| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2007 11:11:39 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by mileskea:
Again a photo in a challenge should be able to convey the challenge without the use of clever title. If it needs the words the photo has not done the deed. |
and that's just one way to view the challenge. If it were strictly true though, why would there be a box that asks for a title and why is it shown during voting ? Why do all your entries have titles if your pictures don't need words ?
Originally posted by mileskea:
I am not proposing that a challenge should be so strict so as to leave no latitude in interpretation - everybody views the world differently after all - but a structure is required if a contest is the object of the excercise. |
The structure is already there - there's a box for a title so a title is part of the structure. Now if you think it should be different, then that's a distinct discussion to have - but the way things are set up, the title is an integral part of the submission & voting. |
Gordon
You are quite right the box is there to be filled in if you want to and I have done just that for each of my challenge entries. Even though the title is there to be completed I don't think that it does, or should, play a role in linking photo to challenge unless the challenge requires it (see Rolling Stones Challenge).
You refer to my submissions and their titles. Would you write a book and not give it a title - Book by M Twain or Books by JRR Tolkien? How about a painting - instead of the 'Mona Lisa'('La Giaconda':)) how about 'Painting' by L Da Vinci? Not quite the same is it.
I am proud of each of my photographs - they represent something that I created after all - and I try to use the titles to name the picture not define its relevance to the challenge. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:16:37 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by mileskea:
You refer to my submissions and their titles. Would you write a book and not give it a title - Book by M Twain or Books by JRR Tolkien? How about a painting - instead of the 'Mona Lisa'('La Giaconda':)) how about 'Painting' by L Da Vinci? Not quite the same is it.
|
many do choose not to title their works. If you believe it is 'not quite the same' without a title - then you do believe that titles are important and matter. Why then try to say the opposite ? Why should the photo and title be held as somehow independent ? One in the contest and the other somehow floating apart from it ?
I guess I just don't get the idea that a photo should or has to stand alone to be any good. The vast stretches of photographic history seem to show the lie to this. An entry has two parts - the photo and the title. Not one part and something tacked on that has nothing to do with it - otherwise we would only see one part during voting...
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 11:20:04.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:25:42 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
My thought is:
If you worked as a photographer for a newspaper and your boss said, get a picture the shows "Triumph" for an article we're doing, would he/she be happy with that image? |
Great example Bob. Your thought got lost among the many postings here...I think it is quite related to the OP's original thought/question. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:30:50 AM · #54 |
A good photo can lead people in many directions if it is studied. It has complexity and depth. A title helps the viewer know which direction the artist intended you to travel. It doesn't mean you have to go that way, but at least you know what the photog meant with the picture.
Titles are VERY important unless you want to allow a "free form" interpretation (which could do very well in a gallery showing or so on).
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:36:34 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by mileskea:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The only challenge at DPC is to get a high score from voters.
Meeting the challenge is only one way to do this. Taking an exceptional photo is another, and photographing something unusual or inventive is one more.
In a small challenge (74 valid entries) with a vague and hard to represent theme, this exceptional photo did very well (perhaps because of, probably despite, the long title) - kudos to Jeff.
Personally, I think that a more elusive title would have been more satisfying - something like "One Shot in Ten Thousand", but that is a personal preference. |
If a high score is the only challenge why bother with setting a challenge in the first place? Why not just have every member submit a photo that can be judged by on its own merit.
If I read what you are trying to say correctly the weekly issue of challenges is irrelevant and any shot will do. I'm not sure that I agree with that concept - the challenges are designed to make you apply what you can do to what is required. If you are asked to deliver to a requirement you should deliver what is required.
Again a photo in a challenge should be able to convey the challenge without the use of clever title. If it needs the words the photo has not done the deed.
