|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2005 08:50:29 PM · #1 |
As I have been going through the white photos I am seeing something that I see in most of the challenges, a number of people see to concentrate on having their photo meet the challenge but then don̢۪t seem to give much thought to whether the photograph is appealing on its own right. It is almost as if they believe that voting will be strictly on who meets that challenge the best. Whereas meeting the challenge is very important it is only a part of the job, the photo should have some appeal even when viewed by someone who does not know what the challenge is.
I would highly suggest to people that when they are creating their photo they step back and look at it at some point and ask themselves how good is it if you ignore the challenge. If it does not have some appeal outside of the challenge then it probably won̢۪t score all that well.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 08:57:22 PM · #2 |
I agree with you, but I am often disappointed at how well some of those do. No, they don't get a ribbon, but many of the poor, but meet the challenge photos, get fairly high scores - and I think it encourages some of it that way. Do you think so?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 08:59:43 PM · #3 |
Good point. You mean like this? lol:
 |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:02:27 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
I agree with you, but I am often disappointed at how well some of those do. No, they don't get a ribbon, but many of the poor, but meet the challenge photos, get fairly high scores - and I think it encourages some of it that way. Do you think so? |
Yes, I see the same thing, and I also agree with scott that this is only the beginning. Meet the challenge, make sure it's technically good, make sure it's aesthetically good.
I ask myself when entering and scoring: Would I hang it on a wall? Could I see it hanging in a gallery?
Unfortunately (at least in my opinion) there seem to be very few of us asking these latter two questions when entering and scoring. I'm of course guilty of entering some I would not hang on my wall, but that's the criteria I try to use. And I am pulled by the "DPC force" sometimes to enter shots that I think will score well even if I don't like them as much. I'm trying to kick that habit (as my scores will attest ;) |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:04:08 PM · #5 |
Exactly, Neil! That's where I had to really change my behavior. I try to not enter something now just for the sake of entering. I try to make it something I would want to see even without the challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:06:00 PM · #6 |
I have to agree with 100% Scott. When I decided to make up a consistent voting guide for me I took in account for 'photos that me the challenge and are bad' and 'photos that are good and does not meet the challenge'. I feel both are important, I do not believe a well done photograph should score high if it does not meet the challenge and I believe the same holds true when a bad photo meets the challenge.
My voting guide  |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:29:02 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I have to agree with 100% Scott. When I decided to make up a consistent voting guide for me I took in account for 'photos that me the challenge and are bad' and 'photos that are good and does not meet the challenge'. I feel both are important, I do not believe a well done photograph should score high if it does not meet the challenge and I believe the same holds true when a bad photo meets the challenge.
My voting guide |
Isn't Great better than excellent? |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:33:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
As I have been going through the white photos I am seeing something that I see in most of the challenges, a number of people see to concentrate on having their photo meet the challenge but then don̢۪t seem to give much thought to whether the photograph is appealing on its own right. |
This is often the case in 'technique' challenges. The macro challenges are great examples of this also. |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:41:24 PM · #9 |
| Well, let me speak for the folks who are still green, not really getting it and just starting down the path. This offers them a forum to learn from folks who do it and do it well. We all have the learning curve and everyone coming here will experience it. Experience...key word.. it is how we humans learn best at times. While it would be good to abc and xyz everything before burdening the viewers with photos that don't measure up, that is not how new photographers or new anything elsers do things. I cringe now at my early photos, but by stepping up, putting up photos, I learned a great deal and began forcing myself to do things that are beginning to result in better pictures. At any rate, I agree with you that some need to consider the big picture, but scoring well is not always the goal, for many it is to garnish comments, suggestions and a first tentative test of undeveloped wings. |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 09:52:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by SDW65:
I have to agree with 100% Scott. When I decided to make up a consistent voting guide for me I took in account for 'photos that me the challenge and are bad' and 'photos that are good and does not meet the challenge'. I feel both are important, I do not believe a well done photograph should score high if it does not meet the challenge and I believe the same holds true when a bad photo meets the challenge.
My voting guide |
Isn't Great better than excellent? |
Actually NO!
