| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2007 08:46:21 AM · #1 |
OK, I have to bring this up. While voting was ongoing for the Night Shot challenge some people were talking about this shot saying it wasn't original, that the person who recently won a blue ribbon with the London Eye photo should not have entered it again. Well, it turns out that it was not taken by the same person. Here is the photo:
Please go read some of the comments......mean comments saying that because it wasn't original they were going to vote it down, giving it a 3 and so on. Just because it wasn't original!!!!! I thought we were supposed to vote on technical merit and how well it fit the challenge.
In many challenges we see the same themes repeated (Northern Lights from Iceland, the Oregon coast, etc). They always seem to show up on the front page of the challenge results which is why I remember them. Funny how they are not voted down for not being original yet this photo was. And I hate to single out a particular photographer but didn't Librodo enter 4 photos of the same old woman and score quite well with each photo? No knocks there for not being original.
I think it's time for voters to GROW UP! Stop letting your bias get in the way of voting.....vote on the technicals and whether or not it fits the challenge. Don't vote a photo down because you saw the same subject in the last challenge. You have no way of knowing if it was or wasn't taken by the same person. By your reasoning, if a photo of the Eiffel Tower wins a challenge today, no one should ever enter a photo of it again in a challenge? That is just silly and childish.
SC you can move this to rant if you like.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 08:50:40 AM · #2 |
also, in my defense, i actually shot that before i saw the "Spinning" winner. was in london for a week and took a few night shots in the westminister area, and i figured i'd enter it anyway since i liked the shot and it matched the "Night Shot" theme quite well.
anyway, still a personal best for me, so i'm happy. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 08:52:12 AM · #3 |
[quote=KarenNfld] OK, I have to bring this up. While voting was ongoing for the Night Shot challenge some people were talking about this shot saying it wasn't original, that the person who recently won a blue ribbon with the London Eye photo should not have entered it again. Well, it turns out that it was not taken by the same person. Here is the photo:
Please go read some of the comments......mean comments saying that because it wasn't original they were going to vote it down, giving it a 3 and so on. Just because it wasn't original!!!!! I thought we were supposed to vote on technical merit and how well it fit the challenge.
I have to admit that I thought that I had seen the same photo within one week and I am just new to DPC, but I dont think that I would have voted it down. (Didn't vote in this challenge) I can understand though that if the same style picture reappears several times in a row in a very short period of time, that people will begin to question it. But they still shouldn't vote it down. Just look how similar some of the landscape shots are at the moment.
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 08:53:45. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 08:52:51 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 08:56:04 AM · #5 |
i've sometimes seen on the boards people making comments (throughout various challenges) about how photos in challenges must have been imitating the work of another person here (I think the last comments like this I saw were in the "Red" challenge). Because lord knows that all original ideas start here at DPC.
When I see comments like that it always cracks me up. Isn't it just a teeny bit possible that someone came up with an idea on their own, didn't actually scroll thru the tons of challenges here, and just took a shot because they liked the view?
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 08:56:29 AM · #6 |
| I thought it was taken by the same person, but voted approriately since it was a new shot. I will have to agree that if the same photo shows up so close together, it gets almost boring. It's bound to happen |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:01:31 AM · #7 |
I read through the comments and must say I found only one or two a little mean spiritied. It seems that many comments did say they saw the subject before, but that they still liked the image. I think this type of comment provides the photog a lot of information as to why the votes are going one way or another. Since it is a popular subject (I can think of at least 3 other images in recent challenges that used this subject and same perspective), the image needs to be spectacular to get really good votes.
This image is very nice and I would have given it a 7 if I had got a chance to vote - well constructed and with really great colors and good lighting, but the people in path leading up to the London Eye are a little distracting. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:10:20 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
While voting was ongoing for the Night Shot challenge some people were talking about this shot saying it wasn't original, that the person who recently won a blue ribbon with the London Eye photo should not have entered it again. |
The post by  Manic (quoted below) in this thread ==> some thoughts about nights shot IV, could be applied more liberally IMO. This has always been an issue, and unfortunately, will probably continue indefinitely.