I am not proposing that a challenge should be so strict so as to leave no latitude in interpretation - everybody views the world differently after all - but a structure is required if a contest is the object of the excercise. |
I don't think he's advocating irrelevancy of a challenge topic. You can see even by the responses in this thread that meeting the challenge has varying degrees of importance to different people. As the photographer, it's not a matter of deciding between getting the shot OR meeting the challenge. It's striking that elusive balance that will appeal to the widest range of people and their many different methods of assessment. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:41:17 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
My thought is:
If you worked as a photographer for a newspaper and your boss said, get a picture the shows "Triumph" for an article we're doing, would he/she be happy with that image? |
Great example Bob. Your thought got lost among the many postings here...I think it is quite related to the OP's original thought/question. |
How about if your newspaper was read almost exclusively by photographers who mostly understand the triumph involved in taking that shot ?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:47:26 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A good photo can lead people in many directions if it is studied. It has complexity and depth. A title helps the viewer know which direction the artist intended you to travel. It doesn't mean you have to go that way, but at least you know what the photog meant with the picture.
Titles are VERY important unless you want to allow a "free form" interpretation (which could do very well in a gallery showing or so on). |
I agree, I have an image for the chains challenge that got titled the deep because I thought it almost looked like an underwater shot and it actually had a few wondering but I also made a poor choice and people told me they lowered their score because of the title. I think this was a great shot with a title that hit a lot of voters hearts because we all know how though that shot would have been, does it really meet the intent of the challenge probably not but playing the hearts of the voters is really all it is about! |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:49:01 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
My thought is:
If you worked as a photographer for a newspaper and your boss said, get a picture the shows "Triumph" for an article we're doing, would he/she be happy with that image? |
Great example Bob. Your thought got lost among the many postings here...I think it is quite related to the OP's original thought/question. |
How about if your newspaper was read almost exclusively by photographers who mostly understand the triumph involved in taking that shot ? |
With or without a caption? :P |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:10:38 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A good photo can lead people in many directions if it is studied. It has complexity and depth. |
I'm quoting you so you can't change this later... :P |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:16:41 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by mk:
I don't think he's advocating irrelevancy of a challenge topic. You can see even by the responses in this thread that meeting the challenge has varying degrees of importance to different people. As the photographer, it's not a matter of deciding between getting the shot OR meeting the challenge. It's striking that elusive balance that will appeal to the widest range of people and their many different methods of assessment. |
I think that is exactly what is being advocated. As I think I have said before if meeting the challenge is not important why have one in the first place?
Bob did nail it when he said 'My thought is:
If you worked as a photographer for a newspaper and your boss said, get a picture the shows "Triumph" for an article we're doing, would he/she be happy with that image?'
Another analogy coming up now - Square peg round hole! If an assignment is set any submissions should be relevant to the assignment - pure and simple.
I feel sorry for Jeff here because this thread is taking away from his achievement. His photograph is stunning and the more I look at it the more I appreciate it but does it say Triumph to me? I don't think it does. It screams all sorts of other superlatives but not Triumph.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:17:07 PM · #61 |
| I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:18:11 PM · #62 |
We have enough trouble getting people to vote in large challenges as it is - you want to add more restrictions?
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:19:34 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
1800 clicks vs 600 for the last free study? Don't think that will encourage voting IMO. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:21:55 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by mileskea:
I feel sorry for Jeff here because this thread is taking away from his achievement. His photograph is stunning and the more I look at it the more I appreciate it but does it say Triumph to me? I don't think it does. It screams all sorts of other superlatives but not Triumph. |
As a few have suggested - go try and take that picture. See how frustrated you feel. See how triumphant you feel when (if) you manage to even get close. Then that photo would scream triumph at you.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:28:59 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by mileskea:
If a high score is the only challenge why bother with setting a challenge in the first place? Why not just have every member submit a photo that can be judged by on its own merit.
If I read what you are trying to say correctly the weekly issue of challenges is irrelevant and any shot will do. I'm not sure that I agree with that concept - the challenges are designed to make you apply what you can do to what is required. If you are asked to deliver to a requirement you should deliver what is required.
Again a photo in a challenge should be able to convey the challenge without the use of clever title. If it needs the words the photo has not done the deed.
I am not proposing that a challenge should be so strict so as to leave no latitude in interpretation - everybody views the world differently after all - but a structure is required if a contest is the object of the excercise. |
I think that you misread me slightly.
The compo winners at DPC are those that obtain the highest vote. In order to win a ribbon, the only thing that you have to do is score highly.
You are questioning what voters *should* be taking into account when they vote. My point is that the voters vote whatever they want to vote entirely freely according to whatever principles they individually subscribe and the photographer (and the site) cannot change that.
