| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2006 03:28:26 AM · #1 |
I feel that some of the photos that are in the Take Two challenge are getting voted lower because the challenges the original was made for doesn’t matter for this challenge. I scored pretty well in the first challenge only because it fit the challenge very wellâ€Â¦it had a lot of hang ups and flaws that I have fixed in my second try. I believe my shot now is far superior to the first but it is scoring far less because of it not fitting a certain idea or challenge. I think for this challenge to work well it should have shown what the first try looked liked and then the new one to be voted on nowâ€Â¦that way it would be voted on according to the challenge specifications. To re-shoot an old shot with the comments we received to make it better. How are the voters to know if it is better if they don’t know what the first one wasâ€Â¦or even the challenge the first one was in, maybe that doesn’t make any difference here anyways. Just curious what others thoughtâ€Â¦I know it has been mentioned in other threads but thought we could just discuss it here and if it would be against the rules to share what challenge our first shot was from and maybe even the shot itself. I will not do either until I hear from a few of you and get some other opinionsâ€Â¦don’t really feel like getting gang beat when I do something by myself. Let me knowâ€Â¦and if nothing else it will make for good conversation.
Clint
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 03:33:07 AM · #2 |
This challenge is quite on the free study side. I think a lot of the top scoring images will be images that are just good photos and don't need to lean on a challenge description.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 03:36:24 AM · #3 |
Like Leroy said, it's like a free study.
So it is important to keep in mind that "staying within the challenge topic" of the original challenge, will NOT be applicable. It would have been wise to pick a photo that would stand strongly on it's own rather than fitting the original challenge topic. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 03:40:18 AM · #4 |
My voting in this one is a bit unsual. I'm voting exclusively on how much the photo was improved. If I can't tell what the original was to compare then I'm skipping it. I'll probably not vote on a 100% just because of that. However, I agree with fotomann most people will just vote the way they always do.
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 03:40:39. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 03:47:38 AM · #5 |
See I agree with yanko and am wondering if we should reveal our past shot in order for people to see the transformation. I know people will just vote for the pretty ones...but this challenge was kinda geared in another direction...just wondering if we could keep in on target or just let the pretty win...I would love to vote high on a shot that turned their shot aound 100%
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 04:13:10 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by TomFoolery:
See I agree with yanko and am wondering if we should reveal our past shot in order for people to see the transformation. I know people will just vote for the pretty ones...but this challenge was kinda geared in another direction...just wondering if we could keep in on target or just let the pretty win...I would love to vote high on a shot that turned their shot aound 100% |
If you are capable of searching through the thousands of paying members and viewing through all their submission history before voting - it would be a fantastic feat! |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 09:45:29 AM · #7 |
Are we now judging if someone has made an improvement in some way?
Vote as you always do and the final results will have the numbers. Why do we want to know about previous scores?
If someone scored a 2 before and made a huge improvement this time around and is good enough to score a 4, what do you give? |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 09:47:08 AM · #8 |
4 :)
The challenge is still about making a nice photo as an end result. It's not about who has improved the most.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 10:54:37 AM · #9 |
| It has nothing to do with the past challenge either. I was DQed because I used lettering. The original challenge that I was trying to improve on, lettering was a must and I was trying to improve on a good shot that my lettering sucked. Oh well. Now I am voting higher on the purtiest ones, since it doesn't matter if you are trying to improve by using prior comments as suggested in the challenge. :) |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 11:22:22 AM · #10 |
I hope Langdon is reading and learning from this.
I agree that in this challenge it would have made so much more sense to see both the original and retake (preferably with a mouse-over comparison).
My photo is one of those that would certainly benefit from the comparison, instead of doing worse than the original. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 11:38:42 AM · #11 |
Well mine can't get much worse. The original scored like a 4.2 and was at 5%. If I end up with less, then there is really something wrong considering I have a better camera with a lot more capabilities. So the only thing that can really bring my image down is the people who really hate artsy fartsy photos.
Well, I take it back. It can't do worse, but it can do the same.
Good luck trying to find it. I have a lot of images that are 5% or less.
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 11:50:48. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:02:23 PM · #12 |
Yeah well the way I read the description the point of the challenge is to use comments about a previous entry to reshoot and improve it. I considered referring to the original in the title of my current entry - asked about it in the TAKE TWO thread in fact - but decided against it. I may take a hit for saying so, but my original was in the (----) challenge. Now if anyone doesn't think that should be considered, please just ignore that tidbit of information. If however you are voting like Yanko said then you are welcome to go back and compare.
(EDIT: Removed the challenge name out of consideration of the continued thread below).
