| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2008 01:56:30 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by d56ranger:
For those with "big Screens" wanting higher res to submit and judge; how about a new category? It could be called the "Big Ego" category and judged as the other categories are, separately. |
i hope this was said tongue in cheek, since you can get a 19" lcd for about $150 nowadays that hardly qualifies as a "big ego" item |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:58:10 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
...I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen.... |
This must be why I am getting so many '5's. Yeah, that's the ticket. Since that is the highest on Eric's scale, I guess I can interpret them as '10's. I feel so much better. Thanks Eric. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 02:17:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by d56ranger:
For those with "big Screens" wanting higher res to submit and judge; how about a new category? It could be called the "Big Ego" category and judged as the other categories are, separately. |
ROFLMSOAO!!!!!!!
PERFECT solution!
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 02:22:59 PM · #29 |
Yeah... for real... I definitely agree with  Smardaz. It also boils down to personal preference. I don't agree with the OP's claims but really... as much fun as flame wars are... let's forego that. Also, it isn't necessarily BIG screens that suffer from this, hence my question on the resolution that Gabriel used. I personally use a laptop too, but everything works perfectly fine for me, and you can't fault people for being more serious about PP and having better monitors. At this rate you might as well forbid legacy glass as well. I myself have considered a larger external monitor, and I would definitely consider myself an amateur. It has nothing to do with ego, but it has everything to do with deciding what you personally think will benefit your photography and if you want to do it or not. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:07:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
The current image size, is the size that was in place when you got here. You did somehow manage to do 276 indepth critiques with the critique club. Has your vision deteriorated that greatly, that you can no longer determine the quality of the image? |
I have managed to keep up with technology, where the site has not. When I started, 640px was HUGE. I PP, store images, and vote on a 17 laptop set at 1920 x 1200 resolution. That gives me 640 px images at about 3.5-4" on their longest side. While my vision has deteriorated SOME, mostly my resolution has just gotten better. Take a look at the images you shoot on your camera's LCD. Don't they all look AWESOME? Then you load them and mostly get run-of-the-mill images with little pop. That's my experience and belief with small images on the site as well, so that is how I vote.
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
This must be why I am getting so many '5's. Yeah, that's the ticket. Since that is the highest on Eric's scale, I guess I can interpret them as '10's. I feel so much better. Thanks Eric. |
Must be, and you're welcome.
Originally posted by d56ranger:
For those with "big Screens" wanting higher res to submit and judge; how about a new category? It could be called the "Big Ego" category and judged as the other categories are, separately. |
Or, we could call it the 'professional photographers with needy clients category'. I also shoot with a D3. It has nothing to do with my ego, rather high end clients that will give away lots of money if you put up with their BS. So, let's call it that.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That certainly comes across as arrogant and elitist.
Who are you to take this stance? |
Jeb, I think you misunderstood. My comments have nothing to do with the quality of the photographers or their images on this site. It has to do with the site. If I can't see the detail in a sized image, I am certainly not going to give it a 6, 8, or 10. At this size allowance, images are too small at today's technology. Period.
Originally posted by Jaker:
food for thought... I recently entered some photos in the Ritz Camera photo contest, in which the entries will be judged by the New York Institute of Photography. Here are the size criteria...
# All online entries must conform to the following requirements:
* JPEG format only
* 250K or lower file size
* 400x300 pixel size max |
Funny that you mention Ritz. I don't shoot, vote, enter, or have images processed there. BUT, even at a 400x300 px image, they allow 100kb more in file size than DPC does at 640x640 px.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ambaker:
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. |
He could have been a tad more diplomatic. |
Never been very good with diplomacy. However, many of us have asked for this several times. My thinking is that maybe another point of view would stir up a bit more discussion about the issue. It has.
