Dpc Photographer of the year - DPChallenge Forums

12/13/2006 12:40:49 AM · #7

I will be posting a thread in January for the Top 5 ribbon winners of the year. The contest has been going on behind the scenes. Now just because you win a ton of ribbons doesn't make you "photographer of the year", but it's something for you.

12/13/2006 12:47:59 AM · #8

Originally posted by karmat:

Criteria is the trick...We could do a modified "Master's" concept and present a list of Ribbon winners of 2006 as candidates and then vote from there. That way there is a more concentrated list and it motivates people to get ribbons if it matters to them to have a chance to win "POY".

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/13/2006 01:15:24 AM · #9

My gut reaction is, if we're going to have a "Photographer of the Year" (as opposed to a "Member of the Year") it should be based on objective criteria, i.e. point totals; so much for first, so much for second, so much for third, and on down through 10th. Whoever's accumulated the most points wins. I wouldn't want to see it being a "voting" thing, where popularity comes into play. And after all, everyone's been voted on already, every time they entered.

R.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

12/13/2006 01:17:47 AM · #10

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I agree. Or just award ribbons to the top 3 scores for the year.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/13/2006 01:19:35 AM · #11

The 2006 Ribbon Chase included 4th and 5th and has a "points division" like Bear mentions. I didn't go down to 10th though because it would have consisted of a lot more work.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/13/2006 01:23:28 AM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The 2006 Ribbon Chase included 4th and 5th and has a "points division" like Bear mentions. I didn't go down to 10th though because it would have consisted of a lot more work.

Oh yeah? That'll actually give me a semi-decent placing; only one ribbon so far, but a bunch of 4 & 5... 6 of them, if I'm not mistaken. It's been a bridesmaid's year for me :-)

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/13/2006 01:25:42 AM · #13

Why stop at photographer of the year? How about...

- Top Rookie Award
- Most Improved Award
- Highest Average Award
- Most Active with Highest Average Award (52 entries or more as a qualifier)
- Triple Crown Award (Ribbons in landscape, portrait, macro or some other three categories)

etc. etc.

Message edited by author 2006-12-13 01:26:15.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/13/2006 01:26:52 AM · #14

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Boohoo. I am sure I won't win because I fly under the radar a bit, but man who cares if it turns into a popularity contest. Maybe we should trust the integrity of DPC'ers on the whole and trust they will vote a worthy POY. Objective criteria should enter into the fold somehow, like to determine candidates, but then let the masses decide. Why? Because there is more to life than objectivity and sheer numeric tabulation. If people really want to potentially reward those that don't dominate ribbons, but say just got 1 this year, then they still have as much chance as anyone based on their portfolio, body of work and intangible photographic contribution. But then if they do want to reward the ribbon eaters, then more power to them. The point is just for fun anyway and a way to make a couple of photographers (or one) feel good about their peers' recognition of their work.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

12/13/2006 01:32:58 AM · #15

Originally posted by Cutter:

The point is just for fun anyway and a way to make a couple of photographers (or one) feel good about their peers' recognition of their work.

I can see where you're going with the idea, and it's not a bad idea though probably impossible to execute. The peer recognition certainly isn't missing from the site though. There's half a dozen 'underrated' threads tossed up every week and then promptly filled with about 84,000 photos.

Message edited by author 2006-12-13 01:33:27.

12/13/2006 01:38:28 AM · #16

Originally posted by routerguy666:

no doubt. That is why a specific criteria like minimum "1 ribbon in 2006" is quite easy to figure out. Make the list and then begin the vote on a 1-10 scale like jmsetzler said. Quite easy and straightforward really.

12/13/2006 01:42:15 AM · #17

Originally posted by Cutter:

I really don't like the tone of that "boohoo", sorry... I'm not whining at all. And certainly I'd benefit more than most people if popularity came into play, since I'm a retired guy with lots of time to hang out and be helpful. But that isn't my point. My point is if you're going to call it "Photographer of the Year" then base the results on photography. We've been ranking the photography all year; just tally 'em up and see who's got the points.

I'd be TOTALLY in favor of a "DPCer of the Year" award that would take all those other criteria into effect as well. And if we're going to be voting on who it is, then that's what it should be called IMO.

Of course, that's just me...

R.

Message edited by author 2006-12-13 01:43:08.

12/13/2006 01:48:05 AM · #18

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

My point is if you're going to call it "Photographer of the Year" then base the results on photography. We've been ranking the photography all year; just tally 'em up and see who's got the points.
R.

That is fine too, but there is no sport or fun in it. Just a tally. That is boring. If we do this, it should be fun and have at least 1% suspense. I betcha if you take the top 20 scorers or top 20 ribbon winners, and then take the top 20 finishers from my proposed (actually jmsetzler's) method, then about 75% would be crossovers. So really there would only be a small impact from intangible voting schemes.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

12/13/2006 02:58:21 AM · #19

will there be free beer?

12/13/2006 03:00:42 AM · #20

Originally posted by Cutter:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My point is if you're going to call it "Photographer of the Year" then base the results on photography. We've been ranking the photography all year; just tally 'em up and see who's got the points.
R.

That is fine too, but there is no sport or fun in it. Just a tally. That is boring. If we do this, it should be fun and have at least 1% suspense. I betcha if you take the top 20 scorers or top 20 ribbon winners, and then take the top 20 finishers from my proposed (actually jmsetzler's) method, then about 75% would be crossovers. So really there would only be a small impact from intangible voting schemes.

Oh, I'm sure there'd be a lot of overlap. And you're certainly right that the method you and setzler are discussing would be more "fun". I won't be complaining if that's how it ends up happening (if indeed it happens at all).

R.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D