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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Suggestions >> Photography is not only stock photos
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 55, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/24/2003 07:00:10 PM · #1
I think this has become a stock photography site.
Photography is more than that.
Last winners are always for a stock album. They are great photos, excellent, but i think they are not the only ones. We are missing something.
What about separating every challenge in this two kinds of photography:
1.Art or conceptual
2.Stock
Perhaps with the same subject, that would be more interesting.
Photography is not only perfect focus, brilliant colors and great quality...
11/27/2003 08:33:17 PM · #2
Wow! That's really interesting how nobody commented on this.

I agree with you 100%. There is a number of us, but I guess we are the minority. Too bad, this site could be much better if the administrators of this site understood that photography is supposed to be art, first and foremost, and you need (must) separate them.
11/27/2003 09:07:31 PM · #3
I wouldnt mind seeing a photo from either of you that you've taken that you consider artistic photography.

This site isnt geared towards fine art photography. How can you be given a random topic that gives you one week to make art? Art to me, is made in my mind first, with a concept. Its not based on a weekly challenge theme.

Im not saying that you cant be artistic in your preperation for the challenges here, but it will have to appeal to the mass audience. The voters here decide what flys, and your not going to change that.

I personally dont use this site to offer up my more artistic photographs, there are other sites better suited for that. Your mission here, if you choose to take it, is to shoot strongly towards the theme, and make your shot have mass appeal.

The Stock Photography phrase here on DPC is getting way overplayed. Stock photography is alot more demanding than art photography any day. You better have a damn good solid and technically good image to ever sell a stock photo. Fine Art photography you can sure get by with alot less. Art is so subjective, I know a few individuals selling pictures made with a plastic Holga camera for big bucks.

Personally, I love all types of photography, but you need to know your audience when you submit a shot for their approval. When I do my art, I do it for myself, if anyone else likes it, then thats an added bonus. :)

Just my thoughts.
11/27/2003 09:09:14 PM · #4
This thread is also running here:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=57199
11/28/2003 01:12:14 AM · #5
Originally posted by scab-lab:

I wouldnt mind seeing a photo from either of you that you've taken that you consider artistic photography.

This site isnt geared towards fine art photography. How can you be given a random topic that gives you one week to make art? Art to me, is made in my mind first, with a concept. Its not based on a weekly challenge theme.

Im not saying that you cant be artistic in your preperation for the challenges here, but it will have to appeal to the mass audience. The voters here decide what flys, and your not going to change that.

I personally dont use this site to offer up my more artistic photographs, there are other sites better suited for that. Your mission here, if you choose to take it, is to shoot strongly towards the theme, and make your shot have mass appeal.

The Stock Photography phrase here on DPC is getting way overplayed. Stock photography is alot more demanding than art photography any day. You better have a damn good solid and technically good image to ever sell a stock photo. Fine Art photography you can sure get by with alot less. Art is so subjective, I know a few individuals selling pictures made with a plastic Holga camera for big bucks.

Personally, I love all types of photography, but you need to know your audience when you submit a shot for their approval. When I do my art, I do it for myself, if anyone else likes it, then thats an added bonus. :)

Just my thoughts.


You can look at my portfolio, and you can judge for yourself. I try to add an element of art to every shot that I take, some more than others.

I think your getting the wrong idea though. First, I like to consider it studio photograhy and field photography. Calling studio photography, "stock" is demeaning, and calling field photography fine art is puffing it up. And I don't think ANYONE has said studio photography is less important and doesn't take skill.

However, YOU did just say that studio photograhy is more difficult, "any day" in your words. That statement of course is not accurate. Studio photography is much more technical than it is artistic, and is much more forgiving becuase you don't have the pressure of getting it RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. Yes, or course your shots must be perfect because you can shot it 100 times if required, without one variable changing during that entire 100 round shoot. And sometimes you only have 4 or 5 elements in the image, and are usually limited on their color spectrum usage. That doesn't even compare to field shots that can have hundreds of elements and uses much more of the color spectrum. Does that make it easier? No!

It's just different. And see that's what you dont' get. People who judge on this site evaluate studio shots the same as they do field photography. They expect field shots to have the same vibrant colors and the same super sharp focus, and most importantly, the same perfect application to the challenge, and that's simply not legitimate.

