| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2004 04:42:58 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I find it odd that people complain about low scores, driveby voters, and artistic shots scoring low.
From what I've seen this site has a pretty good sampling of the general public. If your submission scores low that means the majority of the general public didn't like it. That doesn't mean the general public is a bunch of morons, and/or didn't get it, and/or didn't spend enough time looking at it.
A low score doesn't mean it's a bad shot. It just means there were more people that dis-liked it then liked it.
Take a look at the scoring on some of the lowest rated shots. All of them have a few high scores from a few people that liked it. |
Low ranking shots have more to do with meeting the challenge more than being a good photograph sometimes. A beautiffuly exposed and composed landscape isn't going to do well in a macro challenge no matter how good it is.
Judging by some of the threads before voting began, a lot of people said their defenition of shallow DOF is when both the foreground and background is thrown out of focus.
Perhaps that's why?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 05:14:23 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by bruchen:
I just knew it wasn't a 6-pointer. |
Well my goofed up shot got me my highest, and my Shallow DoF entry I thought would be in the low 5.xxxx is doing much better.
Now I am thinking whats been wrong with me till now...
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 05:23:22 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by tarique:
Originally posted by bruchen:
I just knew it wasn't a 6-pointer. |
Well my goofed up shot got me my highest, and my Shallow DoF entry I thought would be in the low 5.xxxx is doing much better.
Now I am thinking whats been wrong with me till now... |
I'm currently at a 6 , but I wished I had thought of it a couple of days earlier. Had the idea 45 minutes to deadline.
Stupid lightbulb burned out with no replacement. Maybe try recreating if requested. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 09:31:20 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Low ranking shots have more to do with meeting the challenge more than being a good photograph sometimes. A beautiffuly exposed and composed landscape isn't going to do well in a macro challenge no matter how good it is.
Judging by some of the threads before voting began, a lot of people said their defenition of shallow DOF is when both the foreground and background is thrown out of focus.
Perhaps that's why? |
I actually have both the foreground and background out of focus. I am pretty sure I know why I'm getting the scores. But I am getting absoultely no comments. I would like to know what I did wrong so I can consider that in future shots. My score isn't really low, but it is the lowest I have received so far. And I think it is a better picture than 2 of my other entries. It has come up a little this morning. I have 82 votes, score of 5.0366. Dropped to 4.9500 yesterday. Oh well, I have many more to enter!
And to Shelley,
I know exactly what you mean. It always seems like I take the perfect picture for a challenge a day or two before the challenge starts. I have done this 3 times now. And it can be pretty hard to recreate a shot sometimes. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:27:24 AM · #30 |
I didn't expect my entry to do any better than it is doing. I too have managed, with my camera, to make the background and foreground out of focus. And I too have very few comments....er, only one to be exact. I think this probably has to do more with my subject/setup than the technical limitations of my camera. I knew this going in. I'm just stubborn by nature. So I guess I'm not really frustrated.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:36:08 AM · #31 |
Well I thought I was on for a sure 7 ;) I really like my shot in this case (rare) so not bothered at all. Quite a few 10's from some photographers I like which is always great.
As it stands a 5.something image.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 10:58:16 AM · #32 |
I had several images ready for this challenge but I plumped for an "arty" one. It is now sitting at 4.7 the lowest of any of my submissions.
Oh well back to the drawing board!!!!
Gordon. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:07:17 AM · #33 |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:10:43 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Judging by some of the threads before voting began, a lot of people said their defenition of shallow DOF is when both the foreground and background is thrown out of focus.
Perhaps that's why? |
If I see a photo where both the foreground and background are out of focus, then I would think of that photo is just one blurry photo that does not meet the requirement of shallow dof. A shallow dof, for me, has the subject usually in the foreground in clear focus against a blurry background. But the foreground with some blurriness is acceptable as long as the subject is clearly isolated and stands out from the blur.
Ellamay's duck photo from another thread is a good example of shallow dof. The duck is clearly in focus against a blurry background with some blurriness in the foreground as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's called circle of confusion.
Ellamay's duck
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:30:41 AM · #35 |
I have no idea what it is called, but that is how my phot was taken.
