| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2011 08:51:40 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Closed book I guess...
Maybe we need to overthrow SC [joking] |
I'd expect the response to be similar to whats happening in Egypt. :)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 08:55:00 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Silent-Shooter:
Closed book I guess...
Maybe we need to overthrow SC [joking] |
I'd expect the response to be similar to whats happening in Egypt. :) |
OFF TOPIC - I got sent a good email about the self made helmets guys are making in Egypt... If you want it PM me your email address |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 09:21:07 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
The numbers are available for every challenge. For those who do the stats on this site, it would be interesting to look at the past challenges and calculate the average vote for participants and non-participants. Just eyeballing a bunch of challenges, it seems to appear that participants vote lower than non-participants.
I'd like to see how much so on a larger data set, and whether there is a statistical difference between the two. |
Most definitely right. Participants score lower than non-participants. But I actually think that's understandable. Participants know more what goes into the shots. They've probably thought through the challenges more than the non-participants. I think they're more critical because they're more involved. If it was a huge gap, then I think it would be an issue. Also, there are fewer participants than non-participants, so the stats are a little more skewed.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 10:03:30 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
The numbers are available for every challenge. For those who do the stats on this site, it would be interesting to look at the past challenges and calculate the average vote for participants and non-participants. Just eyeballing a bunch of challenges, it seems to appear that participants vote lower than non-participants.
I'd like to see how much so on a larger data set, and whether there is a statistical difference between the two. |
Participant/non-participant voting history on dpc. For details read image details.
(note, all votes cast on dpc make up this plot :) so 2.4 million votes give or take.)
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 10:07:01.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 10:26:22 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Those who vote 1's tend not to leave a comment so it's hard to understand why they've vote that way or why they seem out of step with the rest of the community. |
Just about every 1 vote I get means that the voter didn't like the image. Safe place to start, and, in reality, you likely already know why they don't like it. If you don't know, then you don't understand your own entry. |
Yep thats where I'm coming from. I don't understand the voters point of view when dishing out a 1 vote when it seems out of place. Makes is hard to avoid making the same mistake in the future if there's no feedback left on the error in the image.
Using one of your images as an example, (it finished with a ribbon and a score of over 7), yet one voter thought it was only deserving of 1 point?
bazz. |
A case of friendly fire, most likely. ubique's gun is smoking. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 10:36:28 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
A case of friendly fire, most likely. ubique's gun is smoking. |
Nope. Didn't vote but if I did it would have been either an 8, 9 or 10 (numbers I reserve for exceptional photographs).
I never give 1s or 2s, but I give 3s to all photographs that I judge to be of no consequence. Some people consider that to be very Troll-ish, if it was their photograph. Screw them.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 10:48:12 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by ubique:
but I give 3s to all photographs that I judge to be of no consequence. |
I'm just curious how to determine if an entry is "of consequence" or not. I presume that's a quality that is impossible to nail down in words and you simply know it when you see it? You've surprised me on at least one entry where I expected to get your "no consequence" vote and received a positive comment instead.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 10:49:22.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 10:48:20 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by bohemka:
A case of friendly fire, most likely. ubique's gun is smoking. |
Nope. Didn't vote but if I did it would have been either an 8, 9 or 10 (numbers I reserve for exceptional photographs).
I never give 1s or 2s, but I give 3s to all photographs that I judge to be of no consequence. Some people consider that to be very Troll-ish, if it was their photograph. Screw them. |
Just a joke, as you know. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:21:14 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by ubique:
but I give 3s to all photographs that I judge to be of no consequence. |
I'm just curious how to determine if an entry is "of consequence" or not. I presume that's a quality that is impossible to nail down in words and you simply know it when you see it? You've surprised me on at least one entry where I expected to get your "no consequence" vote and received a positive comment instead. |
The key phrase is "I judge": it's a personal reaction of Paul's, and there isn't a formula :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:24:48 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by bohemka:
A case of friendly fire, most likely. ubique's gun is smoking. |
Nope. Didn't vote but if I did it would have been either an 8, 9 or 10 (numbers I reserve for exceptional photographs).