Good example is the first challenge I entered, Propaganda. I went on half-day journey searching for a photo-opp, and I was extremely happy not only with meeting the challenge requirements, but the quality of the image, yet I was hammered for not meeting the challenge.

In my view, photography is such an awesome media because it can capture "Time in a bottle." A moment in time can always be retrieved by the image. Studio photography completely lacks that sense. Stock photographs are for selling merchandise on Ebay, it doesn't create any feelings of time inside of you.

So yes, studio shots are more perfect, but for how perfect they are they equally lack feeling of time. If the people who judge photos on this site cannot keep that in mind when judging than you really only have one option, and that's to separate them.

So when you (or I) compete with studio shots we compete against equal kind, and when we enter field shots we compete against like kind as well. Kind of just common sense to me.

And by the way, I love your work, and you do have an artistic shot in your portfolio (Sunset).

Hey, one last thing. I just submitted a photo in Thanksgiving challenge. It's a pretty good shot, I'm very happy with it. Is it perfect? NO WAY! Does it convey a feeling of time? YES WAY! And guess what, I shot it on full manual, and bounced my flash off the ceiling. ONE TIME. That's all the chances I had, makes it kind of hard, don't you think?

Message edited by author 2003-11-28 01:21:06.
11/28/2003 01:55:18 AM · #6
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:


Good example is the first challenge I entered, Propaganda. I went on half-day journey searching for a photo-opp, and I was extremely happy not only with meeting the challenge requirements, but the quality of the image, yet I was hammered for not meeting the challenge.


Were you hammered? I've just looked at the comments and yes, there are 3 or 4 that mention not meeting the challenge, no obvious sign there of being hammered to me. I think you've made the assumption that the only way you could have scored low is because of the challenge topic, as it could not be the photo.

If I were to rate the photos not on quality but purely on n"what says propaganda" ro me, and going by title and photo alone, I would not say that shouts propaganda to me.

Maybe you failed to demonstrate propaganda to the audience, which is a part of the challenge, agree with it or not.

Maybe people simply didn't like the photo.

Not attacking you, just pointing out that your score is unlikely to be just the result of people thinking it did not meet the challenge.

It came 55th with a decent score (remember, challenge winners are often high 6's. When I look at where it came, compare it with the photos around it, I think it placed about right. If that one warrrented coming higher then so did many more ... which puts things back where they started.

It is an anonymous voting system, maybe, just maybe, it's not everyone out there who votes that are in the wrong? Just maybe people thought the photo was worth the score it got?
11/28/2003 10:58:28 AM · #7
[i]The Stock Photography phrase here on DPC is getting way overplayed. Stock photography is alot more demanding than art photography any day. You better have a damn good solid and technically good image to ever sell a stock photo. Fine Art photography you can sure get by with alot less. Art is so subjective, I know a few individuals selling pictures made with a plastic Holga camera for big bucks.[i/]


That was my original statement. Real stock photography, set-up or studio shots are more demanding. They have to have mass appeal, be clear, and concise to the point. You have alot more leeway with fine art photography. If im getting your definition of art photography, you are considering that its only field photography? I do not automatically consider feild, studio, portraits, etc, into any categories. Really depends on the message in the photo.

To me a sunset, could just be a documentary, stock, or emotive( art ) type shot. Its all in the context of what the photographer wants to convey.

Again, I know you're well aware of tons of fine art photographers who deal in only studio type shots, but its obvious we do not agree.

I have shot plenty of feild stuff, and have recently ( whitin) the last 2 years ) have started playing with studio shots. First off, to say I have a studio, is ridiculous. I use a small section of my kitchen. The majority of my pics here have been done with a 100 watt light bulb diffused with a white umbrella. My background is a piece of posterboard. A pretty low budget system. I have recently bought, another flash unit, to try some flash photography, but I have yet to get a decent handle on it yet.

I do stand by a statement in another thread though, that studio shots are more demanding. I have yet to have to shoot 100 pics to just get it right in the field. The sunset photo that you remarked about in my folder, is the result of only 2 shots. Working in digital, allows that instant feedback, that I use to die for in my film days. So field photgraphy, at least in my case, is less challenging.