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder to all that it's best to discuss challenges after the results are announced, and especially don't mention or refer to (directly or indirectly) to any particular challenge entry while it's still in voting. |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:26:42 AM · #9 |
Karen while I certainly understand your thoughts on the comments,(I read them and more then a couple certainly implied or directly stated that they voted down based on a common subject.) In reality with the flaws and distractions that I see in the shot its end score is actually pretty good.
The first thing that I notice with it is the tilted horizon, I find myself needing to lean a bit right to get a straight look. The people in the foreground are pretty distracting because they are pretty sharp, and I also find that since the photog decided to pretty well center the main subject(the wheel) that the photo seems out of balance to the right with the percieved(to me) extra space that doesnt have much to add to the composition. I think I get this perception because the photo isnt take exactly dead on to the subject but off a bit of an angle. Notice the distance to the tree on the left in the foreground to the distance of the tree on the right. I know this is all pretty nitpicking but its the things that jump out to me. I didnt vote on this challenge but based on my first reactions when I view the photo it would have been a 6 from me.
These are of course just my thoughts, I could be wrong.
MattO |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:33:32 AM · #10 |
I gotta agree with MattO here ... technically the spinning winner was better. In addition to the reasons he gave, the perspective on the night shot was more distorted by the ultrawide or fisheye used, and the exposure on the lights in the trees wasn't as spot on. That may have knocked a point off many scores.
Its not like the Night Shot entry got hammered for the "repeat" either ... it placed 29th with a very nice score of 6.4729! The Spinning entry won with a 7.373, which imho is about the right separation given the differences in the images:
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 09:34:48. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:36:09 AM · #11 |
MattO & EstimatedEyes, yes I agree this wasn't as good technically as the blue ribbon winner. But those comments I mentioned said that they were voting it down because it wasn't original.....not because of the quality of the photo. That's what I have a problem with.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:40:12 AM · #12 |
Very odd see it implied that a 6.4 is somehow "mean" for a shot that people have seen several times before. After awhile, the repeats feel exploitative. DPC enjoys being pandered to, but not so overtly.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:45:15 AM · #13 |
I say be happy that people told you why they were voting lower. I didn't vote on that challenge, but I did look during voting. When I saw the image I said "another one?" I didn't make the assumption that it was the same person, but that doesn't take away from it being the same subject. It's a beautiful subject... that a lot of people take pictures of. You have to do something special with it to pull it out of the crowd.
I'm from Washington State and I can't tell you how much a picture of the Space Needle bugs me. Yet last week there was one on the front page that was pretty cool... because it was different. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:48:40 AM · #14 |
I see what you're saying Karen, but for me originality counts too. I didn't leave a comment on the Night Shot entry, but when I see a repeat shot -- whether by the same photographer or a copycat -- that will negatively affect my vote to some extent. And that doesn't just apply to repeat challenges, but to any shot that I've "seen before." If its technically excellent and meets the challenge it may get a 6 or even a 7, but to make it to my top tier its gotta be original or unique in some way.
FWIW, I voted the night shot a 6 and the spinning shot a 7, which means I liked both shots a lot, but neither had that extra pop for me to take it to the top tier (obviously not everyone agrees!) :>)
So in that sense, though some of the comments may have seemed a bit harsh because they used just a few words to communicate their thoughts, I don't think they were off base. And the commenters as a group voted over 6, so it doesn't look like they were all handing out 2s and 3s for the repeat.
edit:spelling doh!
