| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2007 09:16:23 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
"Too much consideration, IMO, is given to voters and commenters to rate entries by topicality, and this stance is stressed in the rules. While I am all for challenges in the general spirit we conduct them, I feel that by encouraging voters to sit in judgment of matters they cannot, reasonably, be expected to fathom and, thus, appreciate, we encourage conflict and tedious discussion largely external to photography and art.
The energy wasted and lost here, IMO, could better be invested, if it were understood that an emphasis on topicality existed for the creative benefit of the entrants and not for the righteous glee of the uninitiated." |
WORD UP!
Message edited by author 2007-08-28 21:16:53.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2007 09:29:19 PM · #27 |
Me's starting to feel likes my 6th grade edumacation ain't up to snuff for the high folutin artsy folks
Come on
"encouraging voters to sit in judgment of matters they cannot, reasonably, be expected to fathom and, thus, appreciate,"
This is photography not nuclear science! |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 09:47:51 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by codfish:
...This is photography not nuclear science! |
Just my point: if it's photography, it could be about looking at pitchers and not about lynching their authors for showing us something we may not have seen before. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 09:48:29 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
"Too much consideration, IMO, is given to voters and commenters to rate entries by topicality, and this stance is stressed in the rules. While I am all for challenges in the general spirit we conduct them, I feel that by encouraging voters to sit in judgment of matters they cannot, reasonably, be expected to fathom and, thus, appreciate, we encourage conflict and tedious discussion largely external to photography and art.
The energy wasted and lost here, IMO, could better be invested, if it were understood that an emphasis on topicality existed for the creative benefit of the entrants and not for the righteous glee of the uninitiated." |
All gibberish aside, the photographer still has to sell their image to the voters. If the photo gets too deep, or goes over the heads of the voting members, then it doesn't matter how cool a connection the photographer has with the submitted challenge entry.
The photographer likes it sure, however, the voters say "huh?, sorry, doesn't fit". Ding with the score, and rightly so.
There's photography that is wonderful in an artistic sense - hooray for that. Then there's photography that "sells" to the general DPC community. Some members here are blessed with the ability to meet both demands at once.
So, photograph what you want as long as it pleases yourself, and perhaps others in an artistic sense, but don't worry about your score and the DNMC backlash - OR - grab a photo that will "sell" for the challenge theme and go for the better score.
Make a choice, and don't cry about it (not you personally Zeus). |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 09:55:56 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Just my point: if it's photography, it could be about looking at pitchers and not about lynching their authors for showing us something we may not have seen before. |
I'm all for seeing thing in a new light but you are not going to put a tie on a horse and tell me it's bridge! The challenge themes are there to give boundries so that the photos have some comparability for voting purposes other than having been taken over the same time frame. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:04:43 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by codfish:
...The challenge themes are there to give boundries so that the photos have some comparability for voting purposes other than having been taken over the same time frame. |
Sounds exciting... and thanks for the clarification. ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:09:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... the voters say "huh?, sorry, doesn't fit". Ding with the score, and rightly so.... |
Or wrongly so, dead wrong at times.
But yes, some things aren't for everyone. |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:09:59 PM · #33 |
After giving the DNMC topic much thought over the last several months and reading the various threads devoted to it I've made up my mind. I'll vote all blatantly obvious DNMC entries a 3 or lower. I'll skip voting on "questionable" DNMC entries. I will give every entry I believe "clearly" meets the challenge at least +1 above what I would give it in a free study.
I will never leave a DNMC comment on any entry because that merely pisses people off. For that matter, I will never leave any sort of negative comments because, rightly or wrongly, I'm probably wrong.
My vote given "average" will likely suffer as a result. I will be a social pariah if anyone wishes to criticize me for that, but I'll get over it.
Thanks to everyone of you and the thousands of posts that were involved in helping me reach my decision. I'm sure you'll all rest better knowing that the issue has been resolved.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:21:58 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by codfish:
I'm all for seeing thing in a new light but you are not going to put a tie on a horse and tell me it's bridge! The challenge themes are there to give boundries so that the photos have some comparability for voting purposes other than having been taken over the same time frame. |
I think Zues' point is that the challenge themes are there to spur imagination, to be the spark which ignites creativity, but goes too far when it becomes the hard rule by which the petty may nitpick.