Its just as tough to take few apples in the studio and arrange and light them artistically, as it is to find an artistic composition of apples in the feild. I hope we can agree on that point :)

Anyway, I just like good photography, whatever the style.




11/28/2003 12:53:08 PM · #8
Originally posted by scab-lab:

[i]The Stock Photography phrase here on DPC is getting way overplayed. Stock photography is alot more demanding than art photography any day. You better have a damn good solid and technically good image to ever sell a stock photo. Fine Art photography you can sure get by with alot less. Art is so subjective, I know a few individuals selling pictures made with a plastic Holga camera for big bucks.[i/]


That was my original statement. Real stock photography, set-up or studio shots are more demanding. They have to have mass appeal, be clear, and concise to the point. You have alot more leeway with fine art photography. If im getting your definition of art photography, you are considering that its only field photography? I do not automatically consider feild, studio, portraits, etc, into any categories. Really depends on the message in the photo.

To me a sunset, could just be a documentary, stock, or emotive( art ) type shot. Its all in the context of what the photographer wants to convey.

Again, I know you're well aware of tons of fine art photographers who deal in only studio type shots, but its obvious we do not agree.

I have shot plenty of feild stuff, and have recently ( whitin) the last 2 years ) have started playing with studio shots. First off, to say I have a studio, is ridiculous. I use a small section of my kitchen. The majority of my pics here have been done with a 100 watt light bulb diffused with a white umbrella. My background is a piece of posterboard. A pretty low budget system. I have recently bought, another flash unit, to try some flash photography, but I have yet to get a decent handle on it yet.

I do stand by a statement in another thread though, that studio shots are more demanding. I have yet to have to shoot 100 pics to just get it right in the field. The sunset photo that you remarked about in my folder, is the result of only 2 shots. Working in digital, allows that instant feedback, that I use to die for in my film days. So field photgraphy, at least in my case, is less challenging.

Its just as tough to take few apples in the studio and arrange and light them artistically, as it is to find an artistic composition of apples in the feild. I hope we can agree on that point :)

Anyway, I just like good photography, whatever the style.


You make some good points, particularly about studio art photography, and that's why I like to call it field photography. Cause like you said, field photography can be Stock images as well.

Thanks for the pleasant exhange of ideas and opinions.
11/28/2003 01:38:45 PM · #9
[quote=Natator
Were you hammered? I've just looked at the comments and yes, there are 3 or 4 that mention not meeting the challenge, no obvious sign there of being hammered to me. I think you've made the assumption that the only way you could have scored low is because of the challenge topic, as it could not be the photo.

If I were to rate the photos not on quality but purely on n"what says propaganda" ro me, and going by title and photo alone, I would not say that shouts propaganda to me.

Maybe you failed to demonstrate propaganda to the audience, which is a part of the challenge, agree with it or not.

Maybe people simply didn't like the photo.

Not attacking you, just pointing out that your score is unlikely to be just the result of people thinking it did not meet the challenge.

It came 55th with a decent score (remember, challenge winners are often high 6's. When I look at where it came, compare it with the photos around it, I think it placed about right. If that one warrrented coming higher then so did many more ... which puts things back where they started.

It is an anonymous voting system, maybe, just maybe, it's not everyone out there who votes that are in the wrong? Just maybe people thought the photo was worth the score it got?[/quote]

All you have to do is look that the results. The photo had like 16 first and second place votes, and then turns around and has 27 votes of three or less? That's not logical. One of those groups of people are dead wrong, OK so maybe it's the group that picked it as a top image. I can accept that, but when you look at the comments, and combine it with the statistics it's clear that the photograph was severly downgraded by a host of voters because they didn't think the image met the challenge.

Then you go out to some of the forums and it's clear that there was a large group of people who had very strict definitions of what propaganda could and could not be. Many people think it can only be political, controversial or completly upsetting. Then there's another large group of voters on this site who think photos must 100% define itself within the image. It CANNOT be a title combined with a clever image.

