| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2005 10:18:02 PM · #26 |
So we are voting on how well a shot meets the challenge more than how well the photograph is?
Since "meeting the challenge" is an objective decision, different for all, how about START with the quality of the photograph and work up or down by how well it meets YOUR interpretation of the challenge.
My interpretation of a 1 photograph is one where the photographer must have dropped the camera and it went off by mistake.
My interpretation of, for instance "rain challenge" could encompass all topics to do with rain as long as you could see there is or has been water falling from the sky not produced by manual process.
This would include a wet dog standing in a puddle even if you could not see raindrops. If it is a 10 photo, I would give it a 10 regardless of the presence of a drop of rain in the photo.
However, for instance, a "music challenge" picture of some jets flying over making noise is definitely not live music in any way. (good picture though)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:22:29 PM · #27 |
| I respectfully disagree. First I make sure that the photo meets the challenge. After all, what is the point of a challenge if not to give direction to the photographer? If the photo comes first then I could take any photo I want and put a clever title on it and hope that the judges make a connection with the challenge. That's hardly a contest. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:28:32 PM · #28 |
I agree with your point of disagree.
My point is that it MUST meet the challenge but the point value you indivdually assign to a picture up or down based soley on meeting the challenge should have a much lower weight value than the point value you assign for the pure quality of the picture.
Example 1:
Picture is a 10, knocks my socks off.
Does not meet the challenge in any way. Rate this as low as you feel comfortable
Example 2:
Picture is a 10, knocks my socks off.
Meets the challenge but is a stretch, still in the ball park but barely. Try to see from the photogs point of view by interpreting the title. Deduct 2 - 3 points for an 8-10 rating.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2005 01:59:32 PM · #29 |
I know this is totally off topic, but man... you have tons of nintendo games. Where do you find them all? gamestop stopped selling them and now I am stuck with tetris, zelda and mario. Help
|
|
|
|
08/22/2005 02:45:29 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by CalamitysMaster00:
I know this is totally off topic, but man... you have tons of nintendo games. Where do you find them all? gamestop stopped selling them and now I am stuck with tetris, zelda and mario. Help |
Haha, well, first of all I dug out my collection from when I was a kid..those were my first 50 games. Garage sales are a great place to start, for two reasons. One, usually they are willing to sell a bunch of games for really cheap, just to get rid of them. Two, sometimes they have a fairly valuable game, but don't realize so they still only sell it for a dollar. I would also check out any independent game stores you have around your area. You know, the ones that specialize in selling used games. Here in Rochester, NY, there are TONS of them, so I can always find games. They usually have fairly common games for only $1 each, or sometimes they have discoutns if you buy a lot. They also have some rare games that can cost anywhere from $10 to $80. I would discourage using ebay to find games, unless you are looking for one specific title that you can't find anywhere else. The price of the game plus shipping can add up. Anyways, this is a photography forum, so I guess this is off-topic. Then again, this could just be considered a tip on how to recreate my photo.. |
|
|
|
08/22/2005 02:46:31 PM · #31 |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 02:38:59 AM · #32 |
I agree, if a photo is COMPLETELY off topic it deserves a one. The whole point of the challenges is to take a photo, in the time given, that fits the subject. A great photo that is only just on topic should be penalised, how much depends on the circumstances.
To look at it the other way round, the winner should be a great photo that fully satisfies the challenge criteria. Anything else is unfair. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 03:01:50 AM · #33 |
1988 for NES? C'mon! When was the NES released? Before 88, because SNES and Genesis were released in 88/89...
Your title's wrong. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 06:10:59 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by LedZeppelin588:
1988 for NES? C'mon! When was the NES released? Before 88, because SNES and Genesis were released in 88/89...
