulse as it (hammering the nail there) serves a double purpuse.
However as popular culture depicts (and as the challenge dictates, J/K) the nails were on the palms, not on the wrist. This is also how He's depicted where I come from, which was a country predominantly populated by Christians.
So now, considering a person WAS from HERE (where I come from) and he/she was suffering from the said psychosis, wuoldn't you think that he/she WOULD THINK that the nail was supposed to go THROUGH the palms instead of the wrists?
Master Keiran, I have done my homework i.e. content, what's left is for the people who're grading me to give me input as to how to improve my technicals, as I believe they're terribly lacking.

So there. Long post. I hope it serves its purpose.
 03/29/2006 10:27:58 PM · #27

I've tried similar and like you I got hammered (pardon the pun).

Anytime you delve into sexuality, religion or politics in your art, you are going to get a wide range of emotions from people (in our case voters).

The way I have come to see it, is that when you try these images, if you don't get reactions on BOTH ends of the scale, you haven't done something right. Because, when you REALLY have some sort of message, people are going to love it or hate it.

If you want a lot of high votes, shoot something pretty. If you want to make some sort of statement, be prepared for negative remarks.

I sincerely believe the BEST art isn't pretty. Keep doing what you are doing, man. But, just start taking the negative comments as compliments :-)

03/30/2006 03:01:03 AM · #28
Please don't patronize me with this childish label "master keiran".

You got a comment that said "bad taste". You were bothered by it.

It wasn't enough information for you to understand the issue. You feel that the person who made this comment didn't put enough thought into the voting/commenting process to have a valid point with such a comment. Therefore, you felt that the comment was not helpful.

Others responded and you debated. You missed the point.

I responded in greater detail.

The point is that bad taste is bad taste and some people are going to feel that way no matter what. This point has been made by others.

You didn't think you could learn from it and I showed you how you could learn from it.

You felt that the picture was something that required more thought to truly appreciate.

I showed you that I put quite a bit of thought into it. I examined it from at least a couple of other different viewpoints. I told you my conclusion.

You got a little and asked for more. I gave you more. Don't disrespect me for that.
 03/30/2006 03:25:42 AM · #29
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
What ticks me off, however, is when people comment negatively on something they do not yet understand. I think people who give out unpremeditated opinions should shove their morals up theirs.

That sounds like sour grapes and bitterness to me.

What the heck is an "unpremeditated opinion" and how would you recognize one in a field of text?
 03/30/2006 03:39:14 AM · #30
I am just wondering how someone gives "premeditated opinion" also. Specially on challenge photo (that i assume the voter is seeing for the first time).

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
What ticks me off, however, is when people comment negatively on something they do not yet understand. I think people who give out unpremeditated opinions should shove their morals up theirs.

That sounds like sour grapes and bitterness to me.

What the heck is an "unpremeditated opinion" and how would you recognize one in a field of text?
03/30/2006 08:14:41 AM · #31
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:


Well said, Master Shuford.


Can we speak to each other in a little more friendly, less insulting fashion? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it really feels like you are deliberately trying to be insulting here. Hope I'm wrong.
 03/30/2006 08:30:01 AM · #32
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I've tried similar and like you I got hammered (pardon the pun).



Hey, hey, Leroy, don't give the theme too much credit - that's NOT one of your better shots! With some technical TLC, I think you could have gotten at least a point of improvement, and I think the same thing about blackenedwhite's shot. Yours has glare and seems out of focus, rushed, and uneven. His is somewhat flat and the red seems too glittery. Just those small points make a big difference in the overall photo.

Of course, now the Cheeseman will tell me that was intentional :) I'm just surprised she isn't operating an industrial grinder......

By the way, I'm a staunch Christian but neither of these photos offends me, and that's not the purpose of my statements. If you knew me personally, you would find that I'm totally comfortable being around people that I TOTALLY disagree with, and I get along with them fine. But, if they ask my opinion, I'm going to tell them what I believe, not some politically corrected nonsense. If you submit a photo, you are asking for comments. If I respond, I'm going to tell you what I really think - not what I think you want to hear.

Requiring people to think too much about their comments because of what they are afraid the recipient might do with it still contributes to the decline of comments. I would like to see MORE comments on images - not less. I don't want a bunch of "Nice photo", "good shot", and all that, but if someone thinks I've shown bad taste, I really would like to know that. If that's all they have time to say, so what? Has it really hurt me? Did they intrude on my allocation of comments? No, they are free and unlimited! Bring it on!
 03/30/2006 08:30:18 AM · #33
blackenedwhite, I commented on your photo.
 03/30/2006 08:47:11 AM · #34
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
...but I think people should place a photo's technical merits (or lack of it) before their own prejudices when voting and, especially, when commenting.