So what that does, is take high quality field photography and minimize it to the middle of the pack. Mine wasn't even the worst case. The Phog Image by MrCan was degraded to the back of the pack, and that was clearly a fine photograph and was clearly propaganda. But I believe there is more to photography than slapping you in the face with skulls, fortune cookies, or needles stuck in someones arm to make a point. The Phog image is a great story about how americans elevate athletics to a point that they will contsruct bronze statues of their likeness to the scale and grandeur of world leaders. It's true, MrCans tittle was certainly confusing. Something more like, "Kennedy.....Lincoln.....Phogg?" might have been better. But in this case, all the information was in the photograph. Forget the title. What I found very funny, is some of the voters said "I'm not into sports so I didn't know who he was." Don't you get it? You didn't need to know.

But hey, that's the problem. Many of the voters don't get it.
11/28/2003 02:48:58 PM · #10
You people love to write long stories !
Just be short and articulate,who is going to read all that stuff!
Artist does not make plans to make an ART ! That comes without intention,by accident,and not on weekly basis!
We have theme based challenges every week and everyone is participating,artists and amateurs,pro's and kids,if someone can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

11/28/2003 03:17:12 PM · #11
I agree with Pitsaman, plus, who is going to determine in wich category does my photo will contest, art or stock? my self? It´s not objective, the councils? I don't think they have so much time?

Hey, but that's just me...
11/28/2003 03:41:14 PM · #12
I've taken some time (on at least three occasions now) to look through the submissions to the 'Surprise' challenge. To be quite honest, I'm completely unmoved by any of them. There are many technically capable shots in there, but quite frankly, I'm left questioning the point of the whole challenge. I certainly didn't learn anything from any of the techniques used there, and it's doubtful that a greater number of the challenge entrants improved their skill one iota through their participation.

As I've said before in other threads, I strongly believe that most of us will only improve our photography skills by focusing on a particular area of interest (pardon the pun). I'm not trying to be biased by any means - if you're good at setting up diffused flash in your kitchen then by all means work toward excellence in still life. But jumping around from one challenge to the next, whilst encouraging experimentation, surely doesn't make you a better photographer. For me, challenges tend to show me what I'm not good at, or interested in for that matter, and I'm happy to accept that.

Discussions about the rights and wrongs of the mission of this site are, in my view, off the mark. On other sites, I've witnessed many members (and I hope myself too) improve their skills over time - when left to their own choice of subject. Looking through member portfolios here I don't always see that, given that many members are driven by the vagaries of the 'challenge'.

Did we all forget the objective of trying to become better photographers?

Ron.
11/28/2003 05:12:07 PM · #13
To me part of becoming a better photographer is learning to look at familiar things in new ways, not just controlling the interaction of photons with light-sensitive electronics. As I recall, it is "coventional wisdom" that we learn from our mistakes, yet we consistently reward the already-accomplished while giving short-shrift to those who need advice or are significantly unconventional in their approach.

If this were truly a "learning" site primarily, then no entry should be (or expected to be) a finished work, for then the artist is asking only for compliments, not advice. At an educational site we'd be submitting preliminary versions, and asking for suggestions for strengthening it or offering an alternative approach/subject altogether. The contest nature of the challenges -- and how people choose to interpret/use the challenges -- forces us into a result somewhat at odds with the original site mission.

Right now this is a contest site, with somewhat more emphasis on competetiveness and technique than on cooperative education and a general broadening of our ideas and perspectives. I can work within that structure, but it's certainly not the most helpful for me personally.
11/28/2003 05:50:16 PM · #14
wwjdwithca, I think you have missed the point about how DPC voting works. Instead of focusing on how many votes of 10 and 9 you received, or comparing that end of the spectrum with the 2's, 3's and 4's; look at the final score. It is correct. You may not agree with the consensus of the voters but they have the final word here at DPC.

To ronners, who is "left questioning the point of the whole challenge", I think the last half dozen or so challenge topics are, at least partly, in reaction to the complaints about the high number of entries people had to vote on in the ones before. They have generated a smaller pool for voters to peruse.

Message edited by author 2003-11-28 17:51:58.
11/28/2003 06:54:44 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:

... The contest nature of the challenges -- and how people choose to interpret/use the challenges -- forces us into a result somewhat at odds with the original site mission.