Your title's wrong. |
I beg to differ. First of all, my title would have been technically inaccurate if it were any earlier than 1988; Super Mario Bros. 2 was released that year. Also, things were different those days than they are today. NES was still king for years, even after the technically superior Sega Genesis was released. Proof? Remember all the pandemonium for Super Mario Bros. 3? The game was released in 1990. The real decline began in 1991 when Super NES was released in the US. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 07:29:48 AM · #35 |
I vote first technically then meets challenge.I usually bump "don't meet challenges" down to around a 4 depending on photo quaility. If it is an awesome shot and I can see some way the photographer thought it met the challenge I don't bump it down. As far as the games photo I gave it a 5, 5 is my base score, I give to OK photos that meet challenge. I usually vote from 5 and up, those I think really need work or don't meet the challenge go 5 and down. Then I always comment as to why. The games photo was too busy for me, and didn't really stand out, plus I didn't care for the angle. It just didn't "DO IT" for me.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 05:10:20 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'm not sure, really, why you think this score is out of line. Whether you were "beaten" by images that didn't meet the challenge is really neither here nor there. You need to evaluate your image independently of any others, on its own merits. And on its own merits it's a pretty average picture. So it's no surprise that it garnered a pretty average score.
Technically, it's nothing special; the lighting is pedestrian, with a noticeable (and annoying) hot spot on the featured Mario Bros game. The composition, as you yourself pointed out, is nothing special. In particular, the "gap" at the top of the frame where one of the games is pulled out further than the rest is what I call an "eye trap"; within this otherwise pretty regular arrangment that black hole is drawing attention to itself, and once attention is diverted there there's nothing to reward it — there's no REASON for the thing to be there. The DOF is mildly frustrating; I want to be able to READ more of those titles, and I can't.
As you pointed out, the image meets the challenge head-on, and it has good nostalgia value for a lot of viewers for sure. But meeting the challenge is no guarantee of a better-than-average score. Take the following (my entry in "accidental letters") for example:
This image meets the challenge square on. The lighting is interesting. The composition is serviceable. And it scored 5.060... Just not an image that had a lot of visceral appeal to the voters, right? The same can be said of your shot. It's strongest point is that ti meets the challenge, and that just isn't enough to break out of the low 5's.
I'd be content with that score for that shot if I were you. But then, of course, I'm not you :-)
Robt. |
I kinda agree with you however I think this should have still been ranked a tad higher and here's why... I try to rate each photo based on this:
- 50% challenge relevancy (which breaks down to a scale of 1 to 5)
- 50% artistic/techical (scale of 1 to 5)
- Combine the two to form the 1 to 10 voting scale
Using that I would score his photo a 4 or a 5 for the challenge revelancy and maybe a 2.5 (average) for artistic/technical. It's not a bad photo from either an artistic stand point or technical one, IMO. As for an emotional response well, for those that did experience video games back then this photo might generated some fondness and good memories, which is a good thing for a time capsule shot to convey. Now, the winning entry didn't do anything for me in this regard not to mention it was so-so at best in meeting the challenge revelancy part but that didn't stop it from winning. Don't get me wrong the photo that won is a great photo but it doesn't scream time capsule to me and well shouldn't have won.
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 17:18:26. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 05:16:37 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by barndog:
I agree with your point of disagree.
My point is that it MUST meet the challenge but the point value you indivdually assign to a picture up or down based soley on meeting the challenge should have a much lower weight value than the point value you assign for the pure quality of the picture.
Example 1:
Picture is a 10, knocks my socks off.
Does not meet the challenge in any way. Rate this as low as you feel comfortable
Example 2:
Picture is a 10, knocks my socks off.
Meets the challenge but is a stretch, still in the ball park but barely. Try to see from the photogs point of view by interpreting the title. Deduct 2 - 3 points for an 8-10 rating. |
Example 1 would get the lowest score possible (i.e. 1) and really should just get a disqualification. In otherwords I would treat it the same way I would treat getting a stack of pancakes when I ordered steak. I'd throw it out (well I'd ask the waiter to throw it out). :)
Example 2, would get a 6. A perfect 5 for the quality of the photo and a 1 for barely meeting the challenge requirements. Really there shouldn't be any other way to rank that. Now if we just want the best technical/artistic looking photo or most emotional one then we should just call the contest that and not something else.
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 17:22:10. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 06:01:57 PM EDT.
