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

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

01/29/2009 09:49:24 PM · #154

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

The problem with this statement is that you are asuming the stigma you feel that is associated with a 1,2 & 3 is felt by all voters. It's as though a sub-four vote is a fatal blow to one's ego. You can't assume that everybody feel the same way. For some a "3" is just a score that is two places less than a 5 and thats all. What you don't know is that they may use only the bottom half of the scale and a 3 is actually average. I for one use the whole scale and mostly the middle of it but I can't impose that others do the same. You have every right to assign meanings to the scores you give but you can't assign the same meaning to the score you receive.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

And, I don't remember 4 becoming the "new 1".

That's because it wasn't mandatory and you could ignore it. If it was ever was made mandatory I'd bet a month's pay that 1,2 & 3s would decrease dramatically and 4 would become the new low point.

Message edited by author 2009-01-29 21:50:32.

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

01/29/2009 10:37:59 PM · #155

Firstly to

PhotoInterest, well said. You took some time to think, analyze, and communicate a point of view. I hope others can be as thoughtful.

When I started photography, I thought it was about "taking" pictures. Seeing things and stealing images of them. If you were lucky, the image you stole was a good picture. The more images you stole the luckier you got.

Since then I have come to understand that photography is also about "making" pictures. Choosing a subject, a point of view, and a series of post processing steps that make a good picture. The harder you work at it, the luckier you get.

If someone is at the latter end of the spectrum, they may be reacting to something they would have chosen to do if they were taking a photo. Try a radical point of view, smooth that wrinkle, blur that background, clone that bright spec inthe shadow. Seeing a photo with fixabke imperfections that have gone unfixed may bother the photo makers.

I have certainly received my share of stupid picky uncaring and unhelpful comments. And I am guilty of giving comments that are not as helpful as they should be - I'm working on that.

But for now, when I get a comment that annoys me, I try to consider the photographer who left it, their maturity, their place on the take/make spectrum, and cut them a little slack. Sometimes their comments reflect more on their stage of development than on my photo.

I know there's further to go on the spectrum. I'm trying to take photos about what something means, about how someone feels, to choose subjects and presentations that communicate on multiple levels. BTW, I'm not very good at this.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/29/2009 10:38:38 PM · #156

I recently adjusted my scoring down, and saw a similarity with

ubique's. If it's inconsequential to me, it gets a 3. I have more shades, though. If it actually offends me esthetically (completely imitative, for example), I'll dock it further down to 1 or 2. If it tugs on my sympathies at all, I'll let it have a 4. If I actually *like* a picture, it gets a 7 and then I'll bump those up as needed while I search for my ribbons. None of this has to do with "sharpness" or "detail" or "tonality" or what DPC calls "technicals." The best technicals work without you noticing them.

Which brings me to my next point. I have no problem with complete novices giving a score to my photographs. What bothers me is that they're basing that score on what they think the photograph should be instead of just honestly looking at the photo and gauging how they feel about it. Sadly, most of us don't even know how to do that. We lost that ability when we "grew up." I'm staying in Never-Never Land.

01/29/2009 10:42:37 PM · #157

Originally posted by posthumous:

What bothers me is that they're basing that score on what they think the photograph should be instead of just honestly looking at the photo and gauging how they feel about it.

Yeah......that......

01/29/2009 11:19:15 PM · #158

BeeCee...I'll sum this up quickly. How do I know that someone hasn't really thought about a shot in voting a 1? I know because when I look at the shot, if it fits the challenge, was pretty decently photographed, has a decent element of composition to it, it's in focus, isn't offensive in any way, then the person doing the 1 and 2 voting, hasn't really looked at that shot to fully appreciate it. Not many shots in this site deserve a 1, unless they are horribly offensive, a black box or a total DNMC, in my mind.

Voting according to... "I love it" or, "I hate it" isn't "wrong". I never said that it was but it leaves only the degree to which one "hates" or "loves it" down to a set of degrees of hate and love between 1 and 9. I would hope that a professor for instance, grading a photography student's piece wouldn't grade their work solely according to "I hate it" *ie: it's not my tastes at all YUK..."F" or, an "I LOVE this piece...it's my tastes!....A+"

I would HOPE that there are criteria other than personal tastes in the mix. The same holds true for photographs in here. If all that we're doing is voting a score solely based on our own personal love and hate criteria and assigning that level of love and hate between 1 and 10, then there is no basis for what is good and what isn't and why, is there...aside from personal tastes.

