| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2008 05:15:23 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I would imagine that Langdon would care, though he is yet to show it. I bet that he benefits from each $25 he gets from each person each year. To me, this is worthwhile. I like the site and what it brings to the table, but some things need to be updated. If no one ever points out improvements that can be made, how will anything ever change? I am guessing that you actually DO care, or you wouldn't have bothered posting our thoughts. |
I like this site.
I do not care if you are renewing or not. I am irritated by the arrogance of people who think I should care that they are not renewing. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:16:44 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
If no one ever points out improvements that can be made, how will anything ever change? |
To be fair, I agree with your call for larger images, and bringing up an issue to be considered is not a bad thing. It's the method chosen that makes it the issue. Simply put, if you threaten, you're not going to be taken seriously.
One person's $25 is not going to be significantly felt. I would imagine that the administrators have their reasons for the choices they make, and while upgrades and updates are most definitely appreciated, posting that you can no longer be a part of the site because something hasn't happened yet only makes you seem self-serving and childish.
My belief is that someone that truly wishes to not be a part of something anymore will simply not be a part of something anymore.
So please, bring up issues you feel strongly about, but know that it'll serve you, and the community, better if you bring it up in a reasonable, mature manner.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 17:17:40. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:23:35 PM · #53 |
I didn't see anyone in this thread arguing against size increases. Some pointed out image theft concerns, etc.
I think the objections here are, for me at least, as  K10DGuy noted, about the nature of the suggestion: If I don't get what I want, I will leave in a year when this renewal expires. In the meantime, I will vote no higher than 5 because I don't already have what I want....
 slickchik has it right: this is a fun site, a site to learn from, a site where one can be exposed to all manner of styles, tastes, techniques. Image resolution in challenges is at the bottom of the priorities list for me.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 17:41:42. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:31:59 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
so, then by your own ridiculous voting standards, none of your entries deserve higher than a 5, right? I'm quite sure that your images are not perfect, so by your own voting standards your average vote received should be somewhere in the 3 range ... Your argument for low voting makes absolutely NO sense at all ... just your way of justifying being a troll ... |
AGAIN, I have only entered 6 challenges this year. If I were entering challenges, I would expect lower votes. Answer your question? And if you will take time to look around before reducing yourself to name-calling, you'd see that my average vote cast to this point is 5.5236. Expect that to change. Up to this point, I have been fair based on my honest assessment of the image. I will continue to do the same, though I expect that number to decline significantly. That's just a product of the system.
Originally posted by mpeters:
Eric-- did you put on your flame retardant suit this morning? ;) |
Yeah, I figured that this one would get me flamed a time or nine. No worries though, it needs to be addressed. Funny thing is...I even posted this one completely sober, and that's a big change. |
I agree with your original post and the fact that DPC needs to allow higher resolutions, however your proclaimed voting strategy because of the limitations is just absurd. How can you penalize the challenge participants based on DPC limitations?! I'm sure you don't complain when you get votes of 6 and above ... but I'd bet you'd be ticked off if your image scored a 3! |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:58:57 PM · #55 |
I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this, but I think it may be worth asking if there is an IP angle to consider also. Some people here (in some threads) are very concerned about stolen photos even at these relatively low resolutions. I'm curious if those who sell their images would rather not make their images freely available at higher resolutions.
Sure, no one has to enter challenges and perhaps few people would even care. I don't know. Just thought it might be worth bringing up. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:24:00 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
I agree with your original post and the fact that DPC needs to allow higher resolutions, however your proclaimed voting strategy because of the limitations is just absurd. How can you penalize the challenge participants based on DPC limitations?! I'm sure you don't complain when you get votes of 6 and above ... but I'd bet you'd be ticked off if your image scored a 3! |
Score my images however you see fitting. That's why they were posted. Sure, the 1 votes have pissed me off in the past, but if that's how you see it, score it a 1. My voting scale is different than yours, and every other scale here. I cannot and WILL NOT score images highly if I cannot adequately see the details and qualities of the images. If that pisses you off, I DON'T GIVE A SH*T. We have had poll after poll after poll after poll after poll on here that resulted in the MAJORITY OF VOTERS asking for a size change across the board. We didn't get it either time. I felt the need, and I am glad of it, to state my intentions and displeasures with that part of the site. Again, the site has been great, but I don't think that it is advancing with changing technologies. There are over 2300 members that pay to use the site. Just looking at paying membership, not considering how many buy more portfolio space, the site generates $59000+, not including advertisement banners. Is that not enough to pay for a little extra bandwidth and space for larger images? Hell, charge me more to post larger images. Let's say you offer tiers of membership. I'd pay $10 or $15 more annually to be able to post my challenge shots at 1000px. I bet others would as well. With images at that size, of course with the option to post smaller for all you Pablo Picassos out there that are worried about your works being stolen and sold for millions without you getting any of the proceeds, I could adequately score entries. It is far past time for a change. Many of us have asked for it many times past. Now, I am finished asking. The membership renewal was my last peace offering in remaining a member and asking one more time. I can post and grow and chat on any number of sites that allow me to size my images larger. BUT I LIKE IT HERE, outside of the 1990s size allowances.
