| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2006 04:04:38 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by micknewton:
The highest rated photo on the site got an 8.600, and the photo is by one of the owners. And, judging strictly by the number of comments and favorites it has received, not many people like it. What does that say about the voting here? |
Which image is that? |
This one from the second challenge on DPC. A whoppin 20 entries.
 |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:06:40 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
On a related note, I really admire gsal. He enters an average of seven challenges a month, and his score rarely gets out of five territory. He has exactly one red ribbon, one top ten, and one disqualification. He hasn't been here a year yet. Though he doesn't participate much in forums, I can't recall him complaining much about anything. His favourite subject is anathema to hard-core DPCers: his kids.
He plugs away, enters challenges, does so-so, takes tons of pictures, so obviously enjoys photography... it seems to me he's got the right attitude. |
Yup, I admire that. I see a lot of people in that category, too. I consider myself to be one of them. I enter nearly every challenge, my subjects are all over the map, I am not afraid of "lowering my average". I just want to have fun and pursue my hobby. I actually QUIT photography for quite a while after I retired; now it's FUN again! Do I lose sleep over my 5.4 average? Absolutely not! Do I feel good when I get a ribbon or a top-20? You bet! Do I feel bad when I get a crappy score (see my "architecture" entry if you want a giggle; I'm a retired architectural photographer...)? Not for very long, nope :-)
Onwards and upwards, that's my motto!
Robt. |
Same here. I try to look at every challenge as a puzzle to be solved. I have only pulled an image once, and that was to switch it out for a different one. I couldn't give a rat's ass about my average score. If I don't make mistakes, how can I learn from them?
Something I realized qute awhile ago is that no photographer is actually as good as people perceive them to be. If you take 500 photos of the same subject, at least one is bound to be good, and that is the one you show to the world.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:06:44 PM · #78 |
| Actually a whopping 9. The stats in the challenge history table are wrong. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:07:59 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
If we voted 1 to 10 here, then 5.5 is average, but as the chart here shows we vote below average. The trendlines shows we are dropping our averages scores, but in my opinion the quality of pictures is improving.
Note that recent challenges are the left and old on the right. I didn't have time to flip 'em since this was a quickie.
 |
We vote below average because our human brains perceive 5 to be dead center, even though it's not.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:09:33 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... In DPC, on the other hand, we are "grading" by PREFERENCES; it would be unrealistic to expect ANY image in the history of DPC to get a perfect, or even close-to-perfect, score. |
I would agree if 10 were site defined as "perfect". It is not. It is called "good". It is right there on the screen every time you vote.
It is not by chance that many of the highest scores ever attained came early in DPC history. Since then "Good" morphed into meaning "unattainable perfection" by the average voter. I'm ashamed of my pathetically low scoring average.
I'm about as bad a reformed smoker! :)
But that is my soap box and I'm standing on it! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:11:07 PM · #81 |
| I think you are getting a bit literal with the "good." That's just there to show you which direction the scale goes. Maybe it should be changed to "more betterer" and "less gooder." |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:13:39 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by mk:
I think you are getting a bit literal with the "good." That's just there to show you which direction the scale goes. Maybe it should be changed to "more betterer" and "less gooder." |
I wholeheartedly agree... It would add a "Je ne sais quoi" to the equation, and be embraced by all. :O)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:14:50 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Yes, you're right. But at least my grading of scores are higher than yours. Your method has everyone below a 6 a failure. Mine doesn't. :) |
Glad you brought that up. Unfortunately I spent my first two and a half years trying to match my score with how I thought the group would vote. I got very good at it.
Thank goodness I don't vote like that any more. :)
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 16:15:25.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:16:47 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> stdavidson:
I propose average means one thing to one and another to another. |
I agree. Your average, by site definition, says that you feel the average picture submitted to DPC is about 1/3rd better than "poor". Is that correct? |
Hey, I didn't put that number there. It's a site-generated statistic, which cannot reflect the way I feel about the photographs I vote on. Besides, since it hasn't changed by a digit for a year or so, I doubt it's accurate, but even if it were...
I base my votes on a grand scale (comparing to all I know and aspire to, such as the work of a Cartier-Bresson or an Abbas, if you like) with 1 (offensive) to 10 (art). Considering this, my statistical average, in my solitary view, reflects some degree of generosity and good will.
I'm not asking anyone to share my views and practice, but I feel it is more motivating to compare to the very best over the greatest range, historically and artistically, than to the work of BradP or kiwiness (random choices), both of which I respect for whatever it is they do and love.
I also remember having publicly celebrated photos here which I felt so passionate about that the 10 I awarded them in no way compensated for the treatment they received by my fellow voters.
A critical stance does not preclude appreciation, just the opposite - or so I feel.
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 16:20:27. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:16:55 PM · #85 |
As the site gets bigger I could definitly see a patern of voting being more median in the 5's That would just be statistically the way it would work. Add a couple thousand people and it would be hard to break out of the 5's.
Maybe going from 1-5 instead of 1-10 would fix that? More people would get 4's and feel warm and fuzzy.
