| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/07/2009 02:44:28 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...What disappoints me is that I'm all in FAVOR of descriptively limited challenges, they force me to be more creative.... |
I think I read something about how placing limits such as this makes it easier for the mind to be creative....???
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 02:47:44 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
If it were really a different topic, it wouldn't be Transparency III, now would it? And, no, I'm not speaking for the SC. I'm simply explaining my personal understanding of how the voters generally think, which has served me pretty well in the past. Actually, I've exploited that insight on occasion... if there are only 80 entries and four threads of people trying to figure out what the voters expect, then I'm much more likely to enter. ;-P
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 14:57:07. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 02:47:58 PM · #128 |
| If descriptions remain, I think it would be a good idea to display the description with the topic on the front page and under the topic on each image page during voting. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 02:54:13 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If descriptions were eliminated then people would complain that they didn't know what Bokeh was or that their Communism photo was unfairly punished in a Red challenge. When descriptions are included, somebody's going to complain when the results don't fit their narrow interpretation. The challenge is the topic and the description is helpful for general direction, but if you get hung up on literal interpretations of every word, you're going to be frustrated. |
Shannon, we all understand that, I think. But this case is a little different, which is why so much response has been generated: in *this* case the description directed us to do something very specific with transparency which, had the description not been in place, very few would actually have attempted, because it's not the way to WOW people with the concept "transparency". Anyone who entered this challenge determined to do what the description asked for and "shoot their subject through some transparent material" was immediately operating with a handicap relative to those who ignored the description and chose to photograph transparency as a subject.
This is not good, it's bound to lead to disgruntlement...
R.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 02:54:56 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If descriptions remain, I think it would be a good idea to display the description with the topic on the front page and under the topic on each image page during voting. |
AND if the description is ONLY an example, say so up front! |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 02:56:48 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
If it were really a different topic, it wouldn't be Transparency III, now would it? And, no, I'm not speaking for the SC. I'm simply explaining my personal understanding of how the voters generally think, which has served me pretty well in the past. |
Well, that may be, but personally it makes sense to me that each time we redo a challenge topic we put a different spin on it; keeps the juices flowing, ya know? Of course, it means nothing if the voters don't follow suit. Which is why it's probably a good idea to do away with descriptions EXCEPT when not following them is a DQable offense, like some of the special challenges we have had.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 03:08:13 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
If it were really a different topic, it wouldn't be Transparency III, now would it? And, no, I'm not speaking for the SC. I'm simply explaining my personal understanding of how the voters generally think, which has served me pretty well in the past. |
Well, that may be, but personally it makes sense to me that each time we redo a challenge topic we put a different spin on it; keeps the juices flowing, ya know? Of course, it means nothing if the voters don't follow suit. Which is why it's probably a good idea to do away with descriptions EXCEPT when not following them is a DQable offense, like some of the special challenges we have had.
R. |
Fully agree.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 03:09:04 PM · #133 |
| I would be willing to bet only half of the voters ever read the description and end up only voting using the challenge description the Title. Making the description notes more prominent on the voting page could possibly help. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 03:21:07 PM · #134 |
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! |
This has already been proven by the mere fact that when a simple and explicit description is given, people try and find every loophole in it. Example: Challenge: McDonalds. Description: take a unique photo of McDonalds. Sure as hell somebody is gonna chime in "what about Burger King? It's a fast food restaurant too." Or "can I shhot a farm? Old McDonald had a farm."
