| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2005 10:29:04 AM · #1 |
I have looked at all the photo's. The first thing I am going to do is determined whether the entry fits the challenge or not. If I believe it does not fit the best I am going to do is give it a three, regardless of how well the photo is. I know there are going to be upset people but I feel that is only fair. If the photo meets the challenge a minimum score of 5 is given. Then I will look at the artistic point then go to the technical. I will vote accordingly. Forgive me, this can be ugly!
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 10:38:06. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:40:54 AM · #2 |
It's interesting, I've never before seen so many listings of people describing how they are going to vote or have voted based on this or that. This challenge has turned into quite a contraversy. I have to agree with you on the low votes for images that don't seem to fall into the guidelines of the challenge. I think this is very important, no matter how good the image is. If this is not done, than any ol' "good" image could be entered into any challenge and do well. We must reward or penalize, if you will, for not staying within the guidelines of the challenge.
That being said, I honestly believe some people did not understand the guidelines. There were a lot of "Macro" shots, and that is different than Minimalism. I commented on all those that I thought may have mis-understood, but I also did not score them as high as I would have had it been a "Macro Challenge".
I think the fun has only begun; there are still 6 1/2 days of voting left!
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:46:50 AM · #3 |
If it's pretty, it gets a 10. If it's not pretty, then it gets a 1. Logical enough?
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:50:19 AM · #4 |
I guess I will be expecting low scores being in macro.
Oh well..............off to the next challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:51:37 AM · #5 |
I'm voting by color
BlackBrownRedOrangeYellowGreenBlueVioletGrayWhite
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
;)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 10:59:56 AM · #6 |
The only problem I see w/ that method is that w/ some entries, it meeting the challenge description is a matter of perspective and interpretation. While you may not think it meets the challenge, it very well may to someone else... Just a thought... ;)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:03:00 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by robgo:
If it's pretty, it gets a 10. If it's not pretty, then it gets a 1. Logical enough? |
It's logical, but I don't think it's the best way to score the photos. I don't give high scores to photos that really don't fit the challenge, period. I also score down photos that are VERY marginally connected to the challenge. It just encourages people to submit the best photo they took during the challenge dates, which isn't what this is all about, imo. Otherwise why have challenges at all. I don't have as rigid a formula as bcoble, but it's along the same lines. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:05:23 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by OpticalSniper:
The only problem I see w/ that method is that w/ some entries, it meeting the challenge description is a matter of perspective and interpretation. While you may not think it meets the challenge, it very well may to someone else... Just a thought... ;) |
Just wanted to add that while this is true, imo sometimes there is a photo that just clearly doesn't fit the theme, interpretation or not. I.e. in minimalizm a photo where the subject takes up a large portion instead of a small portion of the frame. I give the benefit of the doubt when I am not sure whether it fits the theme or not. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:06:59 AM · #9 |
I've been giving the most minimalist pictures the most minimal score - is that wrong?
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:09:20 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by robgo:
If it's pretty, it gets a 10. If it's not pretty, then it gets a 1. Logical enough? |
So the Ant on the ground in front a beautiful dramatic sunset, would score well with you, while I would score it low because the ant is not the object of the photo. This of course is taking it a bit far, but there are images in this challege similiar to this example. Just because it is a beautiful image, and there is something small in the image, doesn't make it a good entry for this challenge. That's how I feel about it, anyway. I'm not saying your way of scoring is wrong, I just don't agree with it. Maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:15:17 AM · #11 |
What about technical merit? Voting in a pattern is just wrong and it will be caught. On your perspective of minimalism some people could think outside the box and you won't get it and score it low for that and that could be a problem. People need to have open minds.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:18:30 AM · #12 |
| There are too many photos in this challenge that aren't examples of minimalism... I think that his system is just fine. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:18:46 AM · #13 |
First of all: when one asks the question does it fit the challenge.? This is a hard question because the definition itself is wanting. For example here are ideas to consider:
The main subject must occupy a small portion of the image. This means you can shoot half a face and make the eye the subject. As such it does occupy a small portion of the image. There is a thread examining just how little. Well, this is understood in different ways by different people. You can shoot an ear, just the ear wearing a tiny earring and again this quailifies. You can do bug macros provided there is ample background open. The fact that you can see a tiny thing bigger than life but with enough background space qualifies.
You see, you must be pretty brave to define this challenge. The main thing is that you have to look for the subject and the spirit, but then if you already have a preconception then this is your definition but many will differ with your interpretation if it is limited.
Again, better just to do your thing and not tell anyone else about it because others are quick to correct you.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 11:22:30. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:25:03 AM · #14 |
| The size of the subject is not the key thing in minimalism. Just making the subject small is not the goal. The key thing is that we're trying to make the photo as simple as possible. Basic shapes, smooth surfaces, again simplicity. Use of negative space is of course one easy way to do this but surely not the only way. If there is much busyness in the photo it isn't really minimalism. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:26:00 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
First of all: when one asks the question does it fit the challenge.? This is a hard question because the definition itself is wanting. For example here are ideas to consider:
The main subject must occupy a small portion of the image. This means you can shoot half a face and make the eye the subject. As such it does occupy a small portion of the image. There is a thread examining just how little. Well, this is understood in different ways by different people. You can shoot an ear, just the ear wearing a tiny earring and again this quailifies. You can do bug macros provided there is ample background open. The fact that you can see a tiny thing bigger than life but with enough background space qualifies.
