| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/25/2006 12:41:29 PM · #1 |
OK,
In the bokeh challenge, and in challenges in the past, some discriptions of the challenge has lacked quality.
Some are pretty straght (sp) forward, some have spelling errors (like me), some just have bad grammer, and who know's in the future there might be abbreviations only a few may understand.
I think a stronger, error free, basic phonetically correct, grammerlly (sp) correct language in the challenge discription needed.
A SC member can make sure the discription is correct per the guidelines, or someone on the executive level, hired full time, can make sure as part of their duties to have strong challenge discriptions.
Especially in the Bokeh Challenge this time round, the discription was really weak. Way weak. So weak arguments, and at least 4 threads came out because of the weakness.
IMO, it is the liability of the execs, and maybe the SC, to oversee strong discriptions with the challenges. I mean, come on, auto makers recall their products due to bad construction only to make a wrong a right, and other manufactureres do the same so as to have a quality product. Why is it then challenge discriptions should not be on the same level as a quality product.
DPC is a learning site, not an argument site, or an interpretation site. Strong, correct language should be implemented so the quality of the product is used to make learning easier, rather then frustrating.
OK, let the pouncing begin!!!
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 12:54:42 PM · #2 |
If this isn't a spoof as I am hoping it is then I would strongly suggest that you lead by example and attempt to present your suggestion in the style which you are proposing for the challenge descriptions - properly proof read to correct spelling errors and improve grammar.
:o)
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:14:33 PM · #3 |
I agree with your sentiments Horse, but doubt that your proposal will fly as presented. It would be nice to tighten up the procedure for selecting and announcing challenges topics. First off, SC in not directly involved. It's done by the admins, and SC becomes aware of the topics at the same time as the rest of us. And dpc doesn't have any full time paid employees, for doing challenge topics or anything else. Cost of membership would likely have to double to support your idea.
What I think is more practical would be for a group of people, not necessarily SC, to evaluate and rewrite the many suggestions that are put forward in the forums. After screening and polishing they would then pass on to the selecting person(s) a large list of quality topics in finalized form, maybe paired for Open chllenges. They could add their own suggestions so that sometimes there would be topics that had not been seen prior in the forums.
I believe clearer wording in the descriptions would be a positive for the community if they led to less discussion of interpretations in the forums and encouraged people to just go out and shoot to the topic as they read it, and it's description. All the debateing about interpretations, which frequently spill over into arguements, are a waste of time because the voters will always have the last word anyway.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 01:38:07 PM · #4 |
Funny this thread came up. I was just thinking recently along the same lines. I agree with you Horse, but as Coolhar points out, there are problems with that specific answer. I was thinking something along the exact lines as Coolhars idea. A group of volunteers that look over, discuss, and revise as necessary the challenge suggestions as put forth by members, and then hand over the (hopefully) polished versions for future use.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:03:18 PM · #5 |
Sometimes, the problems with the descriptions do not become apparent until after the challenge is posted -- even if reviewed by all SC members (they're not), that's no match for the thousands of members who evaluate those descriptions once posted.
Also (IMO), there exists a fundamental split between people who want to view the descriptions as restrictive and those who view them as inspirational starting points; those who want 200 pictures of a superbly-lit apple sitting on an oak end-table, and those who want to see 200 interpretations of the term "apple" -- including cityscapes of the "Big Apple," apple pie, a baseball pitcher "hurlin' the ol' apple," etc. No amount of legalistic specificity will resolve that philosophical argument. The current Bokeh description was careful to specify that it was a "general" definition which included blurry backgrounds, yet we still had arguments over you had to see visible circles of light or if blurriness alone was enough. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:16:00 PM · #6 |
General, of course you are right. It would be awful hard to come up with flawless, perfect challenge description/details. Heck, some people probably would debate/argue just for the sake of the argument. And there will always be people who try to push the envelope of the 'box'. That is great, and a good thing, and the voters still would sort it all out in the end. However, I think we have seen challenges in the past that many felt could of benefitted from different wording. Perhaps if there were a 'committee' who looked at the suggestions, they could even contact the original person who suggested it, and ask them what is their intent, should it be a strict topic, or loose and open? Try to tweak the wording to simply steer people toward the goal of the intended 'spirit' of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:17:52 PM · #7 |
We sort-of do that already; just the system isn't perfect. Most of the descriptions work OK, but the ones that don't tend to stand out.
Of course, it would help if people who submit suggestions would write out a first draft -- the last "Suggestions" thread I saw had people listing eight or ten "titles" with no descriptions attached. Of course it's obvious to the poster what "Trees" means, but we all know that wouldn't "do" for a "real" description ...
