| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2006 11:35:56 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Goodness me, what is wrong with a masters challenge that is called the Masters? What has gone so badly wrong that we cannot recognise them? |
We recognise them by giving them high votes, ribbons and leaving loud praising comments.
Are you suggesting that the ribbon-holders are not trying to do their best in regular challenges? Some masters they are in that case. :) |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:42:43 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Are you suggesting that the ribbon-holders are not trying to do their best in regular challenges? Some masters they are in that case. :) |
In real life everyone has bad days when close enough is good enough.
I'm sure photography is no different.
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:47:53 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Olympics Games, or Soccer World Cup, or Grand Slam Tennis events, etc, etc etc. |
Photography is a form of art, sports is not a good analogy.
A better parallel would be film festivals. Anyone can submit to a film festival. And I have never heard of a film festival to which only the winners of previous film festivals were allowed to submit. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:47:55 PM · #54 |
Amazing how suddenly the waters muddy. I think it all depends on your attitude to life. Like how much you want to expose yourself to or protect yourself from.
These challenges put these winners on notice to outdo eachother. Is this not a great lesson for us all? Atop the lessons you have the wonderful images that they yield. Yes, these winners enter challenges to win but look at the pressure when it is strictly amongst them. This is simply the best of the best.
An invitational is like an all star game. How can we all not benefit unless we feel obligated to expound the feel good attitude to always level the playing field. You either want to learn and improve or cure shortcomings by penalizing others. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:50:49 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Amazing how suddenly the waters muddy. I think it all depends on your attitude to life. Like how much you want to expose yourself to or protect yourself from.
These challenges put these winners on notice to outdo eachother. Is this not a great lesson for us all? Atop the lessons you have the wonderful images that they yield. Yes, these winners enter challenges to win but look at the pressure when it is strictly amongst them. This is simply the best of the best.
An invitational is like an all star game. How can we all not benefit unless we feel obligated to expound the feel good attitude to always level the playing field. You either want to learn and improve or cure shortcomings by penalizing others. |
I want to learn..!! I have no ribbons and I really don't mind being out of this challenge! |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:53:17 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
These challenges put these winners on notice to outdo eachother. Is this not a great lesson for us all? Atop the lessons you have the wonderful images that they yield. Yes, these winners enter challenges to win but look at the pressure when it is strictly amongst them. This is simply the best of the best. |
All this can be said about any regular challenge as well, word to word. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:54:30 PM · #57 |
I doubt that this will take the place of the regular challenges. It would be an additional challenge.
I don't see how those not able to participate would be losing out on anything. To the contrary, I think we would all gain an appreciation of the fine photography that would come about.
And no, I wouldn't be eligible.
edit:grammar be bad
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 23:56:51. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:55:53 PM · #58 |
The challenges are getting more and more submissions all the time, therefore it gets even harder to ever get a ribbon.
I have no problem with the "masters" getting their own challenge, but it means even less chance for the rest of us, and yet another extra one for them.
Sure, let's enjoy another masters challenge, but please balance the scales somewhat by creating a challenge just for us mere mortals at the same time (which of course will be WAY bigger again anyway and therefore not all that fair but still better than nothing at all). |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:58:17 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
All this can be said about any regular challenge as well, word to word. |
But I'm not sure it can. You have to place yourself into the master's shoes. I know people who can score a 6.1 without breaking a sweat shooting a shot in an hour two hours before the deadline. They are not being challenged. They need more and perhaps the rest of us should be provided a blast shield as protection from the full force of their talent.
If each master tried their hardest each and every challenge, I bet we'd actually lose members who would give up and feel they could never achieve such results. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:58:48 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
The challenges are getting more and more submissions all the time, therefore it gets even harder to ever get a ribbon.
I have no problem with the "masters" getting their own challenge, but it means even less chance for the rest of us, and yet another extra one for them.