As a photographer, all you can do is do things to obtain high votes and avoid low votes. The fact that voters tend to vote more highly for images that are closely connected to the challenge is obviously important, as is the fact that they tend to vote low for technically poor shots and long titles. But this is not to say that you could not do something else and still get a high score and ribbon.
Rather than criticising the voters or their votes, all one can do is sometimes wonder at their vagaries!
edit to mention that I was delayed in posting this - others put the same point more succinctly in the meantime...!
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 12:31:18.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:31:32 PM · #66 |
If this keeps up we will be faced with a new voting mechanism:
Emotional Content:
Meets Challenge:
Title as relates to image:
Title as relates to challenge:
Sharpness:
Noise:
Composition:
Color Balance:
Dynamic Range:
Ha ha ha!
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:31:44 PM · #67 |
These would not be restrictions..more percise controls over how i can vote. It might even intice people to vote more because of the precision.Originally posted by bassbone:
We have enough trouble getting people to vote in large challenges as it is - you want to add more restrictions?
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
|
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:32:43 PM · #68 |
as someone else already mentioned I think
234 votes
Only 10 votes below a 5.
It seems those who think it is shoehorned are quite under represented, other than in this thread. Don't y'all vote ? :)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:33:54 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
These would not be restrictions..more percise controls over how i can vote. It might even intice people to vote more because of the precision.Originally posted by bassbone:
We have enough trouble getting people to vote in large challenges as it is - you want to add more restrictions?
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
|
|
Nobody is stopping you doing this right now.
You could post each of the three scores in the comments and then vote the average.
I think people have voted that way in the past for one or two challenges.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:35:14 PM · #70 |
Thats why I only suggested three. This is intented to address the issue of Its a great shot verses DNMC. Originally posted by wlevy:
If this keeps up we will be faced with a new voting mechanism:
Emotional Content:
Meets Challenge:
Title as relates to image:
Title as relates to challenge:
Sharpness:
Noise:
Composition:
Color Balance:
Dynamic Range:
Ha ha ha! |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 12:36:28 PM · #71 |
Thats rrue..GOOD POINT!Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
These would not be restrictions..more percise controls over how i can vote. It might even intice people to vote more because of the precision.Originally posted by bassbone:
We have enough trouble getting people to vote in large challenges as it is - you want to add more restrictions?
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
|
|
Nobody is stopping you doing this right now.
You could post each of the three scores in the comments and then vote the average.
I think people have voted that way in the past for one or two challenges. |
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 02:23:28 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
they tend to vote low for...long titles. |
Heh. This is a common DPC myth which I have proven wrong on many occasions. I think Bear is known to use a wordy title as well...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 02:47:33 PM · #73 |
I love the shot in question, but I have to agree that it was reaching to say it met the challenge. However, in this particular challenge, you could argue that about 5 of the top 10 were somewhat shoehorned (or you at least have to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt). This particular challenge topic was more open to shoehorning than most, so it was easy for some very good shots (like the ribbon winner) to rise to the top.
I would love to see a few challenges tried where no titles were allowed. Nobody could argue that a title made the entry, and it would be up to everyone's own interpretation as to whether or not it met the challenge. That is, no more leading the witness.
Congrats to Spizzer - an excellent hummer! |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:48:47 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by NorthernCanuck:
I hear alot of different opinions about whether its a good photo, or DNMC...I see the problem as in the voting. Maybe voting could be more exact by averaging three(or more) critia such as, Creativity, Techincal expertise, and Does it meet the challenge. A one to ten scale in each area then averaged would give the voter more control over a score a photo gets.. What do you all think? |
I agree voting is a little random. There are a few suggestions.
You could be excluded from voting in any challenge you enter. That should stop the trolls.
You could have the council select a batch of members at random to vote for a challenge. This would mean compulsory 100% voting.
You could have the council vet all entries to ensure that they do comply with the challenge and then vote as usual.
Loads of options lots of conversation I am sure.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 03:56:00 PM · #75 |
Everyone already knows it's more about a great shot than anything else.
That's what the title is for - explain how it meets the challenge.
* as I remove my tongue from my cheek *
|
|
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: 07/31/2025 05:29:33 PM EDT.