Providing a theme is nice... just remember that it is often open to interpretation, and the quality of the photo is more important than the meeting of the challenge.
I'd rather see a bunch of lovely images that shoehorn into the challenge than a barrage of mediocre literal interpretations.
Just my opinion, anyway. =) |
|
|
|
08/28/2007 10:35:15 PM · #35 |
As one who only joined in July, I find the strongly held but conflicting opinions in threads like this instructive as well as entertaining. Apology in advance for being wordy here.
For open challenges, voting has to happen with no specific "criteria" set forth. The voters need to figure out how to weigh technical factors (focus, depth of field, exposure, ...) and artistic factors (composition, emotional impact, originality, ...) with no guidelines about how much any one aspect "counts". Look at the image only or look at it in the context set by the title? Lots of opinions on that point alone.
Then, a challenge with a theme adds to the mix some evaluation of whether the image fits the theme. Clearly that is part of the reason for a theme at all. No absolute guideline about how to weigh this either. But three vague attempts to address the issue (forgive the repetition from earlier posts) are consistent in suggesting that fitting the theme is not the only aspect for voting:
1. You should "keep an open mind to other interpretations of the challenge topic." If the interpretation is hard to perceive, the title might help. Fair enough. If not, the details won't be visible until after voting. Lower scores might be expected. Still, I take this as an attempt to discourage being excessivly hard-nosed about images that don't seem to fit the theme.
2. You should "consider the challenge topic when voting, and adjust your score accordingly." Doesn't say how much to adjust (great fit = 1 score higher? 2? Poor fit = 1 score lower? or 2? or ...? . An odd individual approach will average out if voted consistently across all entries, but might cause some distortions if applied only to selected images. It sounds like some people set an absolute ceiling score as maximum for excellent images that don't obviously fit the topic, and others may set an absolute lower floor for an image that fits the challenge even if a poor image. Unclear whether that would be bad distortion. Still, it doesn't say vote = 1 if connection is not obvious. Seems to me that consistent minor/moderate adjustments upward or downward bassed on degree of fit would be reasonable and fair - maybe bigger adjustments for how well or poorly it does MC.
3. You must not "recommend an entry for disqualification for not meeting the challenge." That references the formal DQ process rather than voting. But the spirit seems to me to suggest that not having an obvious fit with criteria does not translate into an automatic very low score.
It would be interesting to have the profiles show average score for open challenges entered as a separate number from the average score for all challenges combined. Might diffuse some of the energy around the "fairness" of voters in challenges with themes.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 12:06:37 AM · #36 |
While this comment on one of my challenge entries doesn't actually say "DNMC" he pretty much stated it in his bold comments. It's got to be one of my favorite ones cause it was clearly a case of the member's own knowledge (or ability to find facts) fogging his voting. I PM'd him back stating that while the Rubik's cube may have been invented in 1975 it is synonymous with the 80's...I don't think I ever met someone that said "awww the 70's, remember the Rubik's cube?" (of course I'm not sure how many people remember the 70's much anyway lol)
Originally posted by espy2:
There are a lot of Rubic's Cube depictions in this challenge, but unfortunately, although some may have played with it in the 80's, it was really created in 1975. Therefore, the cube was really a 1970's craze, and not an 80's craze.Rubik's Cube was developed in 1975 by Ernö Rubik, a Hungarian professor of mathematics |
As far as voting, I won't totally vote down an image for thinking it doesn't meet the challenge but I will reduce it's overall score. I tend to start with a 5 for meeting the challenge and subtracting for how much I feel it doesn't meet the challenge but then I add for the actual aspects of the image such as brightness, how it's composed etc. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:20:42 AM · #37 |
This reminds me of my lowest-scoring image ever, in "Self-Portrait III":
The challenge description asked us to find our best side and show it to the community. I thought long and hard about this, because my "best side" is my mind, and I resist the idea that the flesh, the body, is always (or even usually) the best "portrayal" of self. The image was conceptualized before I shot it (I knew what I wanted), and was shot specifically for this challenge. The "poem" that is the title was written for this challenge.
Now, obviously, I did not expect this image to score very well in the challenge. That was a given. And the LONG discussion that ensued in the comments thread and in a long-lost forum thread was fascinating, to say the least. I've got no complaints in that regard.
