Nit-Pickers, 1's and 2's and "Distracting"

01/30/2009 04:02:14 PM · #226

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by tnun:
Photointerest, for the sake of brevity I omitted a specific reference for my sorrow: it was where you quote Posthumous, admit his point, but then go on to say that if a photo you really liked was really poor quality, you would have to vote it lower than a perfect but unappealing ice cube. It just seemed like you were giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I do not feel obliged to read the whole thread in order to enjoy and celebrate what it offers, nor to lament a general human tendency to judge a package by its wrappings instead of its contents.

Ok, let me ask you. If there are two photos to compare with. One is of a subject matter that appeals to you, the other is one that is not as appealing. The one that appeals to you is out of focus, is overexposed, over-edited or any of the other things that most of us as voters tend to comment on, while the one that is less appealing to me personally by subject but, has brilliant technicals and is a clear, clean, good photo, which one would you score higher? The out of focus, over processed, over exposed shot that is more appealing to you, personally in subject, or the one that may appeal less but, certainly shows as a better photo in other aspects?

But that's not what you said: your original hypothetical involved a "photo you liked", not a "photo of a subject you liked"...

See the difference? tnun is basically asking, "If you really LIKE a picture why would you give it a low score?" and that's a valid question. For me, if I really "like" an image that has obvious flaws, then I start thinking something pretty powerful is going on and evaluate carefully. A lot of my high scores spring from that field, actually.

R.

Pardon me, Robert....I guess I shouldn't have used the word "subject" in this post. But, the two are not exclusive. If, for instance, I liked a photo for whatever the reason, be it the subject, the colors, the composition, the message...whatever it was about the photo that struck me, it's all part of the same bottom line...I liked the photo. :)

01/30/2009 04:10:24 PM · #227

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

The point behind my saying what I said was that I may LOVE a photo's subject matter or message but, if it is poor in quality, I, personally, cannot justify scoring it above a better quality photo.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Don, Posthumous is likely one of the ones who truly votes according to his tastes and pushes aside the technicals for the most part. I sincerely wish that more voters were like him!

Aren't these two statements in direct contradiction with each other?

How are these a contradiction? I was stating what I, personally, can live with in terms of my own voting patterns at the moment while at the same time, saying that I admiring the fact that Don, goes with his tastes and pushes technicals aside in favor of his tastes. In other words, I'm not one of the "technical hounds" and I'm not a Don. I'm somewhere in the middle at the moment, tempering one with the other *ie: my tastes, mixed with a modicum of technicals as a balance*

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/30/2009 04:23:25 PM · #228

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

That's probably true, and perfectly reasonable, but while few DPC photos reach "master" levels, voting almost exclusively 5 or less is a slap to the face of the DPC community. It's effectively declaring that 99% of our work is below average in the world of photography. Are we not entitled to be insulted? Even on an absolute scale, how do the likes of De Sousa, Kiwiness and Librodo garner average votes below 5? I'm not saying people don't have the right to vote on a strict personal scale, but if a wildly aberrant voter (in either direction) routinely hits less than half the entries, it DOES skew the results.

Sure, but those are two separate issues:

1. The right of the voter to establish and adhere to his/her standard, be it relative or absolute, without feeling "persecuted" because that standard is not even close to the local norm, and

2. The fact that when any voter with outlier standards votes in less than 100% of the challenge, images not voted on are either punished or rewarded relative to images voted on.

I'd submit that even to hint that those with outlier standards have more of an obligation to vote the entire challenge if they vote at all is venturing into dangerous waters. But that's just me, thinking out loud...

R.

I would agree that if everyone were to stick to voting in the method that is set up ie: starting at image 1 in the challenge and methodically vote in order as appearing, this may be the case as the randomness of everyone's pages as they come up, might even off the voting lows and highs more or less evenly. The problem is, a lot of people tend to "cherry pick" (not my term but, used in other threads on similar topics) and that deletes the intended effect of the random placings.

Just as with the low scorers, the high scorers will be unevenly distributed if only 20 or even 40% of those voters' votes are cast. That will skew the scores.

There's really no proof that 'a lot of' people cherry pick or that votes are skewed.

