Take a picture that has feet in it. Be creative and original!
I find it odd that you separated Feet and Legs as "(feet don't appear to be primary subject)" when nothing in the description even hinted that they should be.
I'm also interested by what critera (not complaining, just asking you to explain/clarify) you determine "Foot Portraits". Does that require the subject's face to be included? I don't remember 39 of those.
Would you mind giving feedback (not on your separation of Feet and Legs) on how you determined Foot Portraits vs Feet in a Non-portrait Environment and Images Displaying Extraordinary Creativity?
as i said, it is 'unscientific'...take that to mean 'somewhat subjective'
foot portraits: images of feet shot in a manner one would normally shoot a portrait (or a still life). very controlled lighting.
feet non-portrait: images of feet not in a studio/controlled environment.
extraordinary creativity: images that, to me, have a wow-factor; images that have something that makes me want to try to duplicate it, to emulate it, to learn from it. images that i have not necessarily seen before.
as far as legs go, i like 'em. i just noticed that when looking at batches of images, i could see that some focused more on the feet and some focused on legs and feet. this has absolutely nothing to do with how i'll vote on them.
yeah...at this very moment, i have too much time on my hands
on the other hand, ask the risk of echoing common sense, i can see that extraordinary things can happen when you:
1) push yourself outside the norm
2) practice, practice, practice so that you are ready when a real opportunity presents itself
3) take advantage of a piece of equipment that allows you to take 100s of images at different settings so that you don't have to settle for something that is just ok
4) are willing to really look at what others do and learn from it
5) are able to apply what you learn
Common sense is always a good thing... and it's not always as 'common' as we may like it to be. When it comes to photography, we can look at photographs and easily pick out what makes them 'bad', for lack of a better word. Understanding what makes a photograph great is a bit more difficult.
My conclusion from your trend was that you had discovered some similarly boring photographs in the challenge. You categorized those into groups defining 'why' they were mundane in your eyes. However, the trend should continue. You listed 15 images that displayed extraordinary creativity. Further analysis of 'why' those images appeal to you would be a great lesson.
Understanding why photos are bad won't necessarily make you better. Understanding why they are good will certainly improve your skills behind the camera.
Here's another observtion for you. I've voted all the feet entries including my second draft and third final voting rounds.
In my top 15 scorers I notice that:
11 are black and white
3 are colour
1 is mostly black and white (selective desat)
I don't know whether that reflects my love for good black and white images (when I first got into photography as a teenager and set up a darkroom at school with a couple of friends we restricted ourselves to black and white and I really grew to appreciate the sheer impact of a GOOD black and white).
Or whether it reflects something about this subject happening to suit black and white treatment unusually well.
Or whether it's just coincidence.
It's just something that struck me very strongly when I had finished voting and sat and looked back at the top images.
My conclusion from your trend was that you had discovered some similarly boring photographs in the challenge.
i wouldn't necessarily say 'boring' just because they can be more readily categorized. after all, there is nothing wrong with having the skills to knock out dynamite portraits, even if they are of feet.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
15 images that displayed extraordinary creativity. Further analysis of 'why' those images appeal to you would be a great lesson.
the hard part is not just taking the time to learn, but also being able to share what you learn without being condescending or too judgemental. it's a struggle for me to be tactful ;)
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Understanding why photos are bad won't necessarily make you better. Understanding why they are good will certainly improve your skills behind the camera.
this is dead on! and this is what makes dpc such a resource.
one side project that would be fun, and probably useful, would be to take a collection of 50 or so of the best images, from different contributors, and pull together 4 or 5 honest to God critiques as to what makes them great. granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when you are critiquing ribbon winners, you have started moving from subjective to objective. just an idea.
[...]granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when you are critiquing ribbon winners, you have started moving from subjective to objective.
I'm not sure you have (started moving from subjective to objective). I think it's just a case of your subjective opinion coinciding with my subjective opinion coinciding with lots of other subjective opinions.
But I'm just being difficult/ slightly pedantic... I DO get what you're saying totally and think it would be great. Infact... I'm going to start a thread.
Here's another observtion for you. I've voted all the feet entries including my second draft and third final voting rounds.
In my top 15 scorers I notice that:
11 are black and white
3 are colour
1 is mostly black and white (selective desat)
I don't know whether that reflects my love for good black and white images (when I first got into photography as a teenager and set up a darkroom at school with a couple of friends we restricted ourselves to black and white and I really grew to appreciate the sheer impact of a GOOD black and white).
Or whether it reflects something about this subject happening to suit black and white treatment unusually well.
Or whether it's just coincidence.
It's just something that struck me very strongly when I had finished voting and sat and looked back at the top images.
i noticed that, too. i think its the subject, but it would be hard to say without doing the comparisons.
[...]granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when you are critiquing ribbon winners, you have started moving from subjective to objective.
I'm not sure you have (started moving from subjective to objective). I think it's just a case of your subjective opinion coinciding with my subjective opinion coinciding with lots of other subjective opinions.
but, all the same, the intersection of a majority of subjectives would indicate that there is something worth noting. and that is why i would want at least 4-5 critiques, so that you wouldn't just get one person's pov.
I don't know whether that reflects my love for good black and white images ... Or whether it reflects something about this subject happening to suit black and white treatment unusually well.
Not surprising. Some topics lend themselves to B&W (this being one of them). There were an unusual number of B&W entries in this challenge and, since novices might not think of taking that extra step, they'll tend to be from more experienced photographers. If you happen to like B&W photos, then that will further skew the results.
[...]granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when you are critiquing ribbon winners, you have started moving from subjective to objective.
I'm not sure you have (started moving from subjective to objective). I think it's just a case of your subjective opinion coinciding with my subjective opinion coinciding with lots of other subjective opinions.
but, all the same, the intersection of a majority of subjectives would indicate that there is something worth noting.
You're right, it does indicate that. I just wanted to point out that an image that rocks only one person's boat but rocks it very strongly is still a successful image and still worthy of note.
But yes, I totally take your point that ribbon winners are images that appeal more broadly and to do that requires some pretty good quality work.
I think it's fair to say that ribbon winners are worthy of note and study.
I don't think one could say (not that anyone was trying to) that non-ribbon winners are not worthy of note.