Sure, let's enjoy another masters challenge, but please balance the scales somewhat by creating a challenge just for us mere mortals at the same time (which of course will be WAY bigger again anyway and therefore not all that fair but still better than nothing at all). |
How would a "masters" challenge mean less of a chance for the rest of us? |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:02:38 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by shanksware:
How would a "masters" challenge mean less of a chance for the rest of us? |
Well.... do your maths. Add up the number of chances you have to get a ribbon. To make that even worse, figure it out statistically speaking, and surely you see that the masters challenge gives the "masters" more and better chances. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:04:02 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
sports is not a good analogy.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree here because for me this site is about competition moreso than art. The form of competition just happens to be photography and I'll point out that I'm too old, slow and talentless to play any athletic sports.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:09:36 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Well.... do your maths. Add up the number of chances you have to get a ribbon. To make that even worse, figure it out statistically speaking, and surely you see that the masters challenge gives the "masters" more and better chances. |
However Beetle, considering that in the last six months we have gone to two open challenges every week to pick from, we have effectively added 33% to the possible ribbons won every week. "Subtracting" one challenge from the ribbon total would leave us all quite a bit ahead.
In reality, it isn't getting harder to win ribbons, it's getting easier. In the months before the open challenge split, the single open would attract 400-600 entries without any trouble. We don't often see that now.
EDIT: grammar
Message edited by author 2006-03-25 00:10:25. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:09:50 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by shanksware:
How would a "masters" challenge mean less of a chance for the rest of us? |
Well.... do your maths. Add up the number of chances you have to get a ribbon. To make that even worse, figure it out statistically speaking, and surely you see that the masters challenge gives the "masters" more and better chances. |
For that really to be a point of contention, you'd have to have entered every single challenge that was available to you and there are very, very few people who have done that. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:12:15 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
We recognise them by giving them high votes, ribbons and leaving loud praising comments. |
So, what are you afraid of?
Brett |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:15:18 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I'm not sure it can. You have to place yourself into the master's shoes. I know people who can score a 6.1 without breaking a sweat shooting a shot in an hour two hours before the deadline. They are not being challenged. They need more and perhaps the rest of us should be provided a blast shield as protection from the full force of their talent. |
This would be true if the "master" knew that he were the only "master" in the challenge, which is definitely not true for most challenges, and especially not for any free study.
If somebody submits images to regular challenges without breaking a sweat over them, then he is not a master by my standards. A master always strives for perfection, and discards anything that does not meet his high standards.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If each master tried their hardest each and every challenge, I bet we'd actually lose members who would give up and feel they could never achieve such results. |
My personal opinion is that there is a lot of mediocrity among high ribbon winners; often their shots have this taste of an image produced by a highly skilled trades man, rather than an artist. Personally, I often learn the most from images that do not aspire for ribbons because they are too subtle or unusual for the masses. This is why I don't want to see a whole challenge for people-who-know-how-to-win-ribbons (sorry, I don't mean to lump every ribbon winner in this group, I hope you understand me correctly).
I think I am going to boycot this challenge if it comes around by not voting in it. There, this will show them! Wait!.. no, it won't... :) |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:19:04 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
So, what are you afraid of? |
Yours is a loaded question. You are implying that I am afraid of something with regards to this challenge, which is not the case.
I am just arguing that I don't think there is any use in a ribbon-holders-only challenge.
p.s. I'm signing off for today. Good night!
Message edited by author 2006-03-25 00:39:22. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:23:09 AM · #68 |
I am against "Masters Challenges" by name and concept.
Over the years, one thing I've come to appreciate about DPC is that after each challenge, we all start again "equal" and from the same place. By that I mean that when we start a new challenge, we are all once again, at the same level. By introducing names like "Masters" you create a class system. By making the challenge class exclusionary, you add privilege to that distinction and give it body.
To me there's only people who have won/ribboned, and people who will ribbon any challenge now. Rikki's a good example of that. Ok, Rikki, you've made the point, you can stop now ;) Sorry, I digress.
Point two: invitational challenges skew the site statistics. A masters challenge, has what I recall they call in psychological circles a "halo effect". People vote higher, because, after all, these are the "masters". And of course, there's a lot fewer competing, giving masters a chance to separate themselves even further with an extra ribbon.
You say that we don't have site statistics? Think again. We now have people vying for who has the most ribbons in one year and ranks. While Scott's site is really well done and it's fun of course, it adds it's own requirements to keep the site a fair and level playing field for all who want to compete in this way.
Personally, I've been on many sites, but this is really the only site I call home. I am not against changes to the site, and trying different things. I'm not against there being competition here. But the balance of that to me has always been that for the most part, everyone treats each other pretty equally.
One more side point while I'm on the bully pulpit. I think of DPC as a very kind and friendly place. To me there's enough competition going on with the challenges, but lately even the forums have turned into an Ali-Frasier trash-talking competitive "fight" moreso than a cooperative venue. I know it's all in fun, and yes, I can ignore those threads easily, but does anyone else see how it changes the "character" here?