Cherry picking 20% of the images in a challenge of 500+ images would be more challenging than a lot of people than just letting the images come up as they may. It would take a lot more time as well, having to go back to the thumbnail page each time. JAO

Uhhhh....there was a discussion awhile back on a DQ'd shot that created a discussion on a lot of different areas (everyone went off on tangents over 20 something pages of discussion) and one of the items touched upon was the idea that cherry picking does happen. SC members (can't remember which ones now nor, do I want to center anyone out even if I could remember) spoke about this as well. It was part (to the best of my recollection) of a number of posts where the "view numbers" were quite high by comparison to the votes cast. It was discussed that there was no way to stop the "cherry picking" and that people do tend to vote via thumbnails. We all know that voters will go through the thumbnails, stop at one that catches their eye, click on it to enlarge it and vote on that shot or comment on that shot rather than starting at #1 on their first pages and voting through in order. A lot of people find that 300 or 500 images are more than they can bear going through so, they'll choose by thumbnail for their 20%, according to what looks interesting or catches their eye than going through methodically the first 20% presented on their screens in order. Anyways, that's where that comes from.

To say that it doesn't happen, or believe that it doesn't, is well, I'll leave it there because I have no want or intention of being insulting in any way and it would sound that way if I tried to say anything else. :)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/30/2009 04:24:10 PM · #229

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Personally, I don't have a problem at all with your reasoning behind your scoring as described. I can see where you're coming from and why. However, it seems that it may be a bit "deep" for the average voter in most challenges as it seems to me that most voters are scoring according to what the entries are in a particular challenge, only.

I would have a question though, had you said that you scored all photos, in all challenges solely upon a global scale and without regards to what the challenge subject is. The reason for that would be that it would tend to be highly skewed voting because one cannot vote "globally" on a photo from a "Money Challenge" while basing the score against a photo from a "Free Study Challenge". There are obviously going to be a wider range of subjects in the FS to photograph, lending the photographers a wide range and possibility of some fabulous shots by comparison to the "Money Challenge". That would tend to become skewed and biased if one were to rank everything according to a "global" point of view ONLY (you have said that you also rank according to challenge, so it's tempered)

I think Bear's main point was he considers what has already been accomplished (i.e. the global view) when he votes in a challenge. That's what I do as well. For example, take this reflection shot:

I believe

jmsetzler was the first to do it here and is the only one I would have considered giving a high score to. Anybody else who tries to duplicate it without doing something new with it, and by that I mean more than just swap out the reflected item, is going to get at the very best a 5 from me no matter how perfect the technicals. It would be like rating a TV show based on how sharp the television displays it. It's ridiculous. I rather watch my favorite show on a broken down tv producing a bad reception than some info-commercial displayed on the latest wide screen tv. My photo viewing preferences is no different.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 16:25:42.

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

01/30/2009 04:28:47 PM · #230

Originally posted by SaraR:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by yospiff:
Well, at least one of the low votes on my tree entry is now explained!

I want the 6s on my tree photo explained, I don't understand how anyone could find my skeletal, unmotivated, "get it in to have something there", emotionless piece of crap to be anything other than a 3! :D

Ditto mine. It is sitting at a comfortable 5.8, which is, quite frankly, outrageous.

LOL...people are just diggin' your trees! ;-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/30/2009 04:40:05 PM · #231

Originally posted by yanko:

For example, take this reflection shot:

I believe jmsetzler was the first to do it here and is the only one I would have considered giving a high score to. Anybody else who tries to duplicate it without doing something new with it, and by that I mean more than just swap out the reflected item, is going to get at the very best a 5 from me no matter how perfect the technicals.

Just to pick a nit, that's a refraction shot, not a reflection ... and upon further reflection I believe there's a version of this type of shot which created a horde of perfect smiley-faces which would also deserve a high score.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/30/2009 04:45:20 PM · #232

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by yanko:
For example, take this reflection shot:

I believe jmsetzler was the first to do it here and is the only one I would have considered giving a high score to. Anybody else who tries to duplicate it without doing something new with it, and by that I mean more than just swap out the reflected item, is going to get at the very best a 5 from me no matter how perfect the technicals.

Just to pick a nit, that's a refraction shot, not a reflection ... and upon further reflection I believe there's a version of this type of shot which created a horde of perfect smiley-faces which would also deserve a high score.

Yeah I meant refraction.

01/30/2009 04:58:35 PM · #233

Originally posted by ubique:

(I knew I should have given that Macbeth quote in its entirety.)

In the Single Tree challenge I have voted on 208 entries (if I vote at all on a challenge I always vote on 100% of the entries):
Score 10 = 1
Score 9 = 2
Score 8 = 2
Score 7 = 6
Score 6 = 0
Score 5 = 29
Score 4 = 0
Score 3 = 168
Score 2 = 0
Score 1 = 0

By my standards, that's a perfectly rational distribution, although if you're just looking at the end of this thread (and hopefully the end is near) then you'll have to flick back a few pages to see why I have no 4s and 6s.

