|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2009 01:29:12 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by olbol:
Some photographers post complete rubbish just for the hell of it. I've just gone through 95% of the apple challenge with some real time wasters posing for participants. Why should I waste my time on elaborating when they obviously don't give a damn on trying to make at least a stab at doing a half-decent pic? |
What may be complete rubbish just for the hell of it to YOU, may be an honest effort from a complete beginner that really doesn't know much better. |
Rubbish is rubbish.
It does not matter what photographer did or what his/her intentions were. If you are voting on a photo that is presented to you, you just vote on it. And should not based vote on other things like who the photographer is, how he got the photo, is he a beginner etc etc. (or he really tried etc etc).
If voter thinks a photo deserves 1 he shall vote 1 on it.
A beginner would benefit a lot from correct judgment of photo rather than someone feeding him a lie (something like its a great or so so when in reality its a garbage).
Honesty is much more important than you think . |
You've not read what I was responding to. I wasn't responding to voting, I was responding to considering it a waste of time based on deciding, without consideration, that the person submitting it was doing so without any effort whatsoever.
I vote very honestly and I, unlike many, tend to leave comments on the votes of 1 - 3 that I make. Not all of them, certainly, but enough.
In the future, please try to comprehend what I'm replying to. |
I give you about the wastage of time thingy.
But the main point of my post still stands, that one should vote on the photo as it is presented. (and not the background history of it).
The reason of my post is that there are too many people crying out about low votes they recieve. And people keep telling others about avoiding low votes. (as if people who vote low are evil or something).
If voting scale is 1 - 10 one shall use entire scale.
I have voted many 1s and many 10s too. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 01:32:15 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You've not read what I was responding to. I wasn't responding to voting, I was responding to considering it a waste of time based on deciding, without consideration, that the person submitting it was doing so without any effort whatsoever.
I vote very honestly and I, unlike many, tend to leave comments on the votes of 1 - 3 that I make. Not all of them, certainly, but enough.
In the future, please try to comprehend what I'm replying to. |
I give you about the wastage of time thingy.
But the main point of my post still stands, that one should vote on the photo as it is presented. (and not the background history of it).
The reason of my post is that there are too many people crying out about low votes they recieve. And people keep telling others about avoiding low votes. (as if people who vote low are evil or something).
If voting scale is 1 - 10 one shall use entire scale.
I have voted many 1s and many 10s too. |
I agree with you completely. I never argued about changing your vote based on whether the person is a beginner or not, just how you perceive whether or not your time was wasted because of an assumption that said photographer wasn't trying their personal best (at that time).
However, you're right on about the amount of people complaining about receiving lower votes. There was another thread not too long ago where I lamented the number of people that seem to have developed this mini-community of entitlement here. I'll support any effort to counter-balance that!
Message edited by author 2009-02-13 01:34:01. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 01:37:29 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
If voting scale is 1 - 10 one shall use entire scale.
I have voted many 1s and many 10s too. |
Let me ask you this: if I hung an exhibition of, say, the 25 most famous images of Henri Cartier-Bresson and asked you to vote on them, would you give some of them 1's because you didn't like them quite as much as the few you gave 10's to? You may say this is a ridiculous analogy, but it really isn't.
I have voted on a LOT of DPC images over the years, and it's my personal sense of the thing that very few of the images entered are so bad that they deserve a 1 or a 2. And, for that matter, few of them are so good that they deserve a 10. But, sticking with the context of this thread, we really don't get many images at ALL that should (in my opinion) be handed a 1 or a 2.
If I were scoring that Cartier-Bresson exhibition, I doubt ANY of them would get worse than a 7 from me. I look forward to the day when a DPC challenge is so stacked with quality images that the lowest vote I hand out is a 7.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-02-13 01:37:47.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 01:43:00 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by zxaar:
If voting scale is 1 - 10 one shall use entire scale.
I have voted many 1s and many 10s too. |
Let me ask you this: if I hung an exhibition of, say, the 25 most famous images of Henri Cartier-Bresson and asked you to vote on them, would you give some of them 1's because you didn't like them quite as much as the few you gave 10's to? You may say this is a ridiculous analogy, but it really isn't.
I have voted on a LOT of DPC images over the years, and it's my personal sense of the thing that very few of the images entered are so bad that they deserve a 1 or a 2. And, for that matter, few of them are so good that they deserve a 10. But, sticking with the context of this thread, we really don't get many images at ALL that should (in my opinion) be handed a 1 or a 2.
