| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2005 08:03:01 AM · #1 |
| If you go to this image, wich is my image form the light challenge and you read the first comment (the last one left but the first you see when you scroll down) you'll understand. The guy know the challenge description (ANY definition of thwe word light)He know he's voting unfair but he do it anyway because for him light is lighting and nothing else. This was the first time I ever considered PM'ing someone before the voting ends. I had to vent it out! |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 08:06:00 AM · #2 |
Normally I call people whiners in a situation like this, but I can't help but feel you definately got the shaft there. That photo is excellent and clearly met the challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 08:17:37 AM · #3 |
| Nick, I thought your shot was great and I was one of the three people who gave you a 9. You should feel good about it no matter your score. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 08:20:36 AM · #4 |
Hi, For me it was the composition of the photograph that just made it average. Yes a feather is light but the way you framed your photograph shows me more of wind [with you blowing on the feather] than the light side of the feather. That is what I got out of your photograph. Your photograph was technically sound and I gave it a 5.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 08:24:48 AM · #5 |
Well at least he was honest enough to admit it. I tend to feel that for every one who may vote down an image for what they believe there is another person who would vote it higher than other voters so it all ends up being even or as close to even as it can get in the end.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 08:40:34 AM · #6 |
Yeah, I think it all evens out. There is no such thing as UNFAIR voting, but some people vote down certain aspects of an image if it doesn't meet their expectations.
I've already had one comment on my entry for pink saying it's not pink enough but I was expecting that. I was trying to be subtle, some people think that unless it's a photo of a pink object on a bright pink background in a pink room shot with a pink camera it doesn't meet the challenge. I might call it narrow-minded but never unfair.
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 08:41:27 AM · #7 |
| Dr. Jones gets a constant stream of 1's and 2's because of his subject matter. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happens. People can vote as wish ... and apparently some people don't to think the word light can mean more than one thing. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 10:57:27 AM · #8 |
I've read some people who wrote not to worry because it evens out at the end. But what if the picture is above average? But then it's the members who judge what's great, poor, or average. I've never paid much importance to the votes themselves. Just the fact that voters are your competitors and some of them will be very narrow minded. But it's been discussed before how some people are not very tolerant of creative interpretations. Those people are artist wanna-bes, real artists look for originality and appreciate being presented to things they might not expect. Your picture is great, focus on the good comments!
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:15:09 AM · #9 |
OK, since I'm the villian here, I'll reply. Sorry that your interpretation didn't meet my expectations for "light". This challenge was a bit special for me, as I looked forward to seeing beautiful and creative use of light, which to me is what photography is all about, not clever interpretations.
I expressed my reason for downgrading and I can empathise with your disappointment. Perhaps I should have mentioned that "downgrading" meant a 1 point deduction overall, and without it I would have been right in the middle of your votes.
So my 1 point deduction cost you exactly .000 points off your score.
So sorry.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:16:39 AM · #10 |
you can't force people to see things your way..I think that's called Communism :-)
Anyway, at least the comment he left was polite. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:21:57 AM · #11 |
| You know, people are forever whining that no one will leave comments to explain their vote or why they voted low. So when someone does, you start a thread and publically call them out? Is it any wonder why people do not comment? If you took issue with Jemison's comment and vote, why not discuss it with him? What good will this thread do besides convince other people not to comment and possibly get you a few more friends together for a group berate? |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:30:33 AM · #12 |
Nicklevy,
I did see the creative interpretation of "lightweight" which met the challenge very nicely in my vote. Your photo was also well composed using the dropout white background creative lighting, (Phenomenal "lighting" by-the way). I bumped your score up a notch because I clearly saw several uses of the challenge topic "light".
It all evens out in the end. 5.450 is not a "bad" score around here. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:42:05 AM · #13 |
I wouldn't call it 'unfair' voting either. Fairness is often used in a context of equality as it pertains to people actions and conduct and not to objects (as a photograph).
I would call it 'prejudiced' and 'uninformed' voting, considering the clear wording in the challenge description, something which runs rampant on this site (and, probably, on others as well) and which, therefore, I would 'expect'.
I regret this reality as much as the original poster, as it does nothing but flame temperaments and prevent a reasononable evolution of the critical process.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:43:54 AM · #14 |
I think the commentor just decided that the rules/instructions don't matter, and they decided to interpret the challenge any way they want.
Since the rules clearly state: "Any definition of the word is acceptable for this challenge"
So maybe for pink, I should vote down any photo that doesn't have the one exact hue of pink that i think is right for this challenge? That doesn't seem fair to me.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:45:44 AM · #15 |
Although I also submitted a "light weight" shot, I rather envy all your comments. We need to encourage nuanced criticism, as we have too many "great shot dude" comments. I think it is a shame to publicly rip those who find fault with a photograph, even if their fault lies in choice of subject rather than execution. Yes feather shots got creamed, but face it, they aren't as interesting as the visible wave radiation shots.
I failed to leave comment on you a shot but if I had it would have mentioned that the lighting looked perfect on the face, but the detail that was in the beard was missing in the feather, which by the way it is framed looks like it, rather than the face, was meant to be the central focus. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:47:03 AM · #16 |
| The same way that some people enter challenges without reading the whole description, sometimes voters don't read it all either. So those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. IE if you've ever just skimmed over info and missed something, maybe cut Jemison some slack. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:52:02 AM · #17 |
Jemison's actual comment:
"nothing wrong with the shot, but i tended to downgrade all the feather interpretations of "light". Probably not fair, i admit, but I was looking for lighting not lightweight"
What on earth is wrong with this? This is his personal take on the voting; he's looking for luminous light, and he has the courage to say so. He's not the only one. Far from it.