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 15:22:09.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 03:25:19 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But this case is a little different, which is why so much response has been generated: in *this* case the description directed us to do something very specific with transparency which, had the description not been in place, very few would actually have attempted, because it's not the way to WOW people with the concept "transparency". Anyone who entered this challenge determined to do what the description asked for and "shoot their subject through some transparent material" was immediately operating with a handicap relative to those who ignored the description and chose to photograph transparency as a subject. |
Which side are you arguing? If the voters actually thought that way, then anyone who DIDN'T "shoot their subject through some transparent material" would be working with the severe handicap of low DNMC votes that "more acceptable" entries wouldn't get. An entry CANNOT win unless the majority of voters feel it meets the challenge. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that a glorious photo of a tap dancing frog at sunset in the desert would get absolutely killed in a Transparency challenge. Obviously enough people thought these did meet the topic... maybe not YOUR idea of the challenge topic, but certainly theirs. The topic does weigh heavily, but there's some flexibility, and if voters can see that there's something transparent with something else behind it, then that's close enough that they'll give the benefit of the doubt and move on to technicals and aesthetics. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 03:29:05 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
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! |
This has already been proven by the mere fact that when a simple and explicit description is given, people try and find every loophole in it. Example: Challenge: McDonalds. Description: take a unique photo of McDonalds. Sure as hell somebody is gonna chime in "what about Burger King? It's a fast food restaurant too." Or "can I shhot a farm? Old McDonald had a farm." |
Yeah, the photographers will look for loopholes, but the voters generally employ common sense and punish them for it. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 03:54:38 PM · #137 |
| My interpretation of death was a broken bulb. But I got several comments that I DNMC. Just because it wasn't an inanimate object does not mean it could not die :) And I come to DP with an open mind trying to come up with something artistic that is out of the box, but still meets the challenge. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 04:01:57 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If descriptions remain, I think it would be a good idea to display the description with the topic on the front page and under the topic on each image page during voting. |
This suggestion has come up in the forums fairly frequently over the years. I wonder if it might be given a trial just to see if it might be helpful.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 04:11:20 PM · #139 |
I suggested in another thread that the description be given below each photo on the voting page where we currently have "for advanced editing challenge..." I think a huge % of this is not that people read the description and ignore it while voting they just never read it to start with. How hard would that be to code into the site? Like three lines?
So below say the Fireworks challenge entries it would say:
for advanced editing Challenge Fireworks:
Ring in the new year by capturing a display of fireworks.
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 16:11:31. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 04:38:25 PM · #140 |
This is the first challenge where I really struggled with this issue. The challenge title and the challenge description implied two very different things. In fact, the first several set ups I completed also were about the title. Then I read the description and started all over again. In my mind, the winner may have been the best overall picture, but to me did NOT meet the challenge description. Whereas Koi Girl was a stunning and perfect execution "by the rules".
Perhaps I'm too much of a "by the rules" gal, but I like specificity. The challenge description is more specific, which can make submissions far more entertaining and creativity-provoking, and Specific to the Challenge. Otherwise I agree with others that it just becomes a Free study. The way I deal with it during voting is by deducting one point for not meeting the challenge description. Thus, if the photo is simply stunning and fantastic and a 10 in every way but meeting the challenge, I give it a 9.
In the end, it's really about our goals. I'm here to simply get better and learn from people with far more talent and experience than I. If I were in it solely for the ribbons, I might be taking different sorts of pictures and voting differently. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 05:22:34 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But this case is a little different, which is why so much response has been generated: in *this* case the description directed us to do something very specific with transparency which, had the description not been in place, very few would actually have attempted, because it's not the way to WOW people with the concept "transparency". Anyone who entered this challenge determined to do what the description asked for and "shoot their subject through some transparent material" was immediately operating with a handicap relative to those who ignored the description and chose to photograph transparency as a subject. |
Which side are you arguing? If the voters actually thought that way, then anyone who DIDN'T "shoot their subject through some transparent material" would be working with the severe handicap of low DNMC votes that "more acceptable" entries wouldn't get. An entry CANNOT win unless the majority of voters feel it meets the challenge. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that a glorious photo of a tap dancing frog at sunset in the desert would get absolutely killed in a Transparency challenge. Obviously enough people thought these did meet the topic... maybe not YOUR idea of the challenge topic, but certainly theirs. The topic does weigh heavily, but there's some flexibility, and if voters can see that there's something transparent with something else behind it, then that's close enough that they'll give the benefit of the doubt and move on to technicals and aesthetics. |
Well if you've been following what I've been saying, it's quite obvious that the voters aren't much influenced by the descriptions, much more by the title, of the challenge. Even you seem to be acknowledging this, basically. Plenty of other people have addressed this issue as well. So my POINT is that when you include a challenge description that *seems* to mandate limited subsets of the larger topic (such as "seen through a transparent material" instead of just "transparency"), and the "honest" (reed "duped" if you like) shooters take that description to heart, and then when the voters ignore it en masse in their voting, then we have a problem.
And it doesn't do any good at all for you to keep repeating "this is the way it is, the smart folks realize it, live with it" because that's not a solution, it's a head-in-the-sand. If you are going to accept that the voters decision, collectively, is always "correct", then you also need to accept that it downright duplicitous for the site to steer photographers into very specific niches of a challenge when it's accepted both by the community (the voters) and the administration that the challenge description is only a "suggestion" and we're free to ignore it.
