| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2003 01:44:20 PM · #1 |
i was just messing around and i ended up making a little graph showing my hypothesised relationship between how attributes of execution and creativity affect one's score on DPC :). i thought this would be fun to show as a starting point for discussions.
It's interesting to see it like this because it makes it more obvious how much BOTH factors are needed to assure a high score. For example, if you have a high quality execution, but medium to low creativity, you fall into the 'MEDIOCRE SCORE' zone, even though your execution was so great (ie perfect but boring). Also, if you have a very high creativity, but your execution is poor, again your score falls into the MEDIOCRE region (great idea but didn't convey as well as it could have).
Unfortunately, on DPC, if someone gives you a low or mediocre score, you still have no idea whether it was because of your idea or your execution, unless they're good enough to comment. That's why it would be nice to assign a rating for both, separately.
Unfortunately, the majority of people have, in a past poll, indicated that they thought that would be too time consuming. I personally don't think it would be any more time consuming than normal voting. You see the shot, and you go "oh wow great focus but boring (or whatever the actual case is)" and click click, you're done .....
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 01:49:22 PM · #2 |
I think I've observed that it seems to be more weighted towards the creativity and away
from the execution side. There have been several examples of pretty
technically terrible winners, but not so many technically perfect and massively dull cases.
Seems to be a good thing really. |
|
|
|
06/22/2003 01:56:47 PM · #3 |
Very good angle and illustration, magnetic. I've pondered along similar lines. I do think though, that we should hone the terminology, since 'creativity' may also be applied to 'execution'.
'Artistic Merit' is what comes to me quickly, without straining too much. There may still be a better term.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 02:11:44 PM · #4 |
I think the execution has to be in place, big time. Bad execution + good creativity = bad score. Low creativity + great execution = pretty good score. But I do agree that both elements have to be in place to get a great score.
Gordon, please point out those terribly executed winners. E-mail me if you don't want to name them here. ;)
A third axis (Z) should be added for Wow effect.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 02:41:58 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think I've observed that it seems to be more weighted towards the creativity and away
from the execution side. There have been several examples of pretty
technically terrible winners, but not so many technically perfect and massively dull cases.
Seems to be a good thing really. |
That is just your opinion and a rude one at that! If it was a bad photo then it wouldn't have done good. That is my opinion. :-P
Mag...I think you are right on with your post. I think my photos this week are in the mediocre rage.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 03:57:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think I've observed that it seems to be more weighted towards the creativity and away
from the execution side. There have been several examples of pretty
technically terrible winners, but not so many technically perfect and massively dull cases.
Seems to be a good thing really. |
That is just your opinion and a rude one at that! If it was a bad photo then it wouldn't have done good. That is my opinion. :-P
|
Actually Sonigo, I think Gordon is quite right in his statement... The scores tend to reflect more a "I like, I don't like" way of thinking from the voters. Sure, some do put good thinking into their rating process. But the ones that will make the shift between winning pictures and the others bellow are the votes from the masses who look and say: "oh it's pretty! 10! Oh, it's ugly! 1"
my opinion.
magnetic: your chart is quite interesting. unfortunately, I don't think it is representative of the actual results of ratings... especially in the creativity department. Voters on DPC are conservative. Conservative and creativity are two concepts that do not blend very well... For your chart to be accurate on DPC, my guess would be that your chart needs one additional value: accessibility. Meaning, can the viewer relate to the image. That value would probably have a stronger influence over the other two. The voter can't relate? Bye bye technique and creativity: the image gets a 1 or 2. That's really what happens...
Again, my opinion and observation...
Message edited by author 2003-06-22 16:05:30.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 04:09:50 PM · #7 |
Especially when the subject contains nudity in a sexual matter no matter how good the photo is :)
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think I've observed that it seems to be more weighted towards the creativity and away
from the execution side. There have been several examples of pretty
technically terrible winners, but not so many technically perfect and massively dull cases.
Seems to be a good thing really. |
That is just your opinion and a rude one at that! If it was a bad photo then it wouldn't have done good. That is my opinion. :-P
|
Actually Sonigo, I think Gordon is quite right in his statement... The scores tend to reflect more a "I like, I don't like" way of thinking from the voters. Sure, some do put good thinking into their rating process. But the ones that will make the shift between winning pictures and the others bellow are the votes from the masses who look and say: "oh it's pretty! 10! Oh, it's ugly! 1"
my opinion.
magnetic: your chart is quite interesting. unfortunately, I don't think it is representative of the actual results of ratings... especially in the creativity department. Voters on DPC are conservative. Conservative and creativity are two concepts that do not blend very well... For your chart to be accurate on DPC, my guess would be that your chart needs one additional value: accessibility. Meaning, can the viewer relate to the image. That value would probably have a stronger influence over the other two. The voter can't relate? Bye bye technique and creativity: the image gets a 1 or 2. That's really what happens...
Again, my opinion and observation... |
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 05:18:19 PM · #8 |
Good post Mag.
I think that saying "technically terrible winners" is a pretty harsh statement. "Not technically perfect" is probably a little more accurate.
You can teach creative people to take great photos. Its much harder to teach a technical junkie how to be creative. I think the technically perfect boring subject photos will score on the "high-mediocre" end and the creative but not so well taken will be a cut below that. Especially when it gets down to having a great idea, but making the image of it unsharp, or dark, or from a bad angle, where you lose the voters into what it is you were even trying to photograph. I think we all have examples of all of these types of shots. I can't say I've had a creative one that was not well taken that even scored 5.
BoB
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 05:26:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Especially when the subject contains nudity in a sexual matter no matter how good the photo is :)
|
.... right.... *cough*.... :-)
Although, it's even simpler than that. That is, "especially when the subject contains nudity" even if is not in a sexual matter. Of cuorse, if it is in a sexual matter, then it's even worse... for the rating I mean.
Message edited by author 2003-06-22 17:29:28.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 05:36:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by inspzil:
Good post Mag.
I think that saying "technically terrible winners" is a pretty harsh statement. "Not technically perfect" is probably a little more accurate.
|
I'd stand by my comment and even include a couple of my own in there.
Its taken me a while to come to see how bad they've actually been but I have plenty of
horribly badly shot pictures. A year ago I would have even said they were my best
photos. |
|
|
|
06/22/2003 05:52:23 PM · #11 |
I think that there are quite a few instances where "creativity" (i.e. fixed up, cutesy shots) have been quite far from technically perfect or have required essentially no technical skill whatsoever and have beaten less set-up, possibly more boring shots. But on the other hand, I think there are a few photographers who practically mechanically produce their shots, nearing technical perfection, but whose photos I don't like at all because it becomes obvious that it's almost an assembly line formula with little or no inspiration.
If I had to choose, though, I'd say that creativity wins out over the technical aspect more often than not, as least as far as the top three shots go. |
|
|
|
06/22/2003 06:25:55 PM · #12 |
| What I'd like to know is what do you consider a "high" score as opposed to a mediocre score? Where are the score breaks in the chart? |
|
|
|
06/25/2003 02:29:19 PM · #13 |
yeah, an 'accessibility' axis (which is probably in some ways just a different way of saying a 'wow'axis ) would definitely add another interesting dimension to the pattern.
pam, the values themselves arent really the point. everyone's going to define that hard number boundary for themselves.
the point is that you need both a great idea and great execution to get a high score. one of either probably won't do it. these aren't hard and fast rules, and everything has exceptions, this is just sort of 'general pattern' that i see.
and i would disagree with someone that said that technically good but interesting doesn't do as well as creative but done badly, on dpc. i think it's the opposite :).
|
|
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: 08/15/2025 04:59:53 AM EDT.
