Winning Photo Of The Week Means...?

[joshroot]

<p>Jin had to reset the server. There shouldn't be error messages now.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Geez, Mary. You're the icon queen.</p>

[gordonjb]

Good point Lex.

If you take for example this weeks POW , it has thus far been described as:

 

" more than beautiful "

 

" quite pleasant and relaxing to look at. "

 

" over-cooked "

 

" gothic and dark is, imho, very sickening. "

 

A mixed bag for sure and today is only Tuesday.

 

The fact that extra attention is being turned upon the POW photo should be an educational experience for the recipient. Being critiqued and being honored are quite different matters.

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Geez, Mary. You're the icon queen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what her crown is for. Like I said before, mine is because I'm a royal pain.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

None of my photos have ever been chosen for Photo of the Week. I take great comfort in that. They are obviously so good that nothing can be said about them beyond "Great shot!"

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I definitely have icon envy.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>Josh, given what you mentioned about the image chosen for being worth of discussion - what kind of discussion was intended? I was wondering because invariably the images chosen are usually very polished and are in fact worthy of being the best photo of the week, so would lesser images be chosen that has some potential but maybe thrown in there to discuss how it could have been a better shot?</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>Can I be an elf? ... elves are cute, and get to wear green ... and, their shoes have curly toes... I'd like a pair of those... <br>

I have dimples, and I'm cute... Surely that's enough to win me an elvish vote. :D</p>

 

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Josh, given what you mentioned about the image chosen for being worth of discussion - what kind of discussion was intended? I was wondering because invariably the images chosen are usually very polished and are in fact worthy of being the best photo of the week, so would lesser images be chosen that has some potential but maybe thrown in there to discuss how it could have been a better shot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is hard to say and the kind of thing that I would think would be more dictated by the kind of photographers who were on the "board of elves" than by any rule I would make.</p>

<p>For me personally, I would have a hard time picking an image that I didn't like. And images that are cruddy aren't going to be images that I like. Now, as you say, what about an image with "potential"? I think that would be a matter of degrees for each person doing the picking. After all, on some level you could say that every image has at least SOME potential. So what level of potential would be required in order for an image to make it as a POW pick? Like I say I think that is the kind of thing that is decided individually and then decided once again by whatever group is currently doing the choosing. Put a different group of people in there and you are going to get a different result.</p>

<p>But at the end of the day, I think the discussion that is currently created by the POW choices is pretty good. Meaning that the general level of images chosen is pretty good as well. I might like to see some fresh blood in the group of elves from time to time just to make sure things don't get too stale and let more people have the chance to participate. But I don't know that I would do anything other than that to encourage a broader range in the choices. Forced "you have to have some of everything" rules can backfire badly.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"I would have a hard time picking an image that I didn't like."</p>

<p>I wouldn't. I'll volunteer some time if you feel it would be appropriate. I don't think you'd have trouble finding people who appreciate and have interest in stuff they don't like, though I could be proven wrong on that.</p>

<p>"images that are cruddy"</p>

<p>Dale mentions POWs being polished and seems to suggest that the alternative to polished would be something that only has potential and/or would be a lesser photo. You follow that up with the word "cruddy." If I'm reading correctly, herein lies the problem, at least as I see it. Polished photos (I used the term "neat" above) aren't the only great photos. There are lots of much more "raw" looking photos that I find more compelling than most of what's included in the POW week after week. Yet I enjoy discussing and critiquing even the more traditional POWs. The unpolished photos aren't technically flawed. It may well mean the photographer is fluent enough with technique to express himself in a more confrontational and "disorderly" manner than is usually seen in the POW forum. </p>

[freewolf]

<blockquote>

<p>Polished photos (I used the term "neat" above) aren't the only great photos. There are lots of much more "raw" looking photos that I find more compelling than most of what's included in the POW week after week.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Fred that the potential for meaningful and educational discussion is significantly underexercised in the POW forum, and that this is at least in part due to a general bias toward neat, tidy images that primarily adhere to what we are all taught to see as "good rules of composition", etc. Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong with such images -- but I think Fred's point is that there is nothing whatsoever inherently wrong with images that don't exactly fit this bias, and potentially much to be discussed about them.</p>

<p>In 1913, Igor Stravinsky and Vaslav Nijinsky premiered <em>Le sacre du printemps </em>in Paris, and riots ensued, largely because they had broken, bent, and stretched the accepted rules of musical composition and ballet. Would anybody here, including the Elves, argue that the piece isn't worthy of very rewarding discussion? </p>

<p>...Or perhaps forum mods and/or "the Elves" would rather not have to police riots caused by stepping outside their photographic comfort zone... ;^)</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think you'd have trouble finding people who appreciate and have interest in stuff they don't like, though I could be proven wrong on that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are reading way too much into my statement and arguing semantics in word choices. Perhaps I should have said "appreciate" or "find interesting", "see value in". I think it's pretty obvious that I wasn't saying "I would only pick images that fit my personal criteria of a perfect image".</p>

<p>Besides, that was just my personal opinion. I don't pick the POW. As I very clearly stated, having "images with potential" chosen is much more defined by the individual person doing the picking and the dynamic of those in that group. Everyone has a different standard of "worthy of discussion".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't understand your beef with what I said Josh. Simply stated, you stated you'd have a hard time picking images you didn't like. I suggested there are people who wouldn't have a hard time picking images they didn't like.</p>

<p>I also think it's obvious that you weren't saying "I would only pick images that fit my personal criteria of a perfect image," which is why I didn't say that.</p>

<p>You are right, you were speaking only for yourself and not for the elves. I moved to quickly from you to the elves and am sorry. I am projecting from the kinds of images I've seen picked that the elves are not, at least as a group and judged by what they jointly choose, broad in their photographic horizons and may be picking only images they like.</p>

<p>I'm trying hard to advocate for some changes and be constructive in doing so. I'm sorry for whatever I've said that is coming across otherwise.</p>

[ray .]

<p>I thought it was a load until I won it. ;)</p>