Amen!
 03/30/2006 10:04:30 AM · #35
Originally posted by nards656:
Of course, now the Cheeseman will tell me that was intentional :) I'm just surprised she isn't operating an industrial grinder......


uhh how do you think she got those wounds? ;)

Originally posted by nards:


By the way, I'm a staunch Christian but neither of these photos offends me, and that's not the purpose of my statements. If you knew me personally, you would find that I'm totally comfortable being around people that I TOTALLY disagree with, and I get along with them fine. But, if they ask my opinion, I'm going to tell them what I believe, not some politically corrected nonsense. If you submit a photo, you are asking for comments. If I respond, I'm going to tell you what I really think - not what I think you want to hear.

Requiring people to think too much about their comments because of what they are afraid the recipient might do with it still contributes to the decline of comments. I would like to see MORE comments on images - not less. I don't want a bunch of "Nice photo", "good shot", and all that, but if someone thinks I've shown bad taste, I really would like to know that. If that's all they have time to say, so what? Has it really hurt me? Did they intrude on my allocation of comments? No, they are free and unlimited! Bring it on!


I just wanted to post that I agree with, mirror and appreciate this post. Well said.
 03/30/2006 10:13:22 AM · #36
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
... I think people who give out unpremeditated opinions should shove their morals up theirs... It's hard enough for us newbies to better ourselves at our craft as is without people shoving their prejudices up our faces.

Is this whole protracted discussion predicated on your reaction to one off-handed comment, "bad taste", left by a 61 year old who has never entered a challenge at DPC?

After reading everything that is EXACTLY what it looks like to me. Don't you think your reaction is a little excessive?

If you really want to know whether or not an image is getting an unfair review from voters based on their emotional reaction then look at it's vote distribution curve. There is where the real evidence is, not in one DPC non-participant's two word message. The tell-tale sign is an excessive number of votes at the bottom end of the distribution curve.

For example, take fotomann_forever's image mentioned in this discussion; You can see he got more "1" votes than in a normal curve. That is incontrovertable evidence that his image was scored lower based on group level negative reaction. Yours has none of that.

Your image has a perfectly normal distribution curve, just like tens of thousands of other images at this site. Where is the unwarranted prejudice? Just from one person? One comment? It is plainly evident from the vote distribution curve it is NOT from the group as a whole.

Overwhelmingly commenters left you positive, constructive and non-controversial comments.

You need to learn to separate what is meaningful from what is not. One off-hand comment is not meaningful.
 03/30/2006 10:19:55 AM · #37
Sunny Day,
Sweepin' the clouds away.
On my way to where the air is sweet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame Street?

Come and play.
Everything's A-OK.
Friendly neighbors there,
That's where we meet

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame Street?

It's a magic carpet ride.
Every door will open wide.
To Happy people like you--
Happy people like...
What a beautiful

Sunny Day,
Sweepin' the clouds away.
On my way to where the air is sweet.

Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame street...?

How to get to Sesame Street?

How to get to...

Lock.
 03/30/2006 10:25:59 AM · #38
I voted your picture higher for content, just as others voted it lower for content. I think it's a strong conceptual piece.

But this thread is even a stronger conceptual piece, as it demonstrates the very Messiah Complex you photographed. Yoko Ono would be proud.
 03/30/2006 11:09:05 AM · #39
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
I understand (and also came to expect) that some people found it offensive and deliberately lowered their votes, deeming the image sacrilegeous. I've come to this realization early on in the challenge.


What if the title were "Crucified with Christ: Galatians 2:20?"

You'd probably get a similar range of opinions, with any skew in the opposite direction. You should expect it, and have your reasons for submitting it anyway, without any rancor over the scoring.

My submission is a failed attempt at an idea with a message, due to confusing shadows, poor lighting, etc.



I'll trade you images and score, but I'd use my suggested title. Hope you are encouraged, I think that you are doing very well for your first two submissions, and I wouldn't be surprised to see better scores for you in the near future, if that is what you want and what you attempt.
 03/30/2006 11:17:03 AM · #40
Boo Hoo.

Some people don't like your image and voted it down. So what.

Get over it.

Edit:

I'm not saying anything good or bad about the image. You posted a provocative image and got a reaction. I'd be more worried if you got NO reaction.