If I were scoring that Cartier-Bresson exhibition, I doubt ANY of them would get worse than a 7 from me. I look forward to the day when a DPC challenge is so stacked with quality images that the lowest vote I hand out is a 7.
R. |
See, the thing is, that's just how you see it.
I, on the other hand, have given out quite a number of 1s, for many reasons. (from technical to personal), and I will never feel guilty or wrong about doing so :) I don't see the scale as an absolute like you do, and that just means I've got a different viewpoint than you.
That's the other thing I see here too often. So many people want everyone else to vote/think/etc. exactly like they do. Any other way of thinking/voting/etc. is bad. I'm not saying you're doing this, but it's a prevailing thing here. It's why we have so many score threads that only focus on "THE EVIL TROLLS!!"
Instead of embracing the diversity, we try so hard to get everyone to toe the line.
I can honestly say that, while I've never seen an exhibition of Cartier-Bresson, I've seen exhibitions of many other fine artists and photographers, and I can honestly say that there are photographs/paintings/etc from every famous artist I'd give a 1 to if I was found voting on them.
For example, take Van Gogh. Starry Night? 10. Sunflowers? 1.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 01:45:06 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
I'm still trying to figure out how that member decides the quality of "consequence". I've had some exchanges with him and he is reasonable in his approach. I'd just like to get the feedback when he leaves my image that 3, even if it's a copy and paste that the other 167 also got. Just to know my image didn't speak to him in any way. That's different than sucking. |
Lack of Consequence:
Absence of feeling; pointlessly imitative or derivative; lacking in apparent imagination or originality.
I ask myself this question: "Is this photograph memorable or stimulating in any way? Does it add anything to my perception of the subject, or of any subject? Am I better off for having seen it, for having reacted to it?" If I answer "no" to all three of those questions, then I judge the photograph to be of no consequence.
... this has nothing to do with what the nominal subject of the image is; nothing to do with what I 'like or don't like' in that sense.
... I should admit that I would look at the 3's for an average of about 3 or 4 seconds. Once they have so quickly fallen, why look any longer? It's ghoulish; like rubber-necking at a car crash. But the images that do clear that first hurdle I will look at for somewhere between 1 and 15 minutes, and often several times in the case of the eventual 7-10s.
So there ... now everyone who starts one of these 'please explain' threads can quote me right up front, as the sort of aberrant voter that we don't want at DPC.
P.S. For what it's worth, if I were voting on my own 27 challenge entries, I would give every one of them a 3 except for one. The very first one, as it happens.
Message edited by author 2009-02-13 01:46:22. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 01:52:56 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
See, the thing is, that's just how you see it.
I, on the other hand, have given out quite a number of 1s, for many reasons. (from technical to personal), and I will never feel guilty or wrong about doing so :) I don't see the scale as an absolute like you do, and that just means I've got a different viewpoint than you.
That's the other thing I see here too often. So many people want everyone else to vote/think/etc. exactly like they do. Any other way of thinking/voting/etc. is bad. I'm not saying you're doing this, but it's a prevailing thing here. It's why we have so many score threads that only focus on "THE EVIL TROLLS!!"
Instead of embracing the diversity, we try so hard to get everyone to toe the line. |
Of COURSE it's how I see it. And I'm NOT trying to change anyone's system. I'm just offering a counterpoint. I've expressed many times in the past that I tend to vote on an absolute scale rather than a relative scale, so I don't have many votes registered on the extremes of the scale.
But I have NEVER been one of those people who tries to badger others into using my "system". I fully "embrace the diversity" as valuable in its own right, even as I privately bemoan the homogenization that results therefrom :-) (That was a bit of a wry joke, btw)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 01:53:08 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by zxaar:
If voting scale is 1 - 10 one shall use entire scale.
I have voted many 1s and many 10s too. |
Let me ask you this: if I hung an exhibition of, say, the 25 most famous images of Henri Cartier-Bresson and asked you to vote on them, would you give some of them 1's because you didn't like them quite as much as the few you gave 10's to? You may say this is a ridiculous analogy, but it really isn't.
I have voted on a LOT of DPC images over the years, and it's my personal sense of the thing that very few of the images entered are so bad that they deserve a 1 or a 2. And, for that matter, few of them are so good that they deserve a 10. But, sticking with the context of this thread, we really don't get many images at ALL that should (in my opinion) be handed a 1 or a 2.