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 14:20:57. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:18:33 PM · #8 |
We get complaints whether the description is ultra-specific or completely blank. *shrug* I thought Bokeh II was one of the clearer challenge descriptions. If you'd like a stronger one, how about this...
"Bokeh III- Bokeh is the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus foreground or background elements of a photo. It isn't very interesting by itself, but take a powerful, manly photograph whose subject is strengthened by the bokeh of the background. ;-P
Seriously though, you're always welcome to suggest your own, clearly-worded challenge descriptions. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:36:29 PM · #9 |
I think there is something to be said for the difference between an "Apple" challenge and the "Bokeh" challenge, to use the examples already given here. Using apple as a place to start is fine, and unique interpretations are a welcomed relief when voting on 300 entries of apples in a basket. People usually just take that risk of thinking outside the box. I don't have a solution for those challenges.
However, Bokeh and some of the other challenges which have been debated are more technical in nature, and perhaps a link could be provided to a reputable site which defines the topic and/or explains a variety of methods to achieve the results. We would all be working from the same information, but it wouldn't be as limited as a sentence that everyone tries to analyze all week. It might even be nice to have some of those more technical topics written up for our own how-to's/tutorials on DPC. It isn't a perfect solution by any means, just an idea.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:43:16 PM · #10 |
| We already have a general definition and Bokeh I as examples. This is just a technical challenge (like Long Exposure or Macro), where you can shoot whatever you like as long as it features bokeh, which is defined in the description. What more do we need? |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:47:22 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We already have a general definition and Bokeh I as examples. This is just a technical challenge (like Long Exposure or Macro), where you can shoot whatever you like as long as it features bokeh, which is defined in the description. What more do we need? |
Right -- I think the point of the challenge is to use "our definition" as stated in the description, not debate endlessly about how outside sources define it. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:48:02 PM · #12 |
1. As Kavey said, if you're going to knock someone for something, you'd be well off to make sure you're not egregiously guilty of that which you knock. Your post is so riddled with spelling and grammatical errors that it's difficult to take you very seriously.
2. I have seen very, very few spelling errors in challenge descriptions and none that weren't remedied immediately.
3. Writing a challenge description that everyone agrees with is about as easy as taking a photo that everyone likes. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:50:18 PM · #13 |
I'd like to see the descriptions abolished completely.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 02:55:01 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mk:
1. As Kavey said, if you're going to knock someone for something, you'd be well off to make sure you're not egregiously guilty of that which you knock. Your post is so riddled with spelling and grammatical errors that it's difficult to take you very seriously.
2. I have seen very, very few spelling errors in challenge descriptions and none that weren't remedied immediately.
3. Writing a challenge description that everyone agrees with is about as easy as taking a photo that everyone likes. Good luck. |
While I mainly agree with mk, the bokeh challenge, which is all fresh in our minds, was poorly written. It spoke of both foreground and background in the definition of bokeh and then seemed to imply that you could only use background. Poorly written... |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 03:59:38 PM · #15 |
The problem is not with challenge descriptions, the problem is with narrow minded voters who overemphasize their personal views far beyond any amount of logical or reasonable interpretation.
More precise wording and correct grammar doesn't stand a chance against that.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 04:08:38 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I mainly agree with mk, the bokeh challenge, which is all fresh in our minds, was poorly written. It spoke of both foreground and background in the definition of bokeh and then seemed to imply that you could only use background. Poorly written... |
IMHO the bokeh challenge is a strange challenge. Bokeh is used with words like bad, good, average etc to describe the quality of the out of focus parts of the image and relates to the quality of a lens. Essentially it cannot be a photo vs photo challenge but a lens vs lens challenge. No matter how crap the photo itself is, the bokeh can be very good.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 09:20:30 PM · #17 |
Yes, I did try to improvise, and make fun of discriptions for a web site suggestion.
NO, I am a poor speller. If I was good at spelling, I would not put the "sp" standard to indicate that I have no clue on how to spell a certain word. As a matter of fact, if I had stayed awake during some of my required studies in college, including some english courses, I would not have the career I have today. I would of pursued the law, and politics.
Thank your God I took the trail I did.
Also, even though my original post was tounge and cheek, there really has to be some sort of quality control, else why is DPC here? I mean, many members, myself included, are interested in furthering our camera techniques. If discriptions of challenges are not proof read before they are brought forward to the general membership, then there has to be another way for members to agee on technical aspects of photography. Tutorials from the exec maybe? I don't have that answer.