Message edited by author 2007-04-18 09:53:12. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 09:51:43 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
MattO & EstimatedEyes, yes I agree this wasn't as good technically as the blue ribbon winner. But those comments I mentioned said that they were voting it down because it wasn't original.....not because of the quality of the photo. That's what I have a problem with. |
I have always had that problem as well, unfortunatly it not going to change. We live on DPC, and our scores live and die by the almighty voter who can do and think as they please. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with how they do it, but thats what we have to do. Being honest though, I'd rather know thats why they gave me a 3 then because they thought it sucked. I'd be upset either way, but really calling out voters doesnt do any good at all except usually to make people think twice before leaving a comment on a photo they voted low. And since this is supposed to be a learning site thats counter productive to what we should be doing.
MattO |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:08:22 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:10:08 AM · #17 |
The point of the challenges is to enter a photo that the majority of people like better than any other photo. Nowhere does it say why they have to like it. The winner isn't just the most technically perfect shot in the bunch - it's the photo that most people liked the most for any reason.
When you see something new for the first time, or something you've seen a million times in a new way, it impacts you in a certain way. There's a little something extra. When you see it again, it's not as special (except in cases like the northern lights which I think always have some magical appeal). Once you've seen it, future viewings aren't apt to be as special, especially if they also lack the technical impact.
There's nothing wrong with voting something down because it lacks personal impact. There aren't any rules about how to vote and there's no requirement to vote solely on technical merit. Yes, everything has been done before but there are a million new ways to look at everything. The commenters are basically saying that, having seen practically the same image already, this one does nothing for them. Now the photographer knows why they got the votes they did. This subject, apparently, isn't one that consistently holds the same sort of magic that northern lights or librodo or the Oregon Coast do. So be it.
What's silly and childish is calling out commenters and directing folks to go look at the awful comments they've left so that they can be harangued in the forums, just because someone doesn't happen to agree with their opinion. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:11:49 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
But those comments I mentioned said that they were voting it down because it wasn't original..... |
Just for the irony perspective -- two of the voters complaining about the lack of originality had shots of the Lincoln Memorial. ;-)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:12:17 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
MattO & EstimatedEyes, yes I agree this wasn't as good technically as the blue ribbon winner. But those comments I mentioned said that they were voting it down because it wasn't original.....not because of the quality of the photo. That's what I have a problem with. |
I have always had that problem as well, unfortunatly it not going to change. We live on DPC, and our scores live and die by the almighty voter who can do and think as they please. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with how they do it, but thats what we have to do. Being honest though, I'd rather know thats why they gave me a 3 then because they thought it sucked. I'd be upset either way, but really calling out voters doesnt do any good at all except usually to make people think twice before leaving a comment on a photo they voted low. And since this is supposed to be a learning site thats counter productive to what we should be doing.
MattO |
Yes, but the longer people stay here, the more refined their voting habits become. I think these threads are healthy because it gets some of the newer voters who wouldn't have previously thought about it might consider that this is a different person.
But the same thing happens with all subjects, whether it's women with bright scarves, or flowers, or macros, or whatever it might be that month, people eventually get bored if they are avid voters. If you're going to use a tried and true subject, you'd better put a new spin on it. |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:22:53 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by hopper:
forum rule #11 |
I don't believe I was hostile. Can I draw your attention to the following voting rule:
You may not:
-offer or cast biased votes for any other user
I believe voting an image down because it is not "original" is being biased.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:25:52 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by hopper:
forum rule #11 |
forum rule #10 :) |
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:27:08 AM · #22 |
:)
i thought it was a rule breaking party, i was just joining in
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
forum rule #11 |
forum rule #10 :) |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:27:55 AM · #23 |
my mistake
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
I don't believe I was hostile. |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
I think it's time for voters to GROW UP! |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:31:28 AM · #24 |
If SC feels I have broken a forum rule they are more than welcome to lock this thread.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2007 10:50:24 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by hopper:
forum rule #11 |
I don't believe I was hostile. Can I draw your attention to the following voting rule:
You may not:
-offer or cast biased votes for any other user
I believe voting an image down because it is not "original" is being biased. |
Against the photo, sure, but not against the user. |
|
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: 10/14/2025 02:10:24 PM EDT.