Can I be any clearer than that? It makes no sense that this situation persists. It's maddening. It doesn't have to be this way. All the words you're using to "justify" the situation are meaningless; we all know this is happening, we understand what you're saying, we know WHY it's happening. But you are ignoring our point: It doesn't need to be this way: fix it!
R.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 07:19:41 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But this case is a little different, which is why so much response has been generated: in *this* case the description directed us to do something very specific with transparency which, had the description not been in place, very few would actually have attempted, because it's not the way to WOW people with the concept "transparency". Anyone who entered this challenge determined to do what the description asked for and "shoot their subject through some transparent material" was immediately operating with a handicap relative to those who ignored the description and chose to photograph transparency as a subject. |
Which side are you arguing? If the voters actually thought that way, then anyone who DIDN'T "shoot their subject through some transparent material" would be working with the severe handicap of low DNMC votes that "more acceptable" entries wouldn't get. An entry CANNOT win unless the majority of voters feel it meets the challenge. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that a glorious photo of a tap dancing frog at sunset in the desert would get absolutely killed in a Transparency challenge. Obviously enough people thought these did meet the topic... maybe not YOUR idea of the challenge topic, but certainly theirs. The topic does weigh heavily, but there's some flexibility, and if voters can see that there's something transparent with something else behind it, then that's close enough that they'll give the benefit of the doubt and move on to technicals and aesthetics. |
Well if you've been following what I've been saying, it's quite obvious that the voters aren't much influenced by the descriptions, much more by the title, of the challenge. Even you seem to be acknowledging this, basically. Plenty of other people have addressed this issue as well. So my POINT is that when you include a challenge description that *seems* to mandate limited subsets of the larger topic (such as "seen through a transparent material" instead of just "transparency"), and the "honest" (reed "duped" if you like) shooters take that description to heart, and then when the voters ignore it en masse in their voting, then we have a problem.
And it doesn't do any good at all for you to keep repeating "this is the way it is, the smart folks realize it, live with it" because that's not a solution, it's a head-in-the-sand. If you are going to accept that the voters decision, collectively, is always "correct", then you also need to accept that it downright duplicitous for the site to steer photographers into very specific niches of a challenge when it's accepted both by the community (the voters) and the administration that the challenge description is only a "suggestion" and we're free to ignore it.
Can I be any clearer than that? It makes no sense that this situation persists. It's maddening. It doesn't have to be this way. All the words you're using to "justify" the situation are meaningless; we all know this is happening, we understand what you're saying, we know WHY it's happening. But you are ignoring our point: It doesn't need to be this way: fix it!
R. |
Well the status quo seems to be working for far too many people for it to change.
It works for the powers that be as long as it continues to make money so who cares if the respected members leave so long as new paying customers replace them?
It works for the ribbon hogs. The status quo keeps things easy. It's much harder to keep feeding that ribbon habit if you have to *gulp* challenge yourself each time out.
It works for the stock photographer. This is after all the premiere site for showcasing the most predictable in stock photography. In addition, there's also the legion of brownnosing lemmings just waiting to congratulate you on producing yet another technically flawless but souless image. Actually, technical perfection isn't required in many cases. Most of the time you can butcher the entire photo but as long as you got the lighting right or chose the prettiest subject then you're fine but just in case have a good creative concept to back it up. On second though having a creative concept isn't needed either, just the perception of one, preferrably stolen borrowed from someone more creative than you.
Lastly, it also works for those who challenge themselves and have some measure of artistic integrity. The status quo makes things quite hard but in turn it is what makes these people grow and the work they produce maintain lasting appeal. It is also the track to be on if you have any hope of being respected by a non-lemming.
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 19:23:00. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 07:26:29 PM · #143 |
I'm new here, so I understand that this discussion probably happens very often - but I would like to offer my opinion. I understand that the culture at dpchallenge has allowed for a loose interpretation of the challenge description, which is fine except for the discussion it stirs up, i suppose.
Someone in this thread mentioned Worth1000.com, so I went to check out how they do their contests. They have much more descriptive and well explained challenges - which I think makes all the difference, and would resolve a lot of this discussion. Here's an example from one of their "beginner" contests:
---------------
Downward perspective: Changing the camera angle can make a huge difference in a photograph. The boring become exciting, from dull to interesting. In this contest, we're looking for photos taken from a downward angle or a bird's eye view. "1,122ft Straight Down" by 'poisonberry' is breathtaking example of how changing perspective can change everything!
Please be aware of your background and take time to plan you shot!
Hitlist: Your photo must be take outdoors. No studio shots will be allowed in this contest.
