| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2007 09:47:49 AM · #1 |
Another idea that's been out and about a couple of times in the last three years or so. Let's see what we can get that's fresh and new.
I think we all enjoyed the witty banter in the forums after the 2 second challenge and subsequently after the 30 second challenge. Recently, we've even had a fair bit of calm, intelligent and well-reasoned discussion on the issue of DNMC and the relevance of challenge descriptions.
So let me lay this out on the table as I've seen it wend through the forums.
***
There are challenges of two primary types. Free Study and Themed challenges.
Free Study exists for obvious reasons, and partly as an outlet for photographers who can't meet the challenges that week for whatever reason.
Themed Challenges are a very special part of DPC and many, many users have commented that the boundaries that these place give a type of creative stimulus that is not found on other similar websites. Personally, I don't often shoot for challenges, but when a particular challenge tweaks my curiosity, it will get me looking around and daydreaming of various ideas. I will sometimes shoot something suitable a couple of weeks later. This is one reason why I personally appreciate the site even though my submissions are few. Point: the boundaries have value.
***
Obviously anything goes in the Free Study (within editing acceptability of course), but when the idea of a Theme comes in, people start to get confused as to the literal aspect of things. What's more important? the title or the challenge description? What's more important? the artistic value of the pic or its relevance to the challenge?
People have all sorts of varying ideas about this as they enter images, and just as broad a range of ideas show up in voting as well as commenting. We even get a nice collection of carefully worded threads started in the spirit of cooperative learning in the forums (hrm, I hope you all appreciate a certain 'tongue-in-cheek' flavor here).
People have a little trouble with clarity for a thousand reasons which I could ramble on about for pages (OK, so maybe I have already, but at least not yet in this thread). What's more important, the idea presented in the mind of the Mighty Writer of the Challenge Description or the idea that said sentence forms in the mind of the Mighty Shutter Clicker Thingy Operator?
My suggestion therefore is to classify the Themed Challenges this way:
Broadly Interpretative (BI)
Restrictive "Assignment" (RA)
Technical Challenge (Tech)
Stylistic Challenge (Styl)
Scavenger Hunt (Hunt)
Broadly Interpretative - use the challenge name or description be your guide to creativity. See where it leads...
Restrictive "Assignment" - Treat this one as if you have an assignment from the 'Boss'. Don't stray too far from the obvious, literal interpretation.
Technical Challenge - A photographic exercise designed to get you to use your camera in a specific way and see what results you can generate. DNMC=DQ (there is precedent already that this is acceptable with the majority)
Stylistic Challenge - A photographic exercise designed to let you think about your end result as it relates to a specific established style of picture. If you don't know what it means, research it. Adapt your shots to fit the style.
Scavenger Hunt - Express your creativity within the boundaries of a specific object or objects. DNMC=DQ (pretty simple)
*****
The first obvious question is "Will this increase the voice of the 'DNMC Nazi's'?"
No. Maybe. It will not increase the cause of DNMC. It may increase the vocalization of it. BUT I believe that by clarifying the level of specificity, it will help those entering the challenges to shoot more MC. For those challenges where Broad Interpretation is accepted, it may help decrease DNMC voting where creativity is viewed as a higher cause than the challenge description. On the other hand, other types of challenges may find more 'Troll' votes and more 'DNMC' votes and comments. But on a website that actually states in the ruleset that MC/DNMC should be considered as a part of the voting process, is that really a bad thing?
The next obvious question is "... but photography is art, this is bullsht, why try to box people in?"
Uhhh. Yeah. See the above definition of Free Study and Themed Challenges. Free Studies are always available.
The final obvious question is "... but I can't find anything to shoot around here that meets the challenge, so I worked on this image for hours and hours and it ALMOST meets the challenge... and I REALLY NEED that UPDATE button... and besides, I want to enter every week..."
MMhhmmm... See above Free Study. Sometimes you just have to sit one out. Lots of people do it. In fact, Tens of THOUSANDS of users do this. Every week. It's OK. You can do it!
If anyone else has any obvious questions or would like to repeat any of the above obvious questions, or perhaps would like to flame me as a DNMC Nazi Troll, feel free.
Intelligent discussion is also welcomed.