So what's my point? It's that an awful lot of people felt I was "shoehorning" an image into a challenge in which it did not belong, and I didn't DO that. The whole thing was conceptual and, as far as I am concerned, a perfectly valid approach to the idea of "self portraiture". For me, "shoehorning" means having an image you happened to shoot that week and finding a way to squeeze it in. And this image was just out of the box, not shoehorned, simply because the entire process was conceptual and intentional.
Obviously, I'm not afraid of photographing myself; see my entry in the recent "Color Portrait" challenge.
So, I'd gently suggest to the voters, as a group, that they not pass "judgment" on peoples' intentions, if you catch my drift? It's not a crime to think outside the box, it's not a mockery of the challenge, it's just the way some of us ARE. Feel free, of course, to express your dissatisfaction with the image/challenge fit by recording a low score; that's what votes are for. But please don't take it upon yourself to attack peoples' supposed motivations, or their sanity for that matter, because they march to a different drummer than you do.
Thanks for listening,
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:33:00 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by jonejess:
After giving the DNMC topic much thought over the last several months and reading the various threads devoted to it I've made up my mind. I'll vote all blatantly obvious DNMC entries a 3 or lower. I'll skip voting on "questionable" DNMC entries. I will give every entry I believe "clearly" meets the challenge at least +1 above what I would give it in a free study.
I will never leave a DNMC comment on any entry because that merely pisses people off. For that matter, I will never leave any sort of negative comments because, rightly or wrongly, I'm probably wrong.
My vote given "average" will likely suffer as a result. I will be a social pariah if anyone wishes to criticize me for that, but I'll get over it.
Thanks to everyone of you and the thousands of posts that were involved in helping me reach my decision. I'm sure you'll all rest better knowing that the issue has been resolved. |
If the shoe fits... by the way your average can't suffer too much more...
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:27:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Originally posted by codfish:
I'm all for seeing thing in a new light but you are not going to put a tie on a horse and tell me it's bridge! The challenge themes are there to give boundries so that the photos have some comparability for voting purposes other than having been taken over the same time frame. |
I think Zues' point is that the challenge themes are there to spur imagination, to be the spark which ignites creativity, but goes too far when it becomes the hard rule by which the petty may nitpick.
Providing a theme is nice... just remember that it is often open to interpretation, and the quality of the photo is more important than the meeting of the challenge.
I'd rather see a bunch of lovely images that shoehorn into the challenge than a barrage of mediocre literal interpretations.
Just my opinion, anyway. =) |
I second that. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 03:36:52 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
While this comment on one of my challenge entries doesn't actually say "DNMC" he pretty much stated it in his bold comments. It's got to be one of my favorite ones cause it was clearly a case of the member's own knowledge (or ability to find facts) fogging his voting. I PM'd him back stating that while the Rubik's cube may have been invented in 1975 it is synonymous with the 80's...I don't think I ever met someone that said "awww the 70's, remember the Rubik's cube?" (of course I'm not sure how many people remember the 70's much anyway lol)
Originally posted by espy2:
There are a lot of Rubic's Cube depictions in this challenge, but unfortunately, although some may have played with it in the 80's, it was really created in 1975. Therefore, the cube was really a 1970's craze, and not an 80's craze.Rubik's Cube was developed in 1975 by Ernö Rubik, a Hungarian professor of mathematics |
As far as voting, I won't totally vote down an image for thinking it doesn't meet the challenge but I will reduce it's overall score. I tend to start with a 5 for meeting the challenge and subtracting for how much I feel it doesn't meet the challenge but then I add for the actual aspects of the image such as brightness, how it's composed etc. |
LOL. Sounds like someone who didn't live in the 80's. Reminds me of the Holiday Inn commercials except instead of staying at a hotel they spent a few minutes at the wikipedia web site. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 03:56:59 AM · #41 |
I feel that there are two levels to DNMC.
For strict definition photographic challenges (ie 30 seconds, contre-jour, fill the frame, etc), DNMC is very simple to define. DNMC is not really an opinion, but more of a fact. No quality of the picture meets the definition laid out in the title or description. A statement of DNMC for this is trying to express that the goal has been missed.
Imagine if you were hired to do a bunch of wedding shots and handed them a CD full of macro's of bumblebees. DNMC. The goal has been missed. What about if you hand in a CD of someone else's wedding? Now they are wedding shots, but the goal is still missed. Close? maybe. Still DNMC.