Originally posted by citymars:
If you feel so strongly, why not just enter and vote in the member challenges? After all, "Allow up to 720x720 - 531 votes "? |
Up until recently, I have only entered 6 challenges this year. I haven't voted on many more than that trying to stick with fairness.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
A few times I've actually just given up and used another image that has less detail. Could be another reason why we see quite a few "stock" type simple photos in challenges. ??? |
I tend to agree with you here.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:14:31 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ambaker:
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. |
He could have been a tad more diplomatic. |
Never been very good with diplomacy. |
I was referring to Jeb, not you. Jeb could have been more diplomatic. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:28:21 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ambaker:
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. |
He could have been a tad more diplomatic. |
Never been very good with diplomacy. |
I was referring to Jeb, not you. Jeb could have been more diplomatic. |
My bad. I thought everyone was still yelling at me. Sorry! |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:34:15 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I have managed to keep up with technology, where the site has not. When I started, 640px was HUGE. I PP, store images, and vote on a 17 laptop set at 1920 x 1200 resolution. That gives me 640 px images at about 3.5-4" on their longest side. While my vision has deteriorated SOME, mostly my resolution has just gotten better. Take a look at the images you shoot on your camera's LCD. Don't they all look AWESOME? Then you load them and mostly get run-of-the-mill images with little pop. That's my experience and belief with small images on the site as well, so that is how I vote.
|
Whatever your justifications may be, the fact that you're taking out your frustrations with the site and/or administration of the site on the people that simply enter these challenges and do their best within the rules and limitations as they are right now is, at best, arrogant, and at worst approaching a violation of the TOS IMO.
I'm actually amazed that more people aren't calling you out on this, really. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:40:16 PM · #34 |
I worry that too many seem to want larger file sizes and dimensions just to scrutinize photos even more on technical grounds as if that's the be all end all to determining a photograph's worth. Technicals are important but not nearly as important as what many voters make them out to be. Substance and meaning already take a back seat as it is since voters don't spend nearly enough time trying to fully understand a photograph let alone judge it and now you're going to cut that time even more? Yikes. Bring on more of those disposable and utterly forgetable images that constantly grace the front page.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:41:19 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ambaker:
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. |
He could have been a tad more diplomatic. |
Never been very good with diplomacy. |
I was referring to Jeb, not you. Jeb could have been more diplomatic. |
My bad. I thought everyone was still yelling at me. Sorry! |
YOU SHOULD BE!!!!!
There, better? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:01:34 PM · #36 |
| I think since we have already voted SC understands the majority of the folks here would like to see it increase somewhat but there ussually are more issues to look at in any change and I respect the fact that they are looking at it from all angles rather than just jumping into it, maybe more communication from SC about why even after polling folks there was no change would be helpful. With that being said I like DPC and will continue to support it at what ever size it decides to use (unless it goes smaller :)). |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:02:11 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I worry that too many seem to want larger file sizes and dimensions just to scrutinize photos even more on technical grounds as if that's the be all end all to determining a photograph's worth. Technicals are important but not nearly as important as what many voters make them out to be. Substance and meaning already take a back seat as it is since voters don't spend nearly enough time trying to fully understand a photograph let alone judge it and now you're going to cut that time even more? Yikes. Bring on more of those disposable and utterly forgetable images that constantly grace the front page. |
I am by no means saying technical details rule all. Just as an illutration, such cannot be said. However, there are still OBVIOUS TECHNICAL expectations. Focus being one of them. I am not defining where you prefer the location of focus. I am, however, stating that it is a crucial element in photography. If I were to ever see a terribly focused image on the front page of DPC, I personally will be angry. It is not the SOLE criteria, but is a criteria nonetheless. A photo that fails in one criterion should not win, IMO. This is a digital site. Yes it depends somewhat upon what cameras are producing the image, but more importantly it depends upon the outcome. Everybody admit it, trust me when I say it will make you feel better ;). Having said that, there really are amazing P&S photogs on here. Do not understate them. Furthermore NEVER NEVER NEVER forget what it is like to be learning as a photog. NEVER forget that joining DPC can be rough and daunting and scary. There are many INCREDIBLE photogs here, and taking the leap from "I have a camera" to "i want critique" can be daunting. That's what is great about DPC, and those who have lost touch with that have lost touch with what DPC is all about, IMO. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:21:12 PM · #38 |
ericwoo says : If I can't see the detail in a sized image, I am certainly not going to give it a 6, 8, or 10. Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen.