I will bump this in a few minutes with a short breakdown of some of the last 50 challenges (give or take) and how they fit nicely with this scenario.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:14:11 AM · #2 |
is a tech bi or ra?
is an styl bi or ra?
if an ra doesn't dq for dnmc, then why have it?
if an ra does dq for dnmc, then what's hunt for?
:) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:18:25 AM · #3 |
Taken from the last 50ish challenges. These are EXAMPLES of how this idea might be applied. Nothing more:
Broadly Interpretative:
Technology II
Wealth
Power
Speed II
Working Without a Net
The Sacred
Wings
Triumph
Missing Link
Dreams II
Nightmares
Weekend
Restrictive "Assignment":
Half
Deja-Vu III
Opening
Closing
Motivational Poster II
Bokeh IV
Speed II
Rural Landscapes
Urban Landscapes II
Fast Food
Rolling Stones Songs
Extreme Emotion: Faceless
Paper
Dichotomy
Sea (not Land)
Land (not Sea)
Technical Challenge:
Soft Focus III
Backlighting III
Natural Light Portrait
Stylistic Challenge:
Group Portrait
S-Curve
Still Life with Motion
Silhouettes IV
Impressionism II
Bokeh IV
Fill the Frame III
Upside Down
Street Photography II
Still Life III
Rhythm III
Scavenger Hunt:
Candy II
Wings
Children's Toy II
Shadows IV
Paper
Lucky 7 II
******
I was unable to find any challenges that would not fit easily into one of the five basic categories above. I was able to find a few that would fit into more than one - and would likely yield different results if given such different categorizations. I included a few in two categories as a result.
I noticed that the division was easy to make in the vast majority of the cases. It seems that the Mighty Writer of Challenge Descriptions does indeed have something in mind when making up the Chall_Descr.
There seems to be a bit less specific Technical challenges, but the other types have roughly equal quantities, with exception for the Scavenger Hunts which are a bit of a special type generally anyhow. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:26:51 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by hopper:
is a tech bi or ra?
is an styl bi or ra?
if an ra doesn't dq for dnmc, then why have it?
if an ra does dq for dnmc, then what's hunt for?
:) |
Each category is essentially mutually exclusive.
RA encourages people to try to think about what the fictitious 'boss' figure would want if given that information. Think of a Photojournalist on assignment. There is a certain narrowness of definition there that cannot be bent too freely lest the PJ gets fired.
BI on the other hand encourages people to try to think about their own interpretation of the information presented in the Challenge Description.
Neither would DQ for DNMC because that is the current standard. It is very difficult to say outright that the picture (which can be interpreted with a minimum of 1000 Words) does or does not meet the challenge in many cases. However, the difference between BI and RA is that for Broad Interpretation, voters and challengers alike would be encouraged to be creative and be somewhat lenient regarding the details. For RA, photographers and voters would both be encouraged to think along the lines of a 'standard' view of the challenge descript and to try to take it literally.
Hunt Challenges are self-explanatory. they are challenges which require a specific object or objects. These already exist. Nothing suggested above is new, just defined more clearly for the masses. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:29:00 AM · #5 |
nope ..
categorize it for yourself if you wish but don't restrict others to a narrow point of view .
the new points of view helps dpc not hinders
DNMCers view may not meet the world view or your/mine but let them vote as they may |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 11:21:39 AM · #6 |
| You must have a lot of time on your hands... :) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 11:55:18 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by ralph:
nope ..
categorize it for yourself if you wish but don't restrict others to a narrow point of view .
the new points of view helps dpc not hinders
DNMCers view may not meet the world view or your/mine but let them vote as they may |
Like I said, these categorizations already exist within the challenge descriptions (feel free to look at the challenge descriptions of those listed), but many people are having trouble accepting or understanding the boundaries that define Themed Challenges. For example, many have attributed broad interpretative meanings to stylistic challenges when they were not familiar with a particular term.
Jhonan - just so happens that I started class at 8:00 am with a Spanish grammar class where the questions were all written in Chinese and continued on until I finished my day at 8:30 PM. Dropped into the photography club for a half hour for lunch too. I've worked an hour and a half of chinese calligraphy homework into my evening. Just winding down now and off to the refrigerator for a quick glass of water and then off to bed. cya in the morning! Tomorrow's my easy day. :) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:03:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Like I said, these categorizations already exist within the challenge descriptions (feel free to look at the challenge descriptions of those listed), but ... [} |
then don't sweat it .. don't reinvent the wheel .. relax ..