Edited bacause some days I just can't spell.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 18:29:56. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:35:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
...
My voting scale is different than yours, and every other scale here.
I ... WILL NOT....
If that pisses you off, I DON'T GIVE A SH*T.
....for all you Pablo Picassos out there that are worried about your works being stolen and sold for millions... |
sigh........ |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:39:20 PM · #58 |
| There's an add-on for Firefox call 'Image Zoom'. It does a really nice job of increasing the size of an image. Maybe that would help some people who have such nice monitors that the current DPC image size is too small. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:42:02 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
I agree with your original post and the fact that DPC needs to allow higher resolutions, however your proclaimed voting strategy because of the limitations is just absurd. How can you penalize the challenge participants based on DPC limitations?! I'm sure you don't complain when you get votes of 6 and above ... but I'd bet you'd be ticked off if your image scored a 3! |
Score my images however you see fitting. That's why they were posted. Sure, the 1 votes have pissed me off in the past, but if that's how you see it, score it a 1. My voting scale is different than yours, and every other scale here. I cannot and WILL NOT score images highly if I cannot adequately see the details and qualities of the images. If that pisses you off, I DON'T GIVE A SH*T. |
you're right, this part does piss me off ... maybe you shouldn't vote at all if you don't think that you can adequately view the images presented in a challenge ... other voters don't seem to have these same issues ...
Originally posted by ericwoo:
We have had poll after poll after poll after poll after poll on here that resulted in the MAJORITY OF VOTERS asking for a size change across the board. We didn't get it either time. I felt the need, and I am glad of it, to state my intentions and displeasures with that part of the site. Again, the site has been great, but I don't think that it is advancing with changing technologies. There are over 2300 members that pay to use the site. Just looking at paying membership, not considering how many buy more portfolio space, the site generates $59000+, not including advertisement banners. Is that not enough to pay for a little extra bandwidth and space for larger images? Hell, charge me more to post larger images. Let's say you offer tiers of membership. I'd pay $10 or $15 more annually to be able to post my challenge shots at 1000px. I bet others would as well. With images at that size, of course with the option to post smaller for all you Pablo Picassos out there that are worried about your works being stolen and sold for millions without you getting any of the proceeds, I could adequately score entries. It is far past time for a change. Many of us have asked for it many times past. Now, I am finished asking. The membership renewal was my last peace offering in remaining a member and asking one more time. I can post and grow and chat on any number of sites that allow me to size my images larger. BUT I LIKE IT HERE, outside of the 1990s size allowances.
Edited bacause some days I just can't spell. |
I totally agree with this part of your statement ... I think we need the higher resolution, but it should be a personal choice by each challenge participant on whether or not they choose to use the extra size ... we're not totally far off in our belief here ... I just think that you're punishing the challenge participants because you're pissed off about the resolution, and IMHO that's wrong ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:47:00 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
I just think that you're punishing the challenge participants because you're pissed off about the resolution, and IMHO that's wrong ... |
There is no punishment. I vote the images how I can see them. Your voting average is lower than mine. What are YOU punishing the challenge participants for?
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 18:48:27. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:51:16 PM · #61 |
There is the point that the challenge entry needs to consider the fact it is on a limited canvas. If a client asked for a picture for a brochure at 4x6 and you deliver a shot and say, "it looks bad here, but it looks awesome at 8x10", do you think they are going to be happy?
I have often made decisions based on knowing I am limited to 640 or 720 pixels. Closer crops on portraits, avoiding complex patterns, avoiding some subjects altogether, etc.
