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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> The Wow Factor
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 118, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/27/2013 11:05:43 AM · #76
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by vawendy:

But, if you're not tack sharp -- you're dead in the water. :)


Unless it is clear it was not an error. There is a tendency to dismiss anything that might be a mistake, as a mistake, instead of considering that it may be an artistic choice. And that is a shame.

In the same way we ought to try to see if something is DNMC by considering what other viewpoints might have been taken on a challenge, we really should pause and think before voting " Might what I have taken for a mistake, be a compositional choice? Assuming it was a choice, is it a good one?" But for me, out of focus elements are not inherently artistic, they have to contribute to the work. The inverse is equally true; an irrelevant and distracting background that is tack sharp is a detriment.

When the subject is one that clearly is helped by a softer look we even give ribbons to them.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1819/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1086169.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1819/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1086169.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1806/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1082494.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1806/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1082494.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1804/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1084561.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1804/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1084561.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1797/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1080415.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1797/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1080415.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1790/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1081629.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1790/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1081629.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1759/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1071139.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1759/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1071139.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1754/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1070495.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1754/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1070495.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


I absolutely agree with what you claim and the examples are perfect.
11/27/2013 01:01:26 PM · #77
Originally posted by pixelpig:

Originally posted by ubique:

... It's strangling photography.


The audience is not, & should never be, a part of the photographic process.
Photojournalism is the one exception.
The ethics of photojournalism dominate photography.

Is it possible to use photography as an instrument of self-expression?
Can you dance like nobody's watching when you're on stage in front of a full house?
It's worth it to try.


The audience is the whole point of art. What's the point in saying something if there's no one to receive your message.

Without the audience, you're just the lunatic muttering to himself as he wanders around.
11/27/2013 01:12:34 PM · #78
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Originally posted by ubique:

... It's strangling photography.


The audience is not, & should never be, a part of the photographic process.
Photojournalism is the one exception.
The ethics of photojournalism dominate photography.

Is it possible to use photography as an instrument of self-expression?
Can you dance like nobody's watching when you're on stage in front of a full house?
It's worth it to try.


The audience is the whole point of art. What's the point in saying something if there's no one to receive your message.

Without the audience, you're just the lunatic muttering to himself as he wanders around.


I think the best artists are wandering lunatics who mutter to themselves, and do what they do for themselves.

Now.. With that being said. DPC isn't really meant to be the place where great art is appreciated. Sorry, but it's so very true. First, the level of detail in 800 pixels doesn't really allow for the 'depth' that is often needed to express the more subtle vision. Second, DPC voters aren't able to spend the time with photos that is required to really appreciate the type of photography that Ubique seems to value the most. Third, while I don't think DPC should even try to 'appreciate' this type of work with high scores, I do think that it is appreciated, and provides a refreshing chance to go deeper into a photo a few precious times per challenge, so I'd really be disappointed if that style disappeared from DPC altogether, probably more disappointed than I would be if it became the prevalent "DPC style".. And finally, there's nothing wrong with playing to your strengths, and DPC's strength is what we have variously referred to as 'eye candy' 'wow factor' 'pop' and a dozen other terms, there's real value in grabbing attention immediately, the real trick is not losing it immediately too, and I think that's mostly what Ubique is on about - not so much that the photos are pretty, but more that they're ONLY pretty.

There... That's my two cents on the matter. :D
11/27/2013 01:21:52 PM · #79
Originally posted by Spork99:

The audience is the whole point of art. What's the point in saying something if there's no one to receive your message.

Without the audience, you're just the lunatic muttering to himself as he wanders around.

Vivian Maier never photographed for an audience. She didn't share her pictures with anyone. It's by sheer accident that we know about her at all. Some described her as a lunatic who walked around muttering to herself. What was the point indeed.
11/27/2013 01:40:27 PM · #80
Originally posted by bvy:

Originally posted by Spork99:

The audience is the whole point of art. What's the point in saying something if there's no one to receive your message.

Without the audience, you're just the lunatic muttering to himself as he wanders around.

Vivian Maier never photographed for an audience. She didn't share her pictures with anyone. It's by sheer accident that we know about her at all. Some described her as a lunatic who walked around muttering to herself. What was the point indeed.


She may not have considered what she created as art. If that is the case then it wasn't really art until an audience started to appreciate it as such. She may have also been photographing for herself, in which case the audience and the photographer are one and the same.

Art always has an audience.
11/27/2013 01:51:58 PM · #81
ha. here there be sporkfuls of lunatics muttering to theyselves, littering, lingering, languishing and laughing.
11/27/2013 02:00:37 PM · #82
Originally posted by Spork99:

Without the audience, you're just the lunatic muttering to himself as he wanders around.

