| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2002 10:16:58 AM · #1 |
As if I didn''t say enough yesterday on this subject...
I thought of another non-discriminatory way to choose photos for the critique forum. I still think it would be most beneficial to choose a random photo from the middle of the pack. But if we wanted to somewhat objectively pick a contoversial photo, couldn''t the votes be computed and the photo (or 2 or 3) with the highest standard deviation. I haven''t had statistics in a few years and I know there are those out there who know way more than I do, but wouldn''t the photos with a high SD have a greater range of votes, i.e. more 10s and more 1s versus a photo with a low SD with mostly 5s?
Anyone know how Photosig chooses their "most controversial" and "least controversial" photos?
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 10:17:01 AM. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 10:32:53 AM · #2 |
If they were to do three photographs for the Critique Forum (I think that is a nice round number) I think Standard Deviation would be a great way to pick a photograph.
Perhaps the other two picks could be done by the Moderators out of people who volunteer, trying to get at least one of the two to be relitively middle of the pack people. Interesting pictures, but ones that could use more feedback. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 12:29:14 PM · #3 |
I like the idea of a non discriminatory method. This is good.
Don't you think that low score photos need more help than mid-pack?
I think psig does it by how many of the votes that comprise the rating are up and how many are down. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 12:33:15 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Don't you think that low score photos need more help than mid-pack?
Well, sometimes. But in my original idea, the purpose was less about helping the photograph and more about generating discussion that would encourage people - especially those who are less confident about commenting - to think for themselves and really 'dissect' the photograph. High SD photos might provide interesting discussion since the opinions would be more varied than "it's really out of focus". |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 12:35:26 PM · #5 |
| good pt. the controversy quotient. i think that a lot of my pics fall into that realm. some people seem to really really like them. others seem to really really dislike them. and so they end up sort of in the middle of the pack. makes sense : ) |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 12:50:04 PM · #6 |
| I could be wrong but some of the low scorers might not be able to be helped where as the middle of the packs could easily improve with the right feedback (standing at 5.1 with only 8 comments). |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 12:53:38 PM · #7 |
I agree about standard deviations being a good way to choose photos to discuss.
If you have equal amounts of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, etc, etc,up to 10 that would be a much more interesting photo to discuss than a photo that has a big fat bulge in the curve at low, medium or high votes.
Check out my curve on Asphalt Mirage or Eye Variations.
Equal distributions. Plus these photos raise issues of technical political correctness as well :-) |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 12:58:35 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Equal distributions. Plus these photos raise issues of technical political correctness as well :-)
Dunno how effective it would be long-term, but critique discussions of photos in which people explained why they liked non-standard techniques and what it added to a photo might help open some minds about what is and what isn't acceptable.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 01:04:00 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Kimbly:
Dunno how effective it would be long-term, but critique discussions of photos in which people explained why they liked non-standard techniques and what it added to a photo might help open some minds about what is and what isn''t acceptable.
I agree.
Like your photo "Inhibit" or your "Haircut"
Those photos use techniques that are not unheard in photogrpahy, use them well but may throw new inexperienced voters off because they go outside the straight on approach to a photo.
Examination of them in greater detail may help to open doors for more people.
But they scored better than mine and might not be controversial enough in quality to get good fights going ;-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/24/2002 1:06:12 PM. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 01:43:02 PM · #10 |
This is all that I was going for yesterday when I mentioned photos that people felt had been robbed -- I just wasn't as scientific about it. Instead of letting the computer pick the photo that had a large number of good votes and a large number of bad votes (people who liked and people who didn't), I'd suggested having a moderator do it.
Maybe it was just the idea of the moderator and the human interaction in the process. Dunno...
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 01:52:47 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Patella:
Maybe it was just the idea of the moderator and the human interaction in the process. Dunno...
Yeah, that was most of what I objected to. The SD idea was something I thought of trying to come up with a compromise. When humans become involved, there would inevitably be a bias towards photographers/styles/techniques/whatever that would also inevitably be brought into question. Imagine the uproar if a moderator picked the winner each week..