My other idea is to take out the highest and lowest votes (or something like that) from each to help mediate the 1's from killing scores. I don't think many images deserve the 1's they get. If the person knows how to get the picture off thier camera and on to the site they deserve a 2.
Or how about not just using a 1-10 scale, but using several scales.
Composition 1-10
Lighting 1-10
Challenge Relavince 1-10
Editing 1-10 ect... or something along those lines.
Or let everybody only vote for the 10 images they like the best, no scale at all. Then the images with the highest number of votes would win.
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 16:21:32. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:22:10 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
As the site gets bigger I could definitly see a patern of voting being more median in the 5's That would just be statistically the way it would work. Add a couple thousand people and it would be hard to break out of the 5's.
Maybe going from 1-5 instead of 1-10 would fix that? More people would get 4's and feel warm and fuzzy.
My other idea is to take out the highest and lowest votes (or something like that) from each to help mediate the 1's from killing scores. I don't think many images deserve the 1's they get. If the person knows how to get the picture off thier camera and on to the site they deserve a 2.
Or how about not just using a 1-10 scale, but using several scales.
Composition 1-10
Lighting 1-10
Challenge Relavince 1-10
Editing 1-10 ect... or something along those lines. |
A lot of people use different scales for challenge relevance. I start DNMCs at a 3 and won't score them above a 4, while those that live up to the theme start at 5 and score up to 10. A lot of the time the vote isn't a reflection on the quality of the photo itself, but of its relevance. A cheeseburger isn't going to go over in a challenge about bananas, no matter how good the photo is.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:23:52 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by boomtap:
I tend to start at a 5 if the image is in focus...lol
-Jason- |
Me too. 5 for in focus, 4 for really in focus, 3 for super in focus, and so on. Or, 5 for in focus, 6 for a bit out of focus, 7 for sort of middle of the road focus, 8 for tending to be out of focus, 9 for really out of focus. 10 is reserved for scandalously shallow DOF images.
I gotta go. |
Absolutely hilarious Ursula.....I love it!! Definitely going to send y'all the group hug for this gem!! :-))
Off to work on a freezing cold morning with a big grin on my face....dpc dunnit again, gave me a giggle for the day! |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 04:24:28 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by mk:
I think you are getting a bit literal with the "good." That's just there to show you which direction the scale goes. |
You are right, sometimes I'm a literal kinda guy.
But other times I'm very creative. ;) :)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 05:00:42 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Hey, I didn't put that number there. It's a site-generated statistic, which cannot reflect the way I feel about the photographs I vote on. Besides, since it hasn't changed by a digit for a year or so, I doubt it's accurate, but even if it were...
I base my votes on a grand scale (comparing to all I know and aspire to, such as the work of a Cartier-Bresson or an Abbas, if you like) with 1 (offensive) to 10 (art). Considering this, my statistical average, in my solitary view, reflects some degree of generosity and good will. |
I appreciate and agree with where you are coming from. I share your view. But any outsider would tell you the statistics don't support the view for DPC as a whole.
I'm certainly no model for good statistics either... yet! :)
For a long time I could count the number of 10s I gave out on one hand. I even used to score an image I thought the group would rate a 6.4 at only 6. It had to be better than 6.5 to justify a 7, by golly!!
I thought I was learning to tell what was and was not a good picture by doing that and I could identify the reasons and everything. In the last year I decided I could do the same thing but give higher, more deserving scores. I still use the full scale, though, from 1 to 10. DPC still gets pictures submitted that I can and do score 1 or 2.
My major goal, though, is to better utilize the upper end of the scale.
I aspire to raise my average 2 points above the group but doubt that can ever be achieved because I spent to long playing follow the leader.
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 05:55:57 PM · #90 |
| You folks complaining about the low scoring are obviously overlooking the 1.6x crop factor most of us enjoy -- figure that in, and my 4.58 average goes to a more reasonable 7.33, which is probably pretty close to what I'd score my photos myself ... however, anyone with a full-frame sensor has to live with whatever score they get : ) |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:05:30 PM · #91 |
[quote=Alienyst] Maybe I wrote that wrong - I don't think DPC is the end all of photography at all. I do belong to a camera club and the judging there is worse as usually the WORST image wins in their competitions.
OUCH! |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:11:03 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You folks complaining about the low scoring are obviously overlooking the 1.6x crop factor most of us enjoy -- figure that in, and my 4.58 average goes to a more reasonable 7.33, which is probably pretty close to what I'd score my photos myself ... however, anyone with a full-frame sensor has to live with whatever score they get : ) |
I'm going back to shooting with my P&S :-)
|
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:11:09 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You folks complaining about the low scoring are obviously overlooking the 1.6x crop factor most of us enjoy -- figure that in, and my 4.58 average goes to a more reasonable 7.33, which is probably pretty close to what I'd score my photos myself ... however, anyone with a full-frame sensor has to live with whatever score they get : ) |
Excellent! That's exactly what statistics is for. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:18:07 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I base my votes on a grand scale (comparing to all I know and aspire to, such as the work of a Cartier-Bresson or an Abbas, if you like) with 1 (offensive) to 10 (art). Considering this, my statistical average, in my solitary view, reflects some degree of generosity and good will.
|
Quite - and the only true approach; but then some people are just here for fun, some (me, and, I suspect ZZ also) for a more serious fun (there's quite enough hilarity in the rest of my life, thanks), some as 'homework' in a greater endeavour, some out of a pure fascination with competition and winning, regardless of the own artistic impulses, some just to exhibit their work, regardless of 'score', some for a sense of belonging, some for a refuge, and plenty of other reasons.
