| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2008 01:45:34 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
These are all mine, not replicas of anyone else's work. Also, these have been done twice, not several times then repeated again. Anything else you'd like to attack me about, Sara? |
Dude, that was no personal attack. You railed against shooting the same thing, while you do it yourself all the time. In the context of low votes, it doesn't matter if it was you taking both shots since nobody knows that during voting.
I'm of the opinion that people are entitled to their opinions, and forced comments are a bad idea, HOWEVER... when a well exposed, sharply focused image of say, sterling silver utensils, gets a 1 in Silverware, then that person is not merely expressing an opinion. Meeting the challenge is not even in doubt, and if you're considering the challenge topic (as the rules specify), then a 1 should be out of the question. You're either ignoring the image or intentionally low-balling the vote, and BOTH are against the rules. If it were up to me, there would be repercussions for that sort of malice. You may not care for the subject or be tired of a repeat image, but handing out the worst possible score to a competent image that obviously meets the challenge head-on is an injustice to the photographer (particularly if it's a newbie who may have no idea it's been done before). Such behavior results in bad feelings and does NOTHING good for DPC. If you want to protest the "same old thing," a good way to do that is to suggest a challenge topic with a twist that rules out well trodden paths (macro without bugs or flowers, for example).
Now it may very well be that keyboard voting is the culprit for some of these. Maybe we need a script that reminds people to check their lowest-scoring images after voting or a message that pops up when you vote a 1 to ask if that was really your intent- not to prevent it, but to make sure you meant it. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:47:04 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Shooting the same image that someone else, or you have already created shows a severe lack of creativity in my opinion. |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Anything else you'd like to attack me about, Sara? |
Your awful defensive arn't you? I don't think that there is any reason for you to get all up in her $%*^ because she pointed out that you're a hypocrite. You even posted several other examples of your 'lack of creativity' (those are your own words) to prove her right.
And while we're at it, your canyon shot seems to be the same capture used in two challenges. Even though it was a 'best of' isn't that against the rules? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:49:52 PM · #53 |
Actually, I know when one of my images is lacking and when it gets a bunch of low votes, i can understand. It is when I have what I think is a pretty good image and the comments indicate that, but it is scoring in the middle. Or, when I have something a little offbeat (*shoehorns*), and I think what is going on is that few people "get it", but nobody tells me that.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:53:03 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The above comments all explain why I give low scores to ribbon winners. |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by citymars:
a true assessment of a photo |
most votes don't include anything even close to that. |
I know of precious few ribbon winners that would deserve a low score with a true assessment of the photo. Maybe not a 9 or 10, but really... a LOW score? :-/ |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:53:06 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're either ignoring the image or intentionally low-balling the vote, and BOTH are against the rules. If it were up to me, there would be repercussions for that sort of malice. |
So your saying that there are currently no repercussions for this sort of behavior? I was under the impression that the SC looked for systematic low voters. (perhaps they just CAN, and don't have the time?) Has anyone been banned from voting due to such behavior? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:58:54 PM · #56 |
I think it's sometimes hard for those of us who've been around for a long time to get excited over some shots but we need to remember that not everyone has been around a long time, and to newer DPCers, they're seeing these things for the first time. I do try not to repeat myself, though my cats as my only captive subjects have appeared in more than one challenge. Same can be said for people's children, though it's more fun watching them grow up as time goes on. :-)
When I come across something in voting I've seen before, I judge it on the impact it has and the fit to the challenge. I may not give all the perfect landscapes 9s or 10s, but I don't give them 4s or 5s either. I reserve 1's for perfectly black squares.
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 13:59:29. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:00:35 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I was under the impression that the SC looked for systematic low voters. (perhaps they just CAN, and don't have the time?) Has anyone been banned from voting due to such behavior? |
I can check an individual's voting pattern, but figuring out who left a 1 on a high scoring entry (or vice-versa) is very difficult. Only Langdon can do that. Yes, we've dealt with people whose voting pattern indicates obvious malicious intent (it tends to be VERY obvious). |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:09:57 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by RKT:
" Blue ribbons must be like crack to you."
|
Mmmmm...Crack. Sign me up.