Or someone talking on their Bluetooth-enabled phone ... those things ruined one of my favorite cartoons -- a guy walking down the sidewalk saying "Besides, I'm not talking to myself, I'm talking to you!"
11/27/2013 02:14:37 PM · #83
What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?
11/27/2013 02:56:49 PM · #84
Originally posted by bvy:

What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?


Actually, yeah. It's kind of an "if a tree falls in the forest..." scenario, but art is an interaction between the artist and the viewer. If there's no viewer, it's a hobby. In the Vivian Meier example, before the photos were discovered, she was a hobbyist with a camera and a box of photos. Once someone found the photos and we all started looking at them, she became "Vivian Meier, eccentric artist", and they became art.
11/27/2013 04:08:17 PM · #85
Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by bvy:

What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?


Actually, yeah. It's kind of an "if a tree falls in the forest..." scenario, but art is an interaction between the artist and the viewer. If there's no viewer, it's a hobby. In the Vivian Meier example, before the photos were discovered, she was a hobbyist with a camera and a box of photos. Once someone found the photos and we all started looking at them, she became "Vivian Meier, eccentric artist", and they became art.

Turn that around: does this mean I'm NOT an artist if I can't get anybody to call me one? That doesn't make any sense to me. "Art" isn't a label that you're awarded, for heaven's sake.
11/27/2013 04:20:07 PM · #86
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by bvy:

What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?


Actually, yeah. It's kind of an "if a tree falls in the forest..." scenario, but art is an interaction between the artist and the viewer. If there's no viewer, it's a hobby. In the Vivian Meier example, before the photos were discovered, she was a hobbyist with a camera and a box of photos. Once someone found the photos and we all started looking at them, she became "Vivian Meier, eccentric artist", and they became art.

Turn that around: does this mean I'm NOT an artist if I can't get anybody to call me one? That doesn't make any sense to me. "Art" isn't a label that you're awarded, for heaven's sake.


You are still your own audience. If you think your creations are art, then it is, at least it is to you. Art is uber subjective. What one person thinks is art, may not be considered art by another. But you still need a viewer that considers the piece to be art.
11/27/2013 04:21:06 PM · #87
Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by bvy:

What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?


Actually, yeah. It's kind of an "if a tree falls in the forest..." scenario, but art is an interaction between the artist and the viewer. If there's no viewer, it's a hobby. In the Vivian Meier example, before the photos were discovered, she was a hobbyist with a camera and a box of photos. Once someone found the photos and we all started looking at them, she became "Vivian Meier, eccentric artist", and they became art.


Just because no one had found them yet made them less art? And then somebody opened the can of worms. Ha!
11/27/2013 04:34:50 PM · #88
Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by bvy:

What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?


Actually, yeah. It's kind of an "if a tree falls in the forest..." scenario, but art is an interaction between the artist and the viewer. If there's no viewer, it's a hobby. In the Vivian Meier example, before the photos were discovered, she was a hobbyist with a camera and a box of photos. Once someone found the photos and we all started looking at them, she became "Vivian Meier, eccentric artist", and they became art.


Brian's question clarified me, but this post put me back in the bafflement house. Hmmmmm.

Message edited by author 2013-11-27 16:36:36.
11/27/2013 06:11:45 PM · #89
I am not an artist. I am a human being.
11/27/2013 06:21:16 PM · #90
and I am a twice told tale by an idiot, full of s and f.
11/27/2013 06:25:38 PM · #91
Originally posted by posthumous:

I am not an artist. I am a human being.

"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
No. 6

Message edited by author 2013-11-27 18:26:29.
11/27/2013 11:46:29 PM · #92
Originally posted by bhuge:


... Art is uber subjective. What one person thinks is art, may not be considered art by another....


Art is not subjective. It only seems that way because what most people think is art, isn't.
11/28/2013 12:04:36 AM · #93
Originally posted by tnun:

and I am a twice told tale by an idiot, full of s and f.
And i am a twice baked potato, full of s & p.
11/28/2013 12:16:18 AM · #94
four times half baked but full of p and v. nonetheless.
11/28/2013 01:29:00 AM · #95
I loves tayders
11/28/2013 04:15:42 AM · #96
Originally posted by bvy:

What the artist makes is not art unless/until he shows it to someone?


Originally posted by Ann:

Actually, yeah. It's kind of an "if a tree falls in the forest..." scenario, but art is an interaction between the artist and the viewer. If there's no viewer, it's a hobby. In the Vivian Meier example, before the photos were discovered, she was a hobbyist with a camera and a box of photos. Once someone found the photos and we all started looking at them, she became "Vivian Meier, eccentric artist", and they became art.