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:10:11 PM · #9 |
...but.... people are still having problems with understanding the level of literalness or perhaps the intent of the challenge descriptions. When I read them, I see that some are intended for more broad interpretation and others are intended to be more restricted.
others seem to feel that all challenges should have a broad interpretation.
Still others feel that they should all have a narrow interpretation.
and the threads spin off into infinity.
By adding clarity and definition, it would help photographers, voters and forum posters all to understand the sense of the challenge description - either as something to be expanded with their own creativity or as boundaries which exercise a particular skill.
I'm quite relaxed. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, but the wheel has so many uses, so needs a bit of direction to make it run most efficiently. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:21:09 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Like I said, these categorizations already exist within the challenge descriptions (feel free to look at the challenge descriptions of those listed), but ... [} |
then don't sweat it .. don't reinvent the wheel .. relax .. |
I think eschelar's point is that if we LABEL these challenges by "category" we will encourage both shooters and voters to pay more attention to the particular challenge's terms of engagement.
I don't see a real downside to this, and a there's a potentially a very real upside.
R.
cross-posted
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 12:21:30.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:27:24 PM · #11 |
| An interesting idea. Like you say, nothing new or change, this classification does basically exist, just an attempt at a little bit of clarification. I can see where it could possibly help some people. The problem I could see is, how to get people to see it :-) We already know that there are folks that don't see or ignore the challenge details vs. challenge title. And we know there are those that don't bother to read challenge rules, at least til they get a dq! But some could benefit. Perhaps writing the concept up as a tutorial could be a start? |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:37:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
An interesting idea. Like you say, nothing new or change, this classification does basically exist, just an attempt at a little bit of clarification. I can see where it could possibly help some people. The problem I could see is, how to get people to see it :-) We already know that there are folks that don't see or ignore the challenge details vs. challenge title. And we know there are those that don't bother to read challenge rules, at least til they get a dq! But some could benefit. Perhaps writing the concept up as a tutorial could be a start? |
It could be part of the title of the challenge: "Soft Focus III ΓΆ€” Technical Challenge"
R.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:47:18 PM · #13 |
I genuinely like this idea and can't see any downside to the proposal.
The introduction of such a mechanism might:
- provide a clearer delineation of the Challenges,
- assist members in gaining a better insight as to the expectations of the challenge, and
-enable a better understanding of what truly constitutes DNMC.
The is one proposal that I would readily support.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:49:41 PM · #14 |
| Would you associate any rulesets with the different classifications? For example, "Technical" challenges always are run under X rulest. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 12:58:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by taterbug:
An interesting idea. Like you say, nothing new or change, this classification does basically exist, just an attempt at a little bit of clarification. I can see where it could possibly help some people. The problem I could see is, how to get people to see it :-) We already know that there are folks that don't see or ignore the challenge details vs. challenge title. And we know there are those that don't bother to read challenge rules, at least til they get a dq! But some could benefit. Perhaps writing the concept up as a tutorial could be a start? |
It could be part of the title of the challenge: "Soft Focus III ΓΆ€” Technical Challenge"
R. |
hehehe, Well yeah! :-) It has no meaning if it's not present. What I was talking about, was the actual explanation of the classifications, like eschelar lays out. I mean, I like the idea, and I do think it could benefit people. I'm just saying, the challenge is to get everyone to see it. :-) |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 01:19:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Like I said, these categorizations already exist within the challenge descriptions (feel free to look at the challenge descriptions of those listed), but ... [} |
Your compilation of past challenges into categories & proposal to officially make labels for clarification offers no harm & may be helpful.
