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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Line up your leading scores
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 180, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/20/2006 10:30:30 PM · #101
i was at 6.67 at 50 votes. i thought a bit stable. wrong...
now at:

Votes: 69
Views: 94
Avg Vote: 6.0000
Comments: 2

i like the comments tho. (one "simply amazing" and one "this one could and should ribbon" from somebody i admire here at DPC.)

i'm seeing a lot of "mis-leading lines" with the entries. but i'm not voting based on "my" interpretation of the challenge. as long as I get the hint that "they" tried to meet the challenge, that's ok. i'll vote more based on technicals and execution.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 22:30:48.
09/20/2006 10:36:03 PM · #102
Votes: 69
Views: 86
Avg Vote: 5.4203
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0

Still falling here too.
09/20/2006 10:40:16 PM · #103
I do not understand why some people here read the challenge description and then run to some other site, or book, or whatever to get the definition of how to approach the challenge. People can and should vote as they want, but why do so many insist on putting parameters on the challenges that DPC itself did not put on it?

When you click the link for the challenge, it gives a description of the subject or what you are to do. Sometimes it is a sentence, sometimes it is longer, but that and that alone should be all the description you need. If you are unsatisfied and feel the need to go elsewhere for more ideas or info, fine. But don't get info from elsewhere or past experiences and then place that definition on the challenges here.

This challenge description says this: Use this compositional technique to deliver the impact of your photograph. It does not say that your lines must lead to someone or something. Based on that, how can you cry DNMC if the lines do lead the eye, but perhaps just not to a certain thing or "main point/subject"? It is not in the description of the challenge that that is how it has to be. For instance I have seen some photos (and I'll even include mine in this batch) that have lines that clearly lead the eye along the photo. They may not lead the eye to a specific something, perhaps they just lead the eye through the photo, or into it and the out of it. But as long as your eyes are being lead by the line(s), then it is a legitimate entry to this challenge. The composition of the lines are supposed to deliver the impact of your photo. Leading your eye around or through the image can be the way the photographer wanted the lines to deliver the impact of the photo. And thus completely filling the challenge requirements. However, if there are lines but they don't lead the eye anywhere, all they really do is make a pattern or something similar to that, then you have a solid ground to say DNMC.

Now if you want to argue that the descriptions are too vague, then let's open up that discussion,(even thought it has been mentioned before) but don't cry foul if a photo follows the official description, but doesn't sync up with your thoughts or interpretation of the challenge.

BTW, here is my score thus far:

Votes: 74
Views: 92
Avg Vote: 5.5946
Comments: 2
09/20/2006 10:59:19 PM · #104
Originally posted by breadfan35:

I do not understand why some people here read the challenge description and then run to some other site, or book, or whatever to get the definition of how to approach the challenge. People can and should vote as they want, but why do so many insist on putting parameters on the challenges that DPC itself did not put on it?

When you click the link for the challenge, it gives a description of the subject or what you are to do. Sometimes it is a sentence, sometimes it is longer, but that and that alone should be all the description you need. If you are unsatisfied and feel the need to go elsewhere for more ideas or info, fine. But don't get info from elsewhere or past experiences and then place that definition on the challenges here.

This challenge description says this: Use this compositional technique to deliver the impact of your photograph. It does not say that your lines must lead to someone or something. Based on that, how can you cry DNMC if the lines do lead the eye, but perhaps just not to a certain thing or "main point/subject"? It is not in the description of the challenge that that is how it has to be. For instance I have seen some photos (and I'll even include mine in this batch) that have lines that clearly lead the eye along the photo. They may not lead the eye to a specific something, perhaps they just lead the eye through the photo, or into it and the out of it. But as long as your eyes are being lead by the line(s), then it is a legitimate entry to this challenge. The composition of the lines are supposed to deliver the impact of your photo. Leading your eye around or through the image can be the way the photographer wanted the lines to deliver the impact of the photo. And thus completely filling the challenge requirements. However, if there are lines but they don't lead the eye anywhere, all they really do is make a pattern or something similar to that, then you have a solid ground to say DNMC.

Now if you want to argue that the descriptions are too vague, then let's open up that discussion,(even thought it has been mentioned before) but don't cry foul if a photo follows the official description, but doesn't sync up with your thoughts or interpretation of the challenge.


If you are not familiar with what "leading lines" means, the description of the challenge probably doesn't help much. So we seek help elsewhere to help us come up with our pictures and voting.

In the above statement you mention the lines leading the eye along the photo. Aren't you defining it based on your knowledge/experience?