That ones pretty funny. Did someone actually leave that comment somewhere? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:11:01 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by RKT:
" Blue ribbons must be like crack to you." |
Did someone actually leave that comment somewhere? |
I think I actually got that comment once. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:18:55 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Shooting the same image that someone else, or you have already created shows a severe lack of creativity in my opinion. |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Anything else you'd like to attack me about, Sara? |
Your awful defensive arn't you? I don't think that there is any reason for you to get all up in her $%*^ because she pointed out that you're a hypocrite. You even posted several other examples of your 'lack of creativity' (those are your own words) to prove her right. |
I think that you missed my point.
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 14:28:03.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:21:55 PM · #61 |
*begin humor* I think if you vote a 1, your name should be displayed to the owner of the photo so they can contact you for a personal and thorough critique *end humor* ..... on second thought.... let the humor continue :P
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 14:22:51.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:32:41 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I think that you missed my point. |
Nice edit....
I may have missed your point because you say that doing the same images is 'uncreative'. Unless you do it, then its okay?
Or was your point that doing something twice is okay, but more than that is over kill?
Come to think of it, your right. Ansel Adams did too many mountain landscapes in B&W, people probably get soooooooooo sick of looking at those. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:37:25 PM · #63 |
I think there's a working assumption that a "1" means the same thing to everyone.
There are folks here who admit to *never* voting anything less than a 5 or 4. Which means, in effect, they're using an abbreviated scale. So, if I chose to vote nothing greater than a 5 or 6 some images are going to end up with a 1, 2 or 3. So what?
(BTW, I once voted an entire challenge using only even numbers, too.)
As for the little reminder that used to pop up whenever a low vote was cast...good riddance! It didn't work. It popped up only once to nag you. Then you clicked "okay" and the next picture loaded. I think I felt a pang of guilt for about a millisecond and rarely went to any effort to back-track and leave a comment. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:39:41 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:53:24 PM · #65 |
I think people are talking past each other, here. I think sara was echoing the "fatigue" comment made earlier, and unfortunately chose to post specific images (of which there were only two). ericwoo was responding that he does not consider a second version of image to be uncreative, but natural and way to grow.
I voted a 7 on the Antelope Canyon image, and commented. There was another slot canyon shot in that same challenge, and I scored it highly, and commented on it, too. This was even though, having lived in AZ for 25 years, I am almost sick to death of slot canyon images! I have seen literally hundreds of them, mostly super-saturated and indistinguishable from each other. I admire someone who can take that subject and do something wonderful with it.
I concur with the "fatigue" on voting: having been a member here since last summer, I was dazzled by some shots at the beginning. After only a few months here, I now come to expect certain types of images to be present in every challenge, they become less interesting over time. This does not make them worthy of 1's, but my enthusiastic scoring of such images at the beginning has been tempered down somewhat: something I had never seen before has now become something I see all the time.
As for posting two similar images, or even more, I guess I thought that was one of the reasons we are all here! Post, get comments, consider, accept some, perhaps re-shoot the subject, alter the pp, etc. Heck, I do that whether or not I put an image here. I have one older b/w view camera image that took me several trips over months to get exactly right. The light was only right during a certain season, with certain weather, at a certain time of day--and it was about 100 miles away. It was a difficult subject, so I would get back to the darkroom and find that it was not what I had ultimately hoped for. Once I finally got it, I NEVER went back :-)
My point is that some DPC'er seem to be "specialists" in certain types of images, and the achievement of their obvious expertise in a type of image necessarily means that they have done a LOT of those kinds of images. That is fine with us, I think, even if we may get fatigued by those subjects/shots/styles over time. Some of us would love to have the time/energy/resources to specialize like that, or at least to reshoot an image to do it better. I personally believe that shooting the same subject matter again and again can be beneficial in the long run, though one will have lots of ho-hum images in between the perfect moments.
And someone who puts up an image here, then improves it again later on (via pp or reshoot or both) is making use of this forum in one of its intended ways.