What does not exist, and would be harmful if implemented, is a blanket theme category of DNMC DQ option, for voters, sc, or god to impose. DQ for DNMC has been implemented in the past in some very specific & select challenge descriptions - IMO that is appropriately where it may be best specified. |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 01:59:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It could be part of the title of the challenge: "Soft Focus III ΓΆ€” Technical Challenge"
R. |
hehehe, Well yeah! :-) It has no meaning if it's not present. What I was talking about, was the actual explanation of the classifications, like eschelar lays out. I mean, I like the idea, and I do think it could benefit people. I'm just saying, the challenge is to get everyone to see it. :-) |
I'd hope that if such a tag were part of the challenge title, it would motivate quite a few people to look further to "see what that means". The tag could be hyperlinked to a proper description of what is expected.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-10-11 14:00:05.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 02:03:24 PM · #18 |
| An interesting proposal. I would find the categorization useful, but I am a word person. (Now why did I say that? Are some people NOT word people? Can such supposed people be encouraged to become word people, or can people at large improve at word-ness? Would this be a Good Thing? I think it might). |
|
|
|
10/11/2007 10:32:55 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by L2:
Would you associate any rulesets with the different classifications? For example, "Technical" challenges always are run under X rulest. |
(DNMC=DQ being a flag that is currently applied only very rarely to a few challenges - appearing in many cases as an afterthought when the masses continually look for the loopholes to the extent of missing the point completely)
I don't see that anything really would need to change from the way things are currently run with respect to DNMC=DQ with two small exceptions.
The Technical Challenge and the Scavenger Hunt.
But these are usually DNMC=DQ currently anyhow.
Technical Challenges involve either a camera setting or a specific lighting requirement. If you look at the past history of these types of challenges, you will find that most lighting requirements are not DNMC=DQ, but many camera setting challenges work best if they are (see above reference to the 2-second and the subsequent 30-second challenges). Camera settings are easily checked with little room for interpretation. Lighting settings are virtually impossible to check, so currently do not generally get a DNMC=DQ.
Scavenger Hunts (which would also include the currently running 'Pencil' challenge) are also easily defined as DNMC=DQ since there is a requirement to have a specific object. Note that the 'Paper' challenge had a type of wording that made me feel that it could fall under the Scavenger Hunt OR the RA category. The decision would be in the hands of the person who made up the challenge and I believe that the decision in that case may have made a minor difference in the outcome of the challenge - although not specifically the top 20 or whatever.
The difference as far as 'penalty' is concerned is that the recommendation (which currently exists in the ruleset) to weight votes according to the voter's perception of DNMC would be encouraged to be applied with a light hand and a broad mind for BI, and with a heavier hand for the RA, Tech and Styl challenges as such are intended to have a tighter restriction. However, the *HOPE* is that this would be mitigated by having more thought and attention to the challenge details during the shooting phase.
People will not change their style of voting much, but it might allow people a bit more direction and freedom to vote more pointedly when a 'moral conflict' arises - image quality and beauty vs DNMC.
Schizophrenic Q+A:
Will there be a rash of new 'troll votes'?
Well the vote scrubber is still there, so people won't suddenly have the freedom to vote all 1's, if that's what a troll is.
Yeah, but some images are going to get a whole mess of 1's and stuff even though they do meet the challenge in the mind of the photographer...
Uhh, that's not a question. Of course people will still shoot out of the box, and they will still get 1's when the voting masses don't see things the same way. Hopefully they will understand that this is more likely to happen in a restrictive type challenge than in a BI challenge. Currently, most people that shoot way out of the box ALREADY understand that they will pay for their vision in their score, and their score is not specifically the ultimate goal for their shot.
So you're encouraging voting amazing pictures low because of DNMC in restrictive challenge descriptions?
Actually the ruleset currently does. What I am trying to encourage is getting the photographers to give more thought as to WHERE THEY PLACE THEIR IMAGES, since DNMC is definitively related to where an image is placed rather than a specific quality of the image itself. People voting low for DNMC over image quality would understand better how to weight their votes and some beautiful images WILL end up getting a lot of low votes. Nothing really new there - EXCEPT that if this happens in a restrictive type challenge, there is LESS ROOM TO COMPLAIN since there are TWO types of challenge (BI and Free Study).
But what about people who vote low for DNMC in BI Challenges?
This isn't currently a major issue for Free Studies. However, it is still the right of a voter to vote as they see fit. If they don't see a connection, they will probably vote low - there is after all a challenge description for most of these. Again, this is nothing new - EXCEPT that they might have a chance to think twice or think with a bit more of an open mind before tossing out that 1. The end result for the photographer is that while their votes will still reflect a conflict of 'vision' for some voters, this effect will probably be LESS than if the challenge had not been defined as 'Broadly Interpretative'.