I find it easy to accomodate the emphasis on topical challenges, really. Setting a theme or a topic is an effective way to induce creativity in those who are intimidated by the sheer array of available subjects. Suggesting a topic helps some to get somewhere quicker or - at all. I have used this technique successfully in creative writing workshops I conducted. Like here, there were always some who would not fit this shoe. I chose to apply different conditions and different means to stimulate the varying temperaments and facilities. This, too, has served both them and me very well.

When I evaluated their work, I tried to focus on the very aim of the work, which was, of course, to accomplish something and not to 'judge', never mind pre-judge a work. Now, I think even 'judging' has a place, but I don't think it is here. A good critic, worth his salt, would, IMO, elect an explorative approach over a 'divine' or 'empirical' one.

When I compare my experience with the process here, I have to say to myself that challenges by topic are useful primarily to the photographer or some of them for the reasons stated above.

The issue here, IMO, has accelerated due to the fact that all manner of voters are not only able to vote on merits of photography but also on matters of cultural and other contexts (and, occasionally, highly demanding ones). Obviously some, if not the majority of voters are overextended in their abilities.

While we have learnt to deal with this quite amically with respects to technical and artistic aspects of entries, we have not been able to 'culture' a similar means to accomodate topicality. Frankly, given the apparent lack of will on a sizeable section of participants, I doubt this is possible.

If it was my boat, I'd simply remove the right to 'vote' on topicality by explicitly stating it (within the rules in lieu of the current phrase) and without, physically, removing the possibility to still do so as a step toward a fresh take on the matter.

The intent, IMO, would be spelled out, entrants effected negatively by the previous 'rule' would be appeased, voters intent on 'lynching' would have to do so elsewhere and the original aim and direction of the site would be preserved, while still providing some room for disagreement and debate.

Message edited by author 2003-11-28 19:02:36.
11/28/2003 07:07:28 PM · #16
Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

... The contest nature of the challenges -- and how people choose to interpret/use the challenges -- forces us into a result somewhat at odds with the original site mission.


I find it relatively easy to accomodate the emphasis on topical challenges, really. Setting a theme or a topic is an effective way to induce creativity in those who are intimidated by the sheer array of available subjects...

I agree with this part completely. It's the emphasis put on winning, and on having a finished work rather than just a good/clever starting point which I find at odds with the educational mission.

You don't expect quite the same quality of writing/editing in a breaking news story as you would in an analytical retrospective. I'd like there to be somewhat more weight given to concept compared to execution than is the current standard.

That said, I have no argument with the top scores going to the photos which have both qualities, as is currently the most common case. The best "reward" to me is not a ribbon, but a comment recognizing what I was trying to do (and that it somehow fell within the topic guidelines), possibly along with a suggestion for improvement or alternate approach.
11/28/2003 08:02:58 PM · #17
I just caught up on all this stock photography stuff. That is, it was just explained to me. I really dont get what all the dissing is about. People complain when the shot is too complicated and hard to understand and then people complain that the shots are too simple and not artistic. Why can;t it all be about everything? A litle bit of art, some technically right and less creative, and so on.
In the other thread there was a lot of talk about Kiwiness winning two back to back. No one knows who they are voting for nor who everyone else is voting for. I think he won 'cause he's a good photographer & the majority of voters felt his shot was good. Why are we, in a sense, dissing him and others and this site just bc voters didnt get or like our own photos?
No two people are alike. As such, not everyone has like or dislike that which you like & dislike. Some folks are gonna get what you're saying others will not. What's the big deal? So you didnt win a freakin' ribbon. So what? I didnt either. When you enter a challenge, you run the risk of people not liking what you are trying to represent. I mean, I personally didnt get the icy sign & how it related to propaganda & I think I commented on that. But my word is not the be all & end all. Feel free to disregard what I have said as well as those others who did not get the shot. So what? Some folks got my shot & others didnt. So what? I'm glad I entered, I'm glad I scored higher than any other shot & I damn glad I broke 100! WHy cant we enjoy the little things instead of complaining about these (IMO) insignificant things like winning a ribbon EVERY time we wnter a challenge. Not even Kiwi can do that! :)
11/29/2003 01:58:28 PM · #18
Originally posted by Rooster:

So you didnt win a freakin' ribbon. So what? I didnt either.