I consider 168 (i.e. 81%) of the entries in that challenge to be of "no consequence", so they get my default score of 3. In spite of the OP's relentless determination to insist otherwise, the 'technicals' of those 168 photographs are entirely irrelevant. They all fell at the first hurdle; lack of consequence. You must bear in mind that I really do mean what I say in my profile biography ... I am not a photographer; I am not particularly interested in photography. I am interested only in photographs.

But I'm not saying that technical execution has no place at all for me. If a photograph does not fall at the first hurdle, then the quality of its rendering does become a factor in my reaction to it. 'Technical execution' does not mean superficial nonsense like sharpness of focus, lack of distractions, rule of thirds, 'wow' factor, and all that nauseating pap. It means that the nature and quality of the rendering is appropriate to the purpose. It can be blurry; it can be eccentrically lit or composed; it may have great void areas of dark or light; the focus may be uncertain or even absent entirely; the horizon can be wonky if that seems apt. Or it may be what the undiscriminating observer would unhesitatingly call technically 'flawless'. It all depends what fits the photographer's purpose.

Lack of Consequence:
Absence of feeling; pointlessly imitative or derivative; lacking in apparent imagination or originality. I ask myself this question: "Is this photograph memorable or stimulating in any way? Does it add anything to my perception of the subject, or of any subject? Am I better off for having seen it, for having reacted to it?" If I answer "no" to all three of those questions, then I judge the photograph to be of no consequence.

And for the benefit of the OP, let me emphasise that none of this has anything to do with what the nominal subject of the image is; nothing to do with what I 'like or don't like' in that sense.

And as a final red rag to the bull, I should admit that I would look at the 3's for an average of about 3 or 4 seconds. Once they have so quickly fallen, why look any longer? It's ghoulish; like rubber-necking at a car crash. But the images that do clear that first hurdle I will look at for somewhere between 1 and 15 minutes, and often several times in the case of the eventual 7-10s.

So there ... now everyone who starts one of these 'please explain' threads can quote me right up front, as the sort of aberrant voter that we don't want at DPC.

P.S. For what it's worth, if I were voting on my own 27 challenge entries, I would give every one of them a 3 except for one. The very first one, as it happens.

Ahhhh....*SIGH*.....

So, by your own definition, you are a critic, right? If you're not a photographer and not interested in photography, only photographs then you are by exclusion, a Critic.

Critics, by a light definition are generally those who will sit in judgement of other people's work. They don't necessarily have the skills that those, producing the work they are judging, have. In your case, you tried photography and found that you bored yourself with your own photos as admitted in your post above....and, do not participate in challenges with your own entries any longer. You also have stated that had you been rating your own shots (ones that others have rated in the high six range for the most part), you would have also given yourself 3's on all of them. So, what in essence you are saying, to me, anyways, is that only your opinion counts and is correct. All of those who gave you anything above a 3, have NO clue what they are doing or seeing for in your estimation, they aren't worthy of anything more than a 3.

Given that you've come to the conclusion that for the most part (and as evidenced by the 168 3's that you've noted here in the tree challenge example above, that means that only 40 out of 208 people's work were worthy of anything higher than a 3...or, your self-created "3 standard/default score". So for 168 photos, you sat there and clicked on 3. Only 40 of them, did you spend any more than 3 to 4 seconds on! So, in 3 to 4 seconds (as stated above by you), you decided that each one of 168 photos were "INCONSEQUENTIAL". The other 40, you may have spent 1 to 15 minutes on each scoring them higher...the majority of which, fell mid-stream in the score range of 5.

So, doing a little math here...in voting on 168 photos, according to your own admitted time spent on photos (at the 3 range of your scoring standards), you spent a total of all of 11.2 minutes and that's taking the outside figure of 4 seconds per 3 vote. How MUCH of that photo could you really have looked at? How MUCH of those 168 people's work could you have truly looked at to any depth whatsoever?

One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!!

Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited AF

01/30/2009 05:10:40 PM · #234

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Personally, I don't have a problem at all with your reasoning behind your scoring as described. I can see where you're coming from and why. However, it seems that it may be a bit "deep" for the average voter in most challenges as it seems to me that most voters are scoring according to what the entries are in a particular challenge, only.