Just my own observation, and I'll compare it to what I thought were two amazing "forum" trends over the past couple of years. First, we had "cooperative projects". John Setzler's Alphabet project, and several others that blossomed after that. Then, we had a mentoring series, where groups got together to try and help each other improve. There have always been threads like, help me fix this, how do you do this, do you know about this, etc. These all give the place such a helpful friendly character. I'm sure that will always be there, but all the tournaments and fun trash talk worry me a bit.
Back to the main subject, to conclude. Personally, and it's of course just my own opinion, I think the challenges by themselves are a pretty good centerpiece in DPC. They provide a fun game to help motivate us to improve so we can "win". The forums I hope will continue to be a place to discuss and learn. Where everyone is treated like peers, rather than separating us into "classes" or levels.
Ok, you may resume your regularly scheduled program. Sorry for the long post.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:25:29 AM · #69 |
I think we need a Master's Challenge and I am being totally selfish when I say this! I want to see what the best of the best can do! I'm a new kid on this block and I look to the ribbon winners to teach me how to shoot better photos. It is in my best interest to keep the ribbon winners/masters happy. Where would I be if all the masters got bored of the "regular" challenges and stopped trying as hard? I would loose access to their experience! How often do the top photographers on this site really try their hardest to win a challenge? I think we would see some of the best pictures ever in an EXCLUSIVE challenge like this. For those of us who are not qualified to enter, we still gain from this!
|
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:27:27 AM · #70 |
standing ovation for Neil's (nshapiro) words of wisdom. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:28:53 AM · #71 |
nshapiro brings up some absolutely solid points that I would personally like to see addressed.
Having said that, I'd compete in the invitational if it stays within my means of doing so, because I'm weird like that. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 12:54:06 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Originally posted by agenkin:
The only point I can see in having a ribbon-holders-only challenge is elitism, which is a thing I loathe. |
Fair enough but having a set level for qualifying/eligibility is done everywhere.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Olympics Games, or Soccer World Cup, or Grand Slam Tennis events, etc, etc etc.
cheers,
bazz. |
Yes those all have a set level for qualification -- but they are also seasonal. Each one of them have a set time qualifications begin and a set time the qualifications end -- nothing done before or after that time period matters.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
... An invitational is like an all star game. How can we all not benefit unless we feel obligated to expound the feel good attitude to always level the playing field. You either want to learn and improve or cure shortcomings by penalizing others. |
Again, an all-star game is manned by individuals that have won their place in that game during the current season. Everyone begins the season on an equal footing, and must win their spot with current effort -- there is no grandfathering in of the 'old boys club'. No one is allowed to kick back and rely on past gains to be included without current participation. Entry into the event must be won during the qualification period.
Any criteria that allows for 'once in - always in' is elitism and has no useful place in any group.
David
|
|
|
|
03/25/2006 01:22:57 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Yes those all have a set level for qualification -- but they are also seasonal. Each one of them have a set time qualifications begin and a set time the qualifications end -- nothing done before or after that time period matters.
David |
Yep I agree....but imagine the uproar if the invitation criteria was changed to people with 2+ or 3+ ribbons in the past 12 months only, (seems a fitting analogy to a "season").
Just another can of worms that would need to be analysed, discussed and dissected.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 01:28:54 AM · #74 |
If you defined your invitational criteria as, say, 1 ribbon or two top 5's or 4 top 10's in the past 12 months, this would seem more meaningful to me. Plenty of "masters" in here without stacks of ribbons to their names...
R.
Message edited by author 2006-03-25 01:29:21.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2006 01:51:06 AM · #75 |
If for some reason you feel the need to pit subgroups of the population against each other, then why not use the mechanism of the exclusive challenge to make sure everyone is included (ironic sounding, isn't it).
Here's a thought that's been circulated before.
E.g.,
Exclusive Open Challenge 1: Ribbon Winners.
Exclusive Open Challenge 2: Non-Ribbon Winners
Exclusive Open Challenge 1: Over 30 years
Exclusive Open Challenge 2: 30 years and under
Exclusive Open Challenge 1: Left Handed People
Exclusive Open Challenge 2: Right Handed People
etc.
Always doing it at the same time, making sure everyone is included, avoid class labels, make the division a challenge split and not a "permanent" class split (by defining labels such as "master").
Message edited by author 2006-03-25 01:51:37.
|
|