If I were scoring that Cartier-Bresson exhibition, I doubt ANY of them would get worse than a 7 from me. I look forward to the day when a DPC challenge is so stacked with quality images that the lowest vote I hand out is a 7.
R. |
Do you really want to know why I give 1s?
Here is the reason.
I like creativity. And I reward it. If the photo is technically poor but photographer showed creativity. I would give him 10. (I do).
So the photos i reserve 1s are photos where I (personally) see two things:
1. lack of creativity.
plus
2. photographer abusing a matra and repeating things (thus not creative).
For example: IreneM's drop shots are automatic 1 in my book. (assuming she had won few ribbons with them before).
This is my way of saying that get creative about compositions, put substance in your photograph and do not show herd mentality by just copying previous ribbons.
So your question if Henri Cartier-Bresson put some photographs, and if he posted tested matra of ribbon on dpc, i would definitely vote him 1. No doubt. (even though i knew this photo belongs to him).
PS: as a voter i still keep my right to vote 1 for technically poor photo though. (i just do not remember when was the last time i gave 1 for technical reasons though).
Message edited by author 2009-02-13 01:54:22. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 02:02:52 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
[Do you really want to know why I give 1s? |
Well, I didn't actually ask, no. I concede everyone's right to scale their votes however they choose. I understand where you're coming from.
In my book, however, a technically competent image that's reasonably relevant to the challenge deserves at worst a 3, and usually a 4, just for simple competence. You're describing an approach much closer to my friend Ubique's, and I have no quarrel with it. It's just that my personal mission, so to speak, in DPC is to encourage the development of technical competence, because i see it as a necessary tool for further development as an artist, so the way I vote tends to reflect that.
You and Ubique (and many others) place a much greater emphasis on abstract concepts such as relevance, consequence, originality, and I think that's great.
In my world, the maximum you can earn on technique alone is a 6, however; to get better than a 6 from me you gotta move beyond the technicals and get into these other areas. And I, too, have given very high scores to images that are at best technically adequate if the image itself speaks to me profoundly enough. So we're not that far apart: I just attach a greater importance to pure technique than you do (apparently), recognizing it as a step on the path as it were. This is probably because I used to TEACH this stuff. Nobody ever mistook me for a great artist, but I was respected for my technical skills, enough that I was paid to teach them.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 02:09:07 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by zxaar:
[Do you really want to know why I give 1s? |
Well, I didn't actually ask, no. I concede everyone's right to scale their votes however they choose. I understand where you're coming from.
In my book, however, a technically competent image that's reasonably relevant to the challenge deserves at worst a 3, and usually a 4, just for simple competence. You're describing an approach much closer to my friend Ubique's, and I have no quarrel with it. It's just that my personal mission, so to speak, in DPC is to encourage the development of technical competence, because i see it as a necessary tool for further development as an artist, so the way I vote tends to reflect that.
You and Ubique (and many others) place a much greater emphasis on abstract concepts such as relevance, consequence, originality, and I think that's great.
In my world, the maximum you can earn on technique alone is a 6, however; to get better than a 6 from me you gotta move beyond the technicals and get into these other areas. And I, too, have given very high scores to images that are at best technically adequate if the image itself speaks to me profoundly enough. So we're not that far apart: I just attach a greater importance to pure technique than you do (apparently), recognizing it as a step on the path as it were. This is probably because I used to TEACH this stuff. Nobody ever mistook me for a great artist, but I was respected for my technical skills, enough that I was paid to teach them.
R. |
your point about technical aspect is valid. But when you put it in dpc's frame, i feel it weekens.
I gave IreneM's example. Take her, she is great from technical point of view. So once that stage is reached one has to think about creativity. Isn't it. Otherwise I am not moving anywhere.
Take for example Larus. When last time I followed him, he did lot of stuff which was different. He even submitted some of it and they scored lower from his standards. But he is expanding. He will not be stuck.
Scores are small thing they are just numbers. But if getting them lower makes you think about improving, then it is better to get them lower than to get ribbon and being stuck. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 03:59:21 AM · #85 |
You guys are getting a little off the subject here, although all opinions are noteworthy, but my point of starting this thread is that I, and many other newer members to this site, could not give a rat's a@*e if we get a 1 vote, but the reason why would be a big help in explaining and maybe helping the improvement in the quality of our submissions.
