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. |
Well I don't want you to think that my system is in any way systematic. For a start it's wildly arbitrary; it scores 3s for awful pictures executed superbly and also 3s for awful pictures executed awfully: I see no meaningful difference. And there is also no difference between a 7 and a 10, in terms of the quality of photographic craft. A 10 was simply more interesting to me, but not necessarily 'better'. Nor does an 8 or a 9 in one challenge equate to an 8 or a 9 in another challenge (the numbers don't represent absolute values for me ΓΆ€“ they're merely markers, or as Del puts it, 'buckets', that I use for my own convenience).
And it's very far from authoritative. Every challenge that I've voted I find, on reviewing the results and considering others' comments, that I have missed worthy things and ΓΆ€“ though less often ΓΆ€“ that I've overrated less worthy things. And I learn from that every time.
I should also say that if I vote at all, I vote on every image, and also that if I enter a challenge I always vote on that challenge. And that I don't care at all about my own score; it simply has no meaning for me and would be a useless guide as far as my own photography is concerned.
My average vote cast is 4.4 which is low, so I guess I'm a hard marker, but I do give a lot of 7s and above every time I vote. And, as I said earlier, no 1s or 2s at all. I just don't bother to try to distinguish between shades of mediocrity. That would serve neither me nor the photographer. |