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 17:19:04. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:20:49 PM · #13 |
I agree about it being a "what we've learned" challenge based on the challenge description. So, I've been trying to find the originals for the people who left clues in their titles as to compare to the originals, since that seemed to be the whole point of the challenge in the first place. It's hard to vote on the others not knowing what they did differently from the first, so I guess I just kind of have to go by the quality of the photograph itself. as that's all I can do.
I'm looking forward to the before and after threads when the challenge ends to see the originals of the ones I couldn't figure out. It's been very interesting seeing the results of the several I've been able to find and have seen much improvement in the majority of them.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:23:24 PM · #14 |
| I had one person comment on my pic that he planned to go back and find the originals for his top picks and then bump from there. I appreciated that since I think I made a huge improvement over my original. I have hunted down some of my top picks as well curious as to what their improvements were. I almost put in my title the challenge that my entry was in but instead just decided to use the same title plus a word. Overall I am not sure how much the improvements affect how I vote as I voted without searching out. But when it comes to leaving comments having the original to look at is a big plus. (Night Shot III if anyone cares). |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:24:04 PM · #15 |
| Mine was in the 'Knife Fork Spoon' challenge though I did not refer to the original in any way in the title. One of the comments on the original was they didn't get the title. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:24:31 PM · #16 |
This is indeed an unusual challenge. We are tasked with reshooting a previous entry but the voter is not empowered to know which we are trying to improve. From that it follows that the amount of improvement shown is not intended to be a factor in scoring. But the order to reshoot one of our own shots is a special rule, and not part of the challenge details/description. Therefore one can conclude that the powers that be were serious about competitors reproducing something they had done before and not just offering us another free study.
The instruction to use the comments left on the previous entry are in the details, not in the special rule. That's good because it does not limit the methods you can use to improve your shot to the ones pointed out by the commenters.
Requests for validation can be submitted up to a week after the close of voting. The possibility of post-voting DQs was raised by SC in forum threads. Certainly the top five finishers (which are routinely checked) and any other entries investigated as a result of during-voting validation requests will be required to pass the test of being compared with the original they seek to outdo. I expect that the initially posted results will change much more than they normally do.
There is going to be some extra work required of our SC members this time. And it comes in the form of subjective judgement calls. I'm sure they are up to it, at least on a one time only basis. I plan on spending extra time reviewing the results so I can compare some entries with the older versions to see who has improved. People can make that easier (for SC and all the rest of us) if they indicate which previous entry they have re-shot in their Photographer's Comments after the voting ends if they haven't already done so.
Personally, I like the challenge, and the way it is set up. I feel it directs the community's attention toward improving our photographic skills. And I feel that it strengthens the idea that shooting to comply with the posted topic is important. Sometimes we tend to drift pretty far in the direction of just "the purdiest pitchers" being rewarded. That let's people think that it is OK to interpret the topic so loosely that they are almost ignoring it. I wouldn't mind at all if we saw a repeat of special rules that make failure to met the topic grounds for DQ on an occasional basis in the futrue.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:32:13 PM · #17 |
I find this a little strange, considering that most of the time we hear that our images should stand on their own, as good images, outside the challenge topic. That is to say, "meets the challenge" is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason for a high score. And most comments regarding "improvement" of individual photos are based on the photo itself, not its challenge relevance.
Furthermore, I can't get behind the idea that the winners of this challenge should be the "most improved" images. Does anyone honestly believe that an image that has jumped from 4.5 to 5.9 more deserves a ribbon in this challenge than one that climbs from 6.3 to 7.1?
In other words, for this one challenge should we be grading on "effort" instead of "accomplishment"? That's pretty far out in left field from my perspective.
Robt.
Edit to add: consider the scenario of an image that was done in a certain way in order that it might clearly meet a particular challenge; all the while it was being voted on, the photographer was fully aware there was a better, stronger picture available, save for the challenge constrictions. And he sees this challenge as his chance to create and show the "better" version, freed from the constraints of the original challenge topic. Is this not a very good example of "improvement"?
Likewise, the picture that would have done better "in a different challenge"? Well, here's that challenge!
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 12:37:50.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:42:30 PM · #18 |
I guess that I'm different than most on this one, because I prefer that there not be comparisons to the original. The score on the original was done without benefit of comparisons. So should it be with the second attempt for the most accurate comparisons to the original when voting is over. Also how do you really put a score value on improvement, wouldn't a 7.0 photo a 7.0 photo regardless of what the original photo was.
edit to add...Bear said it so much more eloquently!