Woo isn't off in his voting. I think it's just fine. OTOH, I don't particularly see a need to increase the canvas dimensions. I certainly do not want to get into pictures you have to scroll to see in their entirety.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 18:52:11. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:54:31 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I cannot and WILL NOT score images highly if I cannot adequately see the details and qualities of the images. |
Eric, what̢۪s amusing to me is that you aren̢۪t penalizing anyone but yourself by using the 1-5 scale. What was good to you before will still be good now and what was bad will still be bad. Now you just have fewer intervals to vote with. If you vote consistently as you say you will your protest will have little or no effect on anything but you own average vote given. Your one vote will have little affect on any individual challenge and probably there will be someone using only the top half of the scale to balance you.
I agree with your premise but your whining and feeble protest is childish.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:59:25 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I cannot and WILL NOT score images highly if I cannot adequately see the details and qualities of the images. |
Eric, what̢۪s amusing to me is that you aren̢۪t penalizing anyone but yourself by using the 1-5 scale. What was good to you before will still be good now and what was bad will still be bad. Now you just have fewer intervals to vote with. If you vote consistently as you say you will your protest will have little or no effect on anything but you own average vote given. Your one vote will have little affect on any individual challenge and probably there will be someone using only the top half of the scale to balance you.
I agree with your premise but your whining and feeble protest is childish. |
OK, I am fine with that. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 07:15:17 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
I just think that you're punishing the challenge participants because you're pissed off about the resolution, and IMHO that's wrong ... |
There is no punishment. I vote the images how I can see them. Your voting average is lower than mine. What are YOU punishing the challenge participants for? |
I'm not the one saying that I just upgraded my computer so now I'm only going to vote on a scale of 1-5 ... I use just about the entire scale when I vote, rarely do I give out a "1" ... and occasionally I'll give out a "10" ... but I frequently give out 6-9 scores ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 07:19:39 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OTOH, I don't particularly see a need to increase the canvas dimensions. I certainly do not want to get into pictures you have to scroll to see in their entirety. |
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... but I think that most people have gone beyond the 800x600 screen resolution by now ... making the size limits slightly larger wouldn't be a bad thing ... even 800x800 would be an improvement ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 07:20:41 PM · #66 |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 07:21:48 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OTOH, I don't particularly see a need to increase the canvas dimensions. I certainly do not want to get into pictures you have to scroll to see in their entirety. |
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... but I think that most people have gone beyond the 800x600 screen resolution by now ... making the size limits slightly larger wouldn't be a bad thing ... even 800x800 would be an improvement ... |
Just don't forget to add the rest of the screen like the header and the voting numbers and title. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 07:25:27 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OTOH, I don't particularly see a need to increase the canvas dimensions. I certainly do not want to get into pictures you have to scroll to see in their entirety. |
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... but I think that most people have gone beyond the 800x600 screen resolution by now ... making the size limits slightly larger wouldn't be a bad thing ... even 800x800 would be an improvement ... |
Just don't forget to add the rest of the screen like the header and the voting numbers and title. |
point taken ... I went back to look at the smaller screen resolutions on my machine and you're right, some folks would still have to scroll at 800x800 ... I'm fortunate enough to have my resolution set at 1920x1200 so in my world 640x640 looks tiny ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 09:31:55 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Ritz Camera's main focus is consumer and amature photographres using point and shoot cameras... most of whom mainly send small images over e-mail to family and friends. Not to take away from consumer and amature point and shoot photographers, but the people that post images on here (even the amature and point and shoot folks) are several grades above the average Ritz photographer that will probably enter their contest. In my opinion the Ritz contest and this site is not a fair comparison. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I really enjoy DPChallenge and the competition here is fun, however I think your point is bordering on the edge of elitism. |
Sort of curious coming from someone who's been here three years and never entered a challenge, too.
|
Why do you say that? Is it required that we enter challenges to enjoy DPC? Or is it that only those that have entered can have an opinion about how this site or anything outside of this site? I have a number of reasons why I never have and probably will never enter a challenge. What I said has nothing to do with elitisum or feeling like I'm better than them or anything of the sort. But it's a business fact that Ritz and other chains like that market towards the consumer and amature photographer. That doesn't mean that just because they are considered consumer or amature that they don't take professional quaility images. Many can and do. But to say that just because Ritz limits the size of the images entered in their contest to a small size that DPC should also, is comparing fruits and vegitables. Sure they give a lot of money away, but for every dollar they give away, they are looking at bringing in thousands more from those same amature and consumer photographers that haven't got a chance of winning.