To stay on topic, I've dropped nearly 0.25 since my high earlier today.
09/20/2006 11:10:11 PM · #105
Almost time to deploy the parachute

Votes: 68
Views: 95
Avg Vote: 4.7794
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/20/06 11:07 pm
09/20/2006 11:12:02 PM · #106
Leading Lines III

Votes: 79
Views: 104
Avg Vote: 5.8861
Comments: 5
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/20/06 11:10 pm

look! a favorite!! :) :) :)
09/20/2006 11:17:08 PM · #107
Originally posted by mad_brewer:



If you are not familiar with what "leading lines" means, the description of the challenge probably doesn't help much. So we seek help elsewhere to help us come up with our pictures and voting.

In the above statement you mention the lines leading the eye along the photo. Aren't you defining it based on your knowledge/experience?

To stay on topic, I've dropped nearly 0.25 since my high earlier today.


Coupling the Challenge Title with the description IMO gives enough of a description for the challenge. But again, I have not probelm with someone going elsewhere for inspiration or help. My problem comes with using information obtained elsewhere and imposing those restrictions or limitations on an image that completley follows the stated criteria for meeting the challenge here.

If by your second statement you mean that I know when my eyes are being lead by the lines in a photo, thus I have knowledge of it, then yes I guess so. But if you mean my knowledge of the subject and imposing restrictions based on previous instruction or learning technique, then no. For instance, if I was taught in a class that when leading lines is mentioned for a photo entry, you must have the lines lead to the main subject. But the challenge description does not impose those same restrictions, I'm not going to penalize others with my voting becasue I believe or was taught it should be otherwise. If their photo follows the Challange's guide lines, then I will not count off becasue I think it should be different.
09/21/2006 12:11:28 AM · #108
Originally posted by breadfan35:

Originally posted by mad_brewer:



If you are not familiar with what "leading lines" means, the description of the challenge probably doesn't help much. So we seek help elsewhere to help us come up with our pictures and voting.

In the above statement you mention the lines leading the eye along the photo. Aren't you defining it based on your knowledge/experience?

To stay on topic, I've dropped nearly 0.25 since my high earlier today.


Coupling the Challenge Title with the description IMO gives enough of a description for the challenge. But again, I have not probelm with someone going elsewhere for inspiration or help. My problem comes with using information obtained elsewhere and imposing those restrictions or limitations on an image that completley follows the stated criteria for meeting the challenge here.

If by your second statement you mean that I know when my eyes are being lead by the lines in a photo, thus I have knowledge of it, then yes I guess so. But if you mean my knowledge of the subject and imposing restrictions based on previous instruction or learning technique, then no. For instance, if I was taught in a class that when leading lines is mentioned for a photo entry, you must have the lines lead to the main subject. But the challenge description does not impose those same restrictions, I'm not going to penalize others with my voting becasue I believe or was taught it should be otherwise. If their photo follows the Challange's guide lines, then I will not count off becasue I think it should be different.


So what you're getting at is having a problem restricting the challenge based on outside information, as opposed to just defining it? Some of the definitions posted for other challenges actually expanded my view of what meets the challenge.

Personally, I'm all for avoiding the DNMC unless absolutely necessary. If anything is remotely close to the challenge, I will not deduct for it.
09/21/2006 12:25:07 AM · #109
Originally posted by mad_brewer:



So what you're getting at is having a problem restricting the challenge based on outside information, as opposed to just defining it? Some of the definitions posted for other challenges actually expanded my view of what meets the challenge.

Personally, I'm all for avoiding the DNMC unless absolutely necessary. If anything is remotely close to the challenge, I will not deduct for it.


Yes. I have no problem with someone going to an outside source in order to get ideas of what to do or how to do it if they do not feel they understand well enough based on the challenge title and description. But if an outside source says, "the way you shoot _____ is by doing _____" and then voting based on those guidelines from an outside source, even though those restrictions are not imposed by DPC in the description, then I do not agree with that. I think the end all be all place to get the requirements for a DPC challenge is from DPC in the title and or official description of what is required for the challenge.