As for 1, 2, or 3 votes: I do that occasionally, and only to images where I am fairly certain the person will not be surprised or wonder why. I think there are trolls who vote/comment to mess with people, and there seem to be trolls who deliberately enter images into challenges for the same reasons. None of the images in this thread would warrant low scores at all, imho.
I do vote in challenges in which I have entered, and my average vote in those challenges has always been higher than I have received on my own entries. (kinda embarrassing*, eh?) And in those challenges I give lots of 7, 8, 9, 10 scores, and only a few, if any, scores below 4. If people are trying to give 1's to boost their own chances in a challenge, probably they need remedial math lessons? A single vote out of ~200 is not going to tip anything in their favor... It seems unlikely to me that people are really attempting this.
I should comment more on the middle range scores that I give, I think, but I seldom have enough time to do most of the things I want to do! I probably should have taken the time I spent writing this post and used it for comments instead!
*and what I consider to be my best challenge submission has had my second worst score, so factor that into the 'credibility' score for my post ;-)
this is it
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 16:06:40. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:27:29 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
... *and what I consider to be my best challenge submission has had my second worst score, so factor that into the 'credibility' score for my post ;-) |
b d, you've made some good observations in your post, but considering you've only entered three challenges so far, that last statement loses some impact. :-D
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:32:59 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
As for the little reminder that used to pop up whenever a low vote was cast...good riddance! It didn't work. It popped up only once to nag you. Then you clicked "okay" and the next picture loaded. I think I felt a pang of guilt for about a millisecond and rarely went to any effort to back-track and leave a comment. |
Man....do you have ice in your veins, or what? I never knew you were that cold. ;)
Melethia in London....hmmmm. My bet is that e301 will be more of an inspiration than any of the others mentioned, if I've been following her work properly.
I love it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 17:38:48. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:36:22 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
... *and what I consider to be my best challenge submission has had my second worst score, so factor that into the 'credibility' score for my post ;-) |
b d, you've made some good observations in your post, but considering you've only entered three challenges so far, that last statement loses some impact. :-D |
It is your second best score! :P |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 06:24:24 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by smithma:
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I have an issue. Almost every picture in every challenge has at least 1 "1". I don't understand why these photos deserve the lowest of the low score available. Let's take the most recent free study challenge for example.
Clearly a fantastic photo. Was it better than every other photo in the challenge? Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it's a good photo because it took the blue ribbon in this particular challenge. Why then did someone give it a 1? How many twos did it get? 2... Out of the comments we can see that everyone thought it was a great picture.
So where are the comments from the people who handed out the lowest scores? What about the picture was a total failure? Please offer some suggestions from your vast knowledge of photography that determines that great photos are complete trash.
I think people who leave a 1, 2, or 3 should be forced to give a comment on why they voted the way they did. |
You do realize that your average vote given is 4.4xxx. I'm pretty sure someone with an average vote cast that low will hand out plenty of 1's 2's and 3's to be able to achieve a score that low.
I see this post as Pot-Kettle kind of situation.
Matt |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 06:41:04 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
... *and what I consider to be my best challenge submission has had my second worst score, so factor that into the 'credibility' score for my post ;-) |
b d, you've made some good observations in your post, but considering you've only entered three challenges so far, that last statement loses some impact. :-D |
It is your second best score! :P |
LOL! Half empty or half full? Second best or second worst: tie breaker is the actual ranking on that puppy: 400/478, 16%
So, are you saying my comment about my own questionable credibility is of questionable credibility? :-) ("Everything I say is a lie. No, that's not true.")
Cheers!
[edit: one other factor that might be involved, and one that I am guilty of, is entering a challenge with an image one considers to be substandard, just for the [Update] thrill. Blue Ribbons are like crack to some lucky few, the rest of us hit the Update button! Oddly enough, the one that I went ahead and entered, though hastily shot and barely processed, turned out to be my highest scoring image--puzzling me no end. Note established (and nested) credibility concerns above...]
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 18:56:42. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 06:42:21 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Originally posted by citymars:
Many of the people who rail against eye candy have beautiful images of their own, with no deeper meaning than the winning shots. It's possible that every photo that is not strictly photojournalism is eye candy of one sort or another.
|
Also, the problem I find with this is that there is no question of any consensus over whether a picture has 'deeper meaning'.