That's all the questions the voices in my head can come up with for now, please feel free to fill in the gaps. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 03:48:00 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I don't see that anything really would need to change from the way things are currently run with respect to DNMC=DQ with two small exceptions.
The Technical Challenge and the Scavenger Hunt.
But these are usually DNMC=DQ currently anyhow. |
I don't think the DNMC=DQ idea is particularly popular with the SC/admins since it means more work for them in checking all the images meet the challenge description. In fact, I haven't seen the DNMC=DQ rule used for quite a while now. Even the current 'pencil' challenge which you pointed out would be a good candidate for DNMC=DQ doesn't include that rule.
Are you proposing that all Technical and Scavenger challenges should be DNMC=DQ by default? Or is this optional? |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 06:10:55 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't see a real downside to this, and a there's a potentially a very real upside.
|
Well that must mean this idea will die a slow death much like every other well thought out suggestions before it. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 06:26:59 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Are you proposing that all Technical and Scavenger challenges should be DNMC=DQ by default? Or is this optional? |
I would leave that up to their discretion. I don't make challenges. I think that Tech and Hunt challenges could easily be DNMC=DQ without making a significant increase of burden on the SC.
On the other hand, I think that by establishing the idea that not every challenge is necessarily a 'Broad Interpretation' aka Free Study, it might accomplish the same end without having to go as far as making the Rule.
I think that if DNMC=DQ as a rule would have a significant impact on the photos entered then it probably would be a good idea to have it on appropriate challenges.
Please note though that I am not actually requesting that the use of DNMC=DQ within the challenge descriptions be used as a default or blanket requirement within specific challenges. The examples above of tech challenges involving EXIF trackable camera settings vs untrackable lighting situations probably shows a painless and fair level of use. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 09:36:12 AM · #23 |
| I like this idea. Meeting the challenge is important to me, and having a challenge labeled BI or RA would change some of my votes. As it is now, I think of every challenge as an "assignment" rather than "take this idea and go shoot whatever it inspires you to shoot". I'm all for a couple of very restrictive categories where DNMC = DQ, especially technical challenges where it is often easy to tell if the rules were followed. |
|
|
|
10/12/2007 10:35:43 AM · #24 |
I really like this idea Keiran. I was just thinking of making some suggestions for challenges that would be "BI" like "Show us your favorite color", or "Your state of mind", etc...I was going to suggest that the challenge description say something like "this is a free study and by default every photo meets the challenge. If the photographer submits a b/w then assume his favorite color is the total lack of color!) But your idea takes it to a whole other level and is much much "mo better".
I think it would help in voting and submitting. If the challenge was clearly labeled "Broadly Interpretive" then voters SHOULD completely rule out DNMC votes as those challenges would be free studies (with a few exceptions of course). On the other hand if the challenge was clearly labeled RA the voters would be free to judge the photo based on meeting the challenge and could - without reservation - vote lower on photos that didn't meet that assignment. Photographers would know when submitting to those challenges that shoehorns, oobs, etc would be judged harsher. As it is now, I really don't know when one of my OOB photos will be deemed DNMC or not (see my Half entry!) If your classification was in place I would have known the consequences of entering my "Half" shot in the RA challenge and could have made an informed decision on whether or not to enter.
As another example, my current entry in "Searching" is scoring a 4.9 because I treated searching as a BI challenge, but the voters are considering it an RA challenge. I might have opted to enter it anyway if it were marked as an RA challenge, but I would have known going in that the score would be sub 5. I honestly think it would score a full point better had the challenge been clearly marked as BI. I'm not saying that a high score is what we are shooting for, but it would be better IMHO if the photographer could guesstimate the score before the challenge so they could make an informed decision on whether or not to submit it. I would also know that if my photo was still scoring a sub 5 and was in the BI challenge that the reason would be composition, technical, or choice of subject matter, not DNMC votes.
I truly believe your classification system would have helped me in that particular challenge and other challenges as well.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2007 09:52:02 PM · #25 |
Thanks for the support.
Bumping for more views by those who have not yet seen the idea. |
|