I would have a question though, had you said that you scored all photos, in all challenges solely upon a global scale and without regards to what the challenge subject is. The reason for that would be that it would tend to be highly skewed voting because one cannot vote "globally" on a photo from a "Money Challenge" while basing the score against a photo from a "Free Study Challenge". There are obviously going to be a wider range of subjects in the FS to photograph, lending the photographers a wide range and possibility of some fabulous shots by comparison to the "Money Challenge". That would tend to become skewed and biased if one were to rank everything according to a "global" point of view ONLY (you have said that you also rank according to challenge, so it's tempered)

I think Bear's main point was he considers what has already been accomplished (i.e. the global view) when he votes in a challenge. That's what I do as well. For example, take this reflection shot:

I believe jmsetzler was the first to do it here and is the only one I would have considered giving a high score to. Anybody else who tries to duplicate it without doing something new with it, and by that I mean more than just swap out the reflected item, is going to get at the very best a 5 from me no matter how perfect the technicals. It would be like rating a TV show based on how sharp the television displays it. It's ridiculous. I rather watch my favorite show on a broken down tv producing a bad reception than some info-commercial displayed on the latest wide screen tv. My photo viewing preferences is no different.

I totally agree with this line of thinking as well. :)

I did agree with what I THOUGHT he meant too. So, I'm in agreeance with what Robert is saying either way. :)

eamurdock

Pentax KP

01/30/2009 05:14:08 PM · #235

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!!

Isn't ego grooming what this thread's all about?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2009 05:24:27 PM · #236

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

This is complete and utter bull puckey.

Paul refuses to *define* himself as a "photographer", he is not interested in "photography", because these are limiting terms in his worldview. It's like saying "I'm not interested in art*, I'm interested in *pictures*", and if you can't see the difference that explains a whole lot about why you are going on and on in such a circular manner.

He doesn't consider himself a "critic", nor do I. Critics, by definition, have a focused interest in the "subject" they are critiquing, whether it be art, or music, or food. Paul's interests are a little more catholic than that :-) But he does produce fine images, and fine writing to go with them. Have you bothered to check out his Blog? It's linked from his profile. You'd maybe understand him a little better if you did. Or not...

As to the label "inconsequential", Paul hasn't been hanging that as any sort of an absolute; he's been at great pains to explain that this is done at a *personal* level, that these images are of no consequence to *him*. A judgment with which I tend to agree, in my own world. It's relatively rare that I encounter, at DPC (or anywhere, for that matter) an image which I consider to be "of consequence" to me.

The major difference between Paul and me, as far as I can tell, is that I happily differentiate between, and assign differential scores to, levels of technical quality in the production of photographic images, irregardless of whether they "move" me or not, and he doesn't do that. Nevertheless, I reserve my high scores for images that *have* that sort of impact on me, and there aren't too many of those.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 17:25:07.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/30/2009 05:44:34 PM · #237

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by ubique:
(I knew I should have given that Macbeth quote in its entirety.)

In the Single Tree challenge I have voted on 208 entries (if I vote at all on a challenge I always vote on 100% of the entries):
Score 10 = 1
Score 9 = 2
Score 8 = 2
Score 7 = 6
Score 6 = 0
Score 5 = 29
Score 4 = 0
Score 3 = 168
Score 2 = 0
Score 1 = 0

By my standards, that's a perfectly rational distribution, although if you're just looking at the end of this thread (and hopefully the end is near) then you'll have to flick back a few pages to see why I have no 4s and 6s.

I consider 168 (i.e. 81%) of the entries in that challenge to be of "no consequence", so they get my default score of 3. In spite of the OP's relentless determination to insist otherwise, the 'technicals' of those 168 photographs are entirely irrelevant. They all fell at the first hurdle; lack of consequence. You must bear in mind that I really do mean what I say in my profile biography ... I am not a photographer; I am not particularly interested in photography. I am interested only in photographs.

But I'm not saying that technical execution has no place at all for me. If a photograph does not fall at the first hurdle, then the quality of its rendering does become a factor in my reaction to it. 'Technical execution' does not mean superficial nonsense like sharpness of focus, lack of distractions, rule of thirds, 'wow' factor, and all that nauseating pap. It means that the nature and quality of the rendering is appropriate to the purpose. It can be blurry; it can be eccentrically lit or composed; it may have great void areas of dark or light; the focus may be uncertain or even absent entirely; the horizon can be wonky if that seems apt. Or it may be what the undiscriminating observer would unhesitatingly call technically 'flawless'. It all depends what fits the photographer's purpose.