The point is that any image might be both shallow and meaningless eye candy and an aesthetic and intellectual revelation depending on who's looking at it. Surely we should allow people to vote accordingly, or with whatever other criteria they feel like imposing without assuming that their intentions are malicious? |
Objectivity is fine if if that's what you're into??? Holy Smokes!!! Hey, guess what? Subjectivity, and personal bias is patently dishonest, and if we apply that philosophy to other systems designed to critique information, the system will fail to achieve what it originally intended.
Amorphous emotional critique, like whether it's shallow, or meaningless to a voter should be irrelevant to the voters scoring. Look at the picture on it's technical merits, make a judgement or guess on what the photographer intended, and finally, score it on how well you think it achieved it's goal, and challenge criteria. It's the photographer, as much as the photo, whom is being critiqued here. We don't need to apply emotional crap to our scoring. Some people will get it, and some won't.
Again, not everyone has the skill, and studious eye for this kind of critique. But we must recognize that some have that skill, and many more emphatically do not. Pandering to those who do not, by using strawman arguements like "that's how they feel", or "they're entitled to their opinion" only serve to perpetuate their ignorance of objectivity, rather than teaching them to be less emotional in their scoring traits.
I would like to see two votes. A peoples vote, such as we have here, and a peer vote, either from strictly blue-ribbon winners, or some other means of selecting objective, skilled reviewers.
This way, we have a voting system that where one shows us a.) How appealing our photos are to the DPChallenge public, and the other shows us b.) How well we are with our technique, and what our peers think of our work, and how well we expressed our intent with our photography.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 07:09:09 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by smithma:
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I have an issue. Almost every picture in every challenge has at least 1 "1". I don't understand why these photos deserve the lowest of the low score available. Let's take the most recent free study challenge for example.
Clearly a fantastic photo. Was it better than every other photo in the challenge? Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it's a good photo because it took the blue ribbon in this particular challenge. Why then did someone give it a 1? How many twos did it get? 2... Out of the comments we can see that everyone thought it was a great picture.
So where are the comments from the people who handed out the lowest scores? What about the picture was a total failure? Please offer some suggestions from your vast knowledge of photography that determines that great photos are complete trash.
I think people who leave a 1, 2, or 3 should be forced to give a comment on why they voted the way they did. |
I awarded it a 4, mainly for its postcard appeal and the manner chosen for a well-known and often photographed subject like this. I can't say what anyone else is willing to pay for pretty picture of a familiar vista, but the association was too easy to fetch a higher score.
On the other hand (and despite the strong saturation of blues and smoothed out cloud and foreground reflection), it's a decent exposure, representative of both sentiment and subject and well ordered. The title, to my senses, is somewhat unduly ambitious.
In the scheme of my angle, here are my stats for it:
Energy/Range/Story: 3/3/1
Composition/perspective/manner: 6/6/3
Aesthetics/Technical: 3/7
Presentation: 5
Total: 4.1
Vote: 4
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 19:10:15. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 07:16:32 PM · #73 |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 07:44:59 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Qart:
A great deal of effort went into these images and they WERE NOT created as a 'short cut' to a ribbon. |
I think a point to make here is the point of "meaning". I don't find either of those shots to be the slightest bit meaningful. They do look very cool but who cares. They don't say anything to me whatsoever. I've been around here since 2004-2005...seen one, seen'em all.
I also look at them more like technical exercises. Anyone can do them if they take the time. Read all the tutorials and go to town....
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 19:48:37. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 08:03:16 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I think a point to make here is the point of "meaning". I don't find either of those shots to be the slightest bit meaningful. They do look very cool but who cares. They don't say anything to me whatsoever. I've been around here since 2004-2005...seen one, seen'em all.
I also look at them more like technical exercises. Anyone can do them if they take the time. Read all the tutorials and go to town.... |
I guess you can have your cake and eat it, too. Meaning is subjective, unless it's not? And look at your own top scorers, Steve. All beautiful shots and deserving of high praise. Filled with meaning? Technical exercises? |
|