Defined:
Excellent
1. Of the highest or finest quality; exceptionally good of its kind.
2. Archaic Superior.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2005 10:11:48 PM · #11 |
| I, too, tend to look at the photographs to see which are good pictures - those I would like to look at again for the sake of the picture, not just the technicality or the "meet the challenge" factor. Mine is getting hammered, as I expected. It "meets the challenge" in my mind, but the background is not pure white. It is not technically well-lit (hand held, ambient light), but it is indeed a photo that I really like as a picture. Now if I could just get a comment or two! |
|
|
|
03/04/2005 10:38:58 PM · #12 |
Here are some thoughts...
Assume that every photographer is trying to meet the challenge, even if YOU don't see it. Give an image a better score if it meets the challenge particularly well, but do not mark it down simply because it does not meet it in YOUR view. Everyone is fallible. You just may have missed the point.
Evaluate an image on its photographic and technical merits first. Does it stand on its own beyond the challenge? Score it accordingly as to whether it does or does not. Up the score it it meets the challenge particularly well.
Simply meeting a challenge does not make an image good and worthy of a high score.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 02:23:38 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Here are some thoughts...
Assume that every photographer is trying to meet the challenge, even if YOU don't see it. Give an image a better score if it meets the challenge particularly well, but do not mark it down simply because it does not meet it in YOUR view. Everyone is fallible. You just may have missed the point.
Evaluate an image on its photographic and technical merits first. Does it stand on its own beyond the challenge? Score it accordingly as to whether it does or does not. Up the score it it meets the challenge particularly well.
Simply meeting a challenge does not make an image good and worthy of a high score. |
I couldn't agree more with this. IMO the more creative photographers in DPC are being penalized by "backwards voting"; the voters, as a group, are using as their first criterion their own interpretation of whether a photo meets the challenge, and then only afterwards are they judging aesthetic merit.
This seems to make sense to them, because after all, isn't the challenge what it's all about? Well, yes and no... Great photography is what it ought to be about, and the "challenge" is a way to focus us all and give us parameters within which to let our creativity and skills find focus and expression. When our primary judging criterion is "meets the challenge", we tend to narrow our focus down to a very limited set of interpretations.
Speaking for myself, I do my voting in 2 passes, or a series of passes rather. In the first pass, I pay no attention to the challenge at all, and divide the entries into two groups bases solely on aesthetic merit (or my perception of same, really...). Then, on subsequent passes, I go through every entry in the "better" of those two groups (that is, every entry that has reached me aesthetically at some level) and start scoring these more precisely. At this point, "meets the challenge" comes into play in basically 2 ways; if, IMO, the image does NOT meet the challenge it's going to finish with a 6, no matter how good it is otherwise, but I'm pretty tolerant in defining what meets the challenge.
On the other hand, any photo in this first group that seems to me to meet the challenge extremely well, or extremely creatively, is going to get bumped UP, perhaps somewhat beyond what it would score on purely aesthetic criteria alone. Any photograph that meets the challenge extremely well or creatively while ranking high on the scale of pure aesthetics is going to be a high-scoring image, in my eyes or in anyone's eyes.
A recent example would be Zoomdak's separation entry, which took the blue ribbon. On aesthetic grounds alone this image is just exceptionally fine. Factor into the equation that it's perhaps the most creative "take" on the concept of separation int he entire challenge, and it's no wonder it stands out head and shoulders above the rest, finishing nearly 4/10 of a point ahead of 2nd place (a huge gap). It would appear that the voters and I are in parallel on images like this, which we well should be.
What bothers me is in the middle grounds, in the mass of the entries, where we see over and over again that truly well-made, interesting images are rated far below some very mediocre, disappointing entries that have in their favor mostly that they "clearly" meet the challenge. In the real world of photography-for-pay, this would be reversed. The photographers that "make it" are the ones that are willing to take risks, the ones who find creative solutions to the "challenges" posed by clients and art directors.
I wish there were a way to convince voters to rank FIRST by aesthetic criteria, and only after that to adjust their rankings based on how well or poorly the image addresses the challenge.
Robt.
addendum: I don't mean to suggest that a succesful professional photographer is one who ignores the "challenge" posed by his client in order to pursue his own creative vision, but rather that at any level of photography other than the most mundane "creativity" is a given, a baseline from which all contenders start... You don't even make it to the starting gate if you don't bring "originality" along as part of your package...