Why use the example of a wedding? Well, photography is either for a purpose or with casual intent. If you are shooting for yourself, your opinion is really the only one that matters. If you are shooting with a purpose, you have to work within the limits of [b]other people's opinions and requirements[b].
Another level might be in challenges with less definite descriptions or interpretative meanings (ie working without a net, the sacred...) DNMC is not really simple to define. Here, DNMC is an opinion, and people should be a bit more relaxed towards this statement.
I entered a challenge many, many moons ago back when I was still doing the challenge thing called Literary Adventure. I shot for the title, but ignored the Challenge Description. Afterwards, Bear helpfully mentioned that it was DNMC and I had a closer look at the Ch_descr. I still shot it for myself, and I feel that it was fine for the challenge as my personal definitions include the title for this type of challenge, so I'm satisfied with the pic, but I understood my received votes much better. Did most people vote me down for the DNMC? Maybe. Maybe for the pic itself too. Did I learn from it? Sure.
Bottom line, the votes were indications of what people thought about the pic. The comments (DNMC) merely help (me) to understand the votes, and generally improve learning opportunities. I don't understand why people would let this bother them.
Here is a thread I created that I feel has some potential for turning the tide with this issue.
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 06:23:35. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 06:47:19 AM · #42 |
| All the constant debates about what the challenge means, the silly comments by people who obviously haven't read the challenge description, and did I mention the debates, are a big part of why I don't enter more stuff. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 07:11:34 AM · #43 |
So as jonejess suggested, wouldn't moving all of this discussion to a simple check of a little box during voting be a wise move then?
Please comment on my linked thread. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 07:31:20 AM · #44 |
To be reasonable, don't tell me you wouldn't DNMC and vote down when there is a challenge called "RED" (description: The colour red or a red coloured object must be the main subject of your photograph) and someone enters something that has NO red in it ANYWHERE (let's say the entire frame is filled with nothing but "BLUE" but it is obviously a photograph) but the title says, "LACKING RED".
Imagine that someone entered that shot into that challenge... WHAT DO YOU DO??
Do not sit there and tell me that you wouldn't vote that shot down because it doesn't meet the CHALLENGE.
How mad would you be if you took the time to put together a fabulous RED shot only to have the BLUE shot win because of a TITLE??
ATTN: this is not a direct reference to any past or present challenge, just needed something to use for comparison and colour seemed the easiest way to go...
That's all I am saying... you must meet the challenge in a comprehensible manner or you deserve to be voted lower than those who actually TRIED instead of shoehorning with a title.
It's different when there is no blatant title shoehorn. I do believe the voters here are fair and do try to consider how the shot could meet the challenge before they click the button. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 07:54:31 AM · #45 |
the trouble is that many DNMC's are actually DNMMC's (Does Not Meet My Comprehension).
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 08:50:12 AM · #46 |
I know ive said this a billion times at this point, but when I read a challenge title and description, I read it as if whoever wrote it was the client, and the description tells what they want. While some challenges offer a very open description and title, which can is subject to an endless amount of interpretation (see Free Study, Sacred, Wings, to name a few recent), others are more pin pointed and direct (Fast Food, Backlighting, Fill the Frame.)
I guess the job we are given, as artist (I use this term to describe myself very loosely) is to interpret these challenges in a way that we feel get the point across, but also as "professionals" we need to address the constraints that are put upon as well. I know some people pride themselves on being able to think out of the box (yadda yadda there is no box blah blah) but I believe there is a time and a place for everything. In the challenges with the open ended titles/descriptions, I encourage everyone to be as creative as humanly possible. In the more precise descriptions, creativity is still encouraged, but it just needs to be contained within the prescribed boundaries (wah, but my creativity knows no bounds, are you really creative at all if you can only be creative outside of the parameters of the challenge?) |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 08:56:38 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
the trouble is that many DNMC's are actually DNMMC's (Does Not Meet My Comprehension). |
I guess this would be another point to make.
In a voting type situation, the goal should be to appeal to the widest audience possible. Generals image for Seuss is a prime example of art thats just too smart. The average voter links Seuss simply to his stories, and knows very little about his political or personal life. So for those people, its very easy to see why your entry was a mind boggler. Art is good for alienating and dividing people, some art is focused specifically at that and people cater their work to specific target demographics, thats just natural I guess. I tend to be quite lowbrow, therefore I wouldn't expect the highbrow audience to enjoy what I enjoy, Im sure there are some that would, but Id say the majority wouldn't. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:23:59 AM · #48 |
TCGuru. the issue of the Red challenge actually did come up once... someone thought of entering something that referenced color blindness.