Too many times people who are scoring well and think they have a reasonably popular shot (due to a good average vote) get shot down with a 1 out of the blue with no reason given. This is the bane of many posters during the Current Challenge forums.
It may be due to a number of different reasons, discussed earlier in this thread, but they are the voter's reasons and if I am to improve I would like to be advised as to why they are voting this way.
If it is to boost their own score or just to piss people off I guess we will never hear from them.
As I point, I normally comment on the lowest scores I give first because I figure the better scores, if I don't get time to comment on them, know they have a good shot as indicated by the higher votes they accumulate.
Message edited by author 2009-02-13 04:05:45. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 04:24:26 AM · #86 |
Brendon,
I've taken a look at your avg vote given and compared that to the amount of votes against the amount of comments you have given and it seems you are actually a part of the problem you wish to rectify, start doing what you want others to do and you might start a site revolution :)
To explain further the majority of your comments are the nice shot type and often have a little bit about the shot or what might have improved it, but looking at the overall tone of your comments and the images that you comment on, I would say they are directed at the mid range and better images in your vote scale. That leaves me wondering what do you actually say to the members whose images are on your lower end.
I am not pulling apart your vote score or your abilities here these are serious observations and particularly focused on your last comment "As I point, I normally comment on the lowest scores I give first because I figure the better scores, if I don't get time to comment, know they have a good shot as indicated by the higher votes they accumulate." which from what I can see is not strictly the case at all.
I rarely vote anymore and to be honest if it was not for the DPCO & the FSM I doubt I would submit either, I have made some very good friends due to this site and that is the reason I hang out here more than anything else. In case anyone wanted to look at my vote history ;)
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 04:50:05 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Brendon,
I've taken a look at your avg vote given and compared that to the amount of votes against the amount of comments you have given and it seems you are actually a part of the problem you wish to rectify, start doing what you want others to do and you might start a site revolution :)
To explain further the majority of your comments are the nice shot type and often have a little bit about the shot or what might have improved it, but looking at the overall tone of your comments and the images that you comment on, I would say they are directed at the mid range and better images in your vote scale. That leaves me wondering what do you actually say to the members whose images are on your lower end.
I am not pulling apart your vote score or your abilities here these are serious observations and particularly focused on your last comment "As I point, I normally comment on the lowest scores I give first because I figure the better scores, if I don't get time to comment, know they have a good shot as indicated by the higher votes they accumulate." which from what I can see is not strictly the case at all.
I rarely vote anymore and to be honest if it was not for the DPCO & the FSM I doubt I would submit either, I have made some very good friends due to this site and that is the reason I hang out here more than anything else. In case anyone wanted to look at my vote history ;) |
Point taken Mark. Like most others on this site I am hear to learn and have gained quite a bit about photography and the mechanics of this site since participating.
You are right about my previous voting style which, in the past two challenges I have begun to address for the very reason I started this post.
My average scoring to others has increased and I now do comment on my lower scores given first before attending to the rest.
I don't need to pick through your voting history because you are not the point of my discussion.
The fact is that if I wish to now vote low on a persons submission I will take the time where possible to tell them.
I may not have done it to all in the past but by frequenting this site more it's the way I'd like to operate and am only suggesting making the site better by inviting others to do the same.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 05:01:50 AM · #88 |
Brendon, that is brilliant and I guarantee if you do that you will learn so much more and improve your photography much faster than any number of "troll votes" or "shrug - unfit" comments will ever offer you. You will learn what YOU like and do not like in an image, this will extend into your photography and so you will improve (even if your scores do not necessarily improve drastically to enforce the fact as has been said by Yospiff and NikonJeb this can sometimes be a little discouraging but YOU will KNOW your skills have improved and that's the important thing).
Another thing that I did for a while was look at my comments after the challenge and see what others voted / commented on, this can help you to see details you may have missed and also faults with images you believed to be highend / faultless.
1 and 2 votes without explaination help noone but they will always be a part of this site in it's current format - the best thing you can do is as you stated above (oh and don't log your scores on a spreadsheet, it will eat you up inside!).
Good luck
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 05:11:37 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
1 and 2 votes without explaination help noone.....
(oh and don't log your scores on a spreadsheet, it will eat you up inside!).