Message edited by author 2005-03-05 02:30:18.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 02:33:06 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Here are some thoughts...
Assume that every photographer is trying to meet the challenge, even if YOU don't see it. Give an image a better score if it meets the challenge particularly well, but do not mark it down simply because it does not meet it in YOUR view. Everyone is fallible. You just may have missed the point.
Evaluate an image on its photographic and technical merits first. Does it stand on its own beyond the challenge? Score it accordingly as to whether it does or does not. Up the score it it meets the challenge particularly well.
Simply meeting a challenge does not make an image good and worthy of a high score. |
I couldn't agree more with this. IMO the more creative photographers in DPC are being penalized by "backwards voting"; the voters, as a group, are using as their first criterion their own interpretation of whether a photo meets the challenge, and then only afterwards are they judging aesthetic merit.
This seems to make sense to them, because after all, isn't the challenge what it's all about? Well, yes and no... Great photography is what it ought to be about, and the "challenge" is a way to focus us all and give us parameters within which to let our creativity and skills find focus and expression. When our primary judging criterion is "meets the challenge", we tend to narrow our focus down to a very limited set of interpretations.
Speaking for myself, I do my voting in 2 passes, or a series of passes rather. In the first pass, I pay no attention to the challenge at all, and divide the entries into two groups bases solely on aesthetic merit (or my perception of same, really...). Then, on subsequent passes, I go through every entry in the "better" of those two groups (that is, every entry that has reached me aesthetically at some level) and start scoring these more precisely. At this point, "meets the challenge" comes into play in basically 2 ways; if, IMO, the image does NOT meet the challenge it's going to finish with a 6, no matter how good it is otherwise, but I'm pretty tolerant in defining what meets the challenge.
On the other hand, any photo in this first group that seems to me to meet the challenge extremely well, or extremely creatively, is going to get bumped UP, perhaps somewhat beyond what it would score on purely aesthetic criteria alone. Any photograph that meets the challenge extremely well or creatively while ranking high on the scale of pure aesthetics is going to be a high-scoring image, in my eyes or in anyone's eyes.
A recent example would be Zoomdak's separation entry, which took the blue ribbon. On aesthetic grounds alone this image is just exceptionally fine. Factor into the equation that it's perhaps the most creative "take" on the concept of separation int he entire challenge, and it's no wonder it stands out head and shoulders above the rest, finishing nearly 4/10 of a point ahead of 2nd place (a huge gap). It would appear that the voters and I are in parallel on images like this, which we well should be.
What bothers me is in the middle grounds, in the mass of the entries, where we see over and over again that truly well-made, interesting images are rated far below some very mediocre, disappointing entries that have in their favor mostly that they "clearly" meet the challenge. In the real world of photography-for-pay, this would be reversed. The photographers that "make it" are the ones that are willing to take risks, the ones who find creative solutions to the "challenges" posed by clients and art directors.
I wish there were a way to convince voters to rank FIRST by aesthetic criteria, and only after that to adjust their rankings based on how well or poorly the image addresses the challenge.
Robt.
addendum: I don't mean to suggest that a succesful professional photographer is one who ignores the "challenge" posed by his client in order to pursue his own creative vision, but rather that at any level of photography other than the most mundane "creativity" is a given, a baseline from which all contenders start... You don't even make it to the starting gate if you don't bring "originality" along as part of your package... |
Not all voters.. I gave zoomdak's seperation winner a 6. I thought it was funny, nice to look at, but barely doing anything as far as the challenge was concerned. I thought "misplaced", sure.. but seperation? Not as far as I could see.
but, we all do what we all do, and in the end it .. usually.. evens out.
(except in Self-Portrait III.. hmph) lol |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 02:38:15 AM · #15 |
Very wise and well chosen words Robert. I vote a bit differently, but with the same general effect. To me aesthetics is the prime factor, but I do reduce the scale for those that don't meet the challenge, no matter how hard I try to see it, to 1-6, whereas meeting the challenge, you are pretty much in the 3-10 range (where 3 is a really bad photo that meets the challenge).