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 01:58:24 PM · #12 |
i'd be willing to give that a shot ... assuming they are open to bribery of course! in fact, can i take a photo of me bribing them and submit that for corporate world? *grin*
Originally posted by Kimbly:
Imagine the uproar if a moderator picked the winner each week..
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:00:04 PM · #13 |
I guess I have to much trust in human nature. (Actually, I know I have too much trust in human nature -- my single biggest fault.)
Ultimately, I don't care how it's done -- so long as it happens. While I'd love to see better critiques, my biggest hope is that people will start to learn that a good photo does not have to include a perfectly centered subject sharply focused blah blah blah. I'd much prefer to get a 3 vote accompanied by a comment that reads, "the grain doesn't work for me" instead of "this is grainy." At least then they're acknowledging it may be intentional.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:12:11 PM · #14 |
Lang and I both think this is a really cool idea. Selection method is the only issue that'd need to be determined, so throw out your opinions.
Kimbly (or others)... could you link us to other threads where people (yourselves) have discussed the need for an area like this, so we can see exactly what we're trying to accomplish? Or just write your thoughts :)
Drew |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:16:08 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Patella:
I guess I have to much trust in human nature. (Actually, I know I have too much trust in human nature -- my single biggest fault.)
Hehe. Likewise, I'm paranoid about being 'left out'. I was one of those kids who was always last picked in gym class and actually preferred it when the teachers made us count off to determine the teams. So I have a bias of trying to be as objective and fair as possible when things are selected.
Ultimately, I don't care how it's done -- so long as it happens. While I'd love to see better critiques, my biggest hope is that people will start to learn that a good photo does not have to include a perfectly centered subject sharply focused blah blah blah. I'd much prefer to get a 3 vote accompanied by a comment that reads, "the grain doesn't work for me" instead of "this is grainy." At least then they're acknowledging it may be intentional.
Yep, that's sort of what I'm hoping this would accomplish. For people to realize that non-standard techniques are also valid (maybe we should start calling them 'alternative' techniques) - but also for people to consider the why of it. Why the grain in
Feeding Time at the Reptile House might have enhanced the feeling of the photo*. Once you start to consider doing such things, you might also consider using them in your own work. And when you start exploring is when you start to really make progress.
*Photographer was trying to create a "snakes' eye view". Graininess eliminates some detail which would be extraneous in this photo which is not about skin texture or mouse fur texture. Graininess is associated with rough texture, and the subject of this photo is unpleasant and harsh and thus benefits from the treatment. Or at least that's how I think of it :-) |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:24:01 PM · #16 |
| i like using some computed or pre-specified selection criteria so that we can then concentrate on arguing over the photo itself (sorry, critiquing it ;) and not why it was picked over some other photo ... |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:24:56 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Lang and I both think this is a really cool idea. Selection method is the only issue that'd need to be determined, so throw out your opinions.
Kimbly (or others)... could you link us to other threads where people (yourselves) have discussed the need for an area like this, so we can see exactly what we're trying to accomplish? Or just write your thoughts :)
Drew
Improperly placed in the
Canned comments thread there's a lot of my ideas and others'.
Summary from my point of view on selection methods:
Option 1: Random. Completely chance. Advantage of not causing any sort of argument. Disadvantage of not picking the photos that people feel are the most 'critiquable' or likely to stimulate discussion.
Option 2: Random, but from within different percentiles, one from top 25th percentile, one from 25th-50th percentile, etc. Advantage the same as above, but with more likelihood of having a good range of different scoring photos to talk about. Might help clarify why some photos scored highly and others didn't. Disadvantage as above.
Option 3: Moderator chosen...I'll let Patella or someone else fill in this section cause I don't really agree with it and don't want to unfairly portray it :-)
Option 4: Highest standard deviation photos: Advantages -might help highlight 'controversial' photos that would illicit a wide variety of opinion but that would still maintain some sort of objectivity over the selection. Disadvantages - potential for good photos to be chosen where some thought it met the challenge and others voted down because they didn't, which isn't a real productive sort of critique.