Good luck |
Thanks for the wise words Mark.
I wholeheartedly agree with the 1 and 2 vote comment and am slowly realizing the value of the spreadsheet observation. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 06:09:13 AM · #90 |
Bit of advice. Turn scores OFF. Yes, this is possible (go to your profile page, uncheck the Show Scores box, save). Turn them on every now and then to see where you are if you must, but then turn them back off again. This, combined with a lack of a spreadsheet, will "hide" those 1s and 2s until after the voting is over. Then, when voting IS over and you're still unsure why you got the score you did - NOT why you got a 1 or a 2 - post your entry in a thread asking for critique. If you do that, accept that not everyone shares the same views, likes or dislikes; and not everyone is on the same level as far as their photography goes. Take the input you get, see what you can do to improve the next time. Don't dwell on the "who the hell is giving my picture a 1??" That doesn't teach you anything. :-)
For the record, I've received excellent feedback on my current entry as to why my score is where it is. The fact that I intended the shot to be as it is has no bearing on the score - I did not convey that intention well enough to be appreciated and THAT is what has bearing on the score. Make sense? I'm sure I'm getting more than my share of 1s and 2s, for good reason, and sadly sure that I got my perfunctual 3 from Paul. I shall take this knowledge, leave scores off for the rest of the week, and try to apply what I've learned to my next entry.
So turn scores off. Spend more time voting and/or commenting on shots that catch your eye be they in challenges or just posted, and see what you can learn. Fretting about the 1s and 2s - or even trying to change them - doesn't in the end provide any useful information you can use to improve. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 06:41:43 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by ubique:
So there ... now everyone who starts one of these 'please explain' threads can quote me right up front, as the sort of aberrant voter that we don't want at DPC. |
Uh......EXCUSE ME!
My thoughts re: your voting style.....
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I find this system to be brutally honest, full of integrity, and pretty damn incisive.
Truth be told, I don't have the guts, nor do I think I've got the skills and perceptions to vote in this manner.....I'm way too sappy, moody, and visceral.
I'd rather have this guy looking, and commenting, on my images than almost anyone I can think of. |
If we had more people here that were true to their own standards of acceptability, there'd be more consistency, and less whining due to incorrect perceptions of voting.
I feel that I probably skew numbers worse because I'm more likely to vote in a manner that reflects my mood than with a conscious, and consistent, set of standards.
So if I'm voting a challenge where I like the theme and subject material, I'm probably voting higher than if I don't. I'm also more likely to vote differently if I'm in a mood.
For the most part, I've come to see that the voters who consistently vote a 3-4 on the inconsequential images......as they see them and as the images fail to impart anything in the way of a reaction, good OR bad......are the voters who are more honest and consistent.
The reason that I feel so strongly about this is simply because I was one of the people who used to get upset about people with lower averages.
Having seen the light, so to speak, and coming to understand the reasoning behind how they arrive at their technique, I find myself quite comfortable with the style.
Ultimately what it means to me is that when I pull one out of the hat, and have an image that scores no 3s, I've REALLY done something worthy of note.
And at the end of the day, to have an imge that is worthy of note is what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 07:06:23 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by ubique:
P.S. For what it's worth, if I were voting on my own 27 challenge entries, I would give every one of them a 3 except for one. The very first one, as it happens. |
Firstly the part quoted is not what I am actually going to address it's just for reference to the post really LOL
For the record I would consider a 20k voter with a 4.7 avg given to be someone who this thread is most definitely not directed at.
If you are the person that was mentioned who gives 3 to inconsequential images, my only question would be what you based the 3 on? I guess as someone who sees the 5.5 average from a scale of 1-10 voting system I would have likely thought 4 would have been a fairer assumption for an inconsequential image - this is below the average score but allows for some further scaling of the images that not only are inconsequential but also technically flawed or otherwise not worthy of a 4 vote. I also note from a previous message that someone listed a scale where 3 was actually the lowest score given (168 times) it seems rather harsh to list the majority of images together with those that are so obviously flawed and in some cases deliberately brown ribbon contenders.
Just my thoughts but as I said above I don't think this threads intention was to question someone who votes in anyway like you seem to.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 07:10:20 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by bcenu:
I understand what you are saying with the above quote but would like to mention that giving a random high vote does no damage to another's overall score whereas a low vote may influence, be it only marginally, the voter's score. That's my point in starting this thread. |
Ah, but you're using false logic here!
