| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2006 07:22:00 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Little King:
Originally posted by bvoi:
I also think that this sort of tournament thing should happen two or three times a year only in tandem with the regular challenges. |
and when you say two or three, you mean 6 or 10
:) |
Yes. There would be a lot of submitting. That's why they should be 24 or 48 hour challenges. |
|
|
|
03/09/2006 07:28:01 PM · #77 |
| For Us, the people who struggle alot, getting past the first cut would be nice. I am for it. I would prefer having one week for the first photo, then shortening the time as the process gets closer to a winner. My thought. |
|
|
|
03/09/2006 08:24:41 PM · #78 |
1. Yes, should run alongside the regular challenges (of course!)
2. No, this probably will only be a 1-off special challenge like the good old "rubber duckie" challenge back in the past (great fun!) |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 02:34:45 AM · #79 |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 02:43:18 AM · #80 |
this sounds like a really fun idea.
i think i might get eager to enter challenges again :)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 03:01:35 AM · #81 |
I am for the idea.
I read every post in this thread and without picking on anyone, I have to say I really get tired of the "it's not a good idea because people might get discouraged" comments. If the fear of one or more of the thousands of members / users on this site becoming discouraged because they didn't do well is our criteria for NOT doing something, let's just close up shop and go home now.
Sorry, rant over. Count me in for this idea and continue the discussion. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 03:18:58 AM · #82 |
Sounds like a lot of fun.....great idea!!
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 03:51:40 AM · #83 |
This is an interesting concept, the idea of knock-out challenges as an occaisional diversion. I'm generally in favor of it, and I'd certainly have a go at it if it ever happened. I'm with Art on saying that the idea it's undoable because "it might discourage people" is fairly ridiculous. If this sort of thing might bruise your ego, don't participate; it's a bonus challenge anyway, right? You gotta check your ego at the door when you enter a mosh pit.
I have some observations re: topics and timing, though.
Topics
This is an interesting conundrum. Let's suppose, for example, that the topics were very broad and it were a 3-tiered challenge. Let's suppose the topics were "Landscape", "Portrait", and "Still Life". The first favors people like me, the second favors people like Librodo, the third favors people like Banmorn. It's unlikely I'd make the cut if Portraits came first, for example, and unlikely I'd miss the cut if landscapes came first.
So obviously topic selection here is paramount.
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that it might be best to do a knockout like this on "technical" topics; "Rule of Thirds", "Centered Subject", "Perspective", "Backlighting", "Shallow DOF", "Bokeh", whatever. This would tend to level the playing field across different areas-of-expertise; the landscape people could compete with the portrait people and the still-life people without the topics getting in the way.
Timing
I don't understand this business of shortening the time-frame for shooting so drastically as we move up the ladder. The stakes get higher, and the time gets shorter? Isn't this a huge advantage for folks like me, who can shoot whenever the heck we want to, being retired and unencumbered by spouses and children?
But here's what I can see happening: announce all 3 or 4 topics at the beginning, and allow 2 weeks for shooting, and require that all 3 or 4 images be uploaded at once at the the end of that 2-week period. Then, as voting progresses, just drop the entries of those who did not make the cut. Set it up so that anyone who didn't enter all the categories by the end of 2 weeks is automatically dropped from the start.
As far as VOTING times goes, I can see those being shortened progressively as the field narrows down and there are fewer images on which to vote.
That's my 2-cent's worth.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 04:17:20.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 03:53:00 AM · #84 |
I'd be up for it too.
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:10:03 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But here's what I can see happening: announce all 3 or 4 topics at the beginning, and allow 2 weeks for shooting, and require that all 3 or 4 images be uploaded at once at the the end of that 2-week period. Then, as voting progresses, just drop the entries of those who did not make the cut. Set it up so that anyone who didn't enter all the categories by the end of 2 weeks is automatically dropped from the start. |
Hey, that's a pretty good idea.
Or maybe we could keep the "ultimate" (final) topic witheld until the 10 finalists are chosen? for thrill's sake, hehe |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:16:33 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Or maybe we could keep the "ultimate" (final) topic witheld until the 10 finalists are chosen? for thrill's sake, hehe |
I can see where that would be amusing, but I think it's potentially "unfair" in that some finalists just might not have the time available, or the right weather, or might get sick, whatever. I think they should all come in at once...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:30:42 AM · #87 |
This is an interesting conundrum. Let's suppose, for example, that the topics were very broad and it were a 3-tiered challenge. Let's suppose the topics were "Landscape", "Portrait", and "Still Life". The first favors people like me, the second favors people like Librodo, the third favors people like Banmorn. It's unlikely I'd make the cut if Portraits came first, for example, and unlikely I'd miss the cut if landscapes came first.