So what if it's a hobby? How does that take anything from the composition, the intent to convey the thought, vision, whatever, but not for public consumption. To a certain degree, I don't give a rat's ass whether someone likes my images, but did they get anything from them? Personally, ever since my photography became a hobby, and I stopped trying to either pander to a score, or "perform photography properly" that the end result is only what someone else perceives it to be, the happier I've been. Do I care what people think of my work? Yes, and of course it pleases me if they like it, but the reaction, impression, whatever to me is more important than what category they feel it fits into. I shot the image to capture the essence of something that was mine.......if you get what I meant, cool, but if you don't, that doesn't make it any less real, or momentous to me. It doesn't change what and why I shot it.

Truly, someone who's been "discovered" later on to have been an artist without the violation of others' opinions at the time could be considered to be an artist of the truest form.
11/28/2013 04:26:58 AM · #97
Originally posted by ubique:

Art is not subjective. It only seems that way because what most people think is art, isn't.

examples please.
11/28/2013 08:22:36 AM · #98
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Originally posted by ubique:

... It's strangling photography.


The audience is not, & should never be, a part of the photographic process.
Photojournalism is the one exception.
The ethis of photojournalism dominate photography.

Is it possible to use photography as an instrument of self-expression?
Can you dance like nobody's watching when you're on stage in front of a full house?
It's worth it to try.


The audience is the whole point of art. What's the point in saying something if there's no one to receive your message.

Without the audience, you're just the lunatic muttering to himself as he wanders around.


Thanks for the comment. I'll try to explain

The audience is ever-present, & very demanding.
For the photojournalist, the audience provides the point and purpose of photography.

Take a moment to read the NPPA Code of Ethics for photojournalists. It makes the audience expectations very clear.
Number 5 sums it up for me: "While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events." Also #3 "Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work." In other words, the audience demands that the photojournalist put aside personal ethics to serve the needs of the audience. Without the audience, there is no photojournalism.

Without the audience there is only the photographer. The photographer's own morals & ethics motivate & inform the work. The work has to find, or fail to find, its own audience on its own, without the photographer, sometimes after the photographer is dead. It's a small change, but important to me.
11/30/2013 04:20:21 AM · #99
Originally posted by pixelpig:



Thanks for the comment. I'll try to explain

The audience is ever-present, & very demanding.
For the photojournalist, the audience provides the point and purpose of photography.

Take a moment to read the NPPA Code of Ethics for photojournalists. It makes the audience expectations very clear.
Number 5 sums it up for me: "While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events." Also #3 "Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work." In other words, the audience demands that the photojournalist put aside personal ethics to serve the needs of the audience. Without the audience, there is no photojournalism.

Without the audience there is only the photographer. The photographer's own morals & ethics motivate & inform the work. The work has to find, or fail to find, its own audience on its own, without the photographer, sometimes after the photographer is dead. It's a small change, but important to me.


Lots of interesting comments. I wouldn't agree that all art should be created in a vacuum. Art is oft used as a mechanism for realization. Working in a vacuum precludes the ability to effect a point, as you've no ground to begin upon. But I see where you're coming from, that perhaps it isn't best to be the sole determinant.

Bear's point is curious, too; but I'd argue the interest, the drive, the need to create an idea should perhaps be primary to the secondary need of being recognized. To me, yes, the audience is supremely important to art. But at the same time, artistry is saying what needs to be said regardless of if you're being paid any attention. Art (to me) is about the connection of maker and viewer, be they agreement or disagreement. Art is evocative.
11/30/2013 06:30:02 AM · #100
We are way off track. I started this thread in protest at the extent to which style-over-substance is subverting photography. Not subverting DPC which is a forum for digital camera enthusiasts and is comparatively irrelevant to photography. And not subverting art, which is entirely irrelevant.

Photography, real photography, is snapshots. It's travel pictures. It's the kids' soccer games. It's Thanksgiving celebrations, birthdays, graduations, new houses, pets, and holidays; it's cherished moments isolated as iconography. It's documentary photography. Professional photographers - 'serious' photographers - used to be the people who most misunderstood or at least misrepresented the essence of the photograph. But now that everybody can appear plausibly professional, it's everybody who is spitting in the soup with the stupid bloody Wow Factor.

Ironically (at least I think it's irony), it's now mostly the few surviving genuine professional artisans who are trying to reclaim the photograph as an object.

ETA an example of the latter.

Message edited by author 2013-11-30 06:54:01.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/24/2021 11:14:42 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/24/2021 11:14:42 PM EDT.