It's an average, and a balance. You're attaching an importance and a signifigance to the low vote, which has you concerned, but dismnissing the effect of the high vote.
They both have the same effect, they're just numbers after all, and you're doing yourself a disservice by not recognizing that the 10s affect the score in the same manner as the 1s.
You don't really mind getting the 10s, but really and truly, can you look at any image that you've gotten 10s on and justify that vote any more than the 1s?
The average is a reflection on what the actual affect that the image had on the community as a whole.....the splinter votes, 1s, 2s, 9s, & 10s really don't mean much in the big picture......what counts is whether you engendered a 7.2679.......or a 4.1001.
And really what becomes the image most is the comments......you have an image that evokes 57 comments during the challenge......THEN you've got an image with impact!
And the score of that image becomes superfluous.
Case in point......I had both these images in voting at the same time. This was when I first got a serious taste of what it's all about at DPC.
My first ribbon, a red, and a 6.75:
29 comments during voting.
This image which I intentionally was going for an Outside The Box ribbon: (OOBie)
That image got 55 comments during voting!
Now......you talk about how you'd rather have comments to explain a score.....are you SURE????
That image garnered a 4.4857. I loved the reactions I got with the image........and some were just off the charts fantastic! But others reflexcted points of view that IMO were just plain flat incorrect.....read the comments about how the image was DNMC and see if you can reconcile them to the challenge details (N/A).
What you'll realize is that the system has its flaws, and that you cannot tell some people how to vote, even if you list specific instructions in the voting guidelines.
Following those, a theme with no challenge details can hardly meet DNMC standards, can it? But......there are only the impressions of the voters that govern the validity of a DNMC.
Vive la difference!
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 07:38:21 AM · #94 |
As Jeb already figured out, I don't much care about scores at all.
I use the scoring system just like a series of sieves ... I take a first cut, all the 3s fall through the mesh, and I don't look at them again. At that stage all of the remainder (usually about 20-25%) are 5s.
I look at those again, and pick the ones I might comment on (usually about a dozen) ... they become 7s. Then I look at those 7s again, generally more than once, and make a few of them 8s, a couple of 9s and maybe a couple of 10s.
That last grading, from 7 to 10, is based entirely on whether I feel I have something significant to say about them. I don't really consider 10s to be 'better' than 7s, or even better than 5s ... just more interesting & stimulating to me at that moment. Their score is not a measure of their worth, only of the strength of my impulse to respond to them.
Thus I give no 1s or 2s (also no 4s or 6s). And I don't make a comment to explain my 3s either ... because the comment would be something like "Lack of feeling", and that will be meaningless to the photographer. If I say I gave your photograph a 3 because it lacks feeling or aesthetic substance, how will you respond?
I'm also not at all interested in offering comments about how to improve; firstly because if most people follow my advice their scores will get worse, not better; and secondly because you will only get better by analyzing other people's photographs, not yours. The question is not how your photograph could be better, it's why that person's photograph is so good. If you figure that out, yours will get better automatically.
I admit that I find that I've given nearly all ribbon winners a score of 3, for much the same reasons given by  zxaar earlier in this thread. In doing so I'm not saying they are 'bad' photographs; technically most of them are very good. I'm saying that I think they are of no consequence, and for me if they fail that first test, nothing else matters. They fall through the 3 sieve and out of my world forever.
Any reader who has struggled through my post to this point is entitled to wonder what it is that I do like. My favorites contain a few examples. Many photographs that are instantly dismissed by most people, I find immensely absorbing and appealing.