You see, you must be pretty brave to define this challenge. The main thing is that you have to look for the subject and the spirit, but then if you already have a preconception then this is your definition but many will differ with your interpretation if it is limited.
Again, better just to do your thing and not tell anyone else about it because others are quick to correct you. |
Well said.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:33:38 AM · #16 |
I think it is one thing to mark a photo badly for falling just a bit short of the language of of the challenge and quite another to mark it down for having no perceivable relationship to the challenge. And I am amazed at how often voters fail to grasp that a photo actually meets the challenge in an unexpected way.
I find that it is frequently true that people who are haphazard in meeting the challenge are so also in taking the photo; and this makes the photo easy to score low - one has several good reasons. When a photo is really well done, I don't usually don't nail it too hard for failing to meet the challenge. After all, if there is a connection and I am not smart enough to make that connection, why should the shot be harshly penalized?
I like to imagine this kind of approach helps keep us a little more focused on doing good photography and a little less focused on our own need for adulation. For what its worth.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:37:32 AM · #17 |
According to this thread the example of the ant in the sunset does not qualify? Let us examine this. First, if there is an ant it must be readily seen. Say for argument sake it is well defined on the left bottom corner. The ant gets the main focus and the exposure is centered on the ant. What else is the subject but not the ant. Yes, we can look at any image and choose our own subject, but that is like is like saying that we choose the background as the subject when looking at a portrait.
All the above definitions are dumping over half of the entries. When ever you see so many images that do not fit the challenge it is best to examine yourself. There is a judgment error because a definition is being eclosed in too tight a space.
Look at the contradictions: we are throwing out all macros because they do not fit? This alone begs the question: Really?
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 11:39:24. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:44:16 AM · #18 |
| what example of the ant...? |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:45:30 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
I think it is one thing to mark a photo badly for falling just a bit short of the language of of the challenge and quite another to mark it down for having no perceivable relationship to the challenge. And I am amazed at how often voters fail to grasp that a photo actually meets the challenge in an unexpected way.
I find that it is frequently true that people who are haphazard in meeting the challenge are so also in taking the photo; and this makes the photo easy to score low - one has several good reasons. When a photo is really well done, I don't usually don't nail it too hard for failing to meet the challenge. After all, if there is a connection and I am not smart enough to make that connection, why should the shot be harshly penalized?
I like to imagine this kind of approach helps keep us a little more focused on doing good photography and a little less focused on our own need for adulation. For what its worth. |
In my voting, if I feel an image doesn't meet the guidelines of the challenge, I will say so in a comment. If the photographer chooses to contact me, and explain my mis-understanding of his image, I will go back and take another look and adjust accordingly. I have done this more than once. I feel I have a pretty open mind, but sometimes I do miss it, and "don't get it". I don't know it all. But I am open to growing.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:46:17 AM · #20 |
i really wrestled with this, but finally came up with something that works for me: a sliding scale based on the pctg of the image that the subject takes up.
5% starts at 7
8% starts at 6
10% starts at 5
12% starts at 4
15% starts at 3
17% starts at 2
20% or more starts at 1
after i score them for proportions, i'll go back and either bump or bang the image based on personal appeal and aesthetics. this is pretty much the same type of approach i used with the billboard challenge...
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:49:46 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by robgo:
If it's pretty, it gets a 10. If it's not pretty, then it gets a 1. Logical enough? |
nope. Lacks logic completely imho. You are voting on the merit of the image in regards to the challenge. Thats why this is dpchallenge, not dpprettypicture. If youre looking to rate images on thier prettiness alone, check out photosig, it would be right up your alley.
I have seen one of the most beautiful images ever in a challenge here when doing my initial sorting into groups for easier voting last night (fits theme: 6, doesnot fit:4) but i couldnt see how it fit the challenge and i had to put it in the lower group for that reason. It may get pulled up a bit for exicution and technical merit, but if it doesnt fit the theme it doesnt belong in a themed gallery. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:49:47 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
I'm voting by color
BlackBrownRedOrangeYellowGreenBlueVioletGrayWhite
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
;) |
Very cool... the ole Resistor color code Scheme |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:54:33 AM · #23 |
| Unfortunatly the definition of minimalism in the challenge discription is incorrect... I think perhaps this is where all the confusion is coming from. The Japanese Flag is a perfect example of minimalism if it were a painting. The subject is NOT small in this example, but it is a perfect example of what minimalism is. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 11:56:35 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Unfortunatly the definition of minimalism in the challenge discription is incorrect... I think perhaps this is where all the confusion is coming from. The Japanese Flag is a perfect example of minimalism if it were a painting. The subject is NOT small in this example, but it is a perfect example of what minimalism is. |
that's why some people make the mistake of reading only the challenge title and not the description. the description is what you shoot to meet, not the title. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:00:20 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Unfortunatly the definition of minimalism in the challenge discription is incorrect... I think perhaps this is where all the confusion is coming from. The Japanese Flag is a perfect example of minimalism if it were a painting. The subject is NOT small in this example, but it is a perfect example of what minimalism is.
|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are correct here. The challenge has nothing to do with minimalism but rather a subject with a limited amount of real estate in the image area. |
|