[quote]
I have never understood that whole attitude about levels/grades of quality in photographers.
There are plenty of good photographers that don't make any big deal out of it.....they just do it 'cause they like it and they're good at it.
They have nothing to prove, and nobody to prove it to, so they do as they wish with their work. [/quote]
Just like there are different grade plumbers and electrictions and those working to be doctors, there are also different grades, quality and levels of photographers. It's a fact of life and I don't see why it's any big deal. You talk about someone not having anything to prove, yet you wonder that I have never entered a contest and would make a comment about how the challenges are run. Regardless, I think my opinion and comments are worth exactally what everyone elses is... now if I was an elitest, I'd say mine was worth more, but I'm not. ;D
Mike
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:50:05 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Why do you say that? Is it required that we enter challenges to enjoy DPC? Or is it that only those that have entered can have an opinion about how this site or anything outside of this site? I have a number of reasons why I never have and probably will never enter a challenge. |
Okay, and that's your right, but you don't participate, you don't vote, so IMO you're speaking from a perspective of zero experience.
I know after two years and over 100 challenges, I see, and vote, images entirely different than I did at the beginning.....it's just a fact that I have a better handle on what works here within what's typical to this site than someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time doing the same.
My beef with the OPs stance is that nothing has really changed other than his view, and he seems to be taking it out on the same entrants that he's been voting on for....however long he's been doing it.
If he's mad at SC, Langdon, fine, but don't take it out on us.
Maybe you've been busy looking at challenge entries, and voting them in your head, but I still just feel that by your RECORDED level of participation, you're not speaking from an informed stance.
That's certainly well within your right, I just feel that it doesn't carry much weight as compared to the views of the people who participate.
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Just like there are different grade plumbers and electrictions and those working to be doctors, there are also different grades, quality and levels of photographers. |
And site participants???.....8>)
Originally posted by MikeJ:
You talk about someone not having anything to prove, yet you wonder that I have never entered a contest and would make a comment about how the challenges are run. |
I just wondered why if you don't participate.
What difference does it make to you if you're not affected in the slightest by this man changing the way he votes?
Not that he's going to shake the earth, but it cannot affect you at all, right?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:52:41 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... |
Yeah, if I had to scroll vertically and horizontally and not be able to appreciate the whole image at once, I could probably not give the image more than a 5 :P |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:58:45 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... |
Yeah, if I had to scroll vertically and horizontally and not be able to appreciate the whole image at once, I could probably not give the image more than a 5 :P |
Eric's point was that the images are so small because his resolution is so high that he can't see the details, therefore he can't vote more than a 5 ... which I totally disagree with ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:02:17 PM · #73 |
I know... I was making a sarcastic comment about his idea of not being able to vote above a 5. I also find that to be unreasonable.
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... |
Yeah, if I had to scroll vertically and horizontally and not be able to appreciate the whole image at once, I could probably not give the image more than a 5 :P |
Eric's point was that the images are so small because his resolution is so high that he can't see the details, therefore he can't vote more than a 5 ... which I totally disagree with ... |
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:22:47 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I know... I was making a sarcastic comment about his idea of not being able to vote above a 5. I also find that to be unreasonable.
|
OMG Alan, is someone else not giving you enough credit for being humorous? If I didn't know better, I'd swear you'd been hacked. :)
Back on topic, the idea that someone can't give a vote above a "5" just seems, well, rather sulky. Eventually this behavior would lead to a very low "average vote cast" and cries in various scoring threads of "Help, help, I'm being attacked by a troll!"
But that's just a guess. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:31:17 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I know... I was making a sarcastic comment about his idea of not being able to vote above a 5. I also find that to be unreasonable.
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
Yep, scrolling to see the entire image would suck ... |
Yeah, if I had to scroll vertically and horizontally and not be able to appreciate the whole image at once, I could probably not give the image more than a 5 :P |
Eric's point was that the images are so small because his resolution is so high that he can't see the details, therefore he can't vote more than a 5 ... which I totally disagree with ... |
|
sorry ... just did a drive by of this thread while running through the room heading out to the bonfire! Didn't read it as someone supporting my opinion!! |
|
