Why should we have a challenge description? why not leave it to the photographer to interpret the challenge only by it's name... then there would be no "this does not meet the challenge thing" if you are a photographer and it is in the art part why not leave it to everyone think by itself?
Just a thought. sorry for the spelling errors.
Why should we have a challenge description? why not leave it to the photographer to interpret the challenge only by it's name... then there would be no "this does not meet the challenge thing" if you are a photographer and it is in the art part why not leave it to everyone think by itself?
because then we'd have nothing to argue over ;-) see this thread for a similar discussion about interpretation ;-)
If we're all attempting to shoot a similar subject, then it's easier to compare apples to apples . . . or duckies to duckies as the case may sometimes be.
Look at xion's blue ribbon winner for In the Beginning. What a wonderful and imaginative interpretation of the challenge! There was so little guidance for that one, yet a lot of people still followed similar themes. On the other hand, a challenge as specific as Rubber Ducky still managed to generate some creative and varied concepts that stand out from another field of similar themes. Clearly, it's not so much the challenge description that matters, but the creativity of the photographers who interpret them.
It's just frustrating when people say you're not meeting the challenge, when in fact you are. I think it might be nice to have some kind of mechanism that makes you look at each picture for at least a few seconds, so people can try to understand where you as the photographer are coming from, if it does not jump out them.
In general, I think the challenge descriptions are good the way they are, they make things restrictive to a point of a common theme but leave it open to wide and creative interpretations which I believe is the point.
