Author | Thread |
|
04/06/2005 05:18:10 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by neophyte: By Your own comments, You knew when you entered. |
A "low score" to me would have been a 5.5. A score under 5 wasn't even on the radar screen. |
Oh c'mon. 5.5 is average to decent to a majority of DPC users. Calling 5.5 a low score is a bit of an knock on those who average less than 6. :P
Also, given your average vote given of 5.33, are you saying that the average image you come across deserves a less than "low score"?
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 17:20:18. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:22:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by bledford: 5.5 is average to decent to a majority of DPC users. Calling 5.5 a low score is a bit of an knock on those who average less than 6. :P |
It's not meant to be. We all have our own standards. At this time last year, I considered anything over 5 good. By October, I had set 6 as my benchmark. Now I try to reach my average as a measure of good, and a sign of general improvement. Since my average is a little over 6, I think it's fair to call 5.5 a low score.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 17:32:32. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:27:36 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler: Originally posted by scalvert:
My question is this: do you think the image was just so bad that most people DID "get it" and voted low anyway, or would a title like, "Before There Was Starbucks" have helped point people's eyeballs at what I thought was so obvious? |
I 'got' it but i just didn't care much for it overall. Humor is just as, if not more, subjective than art itself. Combining the two creates a challenge for the artist and the viewer. |
he makes a hell of a point here.
If people vote down an image for thinking it doesn't meet the challenge, and they are wrong about that often, is it any wonder that they vote down your score when you consider the extra problem of needing a good sense of humor?
I like the image by the way. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:36:42 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by bledford: 5.5 is average to decent to a majority of DPC users. Calling 5.5 a low score is a bit of an knock on those who average less than 6. :P |
It's not meant to be. We all have our own standards. At this time last year, I considered anything over 5 good. By October, I had set 6 as my benchmark. Now I try to reach my average as a measure of good, and a sign of general improvement. |
Those are good goals, however, I guess at this rate you are not used to submitting a photograph that just isn't superb.
It's not a terrible picture (and I'm not referring to the awesome creativity you put into it, just the picture itself, as a photograph). The lighting seems... I dunno, just not as good as your others.
I mean you've landed 9 ribbons - this photo just isn't all the wonderful. I don't like the composition, for instance, and that has nothing to do with the challenge rules or anything. I like the idea, i just don't think it was executed that wonderfully.
And from my experience in being deluded concerning my view of my own photography, sometimes it takes someone else to view a photograph for the reality of it's flaws to manifest.
Edit: Please take these comments as a compliment; I think you are a stellar photographer (way better than me) and would expect a better photo from you.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 17:38:26. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:47:06 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by blindjustice: If people vote down an image for thinking it doesn't meet the challenge, ...is it any wonder that they vote down your score when you consider the extra problem of needing a good sense of humor? |
Well, no, but I don't think humor was the real problem. If everyone saw this as "a caveman drinking [dino]saurbucks coffee," then I would still expect a normal range of high and low votes. I just think many people DIDN'T see it. That represents a failure to communicate on my part, but could also be a symptom of Mandy's scrambled-text effect noted earlier and/or failure of the voters to really look at the image. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:54:06 PM · #31 |
hey scalvy, it's a funny concept but you chose a poor composition to say everything you meant. The setup and execution of the shot really don't tell the story. Even if I had looked long enough to read the cup I probably wouldn't have noticed it has a caveman/woman in the shot, too. Just not exciting ... sorry man. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:59:20 PM · #32 |
A couple of thoughts on all this:
1) The sheer number of entries anymore says view time is getting shorter & shorter.
2) Voters looking for those "wow" shots will pass by something like this shot. The average vote of those with & without cameras is usually a point or two different, especially on a great shot. In this case, they were very close. (meaning = ??)
3) The site slowdown has been affecting access, increasing frustration for all involved, and when a voter is having difficulties going from shot to shot, you won't get the attention it needs to fully understand/appreciate it.
4) Humorous shots, especially in a challenge with a certain amount of Biblical sensitivity such as In the Beginning, is a flaunt to some.
Just a couple of left coast thoughts. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:59:43 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry: Even if I had looked long enough to read the cup I probably wouldn't have noticed it has a caveman/woman in the shot, too. |
So the unibrow, dirty skin and leopard pelt was just a normal person to you? Wow, that really moves Canada lower on my vacation list. ;-P |
|
|
04/06/2005 06:06:46 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BradP: The average vote of those with & without cameras is usually a point or two different, especially on a great shot. In this case, they were very close. (meaning = ??) |
Meaning several commenters who obviously didn't get it voted low and brought down the commenter average significantly. No mystery there. |
|
|
04/06/2005 06:23:59 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by BradP: The average vote of those with & without cameras is usually a point or two different, especially on a great shot. In this case, they were very close. (meaning = ??) |
Meaning several commenters who obviously didn't get it voted low and brought down the commenter average significantly. No mystery there. |
Um, I see a normal distribution of scores. The number of 4's you received almost doubles any other vote cast for your photo.