The goal of a challenge should be for the fun of it all.
Ranting, arguing, and several interpretations of a technical aspect only create frustrations, and potential for members to find other sites that will serve them better.
DPC has so much potential as a great site to learn the ABC's of photography, but fall short when technical aspects of photography is let to fall through the cracks within challenges.
An apple can be a study for the creative like the General mentioned. However, bokeh is technical, as is long exposure, and dof, and black and white, and so on, and so on. These technical aspects should once and for all be listed somewhere either in a tutorial, or dictionary form within DPC for all members and non-members to go to. This will end all frustrations, all arguments, and all second hand discriptions. Then, and only then will everyone be on the same page.
Ok, I'm ready for more pouncing on.
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 21:23:53.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 09:29:58 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
The problem is not with challenge descriptions, the problem is with narrow minded voters who overemphasize their personal views far beyond any amount of logical or reasonable interpretation.
More precise wording and correct grammar doesn't stand a chance against that. |
I agree with this. Hundreds of lawyers and judges could sign off on the challenge descriptions and it still wouldn't be ironclad enough. There are way too many voters who just vote based on personal views and ignore the descriptions altogether. The Desolation challenge is a prime example of that. It said "Show us what 'desolation' means to you" i.e. the photographer not the voter yet I've gotten comments that said "they" don't see desolation in my photo.
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 21:31:30. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 09:51:18 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by bod:
I'd like to see the descriptions abolished completely. |
This is what I would like to see also. With no description the voter has to spend more time looking at an entry to understand how the photographer is interpreting the challenge, it may even help people broaden there own perception of a challenge title.
I think we should have the mindset that when viewing an entry we look to see how the photographer is presenting the challenge not whether it conforms to own narrow interpretation of the description.
There is no way that a “tighter” description will stop any debate. We quite often see in the forums people arguing over individual words in a challenge title and then we see all those dictionary descriptions posted as well.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2006 10:16:33 PM · #20 |
Keegbow, I disagree. I think the description helps a little in widening the narrow views of some voters. Maybe it doesn't do a great job but I think it helps some. Without it I feel the opposite of what you said will happen (i.e. even more strict interpretations).
In the Something Old challenge, which didn't have a description, I scored my lowest mark even though it was one of my better shot images technically. Simply put my subject wasn't old "enough" even though it was plenty old, obsolete and most importantly old to "me". I wasn't trying to think outside the box or shoehorn something that just happen to coincide with the submission deadline. No, I shot it specifically for the challenge and I thought it was pretty damn cut and dry yet too many voters refused to give me the benefit of the doubt. That's the problem, IMO and that won't change with a cosmetic change like what you and bod proposed. For whatever reason voters refuse to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt and believe me most photos that get labled DNMC have plenty of doubt and are rarely clear cut DNMC yet we so freely hand out like they are going out of style.
Message edited by author 2006-06-25 22:19:59. |
|
|
|
06/25/2006 10:34:30 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Keegbow, I disagree. I think the description helps a little in widening the narrow views of some voters. Maybe it doesn't do a great job but I think it helps some. Without it I feel the opposite of what you said will happen (i.e. even more strict interpretations).
In the Something Old challenge, which didn't have a description, I scored my lowest mark even though it was one of my better shot images technically. Simply put my subject wasn't old "enough" even though it was plenty old, obsolete and most importantly old to "me". I wasn't trying to think outside the box or shoehorn something that just happen to coincide with the submission deadline. No, I shot it specifically for the challenge and I thought it was pretty damn cut and dry yet too many voters refused to give me the benefit of the doubt. That's the problem, IMO and that won't change with a cosmetic change like what you and bod proposed. For whatever reason voters refuse to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt and believe me most photos that get labled DNMC have plenty of doubt and are rarely clear cut DNMC yet we so freely hand out like they are going out of style. |
I understand what you are saying and this is the current problem. If the mindset of voters would change then we wouldn’t have voters looking for ways to vote you down via DNMC.
As far as I’m concerned too much emphasis is placed on meeting the challenge we all have different views on the challenge description no matter how tight the description is written.
Don’t get me wrong, meeting the challenge description is a great concept but we all should have a more open mind as to what meets the challenge the other compounding factor is that we vote on the challenges that we enter so therefore we are subjecting the entries to how we see the challenge description not how other people see it.
It has been proven statistically here that we vote lower on the challenges we enter compared to the challenges we don’t enter this also needs to be addressed to combat the DNMC brigade.
|
|
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: 08/30/2025 06:03:05 AM EDT.