So, this is just ludicrous. Within any challenge, we all have the same limitations--if you can't make any relative assessment of the images and arbitrarily will limit your votes to a 5 because of a site limitation, I'd rather you didn't vote at all. If the challenge is for black and white conversions, would you say you couldn't give anything higher than a 5 unless you could also examine the color original? Since the limit on size applies evenly to all entries, you should be able to make a relative evaluation of the images against each other. You don't have to have an absolute, external and arbitrary standard of measure--ranking within the challenge is all that is necessary. It is a level playing field. You may wish it were a different field, but slamming the participants because you don't like the imposed size limit is irrational at best.
I agree with K10DGuy: "Whatever your justifications may be, the fact that you're taking out your frustrations with the site and/or administration of the site on the people that simply enter these challenges and do their best within the rules and limitations as they are right now is, at best, arrogant, and at worst approaching a violation of the TOS IMO. " |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:24:32 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I have managed to keep up with technology, where the site has not. When I started, 640px was HUGE. I PP, store images, and vote on a 17 laptop set at 1920 x 1200 resolution. That gives me 640 px images at about 3.5-4" on their longest side. While my vision has deteriorated SOME, mostly my resolution has just gotten better. Take a look at the images you shoot on your camera's LCD. Don't they all look AWESOME? Then you load them and mostly get run-of-the-mill images with little pop. That's my experience and belief with small images on the site as well, so that is how I vote.
|
Whatever your justifications may be, the fact that you're taking out your frustrations with the site and/or administration of the site on the people that simply enter these challenges and do their best within the rules and limitations as they are right now is, at best, arrogant, and at worst approaching a violation of the TOS IMO.
I'm actually amazed that more people aren't calling you out on this, really. |
Call out if you might, but you, nor anyone else can regulate my voting unless I am trying to derail the voting process. Would you have the SC tell you what you should vote on each image? My personal guidelines are different from everyone else, and that's where we stand. As long as my pattern in consistent, there in no TOS violation. And no frustrations are being taken out on anyone. I simply cannit hand out high scores if I cannot accurately judge the image. Call it arrogant, call it being fair...I don't care. The fact remains that we have repeatedly asked for larger images and we haven't gotten them. Now where does the blame and arrogance fall? Let me provide an example.
Back in October 2007, I voted this image as a 10:
My monitor was smaller with a much smaller resolution than I now use on a daily basis. On the computer that I use everyday, for every image, there is no way that I could see the detail I saw then enough to give it a 10. While the shot is surely still amazing, I can't freaking see it. How is that arrogant? Should I adjust my daily processes to accommodate your images? Now that's arrogant. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:27:44 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
ericwoo says : If I can't see the detail in a sized image, I am certainly not going to give it a 6, 8, or 10. Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen.
So, this is just ludicrous. Within any challenge, we all have the same limitations--if you can't make any relative assessment of the images and arbitrarily will limit your votes to a 5 because of a site limitation, I'd rather you didn't vote at all. If the challenge is for black and white conversions, would you say you couldn't give anything higher than a 5 unless you could also examine the color original? Since the limit on size applies evenly to all entries, you should be able to make a relative evaluation of the images against each other. You don't have to have an absolute, external and arbitrary standard of measure--ranking within the challenge is all that is necessary. It is a level playing field. You may wish it were a different field, but slamming the participants because you don't like the imposed size limit is irrational at best.