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 12:44:55. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:43:09 PM · #19 |
| I am not voting based on improvements in this challenge. I am voting on technical aspects and aesthetics as well as comparison to the other images in the challenge. There are many landscapes, but some are much better than others just as a photo. Also, if I put a landscape up against a studio, I will vote on the main criteria, such as focus, exposure, composition, uniqueness, creativity, etc. So a lovely landscape may score lower than a studio because I also go on difficulty of shot such as hard to gauge light requirements, etc. So alot will be going into this vote. I don't think that off topic is a problem. Like I said, landscapes up against studio shots don't leave me puzzled. I just go based on all I've previously stated. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:45:22 PM · #20 |
That's very true Bear. How I'm going about it is if I can find the original, I look at the vote I gave it then (or if I didn't vote on it, what I think I would've given it) and compare it to the new version and vote accordingly. On some my score didn't change at all, as I think the changes made were minimal or didn't really improve the photo, IMO. On others they changed dramatically because I could see a vast improvement from the original. But I would score it based on my normal voting habits as I would do in any other challenge. So a 5 in Take Two would be a 5 in any other challenge and a 8 would be an 8 and so on and so forth.
So, given that, I think the winners will still be very well done, technically, creatively and what not and not who was most improved. If that makes any sense. As I stated earlier, the ones I can't find the orginals to, I'm voting as I normally would based on quality and so forth. If it's a good picture, it's a good picture so the chances are the improvements were successful.
Again, just my take on the challenge. It's been a fun one to vote on, time consuming, but fun. :)
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:45:39 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Edit to add: consider the scenario of an image that was done in a certain way in order that it might clearly meet a particular challenge; all the while it was being voted on, the photographer was fully aware there was a better, stronger picture available, save for the challenge constrictions. And he sees this challenge as his chance to create and show the "better" version, freed from the constraints of the original challenge topic. Is this not a very good example of "improvement"?
|
Just the fact that this was an advanced editing challenge was a huge constraint removed from any original shots that were limited to basic editing. (A huge plus in my case). |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:49:26 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Just the fact that this was an advanced editing challenge was a huge constraint removed from any original shots that were limited to basic editing. (A huge plus in my case). |
That's another thing that's made voting on this interesting. Being able to see what a difference can be made in advanced as opposed to basic editing.
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 13:35:12.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:49:28 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I find this a little strange, considering that most of the time we hear that our images should stand on their own, as good images, outside the challenge topic. That is to say, "meets the challenge" is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason for a high score. And most comments regarding "improvement" of individual photos are based on the photo itself, not its challenge relevance.
Furthermore, I can't get behind the idea that the winners of this challenge should be the "most improved" images. Does anyone honestly believe that an image that has jumped from 4.5 to 5.9 more deserves a ribbon in this challenge than one that climbs from 6.3 to 7.1?
In other words, for this one challenge should we be grading on "effort" instead of "accomplishment"? That's pretty far out in left field from my perspective.
Robt.
Edit to add: consider the scenario of an image that was done in a certain way in order that it might clearly meet a particular challenge; all the while it was being voted on, the photographer was fully aware there was a better, stronger picture available, save for the challenge constrictions. And he sees this challenge as his chance to create and show the "better" version, freed from the constraints of the original challenge topic. Is this not a very good example of "improvement"?
Likewise, the picture that would have done better "in a different challenge"? Well, here's that challenge! |
Should images be able to stand on their own? Sure. But certain themes lend themselves to more wows and pretties than others. I'm betting that a lot of shots that were met with DNMCs in previous challenges are soaring here, while others that are vast improvements in more humdrum topics are suffering, and that is a result of the challenge's limitations, not of the photos themselves.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:55:23 PM · #24 |
I agree with alot that is being said...I do not think we should just vote on who did the best job fixing their image, but I do think that should be some kind of factor...not the only one mind you. You would still look at the image as a stand alone and see how technically sound it is and how interesting it is. But not being able to find out the original photo takes away from this one particular challenge in my opinion. In all other challenges I would never think it would be a good idea to show the entire community that a photo in voting was mine...bad idea. But this one almost asks us to look for the originals and I think we should make it easier for them to be found for the people who deem that worthy to be calculated in their vote on these entries. Only a few have stated what challenge they have been in so far...and as far as I know it only one person has put their original photo ID inside their title of their entry...is that wrong or are they getting a better score than they would have if they hadn't posted it? So like a few others have done my entry was in the Threes challenge and is actually in my top ten rated photos...but I chose it because, like I said earlier, has things wrong with it that I think I have corrected. If you find my original and my TT entry and find it not better let me know...cause that's what I want to hear, so I can get better.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:57:38 PM · #25 |
Well, FYI mine is from the darkness challenge (the 5th challenge I entered) so those of you not voting on the ones you can't see- I guess I'd rather have the vote than not. And anyone who does not want to look don't. I labeled mine the same title but knew there was no way for people to find my original when they didn't even know who's image was who's.
I admit, I was a disappointed when this time around my image was still not doing so great, but this too is a good thing to know. But I'm still happy about how much I've learned. |
|
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: 08/28/2025 08:31:04 AM EDT.