So obviously topic selection here is paramount.
Regardless of whether it favors you or not, it's a challenge, isnt it? If it's not in your favor, you gotta make sure you make top 100, or 30, am I right?
How can the topic selection then be paramount? To me that would miss the point of having a 'challenge'?
:)
My 2 cents.
I'm also up for this idea. I Like the fact that its a bonus challenge, and that you can participate whether you want to or not. I dont believe it detracts from the normal challenges at all.
Except, in one instance, and that would be if ppl started seeing this new ribbon as 'more prestigious' than the highly coveted blue one.
:)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:35:59 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Guyver:
Except, in one instance, and that would be if ppl started seeing this new ribbon as 'more prestigious' than the highly coveted blue one. |
Well, the special ribbons should probably be another ribbon, but like the tradition of the Rubber Duckie challenge, it should look a bit different, but it should not be more "prestigious" than the other (ok, maybe just a tiny bit, hehe). |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:38:15 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Guyver:
Except, in one instance, and that would be if ppl started seeing this new ribbon as 'more prestigious' than the highly coveted blue one. |
Well, the special ribbons should probably be another ribbon, but like the tradition of the Rubber Duckie challenge, it should look a bit different, but it should not be more "prestigious" than the other (ok, maybe just a tiny bit, hehe). |
Well, I agree with you, it must be more prestigious, cause think about it - if you win, you damn well deserve it. You conquered three different tasks and came out tops.
*edit* Sorry, should add that even though I agree, I just kinda foresee a problem where ppl might consider it more of a kick than participating in normal challenges.
But even so, I dont see it as a discouragement or anything like that.
I like the idea!
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 04:39:45. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:51:27 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Guyver:
Regardless of whether it favors you or not, it's a challenge, isnt it? If it's not in your favor, you gotta make sure you make top 100, or 30, am I right?
How can the topic selection then be paramount? To me that would miss the point of having a 'challenge'? |
It's just that for certain types of challenges, the ORDER in which they are presented would have a dramatic effect on who "made the cut". And the final challenge, in this scenario, might heavily favor one particular entrant, just perchance. In the scenario I presented (Portraits, still lifes, landscapes) I'd love to see them in that order; I might be able to make the cut at 100 in portraits, MAYBE, but I doubt I'd be able to make the cut-of-30, say. I might be able to make the cut-of-30 in still lifes if I put my mind to it, and I'd LOVE to be competing against 9 others in landscapes. See what I mean?
If the challenge topics were more technically oriented, then each entrant could be shooting in a genre that suits them with a specific technical challenge to overcome in each phase, and this seems inherently more interesting to me than seeing how the best 100 portraitists do at still lifes, and how the best 10 still life shooters of that group do at landscapes.
Still, you can make the argument that we're trying to award the best "all around" photographer, and that the challenge should cover several genres for that reason. I donno... It's not that I'm against that, exactly, it's just that it tends to favor those whose strong suit happens to be the final challenge.
Removed a different suggestion and started a new thread on Monthly Master ribbons.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 05:05:28.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 04:56:49 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So another variation on this could be an "all-around challenge" that used 3 or 4 genres of work, allowed open entries in all of them, and calculated a final winner from average scores of those who entered all 3 or 4 challenges. This could even be done as a monthly "bonus ribbon" every month; of those who entered all member's challenges in a given month, the 3 who received the highest average scores for that month receive a "best-of-month ribbon... |
Best all round?.. urm.. my opinion is,
isn't that already what the site is doing?
I mean, we have weekly challenges already and the"average" winner is already available if only someone does the math :)
I still prefer the Knock-out one, since it's a special like the Rubber Duckie challenge :)
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 05:03:36. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 05:03:27 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So another variation on this could be an "all-around challenge" that used 3 or 4 genres of work, allowed open entries in all of them, and calculated a final winner from average scores of those who entered all 3 or 4 challenges. This could even be done as a monthly "bonus ribbon" every month; of those who entered all member's challenges in a given month, the 3 who received the highest average scores for that month receive a "best-of-month ribbon... |
Best all round?.. urm.. my opinion is,
isn't that already what the site is doing?
I mean, we have weekly challenges already and the"average" winner is already available if only someone does the math :) |
Started a separate thread on that idea, not to derail this one... Monthly Master Ribbons
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 05:06:30.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 05:08:25 AM · #93 |
I'll chime in and say I really like this idea too!