I never give 1s or 2s, but I give 3s to all photographs that I judge to be of no consequence. Some people consider that to be very Troll-ish, if it was their photograph. Screw them. |
Disney Concert Hall is a sexy supermodel that has been photographed a few times. I can accept a low vote just for that reason alone.
BTW, it is extremely likely that I have recieved more than my fair share of 3s from Paul. More than acceptable. With the exception of cheating, I find every vote valid. This was my original point. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:32:09 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by ubique:
but I give 3s to all photographs that I judge to be of no consequence. |
You've surprised me on at least one entry where I expected to get your "no consequence" vote and received a positive comment instead. |
Speaking for myself, this process eliminates judging technical quality; it is a vote, and comment, reflecting a visceral response, for any reason. I happen to believe voting/commenting in this manner will ultimately reflect in your own work as well. I suppose the inverse is true as well. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:40:55 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Speaking for myself, this process eliminates judging technical quality; it is a vote, and comment, reflecting a visceral response, for any reason. I happen to believe voting/commenting in this manner will ultimately reflect in your own work as well. I suppose the inverse is true as well. |
I get the part about the vote being soley based on response to the image and not technical qualities, but you lost me at the part about "inverse".
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:45:14 AM · #88 |
| I think he means that if you solely look for the technicals you'll likely solely shoot for the technicals, and likely miss out on the bigger picture of what a photograph could/should be. Which I agree with, if that's what he meant. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:46:53 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Speaking for myself, this process eliminates judging technical quality; it is a vote, and comment, reflecting a visceral response, for any reason. I happen to believe voting/commenting in this manner will ultimately reflect in your own work as well. I suppose the inverse is true as well. |
I get the part about the vote being soley based on response to the image and not technical qualities, but you lost me at the part about "inverse". |
There must be folks that vote purely on the their perceived technical quality of the photograph. I think new members, or new to photography, tend to vote this way. A generalization, I know. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:50:40 AM · #90 |
I copy here this lengthy preamble that I placed in a different forum. I think that it belongs here more.
Originally posted by gcoulson:
I gave one 8, 12 7's and huge load of 6's and 5's. Very few photo's I found to stand out markedly from the rest!
Going to take a rest and go through the 6's again some other day to see if I can up the votes on any that I may have short-changed.
Very nicely and honestly put Gary! I just wanted to open a forum where instead of greedily counting our marks and votes we discuss the particular challenge in its totality. I found this one (lonely shoes) very poorly represented (me included since I participated also). There are mostly, in my opinion, banal, uninteresting, pedestrian (pun intended) photos of shoes in a more or less advanced state of decrepitude. The B&W is not well employed and seems applied because of the requirement only. Some pictures are very dark (probably in hope of becoming more "artistic") or too blurry (same reason)and if they were not in the context of the this challenge they could be used in any other challenge. I will certainly revisit my scores but so far I gave four 8s mostly for ideas. I stopped at score 4 precisely because there was no way to separate the banal from the less banal or plain boring.
There were a lot of discussions on the forum recently about giving the 1 mark. Well, I got it plenty and do not mind it at all and I gave it sparingly since I consider myself still too new to the site and feel a bit diffident about it. But it is a valid mark if given from the mind and heart.
In what consists taste, especially in art, even if done as a hobby, there is no general acceptance and to feel persecuted or rudely treated should be the risk we all take by doing it. I understand that the subject could fall under personal moral or ethic principles that should not affect the evaluation of its quality or shall not censor an image. Sometimes there is a surfeit of sunsets, flowers, pretty girls, sexy girls, glasses .... and if they don't go beyond the element of prettiness, shock value or sheer technical quality they fall into redundancy.
