Vote : Comment Ratio - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF for Canon

04/26/2002 01:50:24 PM · #29

One way I measure the validity of a comment is to see if it is an isolated comment, or has corroboration (is that the right word?) from others. If it has corroboration (there I go again!) from others, I take it more seriously, otherwise I just take it with a grain of salt.

Kimbly

Canon PowerShot G2

04/26/2002 02:00:42 PM · #30

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

There is a balance somewhere between the two aspects. A photograph could be technically perfect and I still wouldn't like the photo. If, for instance, the pubic hair photo was technically perfect, I would likely not have scored it high due to my own subjectivity.

Very true. But there is also a large amount of subjectivity to technical aspects of a photograph. Focus is not a good example because it's usually rather straightforward...but (hopefully I'm not giving away too much here) I got a few comments that my photo for this challenge was "too blue" while others commented that they "liked the contrast". Was the blue cast the result of the white balance in my camera misreading? Partly, so in that sense it's a technical mistake. But when I looked at the photo myself, I fell into the category that liked the contrast in colors, so I didn't correct it in Photoshop as much as some would have liked. Just because it's technical doesn't mean that it's really objective...

04/27/2002 07:11:18 AM · #31

absolutely. i think alot of this falls under the headings of 'artist's interpretation of the subject.' the whole pt of the Impressionists was to break with technical perfection and convey impressions.

if you need to use an off-kilter white balance to convey your 'blue mood' or whatever, who am I to tell you it's wrong? Unless we divorce 'liking' and 'disliking' from the rating process, it will always be more subjective than not. however, we can also use our experience to make assessments like 'subject matter not my cup of tea but lighting composition focus all excellent and would probably have its admirers.'

Originally posted by Kimbly:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]

There is a balance somewhere between the two aspects. A photograph could be technically perfect and I still wouldn't like the photo. If, for instance, the pubic hair photo was technically perfect, I would likely not have scored it high due to my own subjectivity.

Very true. But there is also a large amount of subjectivity to technical aspects of a photograph. Focus is not a good example because it's usually rather straightforward...but (hopefully I'm not giving away too much here) I got a few comments that my photo for this challenge was "too blue" while others commented that they "liked the contrast". Was the blue cast the result of the white balance in my camera misreading? Partly, so in that sense it's a technical mistake. But when I looked at the photo myself, I fell into the category that liked the contrast in colors, so I didn't correct it in Photoshop as much as some would have liked. Just because it's technical doesn't mean that it's really objective...

[/i]

04/27/2002 07:14:34 AM · #32

Originally posted by shortredneck:
Also, I wouldn't place the blame on the younger members for the arrogant comments. I have seen them from every age group.

yah. i meant more the one word comments like 'lame' or 'dumb'. i'm just trying to conjecture who would leave comments like that, and for the life of me i can't see some 50 year old photography lady typing just the word 'lame'!

having a younger brother, it seems to me that such comments are left by 14 year olds who don't have a camera and therefore don't 'feel our pain' the same way someone with more experience would.

I definitely doubt anyone on here who is a photographer leaves such unhelpful commentary. but hey i could be wrong! (that'd be a first!) ;)

clay

Kodak DC215

04/27/2002 07:33:51 AM · #33

specifically the reason i dont comment. people would get a little bothered if i just put "queer"

04/27/2002 10:04:40 AM · #34

Originally posted by clay:
specifically the reason i dont comment. people would get a little bothered if i just put "queer"

but why would you? i mean, you're a photographer, right? you feel the pain, sweat the shot, make the effort. don't you feel for other people in the same shoes and wanna help em?

also, ya know, you can respond to pictures not just on an emotional level but on the level of how well they got the shot of whatever it is they were after.

i mean, i agree, some of the pictures are just stumpin' hard to say anything at all about. it's like i don't even know where to begin, because there's just a whole way of starting to look at the world and how i can impart that in a couple sentences in a comment?

or maybe you just dislike everything - which would point to a pessimistic worldview.. hmm.. are there any pictures that you've liked?

clay

Kodak DC215

04/27/2002 11:18:26 AM · #35

i like rabbits. theyre soft and cute. little velvet noses wriggling about.

hopping around my back yard, making noise, burrowing holes so that when i mow the lawn i have to pick up my mower 15 times, harrassing my dog. sometimes when i mow over something chunky i have a small degree of hope.

moondoggie

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/27/2002 11:26:01 AM · #36

Originally posted by magnetic9999:
absolutely. i think alot of this falls under the headings of 'artist's interpretation of the subject.' the whole pt of the Impressionists was to break with technical perfection and convey impressions.

if you need to use an off-kilter white balance to convey your 'blue mood' or whatever, who am I to tell you it's wrong? Unless we divorce 'liking' and 'disliking' from the rating process, it will always be more subjective than not.

I mostly agree with your assessment, 9 of 999. The whole process of creating a photo is and should be a higly subjective process. A photo may be technically impefect, but if it is able to effectively convey some emotion or feeling, then it succeeds. The problem arises when that photo does not always inspire everyone in the same way.

Sure, I may not have cared for the blue tint in that aforementioned photo. Doesn't mean it's wrong that it is tinted that way - just means that I dont care for it. My photo had a similar element which people either liked or didn't. I value the feedback from those who didn't care for that element of the photo, as I was interested and surprised by how many did not. But hey, I liked it, so wtf.

Bottom line: the whole creation and judging process is highly subjective, and thats ok. It should be. It's art.

moondoggie

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/27/2002 11:38:22 AM · #37

Originally posted by clay:
specifically the reason i dont comment. people would get a little bothered if i just put "queer"

Articulation. If you feel the need to make such a comment, then there is probably something you dislike about that photo. Maybe just trying to articulate that dislike in a more clear & coherent manner might not only benefit the photographer, but also lead you to a deeper understanding of yourself.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
-Confucius

"It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf."
-Walter Lippman

;?)

* This message has been edited by the author on 4/27/2002 11:38:47 AM.

04/27/2002 11:40:27 AM · #38

well, there you go then

just think of all those poor photographers as little rabbits that you want to help .. and don't mow over in this part of lawn ... hehe

Originally posted by clay:
i like rabbits. theyre soft and cute. little velvet noses wriggling about.

hopping around my back yard, making noise, burrowing holes so that when i mow the lawn i have to pick up my mower 15 times, harrassing my dog. sometimes when i mow over something chunky i have a small degree of hope.

clay

Kodak DC215

04/27/2002 12:17:07 PM · #39

hope that im going to have to clean furry red goop out of my grass chute. i like rabbits but i have no problem murdering them. i like a lot of the pictures but i dont have a problem pointing out your inability to not anger me