For my part, I believe that changing your photographic and artistic goals every week surely can't help develop your talent. Awards and ribbons are utterly inconsequential. One key problem with the current setup is that the majority of members who would like constructive feedback aren't getting it. A typical member will view a typical entry for five seconds.

The Critique Club, in my view, should become the main focus of the site. There's so much talent around here - we should be using it for more than transitory personal gain.

I would turn this site on it's head. Divide it into a number of 'areas of interest', similarly divide the Critique Club, and then encourage members to participate in one or more of these areas. You can still do whatever you like, but you have a much greater chance of becoming a better photographer. You may not win as many ribbons, but as you rightly say - 'So what?'.

Ron.
11/30/2003 02:17:14 PM · #19
So lemme get this straight...the photos on here that are earning the dreadful label of 'stock photography' are being bashed for their technical AND conceptual superiority...because art is not always perfect? Is your problem with the artist or the audience?

Well, I tried some "air jordan's" on one time, the 'stock photo' of footwear, and I still couldn't hit a jumpshot to save my life and anyone filling the bleechers for me, shoes or not, would need to have their head checked.

See one difference is that these so-called 'stock photos' don't HAVE to be in perfect-focus or brilliant colors...but they CAN be when they need to be...because THAT photographer, like Air-Jordan, has achieved enough competance and control through patience,hardwork, and talent to achieve desired results. Sometimes a challenge theme calls for more 'artistic' technicals, as you call it, (blurring/soft-focus, dark colors, graininess). Were they their because the artist was able to control those things to achieve a desired result and really capture the mood of a theme.....or simply because the artist, their equiptment or their ability to use it was not able to produce anything else? Not being as competant or able to control your medium does not make you more of an artist, but less. Do you get what you get, or can you get what you want?

So take a look at KIWI, for example. He has created some very 'perfect' studio looking shots...and some with softer 'artistic' focus...some in black and white, some in bright colors, etc...depending on the theme and image. And if you look through his portfolio you'll see that he has just gotten better and better at nailing both the technicals AND concepts that capture a theme and the interest of people. And I imagine he has done this through:

1) hard work (he is definitely one of the strongest contributers on this site for ceratin)
2) patience (those 'stock photo' ideas and executions don't just happen with a click)
3) investment (he obviously invests time, he invested in a more capable camera, and even invests in materials to make more pefect water droplets if need be...or choosing to buy the 'good' worms)

Most of us do not go this far and most of us are not producing as good of material as Gary is. Period. But give Gary your crappy camera, and he'll still probably kick your ass. Again, Micahel Jordan was not about "the shoes".

Although I haven't submitted any photos for challnge yet, I can tell you this in advance: Kiwi is better than me...as are several of the people winning multiple ribbons on here and many who aren't as well. And I will likely often vote Gary's shots higher than my own, because he can consistenlty acheive better results than I can. If it took a studio, it took a studio...if it didn't, it didn't.

So we can try to hide from the inevitable reality that someone may be better than us by complaining or running away...or we can contribute, communicate, and learn.

I can somewhat agree with the last poster's comment, however, that it may be a slight 'flaw' in that many of the photos needing the most help often are getting the least critique. I would hope, however, that if they are serious about getting better, they are looking at the other submissions, reading those critiques and learning how to 'see' them...as well as learning how to give them.

Message edited by author 2003-11-30 15:02:35.
11/30/2003 02:55:41 PM · #20
Let's not forget that another major way we can learn on this site is to look at and study the other photos with common themes and reading their critiques.

T
11/30/2003 03:49:11 PM · #21
A possible "solution" (although I could see how it might only end up causing more problems than it fixes) would to have an extra, more general weekly challenge (which wouldn't need to be critique club reviewed, if that causes too much time required there). It could be either open to everything, every week.. or you could have something general like "Landscape" one week, "Still Life" the next. This would leave more 'creative flexibility' I suppose..

But now that I've written all that out, I kind of doubt that this would please any more people than the current system in place.. people will still complain when a so called "certain type of shot" wins and their favorite doesn't.