I agree with K10DGuy: "Whatever your justifications may be, the fact that you're taking out your frustrations with the site and/or administration of the site on the people that simply enter these challenges and do their best within the rules and limitations as they are right now is, at best, arrogant, and at worst approaching a violation of the TOS IMO. " |
And how I am slamming participants? I still vote them on a completely level playing field. You all have the same chance at getting the same scores from me. 10 is a big score, as are 6, 7, and 8s. That's why even the best images here rarely approach scores of 8. If my highest vote before upgrading my computer was an 8, how could I continue to give that same score for images that I can see less of? Explain that one to me. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:31:58 PM · #41 |
| I fail to see the reason for such animus in this discussion. ericwoo has simply brought up the size limitations, and stated his reasons for his dissatisfaction with it. Is it such a big deal to acknowledge this? There are simply some photographs, usually landscapes, that cry out for a larger size to be properly seen. I am not even talking about judging them, just SEEING them. That this may not be compelling enough reason for change is no reason for assuming attitudes. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:32:53 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
ericwoo says : If I can't see the detail in a sized image, I am certainly not going to give it a 6, 8, or 10. Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen.
So, this is just ludicrous. Within any challenge, we all have the same limitations--if you can't make any relative assessment of the images and arbitrarily will limit your votes to a 5 because of a site limitation, I'd rather you didn't vote at all. If the challenge is for black and white conversions, would you say you couldn't give anything higher than a 5 unless you could also examine the color original? Since the limit on size applies evenly to all entries, you should be able to make a relative evaluation of the images against each other. You don't have to have an absolute, external and arbitrary standard of measure--ranking within the challenge is all that is necessary. It is a level playing field. You may wish it were a different field, but slamming the participants because you don't like the imposed size limit is irrational at best.
I agree with K10DGuy: "Whatever your justifications may be, the fact that you're taking out your frustrations with the site and/or administration of the site on the people that simply enter these challenges and do their best within the rules and limitations as they are right now is, at best, arrogant, and at worst approaching a violation of the TOS IMO. " |
And how I am slamming participants? I still vote them on a completely level playing field. You all have the same chance at getting the same scores from me. 10 is a big score, as are 6, 7, and 8s. That's why even the best images here rarely approach scores of 8. If my highest vote before upgrading my computer was an 8, how could I continue to give that same score for images that I can see less of? Explain that one to me. |
so, then by your own ridiculous voting standards, none of your entries deserve higher than a 5, right? I'm quite sure that your images are not perfect, so by your own voting standards your average vote received should be somewhere in the 3 range ... Your argument for low voting makes absolutely NO sense at all ... just your way of justifying being a troll ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:39:16 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I have managed to keep up with technology, where the site has not. When I started, 640px was HUGE. I PP, store images, and vote on a 17 laptop set at 1920 x 1200 resolution. That gives me 640 px images at about 3.5-4" on their longest side. While my vision has deteriorated SOME, mostly my resolution has just gotten better. Take a look at the images you shoot on your camera's LCD. Don't they all look AWESOME? Then you load them and mostly get run-of-the-mill images with little pop. That's my experience and belief with small images on the site as well, so that is how I vote.
|
Whatever your justifications may be, the fact that you're taking out your frustrations with the site and/or administration of the site on the people that simply enter these challenges and do their best within the rules and limitations as they are right now is, at best, arrogant, and at worst approaching a violation of the TOS IMO.
I'm actually amazed that more people aren't calling you out on this, really. |
Call out if you might, but you, nor anyone else can regulate my voting unless I am trying to derail the voting process. Would you have the SC tell you what you should vote on each image? My personal guidelines are different from everyone else, and that's where we stand. As long as my pattern in consistent, there in no TOS violation. And no frustrations are being taken out on anyone. I simply cannit hand out high scores if I cannot accurately judge the image. Call it arrogant, call it being fair...I don't care. The fact remains that we have repeatedly asked for larger images and we haven't gotten them. Now where does the blame and arrogance fall? Let me provide an example.
