| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 09:49:37 AM · #51 |
I think the only way you could get people to take the time to study a photo before voting would be to drastically reduce the number of images. Either by limiting the number of entrants, or by having some kind of pre-screening (e.g. have a "committee" of some sort that pre-selects what they consider the top images and then have the general population vote only on those).
Short of reducing the number of images, there just isn't enough time in the day to vote properly.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:08:48 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I think the only way you could get people to take the time to study a photo before voting would be to drastically reduce the number of images. |
I think the SC has addressed this to an extent by adding another set of challenges every week. Pre-screening would ruin the fun though and chase many potentially great photographers away. Also having trickier challenges like Personification does thin out the entries. Free studies will always be a bun fight and the most spectacular will win.
The only way, as someone else has suggested, is for you as a voter to have a careful look at the minimum 20% of the entries and take your time over that.
On the image we are discussing... It is not a hidden gem but possibly is worth a bit more than it got. It does lack something though to hold the viewer's attention. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:19:49 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I think the only way you could get people to take the time to study a photo before voting would be to drastically reduce the number of images. |
I don't believe that would change much. Even back when challenges had less than a hundred entries, the votes always came flooding in on the first day before drying up for the rest of the week. The impression has always been that the average voter flicks through as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:22:48 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by bod:
The impression has always been that the average voter flicks through as quickly as possible. |
That's how most people look at images. Culturally we are brought up to view images that way too - flicking through magazines, ads etc. 'Read' it quickly and move on.
I know I'm guilty of that even when reading photography books - I tend to flick through quickly, only pausing on those images that really catch my attention initially. I find it hard to slow down.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:37:49 AM · #55 |
I'm certain that almost every one of us has looked at a great image that we gave a low score and wondered "what the hell was I thinking?" or simply "how did I miss that one?" I get mad at myself for doing that at a constant and have vowed to slow down and see.
I think the site or community as a whole should seriuosly encourage people to study at images more closely or at least give them a fair shake and constantly remind them to do so. Otherwise this place will be on level with...The Grammy's or The Oscars and the really great stuff will always be passed over. Commenting on every image in a Challenge or voting on every image while admirable, is meaningless unless quality accompanies the effort.
Anyway, I'm glad e301, jj and some others out there aren't selling out for Ribbons. I dig this site but it could use a little push away from that Stock mentality and I admire these guys for going there.
Semper Fidelis!
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 12:09:28. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:04:46 PM · #56 |
How about enabling the voting scale and comment frame on the contest image page some 10 sec after the image finishes loading? It would force the voter to sit and wait, and maybe, maybe, he/she will use this time to look at the image more carefully? 10 sec is a long time compared with the average time people spend on a single image. It may also weed out some trolls out there which sprint through images giving 1 to everybody. Is it possible to do, any html gurus out there?
perhaps it belongs to another trend/forum seciton? |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:29:07 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by JPR:
...I suppose what I admire about this kind of image is that it is what it is... |
An objectivist's affection. It should be taught in public schools. If it were, we wouldn't have the many dismiss the much of modernism as crap. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:21:07 PM · #58 |
I am one of the 95 that gave a low vote on this shot. I am not a flip-book voter - I spend a fair amount of time on most photos trying to 'get it'. For every challenge I vote in, I usually view each shot twice - I go through once making general categories (great vs not so great) then I go through again and place my 'real' votes.
This shot in particular just didn't do anything for me. I find it somewhat boring, to tell the truth. I am a fan of simple, clean photography and I am a fan of black and white, I am just not a fan of this photo in particular.
"When all the things come together in an image, the background, the lighting, the pose, the expression, etc. It can be a winner. A moment before and a moment after just doesn't work. Sometimes we can't even explicitly say what makes something work or not....it is just so subtle." as quoted from  Spizzer in an unrelated forum (just so you know, this has nothing to do with his opinion in this topic)
From Spizzer's quote, this moment just doesn't work.
That's life - everyone has different views and preferences. I don't see the relevance in what magazines I do or do not subscribe too - I am a photographer and an artist - some things I like, some things I don't, regardless of what pop culture pushes as the IN thing. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 05:28:38 AM · #59 |
the later the entries, the more they fit my opinion. you can always name points why you dislike in a picture but in the end a picture has to catch you. if it does, it might be soft and get a 10. if it does, it might be dark and get a 10. If it's sharp, with shiny colors, perfectly arranged and doesn't catch you, it's a 5 when technically ok, a 2 if not. just shooting b/w doesn't make it a piece of art (still talking about it generally, not concerning this very picture). I urge everyone though to comment on extreme votes. it will avoid this "why am I rated so low and she/he's not" threads. by the way... never bought or looked at one of those magazines and still insist on recognise a good picture.
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 05:30:12. |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 08:32:39 AM · #60 |
It may be true, but since this discussion started, I've looked at the photo many times, and still wouldn't change my vote.
Also, votes are only a small portion of what this site is about. I look forward to the comments more than anything. I check challenges regularly, but the first thing I look at is what new comments I got.
Originally posted by bod:
The impression has always been that the average voter flicks through as quickly as possible. |
Message edited by author 2007-02-10 08:33:41. |
|
|
|
02/12/2007 07:01:49 PM · #61 |
edited by author to remove inflammatory content. sorry, show's over!
Message edited by author 2007-02-12 19:15:49.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 07:56:03 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
This image speaks to me.
...but I'd give it a 5. |
You indeed have the longest arms of all the
DPC members! You obviously pulled that one
far out of your............. if you're not a lawyer or
shrink you missed your calling. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 07:58:56 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by neophyte:
Save your energy.... Don't try and figure out the voters. |
Actually, this has been quite enlightening to me. I don't believe in a monolithic DPC voter. I think an average vote is actually a complex result of a chaotic dynamical system. Hearing how different individuals engaged with this photo on its path to scoring mediocrity is far more edifying than staring blankly at the end result. :) |
Hmmmmmm, Art might not be the only one with long arms.....