Lack of Consequence:
Absence of feeling; pointlessly imitative or derivative; lacking in apparent imagination or originality. I ask myself this question: "Is this photograph memorable or stimulating in any way? Does it add anything to my perception of the subject, or of any subject? Am I better off for having seen it, for having reacted to it?" If I answer "no" to all three of those questions, then I judge the photograph to be of no consequence.

And for the benefit of the OP, let me emphasise that none of this has anything to do with what the nominal subject of the image is; nothing to do with what I 'like or don't like' in that sense.

And as a final red rag to the bull, I should admit that I would look at the 3's for an average of about 3 or 4 seconds. Once they have so quickly fallen, why look any longer? It's ghoulish; like rubber-necking at a car crash. But the images that do clear that first hurdle I will look at for somewhere between 1 and 15 minutes, and often several times in the case of the eventual 7-10s.

So there ... now everyone who starts one of these 'please explain' threads can quote me right up front, as the sort of aberrant voter that we don't want at DPC.

P.S. For what it's worth, if I were voting on my own 27 challenge entries, I would give every one of them a 3 except for one. The very first one, as it happens.

Ahhhh....*SIGH*.....

So, by your own definition, you are a critic, right? If you're not a photographer and not interested in photography, only photographs then you are by exclusion, a Critic.

Critics, by a light definition are generally those who will sit in judgement of other people's work. They don't necessarily have the skills that those, producing the work they are judging, have. In your case, you tried photography and found that you bored yourself with your own photos as admitted in your post above....and, do not participate in challenges with your own entries any longer. You also have stated that had you been rating your own shots (ones that others have rated in the high six range for the most part), you would have also given yourself 3's on all of them. So, what in essence you are saying, to me, anyways, is that only your opinion counts and is correct. All of those who gave you anything above a 3, have NO clue what they are doing or seeing for in your estimation, they aren't worthy of anything more than a 3.

Given that you've come to the conclusion that for the most part (and as evidenced by the 168 3's that you've noted here in the tree challenge example above, that means that only 40 out of 208 people's work were worthy of anything higher than a 3...or, your self-created "3 standard/default score". So for 168 photos, you sat there and clicked on 3. Only 40 of them, did you spend any more than 3 to 4 seconds on! So, in 3 to 4 seconds (as stated above by you), you decided that each one of 168 photos were "INCONSEQUENTIAL". The other 40, you may have spent 1 to 15 minutes on each scoring them higher...the majority of which, fell mid-stream in the score range of 5.

So, doing a little math here...in voting on 168 photos, according to your own admitted time spent on photos (at the 3 range of your scoring standards), you spent a total of all of 11.2 minutes and that's taking the outside figure of 4 seconds per 3 vote. How MUCH of that photo could you really have looked at? How MUCH of those 168 people's work could you have truly looked at to any depth whatsoever?

One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!!

One of the reasons I rarely post in these threads anymore is because

ubique as well as others have articulated precisely what I could and would have said.
I can't, for the life of me, find any claim in the quoted passage that discards the opinion of others. If anything, it's an invitation to debate.
We all have opinions, some useful, some inconsequential. Why not let them be heard and examined? Why get personal? Facts are more interesting.

01/30/2009 05:47:35 PM · #238

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Ahhhh....*SIGH*.....

So, by your own definition, you are a critic, right? If you're not a photographer and not interested in photography, only photographs then you are by exclusion, a Critic.

Critics, by a light definition are generally those who will sit in judgement of other people's work. They don't necessarily have the skills that those, producing the work they are judging, have. In your case, you tried photography and found that you bored yourself with your own photos as admitted in your post above....and, do not participate in challenges with your own entries any longer. You also have stated that had you been rating your own shots (ones that others have rated in the high six range for the most part), you would have also given yourself 3's on all of them. So, what in essence you are saying, to me, anyways, is that only your opinion counts and is correct. All of those who gave you anything above a 3, have NO clue what they are doing or seeing for in your estimation, they aren't worthy of anything more than a 3.

Given that you've come to the conclusion that for the most part (and as evidenced by the 168 3's that you've noted here in the tree challenge example above, that means that only 40 out of 208 people's work were worthy of anything higher than a 3...or, your self-created "3 standard/default score". So for 168 photos, you sat there and clicked on 3. Only 40 of them, did you spend any more than 3 to 4 seconds on! So, in 3 to 4 seconds (as stated above by you), you decided that each one of 168 photos were "INCONSEQUENTIAL". The other 40, you may have spent 1 to 15 minutes on each scoring them higher...the majority of which, fell mid-stream in the score range of 5.