Message edited by author 2006-09-21 00:27:15.
09/21/2006 12:36:41 AM · #110
Having stepped away from DPC for a while, and now coming back, it became somewhat more evident on the stiffling limitations self imposed on voters with their preconcieved notion they are authorities on compositional techniques, creativity, etc. This "ignorance" and "narrow minded attitude" is contrary to the creative diversity within the challenges and leads many submittors to just "meet" clinical challenge requirements with little thought to adding soul to their submission. As I go forward with my photography I can see a clear seperation between the photos I needed to do versus the photos I am proud of. If submittors would pay less attention to what the masses want and more attention to what they wish to convey, the images within challenges would likely provoke more thoughtful voting and inspire the rest of us to break away from the blah. For me, this revelation has brought out my best work so far. Do we not pursue this hobby with the notion of sharing what we see or do we feelobligated to deliver what we think others want us to see? Just a thought.
09/21/2006 12:47:26 AM · #111
Originally posted by Ivo:

Having stepped away from DPC for a while, and now coming back, it became somewhat more evident on the stiffling limitations self imposed on voters with their preconcieved notion they are authorities on compositional techniques, creativity, etc. This "ignorance" and "narrow minded attitude" is contrary to the creative diversity within the challenges and leads many submittors to just "meet" clinical challenge requirements with little thought to adding soul to their submission. As I go forward with my photography I can see a clear seperation between the photos I needed to do versus the photos I am proud of. If submittors would pay less attention to what the masses want and more attention to what they wish to convey, the images within challenges would likely provoke more thoughtful voting and inspire the rest of us to break away from the blah. For me, this revelation has brought out my best work so far. Do we not pursue this hobby with the notion of sharing what we see or do we feelobligated to deliver what we think others want us to see? Just a thought.


Very, VERY, good post.
09/21/2006 03:25:49 AM · #112
Originally posted by Ivo:

Having stepped away from DPC for a while, and now coming back, it became somewhat more evident on the stiffling limitations self imposed on voters with their preconcieved notion they are authorities on compositional techniques, creativity, etc. This "ignorance" and "narrow minded attitude" is contrary to the creative diversity within the challenges and leads many submittors to just "meet" clinical challenge requirements with little thought to adding soul to their submission. As I go forward with my photography I can see a clear seperation between the photos I needed to do versus the photos I am proud of. If submittors would pay less attention to what the masses want and more attention to what they wish to convey, the images within challenges would likely provoke more thoughtful voting and inspire the rest of us to break away from the blah. For me, this revelation has brought out my best work so far. Do we not pursue this hobby with the notion of sharing what we see or do we feelobligated to deliver what we think others want us to see? Just a thought.


amen. i wish everyone thinks like that. i know that's impossible.
umm, what to say ? welcome back Ivo :-)
09/21/2006 04:07:08 AM · #113
Originally posted by Ivo:

Having stepped away from DPC for a while, and now coming back, it became somewhat more evident on the stiffling limitations self imposed on voters with their preconcieved notion they are authorities on compositional techniques, creativity, etc. This "ignorance" and "narrow minded attitude" is contrary to the creative diversity within the challenges and leads many submittors to just "meet" clinical challenge requirements with little thought to adding soul to their submission. As I go forward with my photography I can see a clear seperation between the photos I needed to do versus the photos I am proud of. If submittors would pay less attention to what the masses want and more attention to what they wish to convey, the images within challenges would likely provoke more thoughtful voting and inspire the rest of us to break away from the blah. For me, this revelation has brought out my best work so far. Do we not pursue this hobby with the notion of sharing what we see or do we feelobligated to deliver what we think others want us to see? Just a thought.


I completely respect your views on this issue and personally believe that some of my own better scoring submissions are pretty boring, 'vanilla' images that did OK because in the minds of most voters they met the challenge well enough. But in some ways that's the point isn't it? Let us not forget what the 'C' in DPC stands for. When I enter a challenge I do so knowing full well that there is a theme to adhere to and that if I deviate from that theme too far I will likely be 'punished' by some voters. To me, that's the 'Challenge' - trying to be a little creative and technically OK, BUT within the confines of the theme.

I'm no pro (that's pretty obvious from my portfolio!), but to me it's like a client asking a photographer to go shoot pics of a black dog for them. If the photographer comes back with pics of a white cat then I imagine that no matter how artistic and 'left field' those cat pics are, the client isn't likely to embrace them. Just my opinion of course. :)
09/21/2006 05:01:50 AM · #114
Having an image marked as a favorite is always a cool thing! Not a bad score either Don. :)

Originally posted by posthumous:

Leading Lines III

Votes: 79
Views: 104
Avg Vote: 5.8861
Comments: 5
Favorites: 1
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/20/06 11:10 pm

look! a favorite!! :) :) :)

