Voting based on liking, not challenge

01/07/2009 02:05:34 PM · #103

Originally posted by alans_world:

I just want to know what a brussel is..

see

Canon PowerShot S95

01/07/2009 02:06:59 PM · #104

Thats a brussel sprout....What is a brussel?

01/07/2009 02:08:20 PM · #105

Originally posted by alans_world:

Thats a brussel sprout....What is a brussel?

We are referring to Brussel Sprouts as both Sprouts and/ or Brussels

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/07/2009 02:09:16 PM · #106

Originally posted by alans_world:

I just want to know what a brussel is..

Hah! I'll be the straight man. "Brussels" is a city in Europe, in the Low Countries. Belgium, actually. And the eponymus "sprout" is a miniature cabbage, as seen in the illustration just posted.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/07/2009 02:09:34 PM · #107

Brussels Sprouts

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/07/2009 02:10:53 PM · #108

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alans_world:
I just want to know what a brussel is..

Hah! I'll be the straight man. "Brussels" is a city in Europe, in the Low Countries. Belgium, actually. And the eponymus "sprout" is a miniature cabbage, as seen in the illustration just posted.

R.

And a very pleasant city it is

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

01/07/2009 02:12:51 PM · #109

I think the real issue is that people get wrapped around the axle by taking the Challenges and Ribbons and Scores (oh, my!) waaaaaay too seriously.

For me, the challenges offer benefits that seem to be overlooked:
_Causes a lot of fresh new images to be created
_I get to see these images, learn from them, be inspired, moved by them in some cases
_Cause me to create some new images

Scores need to be taken in context: their value is limited at best. So many styles, techniques, and intents get entered in any given challenge that it is difficult to even fairly compare them.

Ribbons are nice, not essential. I don't expect to ever get one. But I still enjoy the heck outta being here.

Getting wrapped around the axle on scores is, to me, not unlike getting obsessed with megapixel counts, how many lenses one has, etc. As someone mentioned earlier, it is a game.

The end result that matters is the image that hit the first important light sensitive surface, the Photographer's Retina finding its way to the next most important light sensitive surfaces, the Viewers' Retinas.

That is the connection that matters. Hang a ribbon or a score on it if you must. Join the DNMC Police Squad if you must.

"Blessed are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed..."

Message edited by author 2009-01-07 14:17:13.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/07/2009 02:14:15 PM · #110

Brussel sprouts: good

Lima Beans: Evil Incarnate. Satan's Demons' Droppings.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/07/2009 02:16:27 PM · #111

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

consider the following scenario: IN the "Red III" challenge somebody (hypothetically) entered an absolutely beautiful environmental portrait of communist soldier standing guard during a blizzard in front of the Kremlin in Moscow. The image is done in black-and-white, and it is titled "Red Square". The voters reward this fantastic image with a blue ribbon.

Based on my understanding and explanation of the voters, I believe such an image, if awesome, would score no higher than a mid 5. Challenge topics and descriptions are submitted by the general membership, and often run as written. As noted, the descriptions are generally there to help clarify the real topic. In your Red scenario, the description specifically notes the color red, so the voters look at it and think, "Oh, THAT kind of red," and punish the communism photo. In Transparency, the voters aren't going to think, "Oh, THAT kind of transparency" in the communism = red sense. They're going to look at it as confirmation of something you can see through, and the topic is still THAT kind of transparency. I think it's more offensive to assume the voters (all of "us") are so unsophisticated that we cannot employ common sense!

01/07/2009 02:17:09 PM · #112

"Blessed are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed..." [/quote]

Ahaa the Photographic beatitudes

01/07/2009 02:17:20 PM · #113

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alans_world:
I just want to know what a brussel is..

Hah! I'll be the straight man. "Brussels" is a city in Europe, in the Low Countries. Belgium, actually. And the eponymus "sprout" is a miniature cabbage, as seen in the illustration just posted.

R.

And a very pleasant city it is

Ayup! I was there first in 1958 for the World's Fair; I still remember the awe I felt when first viewing the Atomium :-)

R.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

01/07/2009 02:19:39 PM · #114

Art learns a new metaphor: "get wrapped around the axle" - kind of like "get your panties in a wad" - I like it.

On topic: I would prefer to see the challenge descriptions go away so people don't get their panties wrapped around the axle.

01/07/2009 02:21:44 PM · #115

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alans_world:
I just want to know what a brussel is..

Hah! I'll be the straight man. "Brussels" is a city in Europe, in the Low Countries. Belgium, actually. And the eponymus "sprout" is a miniature cabbage, as seen in the illustration just posted.

R.

And a very pleasant city it is

Ayup! I was there first in 1958 for the World's Fair; I still remember the awe I felt when first viewing the Atomium :-)

R.

Indeed an impresive building.
You have me on the date as I wasn't born until 1960 lol
For my part I prefer Brugge and occasionally we drive out there for a weekend of Moule Frite

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/07/2009 02:24:39 PM · #116

Originally posted by scalvert:

... I think it's more offensive to assume the voters (all of "us") are so unsophisticated that we cannot employ common sense!

