Photo Challenge #4 11/21 - 12/5

***Art*** · 11-21-2007, 03:39 PM

This weeks challenge will be Shadows.

Find a subject(s) that displays some sort of 'creative shadows/shadowing'.

Rules:
-The photo must be taken during this time (Wednesday, Nov. 21st - Wednesday, Dec. 5th)

-Keep EXIF info with the image.

-If you want to critique the images, do so in the critique thread, but lets keep this thread strictly image submissions and questions regarding the rules.

-Have Fun!

Cadence · 11-22-2007, 02:52 AM

Could you be a little more specific?

**Rainer.** · 11-22-2007, 09:55 AM

I'm interpreting this as shadows on the ground, as opposed to shaded parts of a subject. Or an image where a shadow is the subject, or is the main focal point of the image.

Vespertine · 11-22-2007, 01:54 PM

Doesnt "some sort of 'creative shadows/shadowing" kind of indicate that its open to your own interpretation to an extent?

ApparentlyNothing · 11-22-2007, 09:55 PM

I interpret it similar to the challenge I came up with for #2, photographing light in an interesting way... except it's from a different perspective.

Ordinary Sarah · 11-22-2007, 10:07 PM

Dang, I have a great picture for this, but it was not taken recently. I will have to try again.

***Art*** · 11-25-2007, 04:54 AM

I really don't care what the picture involves, as long as there is prominent shadow involved. Does that clear it up?

And yes, I think your picture is great, Chels. Fits quite well. (And it's purdy.)

ApparentlyNothing · 11-28-2007, 03:53 PM

Here's my entry.

Cadence · 11-29-2007, 12:42 PM

In my personal opinion neither of these really work.

They're just photos that have shadows - there's nothing much unique about the shadows....which...by this standard, means just about any photo could be submitted since about 90% of photos have shadows..

I'd submit this, but it wasn't taken recently

PontiusPirate · 11-29-2007, 01:00 PM

So noted.
The only reason I posted it is because I "created" the shadow with my hand.
It was quite a stupid idea.
The picture has now been removed.

ApparentlyNothing · 11-29-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadence

In my personal opinion neither of these really work.

They're just photos that have shadows - there's nothing much unique about the shadows....which...by this standard, means just about any photo could be submitted since about 90% of photos have shadows..

I'd submit this, but it wasn't taken recently

How would you say yours is more qualified?

I don't think it's as undefined as you think. I'm going to use some examples from my favorites in Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/troutfactory/1811403299/

This image has shadows. However, I wouldn't consider it to fit the challenge at all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jolispaons/1475028422/

This image would be something I think very much fits in a more obvious way.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/claphammedia/440163166/

This photo (which is actually mine) would fit in a much more subtle way.

In the end, I think it comes down to the intent of the artist. It's the nature of such a gray area, subjective challenge. If you think the artist didn't convey that intent well, then I'd say don't vote for it. But I don't think we should automatically disqualify an image just because we think it's not creative enough or we think it's too subtle. The only reason we should disqualify is if it explicitly goes against the challenge rules.

As a personal defense of my entry, without shadows, it wouldn't nearly be as interesting as I think it is. If everyone (most especially Art since he created this challenge) say I should take it down, I will. But the whole purpose of the challenges isn't the contests, but to get people thinking about the intent behind their photos before they take them.

EDIT: I think a key standard we could possibly apply to the challenge is whether the image USES shadows. I think it's easier to tell whether an artist is intending to USE the shadows in an image as opposed to an image that just HAS shadows.

***Art*** · 11-29-2007, 02:09 PM

I have been quite happy with the images submitted so far. I left the subject intentionally vague on purpose, because of the variety that I had hoped it would bring in. So far, so good. I loved Chels' picture for this competition (and in general).

Cadence · 11-30-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

How would you say yours is more qualified?

Which of the 3 photos that you used as examples would you say mine most closely resembles?

The second one which you said fits more obviously.