Sometimes we forget that just as a challenge gives us options as photographers, it gives us as many options as voters. If I'm free, as a photographer, to interpret a challenge in many ways, surely I'm free as a voter to do the same?
This is a very good example of why I no longer comment upon my low votes. it's simply not worth it, overall. I save my comments in the challenges for the images I like.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:56:39 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
The same way that some people enter challenges without reading the whole description, sometimes voters don't read it all either. So those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. IE if you've ever just skimmed over info and missed something, maybe cut Jemison some slack. |
No slack needed. I read the rules. I stated my reason for the downgrade and stated how much - 1 point - ie. totally inconsequential. Like I said, this challenge was special to me in my expectations. If folks can't deal with that, it is *their* problem, not mine. I am not a low voter or a troll voter. I try to leave comments where I feel it might be helpful or explanatory.
I think it is interesting that the person who started this thread hasn't bothered to post a reply. Like he said...he just wanted to vent. Perhaps he is justified. I'm not the one to judge that.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 11:59:03 AM · #19 |
First off I have to say I did not vote for this image, would have given it a 6 or 7 if I had.
This is not a clear cut issue, the challenge rules said that you could use any definition of light that you wanted to but does that mean we need to try and force votes to see all interoperations as equally good. Equally valid for sure, the challenge rules are clear on that but I think if a votes in essence says, “yes your photo meets the challenge but I like the photos that interpret light as a luminescent kind of thing better” can we really tell that voter that he can’t base his vote in part on that preference?
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:01:39 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
This is a very good example of why I no longer comment upon my low votes. it's simply not worth it, overall. I save my comments in the challenges for the images I like.
Robt. |
This is a shame. To have made your keen insight only available to those who already are on the right track severely limits the utility of this site to people starting out. We need to encourage honest critical comments if they are to be useful in making us all better photographers. I understand why you have chosen that path, but I think it is unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:07:08 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
What on earth is wrong with this? This is his personal take on the voting; he's looking for luminous light, and he has the courage to say so. He's not the only one. Far from it.
Sometimes we forget that just as a challenge gives us options as photographers, it gives us as many options as voters. If I'm free, as a photographer, to interpret a challenge in many ways, surely I'm free as a voter to do the same?
Robt. |
Have to blatantly disagree with this Bear. We as a quorum of 'judges' have a responsibility to evaluate the images under the context of the challenge details. NOT our personal interpretation of what is or is not included. To do otherwise unfairly punishes those who use the full range of challenge possibilities under the premise that they will qualify for the challenge as will anyone who chooses a more traditional subject.
If we are going to take on the responsibility to judge the work of others when presented with parameters that indicate multiple potential interpretations, then we are OBLIGATED to consider interpretations that we may not necessarily agree with as qualifying for the challenge. We do not need to agree with the art or like it, but we must in all fairness give the submitter the benefit of being judge unbiasedly based on the fact that they did in fact submit an image that meets the submission criteria.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:13:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
...I think if a votes in essence says, “yes your photo meets the challenge but I like the photos that interpret light as a luminescent kind of thing better” can we really tell that voter that he can’t base his vote in part on that preference? |
Note the differences between the comment you're referring to and yours (above). I would mark yours 'helpful' and discard the other.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:18:45 PM · #23 |
Arcanist,
This seems strange to me. The same people as are shooting the pictures are voting on them. We are giving them flexibility to "interpret" how to prepare an entry, but we would deny them flexibility to "interpret" what category of images most moves them?
To put this in a different perspective, I might step up and say "unfair voting" when I see that 7 of the top 10 pinks are flowers (if such should happen); my pink is not a flower, and I might resent that the "flower bloc" is not giving me a fair chance.
I think jemison is just acknowledging what many of us do as a matter of course; score higher the images that move us, downgrade the ones that don't. And these, often, tend to fall in categories don't they? I'd like to think in my case this isn't true, that I vote without preconceptual blinders on, but I really can't complain that others may wear these blinders. Another word for them is "taste", and a lot of people have very specific tastes.
I say this as a photographer who is determined NOT to cater to the site's "collective taste", and whose scores suffer as a result. I post what I am moved to post, and take my licks without complaints (or not many of them anyway).
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:21:25 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I think jemison is just acknowledging what many of us do as a matter of course; score higher the images that move us, downgrade the ones that don't. And these, often, tend to fall in categories don't they? |
Your reading too much into the comment, bear...the commenter even makes the admission that narrowing the field by default is unfair.
It's one thing to intrinsically score flowers higher, because you prefer them. It's another thing to allow your score to be extrinsically influenced by the decision to score non-luminent shots lower simply because they are non-luminent shots.
If the commenter had a noble or fair reason for his/her vote, he didn't expressly say so in the comment.
Message edited by author 2005-02-07 12:22:24.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:22:45 PM · #25 |
Zeus has a good point, as usual:
If the comment had read "Your photo seems pedestrian to me. I find myself preferring the "luminous" entries in this challenge, by and large..." it might have been more palatable.
Robt.
|
|
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: 10/17/2025 07:17:49 PM EDT.