I think it's fair to say that the many remain unsophisticated. Education and experience is not a given. If we see ourselves as individuals, the offense should be mute.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

01/07/2009 02:24:55 PM · #117

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

so people don't get their panties wrapped around the axle.

I bet it hurts, too, if they are wearing them at the time!

01/07/2009 02:26:53 PM · #118

Originally posted by chromeydome:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
so people don't get their panties wrapped around the axle.

I bet it hurts, too, if they are wearing them at the time!

Could be even worse if they had been eating sprouts lol

01/07/2009 02:28:04 PM · #119

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
consider the following scenario: IN the "Red III" challenge somebody (hypothetically) entered an absolutely beautiful environmental portrait of communist soldier standing guard during a blizzard in front of the Kremlin in Moscow. The image is done in black-and-white, and it is titled "Red Square". The voters reward this fantastic image with a blue ribbon.

Based on my understanding and explanation of the voters, I believe such an image, if awesome, would score no higher than a mid 5. Challenge topics and descriptions are submitted by the general membership, and often run as written. As noted, the descriptions are generally there to help clarify the real topic. In your Red scenario, the description specifically notes the color red, so the voters look at it and think, "Oh, THAT kind of red," and punish the communism photo. In Transparency, the voters aren't going to think, "Oh, THAT kind of transparency" in the communism = red sense. They're going to look at it as confirmation of something you can see through, and the topic is still THAT kind of transparency. I think it's more offensive to assume the voters (all of "us") are so unsophisticated that we cannot employ common sense!

You may be right, the "example" may be too extreme, but it still ignores the basic issue: that in the "Transparency III" challenge the description showed us a specific type of setup/image to work with, and it's NOT what would normally come to mind when shooting to the topic "transparency".

MOST of the time, when asked to depict transparency, shooters will do what the red and blue ribbons did; they will shoot transparent subjects. That there were relatively few transparent subjects in this challenge is due to the description, which *specifically* requested transparency between the shooter and the subject. I recall thinking, when I read the challenge description, that this was a refreshing take on the topic, and not just a cookie-cutter wine-glass-promoting repeat of the topic.

So imagine my disappointment when you come up with this complicated rationale that tells me, and everyone else, that this refreshing, pretty-original "spin" on the idea of "transparency" actually wasn't the topic at all, that NO description has relevance, and that we should all base out work on the challenge TITLE. Whatta bummer!

How difficult would it be, Shannon, for you to stand up and say "OK folks, I agree with you; since people aren't gonna pay any attention to the descriptions when voting, and since we at SC consider the descriptions to be irrelevant anyway, the best course of action would be to do away with them altogether, so nobody feels the frustration of seriously attempting to USE the description only to find his scores obliterated by shooters who ignored it."?

Can you give me a reason, based on what you've said, NOT to advocate this change?

I don't mean to single you out personally, btw: I assume you are "speaking for" SC in this matter. I have plenty of respect for you, your fellow SC, and the job y'all have to do. I just think this is an issue that really bothers a lot of people and I don't think the stated position makes any sense at all.

R.

see

Canon PowerShot S95

01/07/2009 02:29:03 PM · #120

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Is THAT what they are calling it now..

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/07/2009 02:31:16 PM · #121

Bear has hit close to the heart of the issue. These little kerfuffles always occur when the writer of the description tries to force the entries in a certain direction. The transparency challenge description has these specific instructions "between" and "through" etc. We always run into problems when we have something like this.

I agree that we should either get rid of the descriptions, or put the restriction in the challenge title. Would we be having the same discussion if the challenge title was Through a transparent object?

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/07/2009 02:32:27 PM · #122

Originally posted by alans_world:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Art learns a new metaphor: "get wrapped around the axle" - kind of like "get your panties in a wad" - I like it.

On topic: I would prefer to see the challenge descriptions go away so people don't get their panties wrapped around the axle.

Is THAT what they are calling it now..

Hey I have a great idea for next weeks challenge.... "Axle Panties"

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/07/2009 02:33:03 PM · #123

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

B 12.

BINGO!

01/07/2009 02:37:54 PM · #124

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nawp, we wouldn't. But the way I hear it, "they" want challenge topics to be of a very small maximum length so as not to screw up the way things display on the various pages. Truly descriptive titles would mess up the tables. Which, of course, is why we have descriptions in the first place. Or so I thought, anyway...

What disappoints me is that I'm all in FAVOR of descriptively limited challenges, they force me to be more creative. I think they are more interesting, I think the responses to them are much more fascinating to look at. Some of the most fun I have had voting a challenge was with the "Ducky" challenge that specified certain specific objects, and the numbers of same, that MUST be included in the picture, on pain of DQ. There were some fascinating responses to that very specific challenge.

The problem, of course, is that we can *define* the challenge all we want, but it doesn't mean a thing if the voters don't have the definition in mind as they do their thing.

R.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III