Message edited by author 2006-03-30 12:48:29.
 03/30/2006 11:40:37 AM · #41

well like she's said, it's not about the scoring.
it's about those commenters that don't take the time to think.
i personally feel this is expecting too much of people.
most people don't think.
that's the standard.
expect nothing more ;)

03/30/2006 11:49:39 AM · #42
Originally posted by nards656:

Hey, hey, Leroy, don't give the theme too much credit - that's NOT one of your better shots! With some technical TLC, I think you could have gotten at least a point of improvement, and I think the same thing about blackenedwhite's shot. Yours has glare and seems out of focus, rushed, and uneven. His is somewhat flat and the red seems too glittery. Just those small points make a big difference in the overall photo.

Of course, now the Cheeseman will tell me that was intentional :) I'm just surprised she isn't operating an industrial grinder......


She wasn't as good with the grinder as the other girl, thus the wounds :-)

Seriously, I know that it isn't one of my best technical pieces.

I had my fun complaining about the grinder girl photo, so I'm not going to defend "Stigmata", was just trying to give blackenedwhite a bit of morale boost, that's all.
 03/30/2006 12:52:44 PM · #43
Originally posted by blackenedwhite:
...I think people should place a photo's technical merits (or lack of it) before their own prejudices when voting and, especially, when commenting...What ticks me off, however, is when people comment negatively on something they do not yet understand...


I would go further even and say that personal prejudice has no place whatsoever in either critique or comment on an image unless qualified as an aside. Technical merits are one part of our examination, artistic merits another.

Why is it that nearly every time someone tables an image for discussion, the author of that image is allotted more attention than the image? The potential for a profitable debate is only hampered by this.

The OP has gone through pains trying articulate his intent and premise, even repeatedly, only to harvest responses apparently based on what he did not say.

Again, the purpose of a thread like this could lead to a better understanding of the conceptual reality of a particular genre rarely discussed in the context of this site. Why not welcome the opportunity instead of accusing the OP of doing what we are doing to him?
 03/30/2006 01:05:37 PM · #44
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Why not welcome the opportunity instead of accusing the OP of doing what we are doing to him?


Bingo!

Robt.
 03/30/2006 01:18:53 PM · #45
Originally posted by zeuszen:

I would go further even and say that personal prejudice has no place whatsoever in either critique or comment on an image unless qualified as an aside. Technical merits are one part of our examination, artistic merits another.

Why is it that nearly every time someone tables an image for discussion, the author of that image is allotted more attention than the image? The potential for a profitable debate is only hampered by this.

The OP has gone through pains trying articulate his intent and premise, even repeatedly, only to harvest responses apparently based on what he did not say.

Again, the purpose of a thread like this could lead to a better understanding of the conceptual reality of a particular genre rarely discussed in the context of this site. Why not welcome the opportunity instead of accusing the OP of doing what we are doing to him?


Hmmph. I've been shushed yet again. I've got plenty to say, but I really don't give a rat's butt today. Y'all just go ahead with whatever it is ya think ya need to go ahead with. Complain, chatter about art and context and intention or whatever. That's fine. I dunna care....

Going away to center myself...

Message edited by author 2006-03-30 13:22:24.
 03/30/2006 01:28:27 PM · #46
Originally posted by Original Post:
What ticks me off, however, is when people comment negatively on something they do not yet understand. I think people who give out unpremeditated opinions should shove their morals up theirs.


This is the part that got my response. It's part of the original post. To assume that a voter does not understand something because the felt the image was taken in bad taste is just as emotional a response as the comment on the picture in the first place.

There is a place for commenting on the Technical aspect of an image and there is a place for commenting on the emotional response to an image.

It's not that hard to sort out what comments are based on the Technical and what comments are based on the emotional response.

What bothered me about this thread is that instead of just PM'ing and asking for more clarification, the OP merely got pi$$ed off at the 'unpremeditated opinions' and made the assumption that the poster did not understand what they were viewing.

Where is the commenter's POV in all of this?

I mean, I get lots of comments that I don't feel are helpful, some which are well-meaning, others which aren't, and still others that are unclear.

I send them a PM and ask for more information.

I DON'T post a thread saying that they can shove their morals or opinions up their asses.

I have a hard time with the idea that this was a discussion opened to discuss a genre that is seldom talked about here when the original post contains such spite. I have an even harder time defining exactly what 'genre' it actually is that would make it so special. The original poster certainly never mentioned anything in his post about the actual intent or additional meaning that he felt existed in the picture.