If a shot was made for example that had everything red DESATURATED, or perhaps HUE SHIFTED, even though the image contained no red, I would personally feel that it was OK, as it would be a visible abnormality in the subject. Wouldn't make sense to put a picture of blueberries in a red challenge and hue-shift them to remove the red now wouldn't it. For post-challenge, these sorts of things often come out in the image description. Some also choose to use their title to indicate this. If the jump is too far though, aren't people entitled to feel and express that they simply didn't see the jump? Those that put an image forward that is a real stretch usually understand this and don't expect high scores.
UNLESS the challenge description contained something that said you must use only red tones in your image, including oranges and pinks. In that case, I would say, nice idea, but DNMC.
However, I tend to both include the title as part of the challenge description as well as not taking DNMC too seriously. I usually reduce my vote by half for DNMC, only if it is blatant.
Again, I feel that many of the issues being brought up here would be reduced greatly by the use of a DNMC box. Get it out into the open and release the pressure. It's strange how people can get upset when one person disagrees with their opinion, but when 50 people disagree, they usually calm down and re-examine.
If not re-examine what they originally thought, at least re-examine how important the opinions of those 50 other people are to them.
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 11:24:40. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 11:49:28 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
... It's strange how people can get upset when one person disagrees with their opinion, but when 50 people disagree, they usually calm down and re-examine.
If not re-examine what they originally thought, at least re-examine how important the opinions of those 50 other people are to them. |
Do you really think there's that many DNMC's on an image per challenge? 50?
From thoughts you've put forth in a thread you started earlier you mentioned:
Originally posted by eschelar:
I believe that people blow DNMC WAY out of proportion. In most cases, it's just an opinion of one or a few voters. ... |
So, is DNMC a big deal or not? Are there just a few voters spouting DNMC in each challenge or is it up to around 50 (which BTW would be a substantial percentage of votes cast)? |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 12:03:09 PM · #50 |
Do I really think that there are as many as 50 DNMCs on an image in a challenge? Without a checkbox, I don't honestly see how I could know.
Hrm. I don't see why it couldn't happen. I've seen images with more than 100 sub three votes. there are plenty of them. many of these types of images are blatant DNMC images scumming for brown. Some of them are misunderstandings. Some of them are deliberate shoehorns.
But my point is that if you got 50 DNMC check boxes on an image, would it be likely to throw you into a fit of rage or would it be likely to make you simply go "oh, that explains the 55 sub-3 votes I got" or perhaps - "Weird, 50 DNMC votes, but only 5 votes under 4 - I got something right!"
This would turn DNMC from a source of argument and contention into merely something that gives the numbers in your score breakdown some context.
You probably wouldn't freak out because it's just a sterile number, unrelated to anything else. On the other hand, it MIGHT increase the number of people drop-voting on DNMC images. Is that bad? Maybe. Maybe instead, it would encourage people to spend just a few minutes more considering their image before submitting it. Is that bad?
People often freak out because there is a name attached. I'm pretty sure that people freaking out is bad.
Viewed from another perspective, many times we see little mixups and snafu's on various images. Accidentally posted in the wrong challenge, posted hastily, then regretted due to choice of image etc. People do things like self-DQ and it's not all that rare. DNMC Bag could be another avenue for those who wanted to drop mid-race, but still wanted to see how their scores would do.
Is DNMC a big deal? it is to many. Should it be? Probably not. It's existence cannot be denied though, so wouldn't it be good to put a label on it and put a saddle on it?
Are there images that get 5-6 DNMC votes in a challenge? Yep. Are there images that get none? Yep. probably most of them actually. Are there images that get triple-digits of DNMC votes? Sure. I see them all the time as it is my habit to review both the top 20 and bottom 20 of each challenge as both are good places to learn. The bottom 20 also features the DQ'd shots, so there is occasionally a lot to be gained there.
Incidentally, before i started posting about DNMC stuff today, the last three times I logged on to DPC, there were three or four DNMC topic threads on the front page.
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 12:12:29. |
|