I'm all for any kind of 'extra' challenges, even though I don't always get around to being in them :-P
Sounds like it could be a lot of fun and interesting.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:17:02 AM · #94 |
so would this challenge be members only or open challenge ?
I've been a member for 1 year and my subscription ran out.. I can't renew until next month..
but I really like this idea, and please make one of the topics landscape.. I'd prefer the first one..
then we Icelanders would get in the second round without even trying hard :)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 08:48:13 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
unencumbered by spouses and children
|
I'm going to explain to my wife how I am disadvantaged because I am encumbered by spouse and children and see how that goes. :) |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:07:13 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Guyver:
Regardless of whether it favors you or not, it's a challenge, isnt it? If it's not in your favor, you gotta make sure you make top 100, or 30, am I right?
How can the topic selection then be paramount? To me that would miss the point of having a 'challenge'? |
It's just that for certain types of challenges, the ORDER in which they are presented would have a dramatic effect on who "made the cut". And the final challenge, in this scenario, might heavily favor one particular entrant, just perchance. In the scenario I presented (Portraits, still lifes, landscapes) I'd love to see them in that order; I might be able to make the cut at 100 in portraits, MAYBE, but I doubt I'd be able to make the cut-of-30, say. I might be able to make the cut-of-30 in still lifes if I put my mind to it, and I'd LOVE to be competing against 9 others in landscapes. See what I mean?
If the challenge topics were more technically oriented, then each entrant could be shooting in a genre that suits them with a specific technical challenge to overcome in each phase, and this seems inherently more interesting to me than seeing how the best 100 portraitists do at still lifes, and how the best 10 still life shooters of that group do at landscapes.
Still, you can make the argument that we're trying to award the best "all around" photographer, and that the challenge should cover several genres for that reason. I donno... It's not that I'm against that, exactly, it's just that it tends to favor those whose strong suit happens to be the final challenge.
Removed a different suggestion and started a new thread on Monthly Master ribbons.
R. |
so why not have three challenges and the average score for the three wins? Still with the knockout but will not have so much weight on the final challenge? I do agree with what you are saying and it makes sense. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 12:01:51 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't understand this business of shortening the time-frame for shooting so drastically as we move up the ladder. The stakes get higher, and the time gets shorter? Isn't this a huge advantage for folks like me, who can shoot whenever the heck we want to, being retired and unencumbered by spouses and children?
But here's what I can see happening: announce all 3 or 4 topics at the beginning, and allow 2 weeks for shooting, and require that all 3 or 4 images be uploaded at once at the the end of that 2-week period. Then, as voting progresses, just drop the entries of those who did not make the cut. Set it up so that anyone who didn't enter all the categories by the end of 2 weeks is automatically dropped from the start.
As far as VOTING times goes, I can see those being shortened progressively as the field narrows down and there are fewer images on which to vote.
|
Good points besides this last one. Why shoot for 3 or 4 topics (which deffinately requires a lot of work), If you're not even going to make it past the first round?
I like the reverse time setup. I'd suggest this:
-48 hours (2 days) for the first round (to slightly cut down on entries and time of whole process). then a week of voting (for the number of entries)
-72 hours (3 days) for the second round, 5 days of voting
-98 hours (4 days) for round three, 5 days of voting
-1 week for round four, 5 days of voting |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 08:17:59 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Little King:
Good points besides this last one. Why shoot for 3 or 4 topics (which deffinately requires a lot of work), If you're not even going to make it past the first round? |
Just something I was thinking too, thanks for clearing my head, lol. |
|
|
|
03/12/2006 08:23:35 PM · #99 |
I guess when you put it that way, it sounds a little weird. But there's still the problem of ensuring that everyone who makes the cut is ready, willing, and able to shoot for the next round, and if you keep shortening the times you may be knocking people out who have real lives...
I don't know the best way to deal with this. A couple weeks to shoot 4 entries sounds fine to me, but I'm not "normal"...
R.
Oh, I see someone's proposed INCREASING shooting times as the rounds progress...
That works out to about 5 weeks before the winner's known, in that propsoed schedule, FWIW.
Message edited by author 2006-03-12 20:26:04.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2006 08:36:30 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Oh, I see someone's proposed INCREASING shooting times as the rounds progress... That works out to about 5 weeks before the winner's known, in that propsoed schedule, FWIW. |
That should be fine, I mean, this IS a special challenge after all, not an every-day usual challenge - and if this suggestion ever makes its appearance, it will probably be a "one time" challenge that wont happen again :) |
|