Some are great and meticulous photography but difficult to understand, like this one:
Some are deliberately negligent photography but unexpectedly rewarding, like this one:
And some are carefully considered experimental photography that most people dismiss without thought, like this one:
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 07:44:39 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
....... If you are the person that was mentioned who gives 3 to inconsequential images, my only question would be what you based the 3 on?....... I also note from a previous message that someone listed a scale where 3 was actually the lowest score given (168 times) it seems rather harsh to list the majority of images together with those that are so obviously flawed and in some cases deliberately brown ribbon contenders..... |
It was indeed me, Mark. I plead guilty to both the above counts. The explanation is that if an image is to me of no consequence, then I don't care how technically perfect it is, how far you had to drive to get it, how many shots you had to take; the photograph is already of no interest to me. It's like judging a chocolate cake by how round it is; if it tastes like cardboard, its other attributes are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 07:57:06 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by ubique:
... because the comment would be something like "Lack of feeling", and that will be meaningless to the photographer. |
I actually disagree (surprise, surprise). A comment of Lack of feeling would be helpful. I think that it's something that's forgotten in photography. I entered a photograph that wasn't technically as interesting, but made me feel more. I got feedback from a nice individual here, that the photo didn't do much for him. that was helpful--I realize the feelings invoked in me were not universal (obviously by its current score). But other photos are more universal. Now it's up to me to figure out the difference. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 08:05:54 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by ubique:
It was indeed me, Mark. I plead guilty to both the above counts. The explanation is that if an image is to me of no consequence, then I don't care how technically perfect it is, how far you had to drive to get it, how many shots you had to take; the photograph is already of no interest to me. It's like judging a chocolate cake by how round it is; if it tastes like cardboard, its other attributes are irrelevant. |
Heh thanks Paul for taking the time to respond (I know many wouldn't for fear of any backlash), to be perfectly honest I see a lot of sense in your voting style and whilst it would not work for me personally it certainly seems to work for you. The fact that you vote consistently and 100% on challenges is the important factor for me. Also the fact that you are prepared to stand up and be counted for your system shows you are indeed not the type of voter that the thread was created about.
What I really like about your method is also what I mostly dislike about it (strangely), the fact that you take the image on face value is quite refreshing - leaving technicals aside and simply analysing the emotions evoked by the image would certainly alter the way most of us think about our entries if it took off as a voting system :) To address the other side of this though I guess this is a photography site (some would say focused toward learning the art) so I guess that is why I would find it hard to disregard the techicals of an image when voting.
Food for thought.
Mark.
EDIT: Because I cannot type ;)
Message edited by author 2009-02-13 08:10:09.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 08:36:14 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
A beginner would benefit a lot from correct judgment of photo rather than someone feeding him a lie (something like its a great or so so when in reality its a garbage).
Honesty is much more important than you think . |
Then also leave an honest comment, rather than just hitting a low numbered key and pressing on. You would be surprised how many new members will appreciate it, and how much good will it will create. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 08:44:26 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Lack of Consequence:
Absence of feeling; pointlessly imitative or derivative; lacking in apparent imagination or originality. |
Thanks for that further clarification. Sorry to have used you as the example again, but you are someone with a different set of standards and the way you look at things helps to illustrate and explain some of the low voting that people complain about. You were not being beat up on. |
|
|
|
02/13/2009 09:08:35 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
What I really like about your method is also what I mostly dislike about it (strangely), the fact that you take the image on face value is quite refreshing - leaving technicals aside and simply analysing the emotions evoked by the image would certainly alter the way most of us think about our entries if it took off as a voting system :) To address the other side of this though I guess this is a photography site (some would say focused toward learning the art) so I guess that is why I would find it hard to disregard the techicals of an image when voting. |
I love how these threads evolve so much when people really pay attention to what the other perspective offers.
It has just made me realize that when voting in a challenge, it seems better to me to be more visceral, and honest, about what the image evokes as a reaction, rather than offer a subjective opinion on the technical aspects of the shot.
The anonymity, that can be on the voter as well (Hellooooooo, Bagheads!) allow the impression to be conveyed rather than a critique. The suggestions on the technicals seem to me that they'd be better served in the specified environments of the side projects/challenges where the ideas are developed, and scrutinized on a common ground.
I have never felt comfortable commenting on technical aspects for a number of reasons, the most important being that I don't feel qualified. No matter how often someone tells me they see me as an accomplished photographer do I believe them knowing my own limitations. The very thing that I may see as a flaw in someone's image from a technical aspect may in fact, be an intentional effect that just didn't resonate with me. I am better off telling someone that it didn't reach me, and perhaps try to express why, as opposed to saying this (Blank) technique that you used really isn't correct. I only am aware of this from people doing just that on my images.
I have an image in voting right now that has two comments, one right after the other that state, "Too soft" and "Love the overall softness".
So which one is "Correct"?
Obviously the complimentary one! LOL!
Seriously, I *did* soften the image to get the effect I wanted, so I reached the one viewer and not the other.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/20/2025 05:20:59 PM  |
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: 06/20/2025 05:20:59 PM EDT.
|