09/21/2006 05:13:42 AM · #115
Avg Vote: 6.4872
Comments: 3
Favorites: 1
09/21/2006 05:15:52 AM · #116
The part of the voting that amazes me is the number of people that view a submission, but move on to the next image witout comment or vote, in leading lines my entry has 98 views 68 votes and 2 excellent comments, yet only has a score of 5.0575. so if 2 viewers see good in this image, what is so not seen by all the other viewers. what are these viewer voters looking for, just a 20% VIEW & VOTE.
09/21/2006 08:20:15 AM · #117
Originally posted by kawesttex:

Peaked at 5.95, but looks like I'm going into my evening dive:

Votes: 59
Views: 81
Avg Vote: 5.8814
Comments: 2

I have gotten 2 comments though and that makes it worth it.


Didn't lose to much overnight.

Votes: 75
Views: 109
Avg Vote: 5.8533
Comments: 2
09/21/2006 08:28:38 AM · #118
*Yawns* 5.6... Still
09/21/2006 08:32:29 AM · #119
I was up to 5.8 overnight, but now I have a straight

Votes: 87
Views: 113
Avg Vote: 5.6437
Comments: 4

09/21/2006 08:35:20 AM · #120
Votes: 85
Views: 119
Avg Vote: 5.4706
Comments: 2

My score is average, the comments call into question my editing legalities and poor choices, but this one is gonna get printed off and put onto my wall - which is considerable I guess considering that only one of my top 7 pics on my profile has that distinction. While I do shoot for high scores and take pics of things I never would have except for this site, this one I took for me and decided to enter it afterwards. I am very happy with it - and while it might not be a 6+ shot I am really glad it isnt a 4.
09/21/2006 08:41:35 AM · #121
Originally posted by breadfan35:

I do not understand why some people here read the challenge description and then run to some other site, or book, or whatever to get the definition of how to approach the challenge. People can and should vote as they want, but why do so many insist on putting parameters on the challenges that DPC itself did not put on it?

When you click the link for the challenge, it gives a description of the subject or what you are to do. Sometimes it is a sentence, sometimes it is longer, but that and that alone should be all the description you need. If you are unsatisfied and feel the need to go elsewhere for more ideas or info, fine. But don't get info from elsewhere or past experiences and then place that definition on the challenges here.

This challenge description says this: Use this compositional technique to deliver the impact of your photograph. It does not say that your lines must lead to someone or something. Based on that, how can you cry DNMC if the lines do lead the eye, but perhaps just not to a certain thing or "main point/subject"? It is not in the description of the challenge that that is how it has to be. For instance I have seen some photos (and I'll even include mine in this batch) that have lines that clearly lead the eye along the photo. They may not lead the eye to a specific something, perhaps they just lead the eye through the photo, or into it and the out of it. But as long as your eyes are being lead by the line(s), then it is a legitimate entry to this challenge. The composition of the lines are supposed to deliver the impact of your photo. Leading your eye around or through the image can be the way the photographer wanted the lines to deliver the impact of the photo. And thus completely filling the challenge requirements. However, if there are lines but they don't lead the eye anywhere, all they really do is make a pattern or something similar to that, then you have a solid ground to say DNMC.

Now if you want to argue that the descriptions are too vague, then let's open up that discussion,(even thought it has been mentioned before) but don't cry foul if a photo follows the official description, but doesn't sync up with your thoughts or interpretation of the challenge.

BTW, here is my score thus far:

Votes: 74
Views: 92
Avg Vote: 5.5946
Comments: 2


I totally agree every word!
09/21/2006 09:17:05 AM · #122
This is the closest to a 6 I've gotten. It just might make it yet.

Votes: 85
Views: 111
Avg Vote: 5.9059
Comments: 4
09/21/2006 09:23:20 AM · #123
Votes: 79
Views: 93
Avg Vote: 4.4304
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0

Go brown go :P
09/21/2006 09:57:06 AM · #124
Votes: 82
Views: 131
Avg Vote: 6.5122
Comments: 11
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/21/06 09:47 am

Dropped more overnight as my hopes for a top ten fade away. It was 6.6776 and rising quickly yesterday morning, only to get hit by that 2 and it's slowly dropped ever since. Oh well, this one will get a bit more editing after challenge and put on my wife's wall at work.
09/21/2006 10:04:16 AM · #125
Votes: 89
Views: 118
Avg Vote: 5.2472
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/21/06 09:10 am

Still doing better than I expected for my first challenge. I was hoping for some comments though.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/04/2021 08:33:05 AM

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: 08/04/2021 08:33:05 AM EDT.