So, doing a little math here...in voting on 168 photos, according to your own admitted time spent on photos (at the 3 range of your scoring standards), you spent a total of all of 11.2 minutes and that's taking the outside figure of 4 seconds per 3 vote. How MUCH of that photo could you really have looked at? How MUCH of those 168 people's work could you have truly looked at to any depth whatsoever?

One might think then that given that since you have judged 168 people's work as "inconsequential" in 11.2 minutes, or 3 to 4 seconds each, that the rest of the time was spent on grooming EGO! Simon Cowell...move over! ROFL!!!

This is complete and utter bull puckey.

Paul refuses to *define* himself as a "photographer", he is not interested in "photography", because these are limiting terms in his worldview. It's like saying "I'm not interested in art*, I'm interested in *pictures*", and if you can't see the difference that explains a whole lot about why you are going on and on in such a circular manner.

He doesn't consider himself a "critic", nor do I. Critics, by definition, have a focused interest in the "subject" they are critiquing, whether it be art, or music, or food. Paul's interests are a little more catholic than that :-) But he does produce fine images, and fine writing to go with them. Have you bothered to check out his Blog? It's linked from his profile. You'd maybe understand him a little better if you did. Or not...

As to the label "inconsequential", Paul hasn't been hanging that as any sort of an absolute; he's been at great pains to explain that this is done at a *personal* level, that these images are of no consequence to *him*. A judgment with which I tend to agree, in my own world. It's relatively rare that I encounter, at DPC (or anywhere, for that matter) an image which I consider to be "of consequence" to me.

The major difference between Paul and me, as far as I can tell, is that I happily differentiate between, and assign differential scores to, levels of technical quality in the production of photographic images, irregardless of whether they "move" me or not, and he doesn't do that. Nevertheless, I reserve my high scores for images that *have* that sort of impact on me, and there aren't too many of those.

R.

Robert, this is one set of points that you and I will simply have to agree that we disagree. :)

01/30/2009 05:55:01 PM · #239

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Robert, this is one set of points that you and I will simply have to agree that we disagree. :)

We have to "agree to disagree" on what, exactly? That your misreading of Paul and consequent snide hammering on him is bull puckey? Yeah, I suppose so. But it doesn't mean you have even a prayer of being "right", just that I don't have a prayer of persuading you you're "wrong".

Agreed...

R.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/30/2009 06:00:48 PM · #240

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Robert, this is one set of points that you and I will simply have to agree that we disagree. :)

We have to "agree to disagree" on what, exactly? That your misreading of Paul and consequent snide hammering on him is bull puckey? Yeah, I suppose so. But it doesn't mean you have even a prayer of being "right", just that I don't have a prayer of persuading you you're "wrong".

Agreed...

R.

Robert...end of discussion for me. I have nothing further to say on this particular subject of Ubique.

ETA: May he vote in his own manner and enjoy what he enjoys and not what he doesn't. :)

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 18:03:08.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

01/30/2009 06:09:22 PM · #241

Well, I'm pretty happy. I got to read wonderfully written thoughts from Ubique, Zeuszen and Bear_Music, all in one thread. Thank you all, honestly. It is great to be reminded of the gentler things in life.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

01/30/2009 06:14:51 PM · #242

Always so grateful for

Bear_Music. I don't think of myself as a photographer or a critic either, but as a person with camera and time and inclination; of necessity I criticise when shooting and viewing anything - it is simply not possible to "see" or appreciate without doing this.

I do wish more attention was paid to this part of

ubique's post:

"But I'm not saying that technical execution has no place at all for me. If a photograph does not fall at the first hurdle, then the quality of its rendering does become a factor in my reaction to it. 'Technical execution' does not mean superficial nonsense like sharpness of focus, lack of distractions, rule of thirds, 'wow' factor, and all that nauseating pap. It means that the nature and quality of the rendering is appropriate to the purpose. It can be blurry; it can be eccentrically lit or composed; it may have great void areas of dark or light; the focus may be uncertain or even absent entirely; the horizon can be wonky if that seems apt. Or it may be what the undiscriminating observer would unhesitatingly call technically 'flawless'. It all depends what fits the photographer's purpose."