I think the main problem is that people are coming to a site that is rated BY THE MEMBERS and then complaining and telling everybody that their taste is wrong and they need to learn to appreciate a different kind of photography. It could possibly be a more valid argument if it was rated by a small group of 5 people, because you could claim that they need a more well-rounded judging crew. But when 200 people rate your photo, I don't see how that score can be much different. I think there's something somewhere that says a study of 200 or so is about all they need to get a semi-accurate base of opinion.. ie: Polls that news stations take only need to consist of about 200 random people to be more or less accurate.

To me, this is the equivalent of someone telling me what my favorite [anything] should be. My favorite movie is The Matrix: Reloaded.. yours isn't? Big deal, what's that have to do with me? If someone doesn't like it, should I tell them how they're wrong and they need to like my movie more because "they just don't get it"? No. It all comes down to this: this is a site of public opinion - if you want to be judged by something other than public opinion, there are other sites out there for you. I'm not telling, asking or suggesting that anybody leaves. I love seeing a variety of pictures/styles on DPC. But, if you're here to ribbon/rank, you can't expect to ask the public to change their opinion just so that you can rank higher. Many of the top ribboners know this, and separate their DPC / non-DPC styles accordingly.
11/30/2003 03:58:47 PM · #22
In addition, may I note that my Sacred Places entry placed second from last. Okay, so maybe it wasn't the greatest shot or interpretation of the challenge. It is a very loose interpretation, and the explanation (for any of you who didn't get it during the challenge, as I know at least a few didn't by the comments I received) is now posted under the photo comments. Did I think it would place high? No. But, I was certainly surprised that it came in 108 out of 109. I'm definitely not complaining, nor trying to justify my placement. What it comes down to is that my photograph was not generally liked by its audience, and it received the average of about 200 voters rankings. Was I dissapointed? Slightly. Did I feel jilted or ripped off? By no means. In the end, I was happy with my submission whether it did well or not.

Message edited by author 2003-11-30 15:59:33.
11/30/2003 04:26:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by ChipsDitchman:


Although I haven't submitted any photos for challnge yet,


Let me ask you this... do you think that you would benefit from entering a challenge? That is, would your photography improve as a result?

'brianlh', was it worth your while entering the 'Sacred Places' challenge, in all honesty? Do you think, as I do of with some of my own challenge entries, that you were outside your 'sweet spot' and put in a below average picture as a result?

It's all very well to experiment with different themes, but as a learning process, experimentation can't go on forever. You should use the exercise to find out what you are good at and which subjects/themes you are interested in. From that point on, excellence is surely a better goal than diversity.

Message edited by author 2003-11-30 16:26:51.
11/30/2003 04:38:54 PM · #24
Originally posted by ronners:


'brianlh', was it worth your while entering the 'Sacred Places' challenge, in all honesty? Do you think, as I do of with some of my own challenge entries, that you were outside your 'sweet spot' and put in a below average picture as a result?

It's all very well to experiment with different themes, but as a learning process, experimentation can't go on forever. You should use the exercise to find out what you are good at and which subjects/themes you are interested in. From that point on, excellence is surely a better goal than diversity.


Well, I am still a beginner photographer and trying to feel out what I like. Although I do have preferences (Landscapes, Architecture, Still Life... which I guess covers a broad range), I'm still trying to discover my niche. As for the SP challenge, I just had an idea and thought that it would be a clever submission.. its ultimate "failure" is really of no consequence to me, as I still personally like the shot. I seek to become a better photographer, but as I get there, I'd like to become well-rounded in the process. As I don't see myself doing this for a living, I would like to be equally apt at doing portraits as I become at landscapes, nature and still life.
(I'm one of those "jack of all trades" people)
11/30/2003 05:52:19 PM · #25
It's very likely that dabbling in different areas allows you to pick up different skills, so in many respects you probably have the right idea. I think that it all comes down to making photos that you are happy with. I find that my results get worse when I try things other than landscapes of architecture, but at the same time I find that there's plenty of opportunity for trying out new things within those more limited areas of focus. A lot of what drives me is seeing great work by others, and do date (and probably forever) I'm only really moved by landscape work, so that's a goal I'm trying to achieve for myself.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 07:52:54 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: 07/28/2021 07:52:54 AM EDT.