But I like your idea of the sort and order of priorities, and I might try it next time. |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 02:39:51 AM · #16 |
Artyste,
Not to pick nits or anything, but the reference to "voters" (as in "the voters gave this a...") is a reference to the mass of voters, collectively. And you make my point very well; that Zoomer's take on "separation" is "creative" is underscored by your comment that it speaks more of "misplaced" to you. Clearly, the image itself was striking enough to give the voters reason to overcome their doubts about its "validity", eh? Even YOU gave it a 6, right?
I'd presume that you, more than most in DPC, would stand 4-square behinf encouraging people to take a few risks in preparing their entries?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:20:36 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Artyste,
Not to pick nits or anything, but the reference to "voters" (as in "the voters gave this a...") is a reference to the mass of voters, collectively. And you make my point very well; that Zoomer's take on "separation" is "creative" is underscored by your comment that it speaks more of "misplaced" to you. Clearly, the image itself was striking enough to give the voters reason to overcome their doubts about its "validity", eh? Even YOU gave it a 6, right?
I'd presume that you, more than most in DPC, would stand 4-square behinf encouraging people to take a few risks in preparing their entries?
Robt. |
As long as people stay away from flowers, we're all good. :) LOL
Actually, I don't even remember what my point was I was trying to get across.. I must have been tired or grumpy when I posted that. |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 12:57:34 PM · #18 |
| Well I guess it all depends on if things here are for "Love or Money" If this site is just for the love of photography then you shoot for what you think looks good. However if it is to learn to sell more photos to clients, then following the clients wishes (instructions) plays a big part. As stupid as I think it is I have taken some fantastic portraits of kids and the mom would not buy them because the kid was not smiling. Go figure. Now on the other had if you are trying to sell your photos as art, then you go for what you like and hope that the viewer likes it too. Those kinds of photos are a dime a dozen, (like the starving artists) sales yo see all over. For me it is a matter of putting dinner on the table, so I had to learn early on that it didn't matter what I though. If the client didn't like it it didn't sell and had to be reshot. All forms are correct, you just have to pick your path. |
|
|
|
03/05/2005 01:06:46 PM · #19 |
this is a challenge site - While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly.
the problem with givng more merit to purty photo than to the challenge criteria is you may well have  ribbon in a challenge on Wind or Rain or Bathrooms because 'we' like it better.
 I gave this a 7 in Mechanical - I like this image. It finished very mid-pack. It had not one negative comment, no one bashing it for not meeting the challege, but it did not do well in this challenge. I think the lack of 'gears' or somesuch hurt it score wise.
It is reasonable to assume an entrant is meeting the challenge in their mind if not in yours. this is why i rarely give less than 4 to any image that remotely meets the challange and has decent technical qualities. there are some though that you have to wonder what they were thinking...this is a visual medium, and the challenge idea has to come across in teh photo in some way or it does not meet the challange.
To enter the carousel pic in the bridge challenge and title it 'Bridge to reality' or some such does not make it meet the challenge, and so the score should reflect that.
If we give too much weight to purty pics then all we will get is pics of Iceland or half naked pretty girls. (holding cute puppies no doubt)
|
|
|
|
03/05/2005 02:28:35 PM · #20 |
Well, that's the point of my "aesthetic seeding" approach; if you can't make the first cut on aesthetic merit alone, then you shouldn't get a better-than average score, regardless of whether you meet the challenge or not, is my position. Of those photos that I judge to have "aesthetic merit" (a nebulous concept, I admit, including as it does technical details and visionary intangibles), the only ones that get bumped up further will be the ones that DO meet the challenge, and the BETTER they seem to meet the challenge the more of a bump they'll get in relationship to their aesthetic merit.
So by your scenario, if I were the only voter, the worst that can happen is that a truly exceptional photograph with only a fairly strong (or original) take on the challenge would be the winner over a truly original take on the challenge coupled with only adequate execution and aesthetic values. I think that's a reasonable result, don't you?
After all, if we were going to judge based on how "well" images met the challenge, we could just ask for submissions of descriptions of "potential" images; why bother shooting them at all? In the end, we want to have great pictures winning the prizes, and the challenge topic is a way of focusing everyone's energy in more or less the same direction.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 11/16/2025 02:48:09 AM  |
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: 11/16/2025 02:48:09 AM EST.
|