I believe that we shall meet a challenge and enrich it. Just meeting a challenge is a bit like a childish task. At least that's how I approach it, not an easy chore.
I am trying to figure out why this challenge in particular is lacking so much imagination.
Well, I have more to add but I am already sorry for using so many words.
I think that Pascal said so poignantly:
"The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter" |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 11:51:03 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
There must be folks that vote purely on the their perceived technical quality of the photograph. I think new members, or new to photography, tend to vote this way. A generalization, I know. |
Actually, as a new member/photographer I vote based on how the photo moves me. I am not experienced enough to vote based on the technical quality of the photo beyond the simplest of compositional elements and lighting/PP. Maybe when I am more experienced, and shooting much higher quality entries, I will be more analytical...but that is a long way off. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:11:00 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
There must be folks that vote purely on the their perceived technical quality of the photograph. I think new members, or new to photography, tend to vote this way. A generalization, I know. |
Ah, thanks. That makes perfect sense. I guess I am kind of in the middle ground, as I suspect many others are. I won't give a poor vote to a well executed entry that meets the challenge, but I often give higher votes to those entries that connect with me.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:22:08 PM · #93 |
| I know i probably shouldn't but i tend to disregard any technical quality a photo may or may not have, i vote simply on how the photo speaks to me, maybe its because i don't have any technical quality myself but i think i'd vote the same even if i did. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:23:49 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I think he means that if you solely look for the technicals you'll likely solely shoot for the technicals, and likely miss out on the bigger picture of what a photograph could/should be. Which I agree with, if that's what he meant. |
Yes. I imagine that this is part of the learning process as well. Again, generalizing, it's easier to experiment/explore when one has a grasp of the technical/fundamental aspect of photography.
As an aside, this seems to polarize our DPC community, particularly when discussing the votes. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:26:14 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I know i probably shouldn't but i tend to disregard any technical quality a photo may or may not have, i vote simply on how the photo speaks to me, maybe its because i don't have any technical quality myself but i think i'd vote the same even if i did. |
I wonder whether sub-consciously there is a link between a photo being technically good and how much a photo speaks to you? |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:54:03 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Originally posted by jagar:
I know i probably shouldn't but i tend to disregard any technical quality a photo may or may not have, i vote simply on how the photo speaks to me, maybe its because i don't have any technical quality myself but i think i'd vote the same even if i did. |
I wonder whether sub-consciously there is a link between a photo being technically good and how much a photo speaks to you? |
Yeah there probably is. Like all arts i tend to think of photography as non analytical, so when i'm giving a vote i just go with the initial feeling the photo inspires in me and try to block out all my mind garbage, and believe me i've got a lot to block, i've never really understood analyzing art it seems to take us away from the spark that made it. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:58:28 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by jagar:
i've never really understood analyzing art it seems to take us away from the spark that made it. |
Perhaps, for some, intellectualization is a path to catharsis. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 01:01:27 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by jagar:
i've never really understood analyzing art it seems to take us away from the spark that made it. |
Perhaps, for some, intellectualization is a path to catharsis. |
ouch, big words...big. words.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 01:27:37 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
The numbers are available for every challenge. For those who do the stats on this site, it would be interesting to look at the past challenges and calculate the average vote for participants and non-participants. Just eyeballing a bunch of challenges, it seems to appear that participants vote lower than non-participants.
I'd like to see how much so on a larger data set, and whether there is a statistical difference between the two. |
Stay tuned, I have a post on my take on this topic coming up soon. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 01:31:53 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by gcoulson:
The numbers are available for every challenge. For those who do the stats on this site, it would be interesting to look at the past challenges and calculate the average vote for participants and non-participants. Just eyeballing a bunch of challenges, it seems to appear that participants vote lower than non-participants.
I'd like to see how much so on a larger data set, and whether there is a statistical difference between the two. |
Stay tuned, I have a post on my take on this topic coming up soon. |
Superb!! Can't wait! |
|