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 08:03:36 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I would propose that people only vote on images that they've actually looked at.
|
I agree. If I can't look at the image, I don't vote on it.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 08:50:43 AM · #65 |
Great thread, I've certainly learned a lot from reading.
As a thought - I wonder what votes would look like if you either had the option of ONLY voting on 20% of the images - I would imagine people would spend more time pulling out the really good ones.
Or another option would be only votes with comments would count. Requiring everyone to spend a bit more time (not necessarily a lot looking at some of the comments I've received :-))
I'm not recommending a change, just wondering how it would change results.
Jack
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:15:58 AM · #66 |
I'm going to be daring and go against the grain on this one. Firstly, I didn't vote, because I've not got around to voting for a while, but this shot would have been an average vote from me.
Where I am against the grain, is that, for me, this shot had more instant appeal than lasting appeal. I think, had I been voting quickly, I'd probably have stabbed the 6 button here. Had I been taking time, it's more likely to have gotten a 5. Why? Because I think it has good elements to the photo, such as composition and light, but when I stop and take it all in, there's nothing there "behind" it. Excuse the slightly wooly turn of phrase, but I can't really describe it in more exact terms. The more I look at it, the more I am drawn to imperfections and "lacking" that would detract from my score. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:41:37 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I want to hear from the 95 of you who gave this photo a 5 or lower, particularly those of you who feel like you're truly dedicated to photography, or at all serious about it. Why did you, personally, give this photo a 5 or lower? What do you think Ed needs to do differently? Do you look at photography magazines? Which ones? Are you aware of this genre of photography and just don't like it? |
I've read this entire thread, and my initial thoughts haven't changed.
I didn't vote on this, but probably would've given it a 6. Technically, it's fine, but it would've been a "low" 6 bordering on 5, simply because it doesn't grab me that much.
Am I serious about photography? In the sense that I enjoy doing it and looking at it, yep. Do I think that anyone else has the best take on it, and can tell me what I should like or not like? Nope. No more than I think art galleries can tell me I should like something they've chosen to display.
There's a certain arrogance in describing what scores well on DPC as "poppy" or "empty" or saying that one vision of what makes great photography is better in some way than others. If we all liked the same things, the world would be much less interesting (yes, that's a hackneyed phrase, but it's still true).
What should Ed do differently? Not a thing. He should keep doing what he wants to do. In his case, that seems to be pursuing a style that sometimes grabs enough people on DPC to score highly. Many of his shots do grab me, for instance. But if someone wants to shoot for high scores, that's just fine, too. Personally, I try both approaches at various times.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 05:56:12 PM · #68 |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 10:47:49 AM · #69 |
In my opinion, the shot belongs in a series. It doesn't work as a standalone because a picture presented by itself has to be catching and interesting. However, if put together with some of his other shots as a series, I feel that it would play an integral part. I would have given it a 5. Sorry.
I definately agree with the flipping through pictures, and I admit that I am guilty of doing just that. However, you have to consider the fact that some people who vote (especally in the open challenges) are not photography buffs, they don't read Black and White magazine, and they couldn't tell you who Edward Weston was. But that's how it goes. That's why there are open challenges, member challenges, and the invitational challenges.
Anyway, I love DPC. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 12:25:19 PM · #70 |
Like many I also hold Ed's work in high esteem.
The weak link, here and elsewhere (IMHO), is that he (as most of us, including myself) publish images which, perhaps, should not be published. Most of us are not as stringently selective as we should be, if we wanted to show off a strong, coherent body of work.
The trash can is a photographer's best friend. It is not easy to sever feelings of attachment altogether. To look at a photo coldly and analytically in the context of what has gone before and what, therefore, may, credibly and convincingly follow it, is an editor's skill and stance, and it's certainly an acquired skill, which is not too widely spread.
I view this particular image as a transitionary document within a photographer's body of work or, as has already been alluded to, within a narrower confines even - a series. As it is and as it came to us via a challenge, it appeared to have run into the predicatable trouble of struggling to find its own legs. |
|
|
|
02/27/2007 09:49:51 PM · #71 |
I did not vote in this challenge but would have likely been one of the 5's.
I looked at this image when the thread started and really felt the image lacked something, for me it may have to do with the lighting, it seems a little bright on the background and a little to dark on the biker making the biker sort of blend in and not as much of a focal point to create interest. I am not sure whether it comes down to seeing it on a different monitor or what but I just think the lighting made the image kind of unintersting and lacking real depth. I really do like the biker on the steps and the shadow is great.
I am fairly new to DPC and photography so take this for what it is worth.
Spelling....:)
Message edited by author 2007-02-27 21:51:14. |
|
|
|
02/27/2007 09:55:35 PM · #72 |
|
|
|
02/27/2007 11:17:51 PM · #73 |
Personally, I don't feel anyone has to justify why they voted the way they did in any way shape or form.
Many have chosen to, as is their wont, but it's almost insulting to *demand* people come up front with it simply because an image didn't garner the attention or scoring an individual decided it should.
Take it to heart that you enjoyed the image. That it spoke to you on some level. Don't expect, or force, anyone else to enjoy or appreciate it on that level.
DPC, at the core, is simply about the common denominator.. always has been. Always will be. It is a game, and we play it. What one finds true art, another finds not worthy of his time and space.
Put it in your favorites.. thank the photographer for his vision, and look for more.
That is the only advice I can give. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 08:38:06 AM · #74 |
|
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: 07/27/2025 06:50:12 AM EDT.