I did it with a little more thought than just a subject with blurry back and foreground. I used one source and "highlighted" an aspect that I wanted to be the subject with focus. I left a shadow in the picture, and I'm sure that is one thing hurting me. But I think most people are looking right past my subject and just seeing a everything else. My fault for not making it more pronounced. Maybe a more literal title would have helped it. I would rather get some thought out of my picture than to just simply look at it and get it. But that's not how you win around here. There are just too many photos to look at and ponder what the photographer was trying to convey.
That said, I will still continue to take picuters the way I like them. I can already see an improvement in my abilities through the lessons on this site. So I have no place to complain! |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:33:16 AM · #36 |
Some words of encouragement...
I was here when DPC first started, in the days when 50-75 entries was a big success...I left for a couple years and came back only to find that the level had gone up drastically. Seriously, I'm not even confident enough to post anymore.
All of you are very good, but with very good comes high expectation. What I rated high then I wouldn't now. You've all pushed the enveloppe and as a result we expect more.
So you see, the only reason people want more is that you've given them more.
Great job to all of you. Really... :o)
FannyB
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:36:42 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Please enter, don`t care about scores! Getting comments and insight from others is more important!! |
That's great advice except that most of the comments are not "insightful" nor even helpful even though most people check the box just because they got a comment. I wouldn't care if I got all one's, two's or three's if the comments were really helpful and insightful.
Getting comments like "sucks," or other things of that nature that people say they have gotten is not helping the photographer and only serves to piss people off and be hurtful. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 11:51:37 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Getting comments like "sucks," or other things of that nature that people say they have gotten is not helping the photographer and only serves to piss people off and be hurtful. |
Just the same as saying "This is a poor photograph"
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 12:06:44 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Getting comments like "sucks," or other things of that nature that people say they have gotten is not helping the photographer and only serves to piss people off and be hurtful. |
Just the same as saying "This is a poor photograph" |
Which is not the same as "I don't like this photograph."
No matter how much people argue that "every comment is an opinion," this is a clear example of where an opinion IS STATED AS FACT. It is annoying, and IMO serves to define the commenter as self-centered and pretentious.
On the other hand, "(I think) this is a poor photograph because ...." has the potential to be a useful comment. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 01:25:33 PM · #40 |
I see many shots in DOF that really don't show a shallow DOF, just a clear focus foreground and a blurred background. Did I read this wrong? I thought a shallow DOF would be a very small area in focus and everything in front of and behind slowly fading out of focus. I did see some very nice shots also that worked well.
At any rate, glad you guys talked me into this. Whether I do well or not, I guess just entering is fun to see what people have to say, although I only have 3 comments so far. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 01:35:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
I see many shots in DOF that really don't show a shallow DOF, just a clear focus foreground and a blurred background. Did I read this wrong? I thought a shallow DOF would be a very small area in focus and everything in front of and behind slowly fading out of focus. I did see some very nice shots also that worked well.
At any rate, glad you guys talked me into this. Whether I do well or not, I guess just entering is fun to see what people have to say, although I only have 3 comments so far. |
Not everyone has cameras/lenses that are capable of producing ultra shallow DOF. If that's what you are using as your voting criteria, then I guess I understand your disappointment.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 01:45:49 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Not everyone has cameras/lenses that are capable of producing ultra shallow DOF. If that's what you are using as your voting criteria, then I guess I understand your disappointment. |
I'm disappointed because I think I got a perfect example of this with my "limited" camera, and am still languishing in the low 5's and dropping. Next time I'll just submit a shot of a ruler standing upright in a low-lying pasture .... |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 01:55:17 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by orussell:
Not everyone has cameras/lenses that are capable of producing ultra shallow DOF. If that's what you are using as your voting criteria, then I guess I understand your disappointment. |
I'm disappointed because I think I got a perfect example of this with my "limited" camera, and am still languishing in the low 5's and dropping. Next time I'll just submit a shot of a ruler standing upright in a low-lying pasture .... |
Don't be so disappointed ... I started at low 7's yesterday then dropped down drastically to the low 5's overnight and barely hanging on to 5.0 today. Just two comments, about 90 votes ... I have no idea what's wrong with the submission. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 02:04:19 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by sonnyh:
Getting comments like "sucks," or other things of that nature that people say they have gotten is not helping the photographer and only serves to piss people off and be hurtful. |
Just the same as saying "This is a poor photograph" |
Which is not the same as "I don't like this photograph."