Back in October 2007, I voted this image as a 10:
My monitor was smaller with a much smaller resolution than I now use on a daily basis. On the computer that I use everyday, for every image, there is no way that I could see the detail I saw then enough to give it a 10. While the shot is surely still amazing, I can't freaking see it. How is that arrogant? Should I adjust my daily processes to accommodate your images? Now that's arrogant. |
As chromeydome said, we all have this limitation, and we all try and do our best to work within it. Both on a submission level, and on a voting level. So yes, I think that as participants of this website, we should adjust our "daily processes" to accommodate certain aspects of that, and if unwilling to do so, then refrain from participating until such a time as the site catches up to our expectations. That's not arrogant, it's realistic.
Vote how you want. Being one person, your vote certainly isn't going to amount to much in the long run, but if you can't see that using a rather flimsy excuse to justify a voting change that has a very real effect as you apply it isn't due in a large part to your frustrations and has nothing to do with any kind of honest evaluation of the photos themselves, I don't see how you're being a positive contributor here.
You're right though, it's probably not anywhere near a TOS issue, but it sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:39:59 PM · #44 |
OMG
Find something worthwhile to complain about. I never really could understand why people tell everyone on the site that they won't be renewing their membership. Do people really care?
I love the people and the help and support I get here...to me it is worth the $ just to learn how to pp and learn new techniques and be exposed to different styles and tastes.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 04:41:33 PM · #45 |
Eric-- did you put on your flame retardant suit this morning? ;)
Surely the size limit on open challenges could be raised to 720 without breaking the system? |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:02:50 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
so, then by your own ridiculous voting standards, none of your entries deserve higher than a 5, right? I'm quite sure that your images are not perfect, so by your own voting standards your average vote received should be somewhere in the 3 range ... Your argument for low voting makes absolutely NO sense at all ... just your way of justifying being a troll ... |
AGAIN, I have only entered 6 challenges this year. If I were entering challenges, I would expect lower votes. Answer your question? And if you will take time to look around before reducing yourself to name-calling, you'd see that my average vote cast to this point is 5.5236. Expect that to change. Up to this point, I have been fair based on my honest assessment of the image. I will continue to do the same, though I expect that number to decline significantly. That's just a product of the system.
Originally posted by mpeters:
Eric-- did you put on your flame retardant suit this morning? ;) |
Yeah, I figured that this one would get me flamed a time or nine. No worries though, it needs to be addressed. Funny thing is...I even posted this one completely sober, and that's a big change.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 17:05:23. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:07:28 PM · #47 |
| Even at 640px, I can generally judge how much pixelation, underexposure, and oversharpening there is in a processed photo. I certainly can judge a photo on its composition and colour at that size. Increasing the image size to 720px makes it even more obvious. I use a 19 inch LCD screen mostly. While I sort of understand your appealing for larger sized images, it is not everything and does not stop me, at least, from fairly judging an image. Oh yes, if the image size is increased it will become that much more attractive for photo rippers (people who steal images) - so don't whine when your large size image gets ripped off. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:08:48 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
OMG
Find something worthwhile to complain about. I never really could understand why people tell everyone on the site that they won't be renewing their membership. Do people really care?
I love the people and the help and support I get here...to me it is worth the $ just to learn how to pp and learn new techniques and be exposed to different styles and tastes. |
I would imagine that Langdon would care, though he is yet to show it. I bet that he benefits from each $25 he gets from each person each year. To me, this is worthwhile. I like the site and what it brings to the table, but some things need to be updated. If no one ever points out improvements that can be made, how will anything ever change? I am guessing that you actually DO care, or you wouldn't have bothered posting our thoughts. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:10:44 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Oh yes, if the image size is increased it will become that much more attractive for photo rippers (people who steal images) - so don't whine when your large size image gets ripped off. |
Take a look at the earlier posts. The best way to keep your priceless works of art from being 'stolen' is to keep them off the internet. That thought has already been addressed up the page a bit. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 05:15:07 PM · #50 |
I let mine expire. I was going to renew but the CNBC convinced me that I was going to lose my house, job, and my car as the country spirialed down into a depression. I gather though that after Obama is elected, I may sign back up because CNBC says all will be better.
|
|
