| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2004 05:40:51 PM · #26 |
You got a 9 from me. I loved it and could see the technical issues to make this a good DOF shot.
You got a good spread of votes that i would have been over the moon about. Art is subjective and if some people like it and others don't then that is there perogative.
If people don't understand the shot then maybe they need to learn more, but then that is what this site is alabout. The next time you do a shot like this maybe more people will understand the technical difficulties and mark higher.
Kev |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:45:33 PM · #27 |
It's been 4 hours. Let it go Aleks. We all have received 1's for good photos. Cowboy up, and stop whinning.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:51:32 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by labuda:
... My concern is just over the 1's, 2's and 3's. As much as a photo may not appeal to you, I don't think it's justifiable to give a photo, which obviously meets the challenge and is technically good, a 3 or under. |
It happens all the time. Who knows why. Who cares. I wouldn't worry about it. If you start worrying about that, you'll only get grumpy, and then your pictures turn out bad :) So don't worry. Somebody gives your good picture a bad score, it's their problem, not yours.
Ursula
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:54:42 PM · #29 |
The only thing that gets to me in threads like this, is that the person "looking" for reasoning, almost always did better than me for that particular challenge. This challenge is another good example of that. Just be happy with the score you did get.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:06:44 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by G4Ds:
The only thing that gets to me in threads like this, is that the person "looking" for reasoning, almost always did better than me for that particular challenge. This challenge is another good example of that. Just be happy with the score you did get. |
LOL :)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:12:09 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by spydr:
Let it go Aleks. We all have received 1's for good photos. Cowboy up, and stop whinning. |
Not sure I totally agree with that logic. He's got a pretty unusual bell curve going, with no real indicator of what went through the minds of voters. Most of the time if you get a 1,2,3 you will have a series of comments that point you in the right direction. A couple of 1s is just strange voting. 28 below three scores is a trend. There's nothing wrong with trying to get a better grasp on whats going on. Sonifo's comments may help indicate a reason why people voted lower.
Looking at the comment trend- I think you got bit by several voters who may not have totally understood deep DOF. I personally get a kick out of the fact that people jumped to the conclusion this was a PS job. I had to give it a second look. :) It's a classic shot. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 07:41:29 PM · #32 |
I can see why some think you're whining, you did get a 6.194. Many have never achieved that. I gave you a 6, I thought you met the challenge exceptionally well, but thought the lighting was a bit flat, and yes, the NeatImage hurt a bit in my judgement. IMO it is still better than an average shot, and the 6.194 average reflects this. I assume that 5.25 is about average (technically, 5.5 is average but many voters "center" on 5) so you're nearly a full point above. That's huge.
As far as why a shot will get 1's & 2's, realize that for every shot there is a voting distribution. It should be "normal", a bell curve as blemt said. I tested your voting distribution, and it fits such a normal curve very well (r squared >99.5%), despite it's apparent lack of a bell shape. Interestingly, where it deviates most is in the high number of 10's you were given. Your standard deviation is a bit high, meaning that there was more than the average amount of disagreement regarding the merit of the shot. I suspect that's because many did not understand the technical aspects of what you did.
From a more personal side, you can take away a great deal from the comments you received, and your scoring. Technical prowess alone willnot often garner a winning average. You need the aesthetics, and emotional impact as well.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:09:19 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
As far as why a shot will get 1's & 2's, realize that for every shot there is a voting distribution. It should be "normal", a bell curve as blemt said. I tested your voting distribution, and it fits such a normal curve very well (r squared >99.5%), despite it's apparent lack of a bell shape. |
Well, I was whining over my 4.6 ... care to run that analysis on my shot? |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:23:30 PM · #34 |
To tell you the truth I don't like your picture. It's tacky, relies on a cheep gimmick for substance, and overall really demomstrates no photographic originality.
Haha the lady has a wrench on her head... great, now what? This picture lacks any dimension to it. You said it fits the large depth of field category better then any other picture? Maybe have a better look at the top three pictures, notice how they have very deep subjects, and notice how in those pictures the whole thing is sharp? that's what was intended for this challenge.
you might have the face the fact that people didn't like your picture.
lee
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:28:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
As far as why a shot will get 1's & 2's, realize that for every shot there is a voting distribution. It should be "normal", a bell curve as blemt said. I tested your voting distribution, and it fits such a normal curve very well (r squared >99.5%), despite it's apparent lack of a bell shape. |
Well, I was whining over my 4.6 ... care to run that analysis on my shot? |
Anythig for a fellow DPC'er; I ran your numbers through the model, and...
Standard Deviation = 1.33 (compared to 2.5 for Labuda's shot)
r-squared of 0.994 (99.4%), a very good fit.
Your shot has a very low standard deviation, indicating there was exceptionally good agreement among the voters as to where it should be scored. the complete lack of outliers also seems to indicate nearly uniform opinion.
It's almost trivial to do a test such as this, and while the results are informative they tell nothing about why this is so. Betwixt the numbers and the comments, however, I can usually tell where I've gone wrong. Not that I've had the greatest luck correcting the problems, LOL.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:31:06 PM · #36 |
| the people that posts those low scores probably never look at these forums and even if they did they probably wouldn't post |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:32:34 PM · #37 |
| Yes ... consistency seems to be a common "problem" for me right now. I'll have to try and find (or take) a photo with a little more deviation to it ... Thanks! |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:33:19 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by ddmckinney1954:
the people that posts those low scores probably never look at these forums and even if they did they probably wouldn't post |
That's why we can gripe about them with such impunity :) |
|
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: 10/16/2025 05:47:33 AM EDT.