It is, I believe, the baby of the baby in the bathwater.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2009 06:19:39 PM · #243

Originally posted by tnun:

...I do wish more attention was paid to this part of ubique's post:

"But I'm not saying that technical execution has no place at all for me. If a photograph does not fall at the first hurdle, then the quality of its rendering does become a factor in my reaction to it. 'Technical execution' does not mean superficial nonsense like sharpness of focus, lack of distractions, rule of thirds, 'wow' factor, and all that nauseating pap. It means that the nature and quality of the rendering is appropriate to the purpose. It can be blurry; it can be eccentrically lit or composed; it may have great void areas of dark or light; the focus may be uncertain or even absent entirely; the horizon can be wonky if that seems apt. Or it may be what the undiscriminating observer would unhesitatingly call technically 'flawless'. It all depends what fits the photographer's purpose."

It is, I believe, the baby of the baby in the bathwater.

Yes, and it is neither a new nor an exotic stance. From Bauhaus to Pound: "Beauty is aptness to purpose."

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/30/2009 06:21:18 PM · #244

Originally posted by dahkota:

And through this thread, and others similar to it, I finally "get" how and why guys like Ubique and Zeuszen view photographs the way they do.

It actually quite makes sense, though I'm not terribly likely to ever acquire their styles......8>)

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/30/2009 07:29:44 PM · #245

Originally posted by dahkota:

Yes, much of the thread has had me shaking my head in great puzzlement but there definitely have been some gems to be gleaned. Thank you to those who gave insight into a views beyond the search for technical perfection on DPC :)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/30/2009 10:11:56 PM · #246

Personally, I'm glad that I posted my "rant"/vent". I took a chance on being "pounded on" (for K10DGuy...out of experience!!! LOL) when I posted it and fully expected to be LEAPED on for having expressed my thoughts on these issues and braced myself for having done it. For the most part, I found the points brought out during this discussion refreshing and helpful because it opened dialogue. Dialogue is usually a good thing because it allows views to be seen and talked about, even if there are disagreeances because even in disagreeance, there is something to be learned one way or another. :)

For anyone who thought that I may have been doing it to stir up trouble or be a mouth...I wasn't. I posted my "vent" and through it, I was simply venting. As people started to join in the thread and offer up ideas (even when opposing views started to come out between posters), there was still something to be had from it all. For anyone who thought I had some intentions of "changing" anything....I wasn't. I was venting and anyone who felt like adding anything to my thoughts, were welcome to...even if I was going to have to DUCK!!! ;-) LOL I posted this on the Rant Board simply because it was just that...a "rant/vent" and nothing more.

And, for Bear Music and Zeuszen and anyone else who may feel that I was being unfair to Ubique...I hope that you can realize that we all have our different perspectives for reasons...reasons that I don't want to get into. Just as he has his point of view and a right to it, I also have a point of view as well and a reason behind it. And, I\'ll leave it at that. I even joked around with him throughout this thread. There are reasons that a person may have for a certain response that only that person knows. I'll just leave it rest there.

With that, I'm off to do some more commenting on the Single Tree challenge to finish up as many as I have comments for at this moment. Whether or not I will continue on in DPC is yet to be decided but, I am glad that I vented because I think and feel that it's brought out some thoughts in quite a number of people in some way or another whether they posted or just read in this thread. :)

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/31/2009 08:04:49 AM · #247

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
eta: Maybe I'll just become a one man wrecking crew and crack open a few cans of whoop ass on some unsuspecting commenters. That sounds fair...

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Or, you could follow site rules and respond calmly, rationally, and politely as to exactly why you might disagree with the commenter's opinion.

I'm pretty sure that's where I'm getting lost.....how can opinions and impressions be wrong?

They are strictly what's been evoked in the viewer.

I didn't bother to answer this because I think Jeb and I are on different pages or looking at things from a different level but the question is a good one.

Impressions, opinions and votes can be wrong or off base if people are applying the wrong set of criteria to the topic and what they are being shown.

For example, looking at Street Photography and applying the generally accepted rules of common Stock Photography while making judgment, simply doesn't work. You certainly can apply those rules but I feel you would be wrong in doing so. Shooting a Street Photo and applying those rules to the image might very well win you a Ribbon but is that what the Challenge is about? If you want ALL images of any genre to look like Stock that's not really doing justice to the genre or the learning experience. I feel comfortable saying that's where I see things going wrong.

I think that explains a good deal of the discrepancies found here. There is an automatic application of Stock or Commercial values used in each Challenge by the general voting population. Even if the Challenges subject doesn't lean towards that set of values or criteria they are at work in force, regardless genre and that's why a certain look always funnels it's way to the front page. The "sameness" comes from the same set of rules.