Option 5: Not from the challenge at all: Advantages - more voluntary, more opportunity for people to get critiques. Disadvantages - less controlled, more work, potential for many many submissions and not many critiques. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:25:19 PM · #18 |
Still thinking having two or three pictures might be best. I am assuming that people wil be quite willing to put down comment on two or three pictures. It would also take care of the human vs. automated method question cause well, since one or the other will not make everyone happy.....use both.
Each have their advantages and disadvantages. If you have two have one picked randomly (from volunteers) and one picked by the Moderators. If you have three have one by SD, one random, and one picked by the moderators. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:27:34 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Agamemnon:
Each have their advantages and disadvantages. If you have two have one picked randomly (from volunteers) and one picked by the Moderators. If you have three have one by SD, one random, and one picked by the moderators.
Interesting. Would you know which is which?
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:33:24 PM · #20 |
personally, i think we should pick (whatever method used) a photo from the challenge. people are already familiar with that one, and i think have more vested interest in looking at a photo that was created for the challenge (meeting the challenge or not is often a point of heated discussion) and that was taken by one of the photographers they know from this site. yes, i know there is concern that people won't want to comment on a photo of someone they know, but (imho) this site is all about commenting on the photos of photographers you know, so, while i can see the point, i admit i don't agree with it.
Originally posted by Kimbly:
Option 5: Not from the challenge at all: Advantages - more voluntary, more opportunity for people to get critiques. Disadvantages - less controlled, more work, potential for many many submissions and not many critiques.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2002 02:36:12 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by gr8photos:
personally, i think we should pick (whatever method used) a photo from the challenge. people are already familiar with that one, and i think have more vested interest in looking at a photo that was created for the challenge (meeting the challenge or not is often a point of heated discussion) and that was taken by one of the photographers they know from this site. yes, i know there is concern that people won't want to comment on a photo of someone they know, but (imho) this site is all about commenting on the photos of photographers you know, so, while i can see the point, i admit i don't agree with it.
Not my fave idea either, but I think someone brought it up in the thread yesterday (jmsetzler?) so I thought I'd put it out as an option to consider. |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 03:05:50 PM · #22 |
To keep the selection as fair to all as possible, I think they should be randomly selected. Like it was said earlier, I also agree that there should be 3 or 4 pictures selected from different percentiles of the challenge. I think they should definately be pictures from the most recent challenge. Computer selected, a regular crap shoot looks best here.
Autool |
|
|
|
07/24/2002 03:25:54 PM · #23 |
Moderator picked:
I guess I just look at this as the human factor applied to the standard deviation.
The upside is that you can pick photos by hand that seem to be pulling both the lovers and haters. The mod could look through old forum threads like under apreciated and find photos that seemed to draw both a split vote as well as look through the comments for a split on some subject (too grainy/like the grain). It's easy enough for a computer program to look for the split vote -- but lots harder to look at comments and make a comparative decision. Hand picking lets you be more certain that you'll pull something that people can learn from (as opposed to the luck of the draw where you might have a photo with lots to talk about, or you might not).
The downside is that people could lobby to have their photo, or another's, put on the critique list. (I'd just say something like if you lobby, it won't get critiqued -- but then who's to say whether or not a thread like the one above wouldn't be lobbying.) You could get an *evil* moderator who had his/her own agenda. (Pretty easy to see after a couple of weeks, I'd say.) Even if not *evil* the moderator may just be blinded by his/her own percularitites and may unintentionally miss picking a variety of photos for whatever reason. (Ditto my last comment.) How would the moderator ever pick their own work, no matter how legitimately, without looking like they had their own agenda. (Got me on this one, unless we had critique mods who only do the job for X weeks until another is "appointed.")
I'm sure there are other pros and cons, but its past lunch and the blood is starting to move from brain to stomach. In a minute I'm going to start lurching around the room like Frankenstein's monster.
|
|
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: 08/27/2025 05:14:51 PM EDT.