Denial is a powerful thing. Get over it. |
|
|
04/06/2005 06:27:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert: So the unibrow, dirty skin and leopard pelt was just a normal person to you? Wow, that really moves Canada lower on my vacation list. ;-P |
Now, that made me laugh out loud for the first time in weeks. Very funny.
|
|
|
04/06/2005 06:42:15 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert: So the unibrow, dirty skin and leopard pelt was just a normal person to you? Wow, that really moves Canada lower on my vacation list. ;-P |
You've never attended a session of a Provincial Parliament, eh? |
|
|
04/06/2005 07:04:04 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So the unibrow, dirty skin and leopard pelt was just a normal person to you? Wow, that really moves Canada lower on my vacation list. ;-P |
I object to that, AND take offense.
not everyone wears leopard skins. |
|
|
04/06/2005 07:04:41 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by sprite777: Denial is a powerful thing. Get over it. |
LOL. I see a normal distribution of scores too. Wouldn't there be a similar bell curve whether the voters understood it or not? The curve would just have a different midpoint. What I DON'T see is a normal number and tone of comments for a 4.5-scoring image. 23 very favorable comments is rather unusual for such a low score, so don't you think it's fair to wonder if everybody REALLY saw it? |
|
|
04/06/2005 07:18:30 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by sprite777: Denial is a powerful thing. Get over it. |
LOL. I see a normal distribution of scores too. Wouldn't there be a similar bell curve whether the voters understood it or not? The curve would just have a different midpoint. What I DON'T see is a normal number and tone of comments for a 4.5-scoring image. 23 very favorable comments is rather unusual for such a low score, so don't you think it's fair to wonder if everybody REALLY saw it? |
Nah, I never said you weren't creative here. I doubt a photographer as good as you would submit something that was pure crap.
I think it's a somewhat interesting photograph - and I think that when people comment, it's usually on the positive side. I know that when I really like a picture, or if I think it's particularly original (or when there are so many of the same exact thing that it's a refreshing sight) then I leave a comment.
But like i said before - I think that you think you deserve a higher score because it's yours, and that's more than a bias - I think your mind actually gets so used to the picture, that the details become obvious to you when they aren't to everyone else.
That being said - the details don't really make much difference, I don't think, because the composition, lighting, and overall execution seem boring, particularly compared to your ribbon winners.
It just looks like a step backwards.
And as for commenters - sometimes people feel you've done a great job - sometimes people don't. I have a comment on mine this time around that just says "very bad idea!" and another that says something like "very original! i like this one a lot!"
It just happens - you know that - you've been around here way longer than I have. |
|
|
04/06/2005 07:34:57 PM · #41 |
I understand what you're saying, and I know darn well the image wasn't appealing, but low scoring images tend to get few comments. Those at the bottom of the pile get more comments, but not many positive ones. This entry had over 20 comments that I'd consider very positive (and now 2 favorites). Whether it's mine is irrelevant- that's a very unusual statistic for a 4.5. If I only had 6 comments and they were more mundane, then I'd have no reason to ponder the outcome or the reason. |
|
|
04/06/2005 07:38:19 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert: I understand what you're saying, and I know darn well the image wasn't appealing, but low scoring images tend to get few comments. Those at the bottom of the pile get more comments, but not many positive ones. This entry had over 20 comments that I'd consider very positive (and now 2 favorites). Whether it's mine is irrelevant- that's a very unusual statistic for a 4.5. If I only had 6 comments and they were more mundane, then I'd have no reason to ponder the outcome or the reason. |
Face it, Shannon. You're done. Over the hill. A dinosau...oh wait...sensitive subject. Never mind ;) |
|
|
04/06/2005 07:41:57 PM · #43 |
Pedro make funny. Thag laugh. ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 19:42:39. |
|
|
04/06/2005 08:09:28 PM · #44 |
i think it shows how well starbucks has branded itself...
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:14:57 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Pedro: Face it, Shannon. You're done. Over the hill. A dinosau...oh wait...sensitive subject. Never mind ;) |
SNORT...SPRAY! |
|
|
04/06/2005 08:36:47 PM · #46 |
I think that the idea of Javaman was a good one, but I don't think you needed the leopard skin worn like a stole,and I think you needed more of the body in this picture..when I voted on it, I didn't make the connection, I thought it was a streetperson drinking from a beaten up cup...and I do know about anthropology, but it didn't look like a cave man to me...I think a leopardskin on one shoulder, more of the body with a hairy look, and the cup of coffee might have done it...is that a cave painting in background? good idea...feel free to ignore anything I may suggest, my pictures barely get 5s. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:35:26 PM EDT.