This is certainly seen in the commenting and it's then set in stone by the voting.

I don't care too much about the numbers but how people arrive at their decisions is an issue.

Message edited by author 2009-01-31 11:45:46.

01/31/2009 11:27:00 AM · #248

Jeb, it's like if you watched a funeral procession in Chinatown and wandered away with the thought "That's bizarre, they were all wearing WHITE at a funeral? How weird!" then your reaction wouldn't be *wrong* exactly (it *is* weird to you after all) but nevertheless the reaction springs from a gap in your understanding; you don't realize that in China white, not black, is the color of mourning. (This is hypothetical of course, *you* may know this, but if you didn't then...)

So extending this to DPC, if one of our Chinese members entered a "mourning" challenge with white-robed imagery, he'd probably get hammered because "Everyone knows *black* communicates mourning, not white!", and this would be too bad.

There are those who would argue that our hypothetical Chinese member should know better than to expect a white mourning picture to score well in a competition dominated by Western voters, and there's an element of truth in this, and IMO that's what's too bad. The bottom line, the end result, is that in our challenges we DON'T get shown a diversity of things; we mostly get shown whatever the shooter thinks we will appreciate, quite often at the expense of images that are much more meaningful to the shooter, and which I, personally, would much prefer to see.

R.

01/31/2009 12:36:54 PM · #249

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
eta: Maybe I'll just become a one man wrecking crew and crack open a few cans of whoop ass on some unsuspecting commenters. That sounds fair...

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Or, you could follow site rules and respond calmly, rationally, and politely as to exactly why you might disagree with the commenter's opinion.

I'm pretty sure that's where I'm getting lost.....how can opinions and impressions be wrong?

They are strictly what's been evoked in the viewer.

I didn't bother to answer this because I think Jeb and I are on different pages or looking at things from a different level but the question is a good one.

Impressions, opinions and votes can be wrong or off base if people are applying the wrong set of criteria to the topic and what they are being shown.

For example, looking at Street Photography and applying the generally accepted rules of common Stock Photography while making judgment, simply doesn't work. You certainly can apply those rules but I feel you would be wrong in doing so. Shooting a Street Photo and applying those rules to the image might very well win you a Ribbon but is that what the Challenge is about? If you want ALL images of any genre to look like Stock that's not really doing justice to the genre or the learning experience. I feel comfortable saying that's where I see things going wrong.

I think that explains a good deal of the discrepancies found here. There is an automatic application of Stock or Commercial values used in each Challenge by the general voting population. Even if the Challenges subject doesn't lean towards that set of values or criteria they are at work in force, regardless genre and that's why a certain look always funnels it's way to the front page. The "sameness" comes from the same set of rules.

This is certainly seen in the commenting and it's then set in stone by the voting.

I don't care too much about the numbers but how people arrive at their decisions is an issue.

I have found myself striving to achieve that "look" in my photography over the past couple of years. It's not been what I would normally do but, I have found myself changing over to what I THINK may be accepted so as to have a hope of raising my scores as you've stated so nicely. However, I'm finding that I'm losing any sense of creativity at all in doing it and I'm feeling blocked in now because I CHOSE (yes, I chose) to go down that route.

Someone (I won't put a name here, of course) wrote to me during a discussion on another thread in which I was discussing this very issue. They told me that they had been extremely excited to have their new camera and was spending tremendous amounts of time, going through tutorials in here and snapping shots galore as we all do in trying to learn to be better photographers. However, they were extremely discouraged by the harsh push towards this "look" and they asked me to help them "learn the look". I had to laugh at the irony because I was trying to do the same thing. It was then, that I realized that I don't really even like a lot of the stock shot appearances and often find beauty in other shots that are shuffled to the bottom of the stack, score wise. I often find great value in the humorous shots and sit in awe of the true street photography shots. But, as you've said, the SP shots, unless tailored to "the look", just cannot cut it in here. The higher ranking SP shots tend to look more like posed for shots with a theme. There is very little general acceptance of anything outside of that box. While some appreciate it, they may vote according to what they THINK they should vote because anyone who has been here for even a short period of time and is assessing what wins and what doesnt, is going to look for the qualities that win in here, not only in their own work but, in other's work as well in voting and scoring.

I also agree that the way people arrive at their given scores and their comments is a problem for me as well. Very often a photo will have very deep meaning, not only to the photographer, but also to the viewer. The comments will reflect that depth and the appreciation and yet, the scores say something totally different. How does one figure out what is good and what isn't when there are two opposing measurements by which to judge?