Commenters who don't like the image stand accused of 'not understanding it'.

But I have yet to see any evidence of anything in the picture that I don't understand. Certainly nothing has been brought forth by the OP.

If he wanted to draw attention to his image, he would have posted some information about his image. Presumably something that isn't already apparent.

Perhaps zeuszen, you might be inclined to further the discussion yourself by contributing some of your own comments about the picture?

Message edited by author 2006-03-30 13:30:07.
 03/30/2006 01:33:12 PM · #47
Originally posted by nards656:
...Hmmph. I've been shushed yet again. I've got plenty to say, but I really don't give a rat's butt today...


Well, I didn't, really, seek you out via my post (below) and I did read your posts without affront. Now what's a rat's butt going to help? ;-/
 03/30/2006 01:37:02 PM · #48
It seems to me the point is that virtually this entire thread is ad hominem: the OP was passing judgment on the lone commenter, and most subsequent posts are passing judgment (or making observations) on the OP. There's precious little discussion of the image itself going on. A little, but not much.

This seems pointless to me. And it seems to me we're seeing way too much of it in the forums. As a community, we're showing a powerful urge to gang up on people who express unpopular opinions, and I see no profit in it.

Robt.
 03/30/2006 02:09:12 PM · #49
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Original Post:
What ticks me off, however, is when people comment negatively on something they do not yet understand. I think people who give out unpremeditated opinions should shove their morals up theirs.


This is the part that got my response. It's part of the original post. To assume that a voter does not understand something because the felt the image was taken in bad taste is just as emotional a response as the comment on the picture in the first place.

There is a place for commenting on the Technical aspect of an image and there is a place for commenting on the emotional response to an image.

It's not that hard to sort out what comments are based on the Technical and what comments are based on the emotional response.

What bothered me about this thread is that instead of just PM'ing and asking for more clarification, the OP merely got pi$$ed off at the 'unpremeditated opinions' and made the assumption that the poster did not understand what they were viewing.

Where is the commenter's POV in all of this?

I mean, I get lots of comments that I don't feel are helpful, some which are well-meaning, others which aren't, and still others that are unclear.

I send them a PM and ask for more information.

I DON'T post a thread saying that they can shove their morals or opinions up their asses.

I have a hard time with the idea that this was a discussion opened to discuss a genre that is seldom talked about here when the original post contains such spite. I have an even harder time defining exactly what 'genre' it actually is that would make it so special. The original poster certainly never mentioned anything in his post about the actual intent or additional meaning that he felt existed in the picture.

Commenters who don't like the image stand accused of 'not understanding it'.

But I have yet to see any evidence of anything in the picture that I don't understand. Certainly nothing has been brought forth by the OP.

If he wanted to draw attention to his image, he would have posted some information about his image. Presumably something that isn't already apparent.

Perhaps zeuszen, you might be inclined to further the discussion yourself by contributing some of your own comments about the picture?


I don't claim you or I understand anything, although I'm sure we're not entirely blank. I do feel, however, that when we condemn an image, we would do well to substantiate the rejection.

As someone has suggested before, the photo under discussion could be viewed as a conceptual piece. If this is so -and that's how I perceive it- the technical aspects are secondary to the idea and context the photo was drawn from.

Concept, as a genre, is not something so special to devote much attention to, generally. I do, however, believe that images of one genre should not be cut with the same sword as images of another. There is a diversity of contexts which, IMO, are relevant to a reasonable evaluation of a specimen within it. To ignore the context in favour of an aesthetic, a political or any other entirely personal prejudgement is just not appropriate and fair.

Even in a casual comment (as opposed to a critique), I'd very much like to see some sort of qualification of the condemning opinion(s) expressed, so the recipient may have the opportunity to accommodate it appropriately. Without it, we have what we have with no chance of evolution.

DPC, to me, is a culture. We can civilize it or we can take it as it is and give a rat's butt.
 03/30/2006 02:18:58 PM · #50
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Now what's a rat's butt going to help? ;-/


Well, if I had one, I wouldn't want to waste it :P

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's precious little discussion of the image itself going on.


That's correct, sir, with due respect. I simply fail to see anything in the OP that requested discussion of the image.

EDIT - Nevermind what I had here before. It's not worth it.

So, I'm off to find a rat's butt in case I need one at a later date. All of you have a great day, okay? Any further posts in this thread will not be preceeded by my name :)

Happy times, joy, joy, joy!

Message edited by author 2006-03-30 14:20:12.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 03:44:55 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 03:44:55 AM EDT.