No matter how much people argue that "every comment is an opinion," this is a clear example of where an opinion IS STATED AS FACT. It is annoying, and IMO serves to define the commenter as self-centered and pretentious.
On the other hand, "(I think) this is a poor photograph because ...." has the potential to be a useful comment. |
I was being sarcastic to the post by Sonnyh, as it was a comment she had made.
As for challenge criteria, how shallow is shallow dof? This is the only thing that really frustrates me about DPC as I can see people like Deafwolf marking down due to the foreground not being out of focus.
No offense Deafwolf ;)
Originally posted by deafwolf:
I see many shots in DOF that really don't show a shallow DOF, just a clear focus foreground and a blurred background. Did I read this wrong? I thought a shallow DOF would be a very small area in focus and everything in front of and behind slowly fading out of focus. |
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 14:06:59.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 02:05:54 PM · #45 |
At times it seems that this, the current challenge forum, is the only place a person can hope for a meaningful comment. I appreciate meaningful comments more than 10’s. I’ve never received a critique from the club. (suspecting that most people request one & there aren’t enough people in the club to cover the requests). I look forward to reading comments of others for pictures I voted on with ‘passion’. Some people give great comments & some don’t ‘get it’ at all. I’m learning quite a bit & am still inspired to achieve recognition amongst my peers. How to select the photo that will appeal to the voting contingency has eluded me thus far. Mine seem to be “too dark, cluttered or not obviously meeting the theme†according to comments which I considered useful even if I didn’t agree. To that end, I passed on the ‘Shallow Depth of Field’ challenge with this entry which seemed to dark. It has a VERY tight focus/DOF on some wine glasses in a hutch. I’m offering it here should anyone care to comment. If this is not the right place to make a request such as this, please let me know of an alternative if one exists on the site. Thanks
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 15:55:00. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 02:07:30 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I was being sarcastic to the post by Sonnyh, as it was a comment she had made. |
OK -- sorry. I've been sensitive about this lately. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 03:04:10 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Next time I'll just submit a shot of a ruler standing upright in a low-lying pasture .... |
HAHAHAHA, Now you know that's not what I meant. As far as points go, I try to judge the photo first and then the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 03:35:12 PM · #48 |
Shouldn't that be challenge then photo?
If the photo doesn't meet the challenge then it should never be rated higher then a photo that does.
I would have to say that is the only problem I have with this site. Too many people just vote on the photograph and not the challenge.
When that is what make this site so appealing is the challenge aspect, yet people seem to send in any photo for challenges and are getting rewarded by finishing well. Sure they will never win a ribbon but what about the people who went through all the work to meet the challenge to get beat by a photo that didn't meet the challenge.
here is what I feel is a good description on "Depth of Field"
Depth of field is the art (and science) of increasing or decreasing what is in focus. Field refers to the area in focus. In other words, deep depth mean there is a lot in focus (foreground & background). A shallow depth of field means there is very little in focus. Usually used for close ups and some mid shots. This is used by the camera person to direct attention.
Using that does it matter if the item in focus is in the front, middle or back? No, it what part of the photo that the photographer wants attention brought to.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2004 03:43:48 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by spectre013:
here is what I feel is a good description on "Depth of Field" |
And a dictionary definition can be found here on PhotoNotes.
Message edited by author 2004-02-10 15:44:15. |
|
|
|
02/10/2004 04:30:44 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by spectre013:
Shouldn't that be challenge then photo?
If the photo doesn't meet the challenge then it should never be rated higher then a photo that does. |
I tend to agree, but if the photo is excellent, I'm not going to burn it, however, I may deduct some depending on how out-of-challenge it was, but not going to trash it by no means. Just my opinion. |
|