-----------------
Now, Worth1000.com has many other aspects that I do not like - including the obnoxious site layout.... but I think they really got the challenge descriptions right over there.
So that's my opinion - a few well thought out sentences in the challenge description could go a long way to clarify what the challenger is looking for. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 07:43:09 PM · #144 |
What actually annoys me about this topic is the inconsistency. Take a look at this example from "Portrait Of The Elderly":
I thought this was a brilliant piece of out of the box thinking, which clearly met the challenge. The vehicle itself has loads of personality, and in a way even resembles a face yet if you look at the comments it got scored badly for DNMC. And there was nothing in the challenge description which said it had to be an elderly person, just elderly.
Then you have the opposite where the entry's just don't meet the description at all like this latest transparency one where it explicitly states through and people just seem to ignore that fact because they are "pretty" and "wow" like, they do well and ribbon.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 08:31:54 PM · #145 |
Hello Bear_Music,
I totally agree with you on this. It's something like this ... my boss ask for a glass of orange juice but I serve him a glass of coffee and the reason being that it's also liquid! Does it meet the boss' request? No. Would my boss say, "That is creative!"? No. The same thing applies to the "Transparency III" challenge.
Ang
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 20:40:36. |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 08:46:15 PM · #146 |
Hello scalvert,
Just wondering ... if you ask your employee to do a specific task in order to get your desired result, but he/she does it his/her way, ignoring your instruction and thus not delivering your desired result, would you be frustrated?
Ang
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I haven't been here long but I guess I foolishly believed the description had some relevance to the topic... |
Relevant, yes, but it's not the topic itself. Descriptions are a relevant part of a topic in the same way that titles are part of an entry: they're both a piece of the overall presentation that help explain the intent of the author. Sometimes they help, sometimes they distract, but relying on either as if that alone determines what meets the challenge is not a good idea IMO.
If descriptions were eliminated then people would complain that they didn't know what Bokeh was or that their Communism photo was unfairly punished in a Red challenge. When descriptions are included, somebody's going to complain when the results don't fit their narrow interpretation. The challenge is the topic and the description is helpful for general direction, but if you get hung up on literal interpretations of every word, you're going to be frustrated. |
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 08:47:31 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by angkokweng:
In my conclusion, the yellow ribbon met the challenge. However, voters love looking at the beautiful splash and the smooth glasses. |
(tongue-in-cheek) or maybe the votes were from team members, office collegues or family and relatives, LOL (well it happened before) |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 08:50:49 PM · #148 |
Hello PapaBob,
I believe I'm not hallucinating. On the voting page of a photo, there's actually a small icon (something like a small piece of paper) for us to move our mouse over to read the description of the challenge. The purpose is to remind us of the challenge task. Perhaps, the task should be written visibly on every voting page.
Ang
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I would be willing to bet only half of the voters ever read the description and end up only voting using the challenge description the Title. Making the description notes more prominent on the voting page could possibly help. |
|
|
|
|
01/07/2009 08:55:40 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If descriptions remain, I think it would be a good idea to display the description with the topic on the front page and under the topic on each image page during voting. |
i fully agree - i got hammered for not meeting the Descriptions of the challenge in the recent Backlighting challenge. i didnt know the subject must not be silhouetted. (kicks self for not reading descriptions) |
|
|
|
01/07/2009 09:05:57 PM · #150 |
Hello Everyone,
Photographers must learn to adhere to the task/description while the voters should learn to vote for the photos that meet the challenge, and not vote for beauty only that doesn't meet the task/description. It's our responsibility as photographers and voters.
Had it been a serious international award winning competition, the blue and red ribbons would have been disqualified in my very honest opinion.
One way to counter this is to have a second round voting by the "authority" or SC (what is it anyway ... full name?). The first round voting is for everyone. The final result will be deliberated by the "authority", judging/disqualifying based on the task/description of the challenge. The pink ribbon winner will get the blue ribbon and the 4th and 5th etc placing will move up the ranking accordingly.
This way, we are encouraging photographers to pay more attention to the description. This will eventually lessen the voting based on solely beautiful photographs which ignore the task. The challenge will be more challenging. The results will be more rewarding.
Ang
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If descriptions remain, I think it would be a good idea to display the description with the topic on the front page and under the topic on each image page during voting. |
i fully agree - i got hammered for not meeting the Descriptions of the challenge in the recent Backlighting challenge. i didnt know the subject must not be silhouetted. (kicks self for not reading descriptions) |
Message edited by author 2009-01-07 21:15:10. |
|