It annoys me that it is almost universally accepted that there are no 'great' - in ZZ's terms, that is comparable to the masters of the history of photography - images here. I think there are - just a few - that I would gladly see alongside the work of Erwitt, Ray-Jones, Cartier-Bresson, and others. And that's just the Magnum photographers. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 07:18:09 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by PhotoArt:
[quote=Alienyst] Maybe I wrote that wrong - I don't think DPC is the end all of photography at all. I do belong to a camera club and the judging there is worse as usually the WORST image wins in their competitions.
OUCH! |
Can you honestly tell me that "In gear" or "the Blues" were the best images in their respective competitions? I think not. Among many others that are not posted on the site and I do not keep records so I cannot point to other examples since they are not posted. As you recall you were all for 'more winners so make levels so more people can win' when it makes no difference if the judging is crap to begin with. What difference does more winners make if the judging of the photos is pure garbage? As I recall I was not supported in that line at all. You all looked at me with blank stares since you all wanted 'more winners' as opposed to more effective judging. What good is more winners if the judges that judged them were crap judges? What good is more winners if there is nothing to promote or encourage better photography? Who cares how many winners there are? Do you all need an ego boost? What happened to the crap about learning and supporting that the club states is their purpose? Just like here, people are more interested in 'winning' as opposed to 'learning'? I saw nothing in this past year about learning and everything about winning. To me that is nothing about photography and everything about making people feel good. What good does that do but promote bad photography?
EDIT: Removed bold and italic tags since they seemed not to work.
Message edited by author 2006-06-06 19:34:57. |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 09:29:19 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by colyla:
I think someone needs a hug...
Group Hug Everyone! |
Ugh! Group hugs are creepy.
:) |
I dunno, they can be fun ;-) |
That's why they are creepy for us. |
Right! |
|
|
|
06/06/2006 09:54:53 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
[bunch of stuff about camera club] |
Maybe you should seek out some photo activities that aren't centered around competition? Classes or outings or something. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 03:30:58 AM · #98 |
| My scores are a bit depressing...My photography skill sorta suck... But actually I joined to look at others photos find what I like, learn from them and improve... I am having fun, be it depressing fun at challenge time (said lightly tho). I will red or blue sometime in my lifetime, so I have a goal! :o) Basically DPC is not my real world and even tho I suck at photography, I take pictures of children from low income familes and give them away.. Not awsome pictures, but good ones, and I my pay comes in smiles. DPC wont ruin the joy I have found in photography, but I do believe it will help me grow and suck less :) |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 10:32:24 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
[quote=PhotoArt] [quote=Alienyst] Maybe I wrote that wrong - I don't think DPC is the end all of photography at all. I do belong to a camera club and the judging there is worse as usually the WORST image wins in their competitions.
OUCH! |
Can you honestly tell me that "In gear" or "the Blues" were the best images in their respective competitions? I think not. Among many others that are not posted on the site and I do not keep records so I cannot point to other examples since they are not posted.
AGREED!
As you recall you were all for 'more winners so make levels so more people can win' when it makes no difference if the judging is crap to begin with. What difference does more winners make if the judging of the photos is pure garbage? As I recall I was not supported in that line at all. You all looked at me with blank stares since you all wanted 'more winners' as opposed to more effective judging. What good is more winners if the judges that judged them were crap judges? What good is more winners if there is nothing to promote or encourage better photography? Who cares how many winners there are? Do you all need an ego boost?
WRONG!
âS.L.â and I both agreed with you that the judging was poor, (I have a HUGE issue with the judging) but that was not the issue âon the floorâ, and thatâs where you had gone off on a tangent and gotten all the âblank staresâ. I voted for a 2nd level of competition, in my mind at least, to recruit and keep newer members in the club, and give them a chance to compete with others, at their own level, until they gain more knowledge and experience, that people like YOU and I can pass on to them.
At the final dinner meeting, I mentioned some informal âGTGâsâ throughout the summer, I donât know if it was before you had to leave or not. I also have a number of other ideas to enliven the club. So didnât a friend of mine named, CHRIS! Letâs get together before the first Exec Board meeting and toss back a few âcold onesâ and toss around a few ideas and letâs see if we canât make this a FUN YEAR!
Now, go pick up your camera, forget about all this S#*%, and go take some pictures! My âGreen IIâ is tanking, as usual, but I like it, and thatâs all that matters to me. I think itâs better than my earlier entries because of things I have learned HERE and from YOU!
Henry
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 10:38:33 AM · #100 |
no camera to pick up - I am done with it for a while. A long while.
|
|
