<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Digital Photography Show #85: Welcome Wacom and Photography&#8217;s Future with FotoNation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/</link>
	<description>Digital Photography tips &#038; tricks</description>
	<pubDate>Mon,  8 Sep 2008 04:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/#comment-59273</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/#comment-59273</guid>
		<description>A good response to a well-articulated thought on the theme from the last contest Michael - the past versus present tense does make a difference.  WHile I had initially felt the same as Tim, but I had not thought of the "act of giving as a present versus past tense mindset.  Having said that, the one shot of giving a headache still would fit the contest parameter in that regard (as described in the podcast.)

While I also admit that I did not participate in the contest, I will qualify that by saying that the unique parameters did limit the opportunity to catch something like that naturally, and not posed.  For that reason, I did not participate, because to me posing the act of giving would make it fake, and even though perhaps only I would know - I would still know.

Just 2 more cents, so now we're at 4.  Anyone wanna take us past the nickel mark? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good response to a well-articulated thought on the theme from the last contest Michael - the past versus present tense does make a difference.  WHile I had initially felt the same as Tim, but I had not thought of the &#8220;act of giving as a present versus past tense mindset.  Having said that, the one shot of giving a headache still would fit the contest parameter in that regard (as described in the podcast.)</p>
<p>While I also admit that I did not participate in the contest, I will qualify that by saying that the unique parameters did limit the opportunity to catch something like that naturally, and not posed.  For that reason, I did not participate, because to me posing the act of giving would make it fake, and even though perhaps only I would know - I would still know.</p>
<p>Just 2 more cents, so now we&#8217;re at 4.  Anyone wanna take us past the nickel mark? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/#comment-59248</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/#comment-59248</guid>
		<description>Tim,

As far as I was concerned it was up to the photographer to decide what giving meant to them.  There was total freedom there, but it was paramount that the image communicate 'the act of giving' in some way.  Many images did not.  The first question I asked when I viewed the image was "What is the act of giving?"  The images of gravestones were a great sentiment, but there was no act of giving demonstrated.  Those images represented "having given." In my book, past tense makes all the difference.  The act is what I was looking for.  Also, I first viewed the images without the titles to see if the image actually communicated the message without any help.  

With regards to the technique.  This was secondary, but still needed to be present.  Someone mentioned that they applied a very subtle vignette.  I honestly could not see it in every image.  We were not requiring ultra bold or obvious vignettes, but we did want to be able to detect it.

Anyway, that was the approach I took.

--Michael</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim,</p>
<p>As far as I was concerned it was up to the photographer to decide what giving meant to them.  There was total freedom there, but it was paramount that the image communicate &#8216;the act of giving&#8217; in some way.  Many images did not.  The first question I asked when I viewed the image was &#8220;What is the act of giving?&#8221;  The images of gravestones were a great sentiment, but there was no act of giving demonstrated.  Those images represented &#8220;having given.&#8221; In my book, past tense makes all the difference.  The act is what I was looking for.  Also, I first viewed the images without the titles to see if the image actually communicated the message without any help.  </p>
<p>With regards to the technique.  This was secondary, but still needed to be present.  Someone mentioned that they applied a very subtle vignette.  I honestly could not see it in every image.  We were not requiring ultra bold or obvious vignettes, but we did want to be able to detect it.</p>
<p>Anyway, that was the approach I took.</p>
<p>&#8211;Michael</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim S</title>
		<link>http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/#comment-59233</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/02/29/the-digital-photography-show-85-welcome-wacom-and-photographys-future-with-fotonation/#comment-59233</guid>
		<description>I have to comment on the contest (in which, I must admit, I did not participate).  It was communicated on the show that several (many?) pictures were disqualified because they did not meet the intent of the theme of giving; it seemed to me that the limited examples you discussed were judged to not fulfill the intent because they fell outside the traditional definition of giving that we think of around the holidays (giving something of value, something that enriches or enhances; in a nutshell, giving something "good"). 

Here's my thought:  I have listened to every show (love them!), and I never heard the theme of giving expressed that specifically...  The vignette technique was pretty much obvious, but the theme of giving was referred to in fairly general terms.  In that light, if you give an assignment to a bunch of creative people, with fairly wide parameters on the theme, you've got to expect a wide range of interpretations.  If I'm getting an *assignment* from someone to illustrate the act of giving, I'm either going to get more details from the client so I know I can meet their expectations, or failing that, I'm going with a pretty traditional take on the theme to increase my chances of producing a usable shot.  On the other hand, if it's a creative contest, I'm going to go out of my way to interpret the theme in a way that's outside the norm of everyday thinking.  I *don't* want my image to look like the very first idea you come up with when you think of "giving."

And, listening closely to the show, I got the impression that Michael was a little hesitant about disqualifying some of the photos that took the road less traveled...

Just my $0.02.

Tim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to comment on the contest (in which, I must admit, I did not participate).  It was communicated on the show that several (many?) pictures were disqualified because they did not meet the intent of the theme of giving; it seemed to me that the limited examples you discussed were judged to not fulfill the intent because they fell outside the traditional definition of giving that we think of around the holidays (giving something of value, something that enriches or enhances; in a nutshell, giving something &#8220;good&#8221;). </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s my thought:  I have listened to every show (love them!), and I never heard the theme of giving expressed that specifically&#8230;  The vignette technique was pretty much obvious, but the theme of giving was referred to in fairly general terms.  In that light, if you give an assignment to a bunch of creative people, with fairly wide parameters on the theme, you&#8217;ve got to expect a wide range of interpretations.  If I&#8217;m getting an *assignment* from someone to illustrate the act of giving, I&#8217;m either going to get more details from the client so I know I can meet their expectations, or failing that, I&#8217;m going with a pretty traditional take on the theme to increase my chances of producing a usable shot.  On the other hand, if it&#8217;s a creative contest, I&#8217;m going to go out of my way to interpret the theme in a way that&#8217;s outside the norm of everyday thinking.  I *don&#8217;t* want my image to look like the very first idea you come up with when you think of &#8220;giving.&#8221;</p>
<p>And, listening closely to the show, I got the impression that Michael was a little hesitant about disqualifying some of the photos that took the road less traveled&#8230;</p>
<p>Just my $0.02.</p>
<p>Tim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