My point is that what's being posted doesn't really have emphasis on the shadows....it's just picture that have shadows.

Quote:

In the end, I think it comes down to the intent of the artist. It's the nature of such a gray area, subjective challenge. If you think the artist didn't convey that intent well, then I'd say don't vote for it. But I don't think we should automatically disqualify an image just because we think it's not creative enough or we think it's too subtle. The only reason we should disqualify is if it explicitly goes against the challenge rules.

This is why I asked for the challenge to be more defined. It doesn't do a lot of good to just take a picture that has shadows in it (which almost all do) and say hey here's a creative shadow picture.

Quote:

As a personal defense of my entry, without shadows, it wouldn't nearly be as interesting as I think it is.

But how are these photos any different than the other ones posted in the other challenges? None of the scream "shadow creativity"

Quote:

If everyone (most especially Art since he created this challenge) say I should take it down, I will. But the whole purpose of the challenges isn't the contests, but to get people thinking about the intent behind their photos before they take them.

I'm not asking anyone to take it down, I'm really just trying to clarify the challenge. The shadows need to be prominent.

In yours...the plates are prominent....the shadows are just there....just like normal.

Hell...I could use my geico gecko and it'd meet the standard you guys are setting.

Quote:

EDIT: I think a key standard we could possibly apply to the challenge is whether the image USES shadows. I think it's easier to tell whether an artist is intending to USE the shadows in an image as opposed to an image that just HAS shadows.

Exactly....but it's got to be obvious.

ApparentlyNothing · 11-30-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadence

Which of the 3 photos that you used as examples would you say mine most closely resembles?

The second one which you said fits more obviously.

My point is that what's being posted doesn't really have emphasis on the shadows....it's just picture that have shadows.

This is why I asked for the challenge to be more defined. It doesn't do a lot of good to just take a picture that has shadows in it (which almost all do) and say hey here's a creative shadow picture.

But how are these photos any different than the other ones posted in the other challenges? None of the scream "shadow creativity"

I'm not asking anyone to take it down, I'm really just trying to clarify the challenge. The shadows need to be prominent.

In yours...the plates are prominent....the shadows are just there....just like normal.

Hell...I could use my geico gecko and it'd meet the standard you guys are setting.

Exactly....but it's got to be obvious.

I just don't think it needs to scream "these are shadows!" When I made my challenge (#2 if I remember correctly), I specifically made a rule to combat being obvious. My challenge was similar, to shoot light in an interesting way, but I had one rule: Don't show the source of the light. Personally, I just think a photo that can use light and shadow without having to scream "Look! This is light! And this is shadow!" is much more interesting to me, and requires a bit more creativity and skill to be able to differentiate itself from a photo that just happens to have light or shadows. (not that your photo isn't any good, because it's actually incredible)

Does my photo do a good job of that? Well, that's somewhat subjective. But I think my intent to do so is enough to warrant a place in the competition. The shadows to me aren't just there. They're dynamic. I didn't add any vignetting at all in photoshop or the burn tool. To me, the movement of the shadows is interesting, how they separate each color from each other, but also each color from itself. If you look at it a certain way for long enough, it's almost like the photo is moving. And without the way the shadows are, that wouldn't happen. If it were just straight lines of color, I would agree it wouldn't fit very well.

***Art*** · 11-30-2007, 12:56 AM

If someone does not bother to use the shadows well, that is their own problem, and the voting will decide that, right? So why are the rules, as I have specified them, a problem? I mean, your Gecko could be used, sure, but would it get any votes? I doubt it. Not with the rules in mind. Jon and Chelsea had pictures that also fit the guidelines, and yeah, obviously they would get more votes than the gecko, because they would be totally different pictures without those shadows.

If the rules are that much more clearly defined, I am not going to be able to enter a picture on a subject I chose, because I am just not that good of a photographer. I already see that I have little chance of even putting up a picture that will get votes at it is.