If that is the case, then I'd have to go back and re-score every single bee and flower shot I've ever scored or ever will score. I personally dislike them as they've been done to death. That goes for the famous "splash" shots and objects dropped into water. I, personally am fed up with them (yes, in spite of the fact that I tried one and scored decently with it! LOL). That means that I'd have to go back and score them all 1's! I didn't score them according to my tastes. As a matter of fact, a lot of them got upper range marks and some 10's because even though they weren't my personal tastes or likes, what I saw in them were phenominal shots! Ones that were very well done. My personal tastes and dislikes had to be pushed aside in fairness to the beauty, or skill or composition in those shots.

As for the 9 and 10 votes on my photos....LOL....I sit there in amazement and awe and feel very LUCKY to have that 9 and 10. I then, do a little "happy dance" around my desk chair and go back to reality when I click the update button to see another 1 vote! ;-)

DJWoodward

That pop-up box wasn't mandatory commenting and I never said that it should be. I recognize the problems that would create as you've stated. I said that I thought the box was helpful in this particular aspect of the hurried and consistent low voters because it made ME stop and think before I voted that low and re-look and re-evaluate someone's work.

Karmat

From what you have said in your scoring analysis below...we really aren't saying much differently from one another. Where is the problem?

Message edited by author 2009-01-29 23:27:44.

01/29/2009 11:20:42 PM · #159

Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

Firstly to PhotoInterest, well said. You took some time to think, analyze, and communicate a point of view. I hope others can be as thoughtful.

When I started photography, I thought it was about "taking" pictures. Seeing things and stealing images of them. If you were lucky, the image you stole was a good picture. The more images you stole the luckier you got.

Since then I have come to understand that photography is also about "making" pictures. Choosing a subject, a point of view, and a series of post processing steps that make a good picture. The harder you work at it, the luckier you get.

If someone is at the latter end of the spectrum, they may be reacting to something they would have chosen to do if they were taking a photo. Try a radical point of view, smooth that wrinkle, blur that background, clone that bright spec inthe shadow. Seeing a photo with fixabke imperfections that have gone unfixed may bother the photo makers.

I have certainly received my share of stupid picky uncaring and unhelpful comments. And I am guilty of giving comments that are not as helpful as they should be - I'm working on that.

But for now, when I get a comment that annoys me, I try to consider the photographer who left it, their maturity, their place on the take/make spectrum, and cut them a little slack. Sometimes their comments reflect more on their stage of development than on my photo.

I know there's further to go on the spectrum. I'm trying to take photos about what something means, about how someone feels, to choose subjects and presentations that communicate on multiple levels. BTW, I'm not very good at this.

I certainly appreciate your post! Thank you. It's sincerely helpful.

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/29/2009 11:37:50 PM · #160

Originally posted by posthumous:

I recently adjusted my scoring down, and saw a similarity with ubique's. If it's inconsequential to me, it gets a 3. I have more shades, though. If it actually offends me esthetically (completely imitative, for example), I'll dock it further down to 1 or 2. If it tugs on my sympathies at all, I'll let it have a 4. If I actually *like* a picture, it gets a 7 and then I'll bump those up as needed while I search for my ribbons. None of this has to do with "sharpness" or "detail" or "tonality" or what DPC calls "technicals." The best technicals work without you noticing them.

Which brings me to my next point. I have no problem with complete novices giving a score to my photographs. What bothers me is that they're basing that score on what they think the photograph should be instead of just honestly looking at the photo and gauging how they feel about it. Sadly, most of us don't even know how to do that. We lost that ability when we "grew up." I'm staying in Never-Never Land.

Don, I agree with what you are saying. I also take into consideration that the best technically shot photo may have nothing at all to offer one's eye or emotion. I talked about that in another post in this thread where I was talking about the idea that I also take into consideration what "emotes" something from me. If there is a technically brilliant photo of a rolled up piece of paper with lighting perfect and another photo of an elderly hand, or face that emotes emotion from me even if less technically perfect than the rolled up studio shot of paper, the one that emotes something from me is going to get the higher score between the two. However, were the photo of the elderly hand or portrait to be severely out of focus or the technicals horrible, I'd have to also take that into account in my scoring, even though it emoted something from me.

I MAY like a snapshot photo that looks like someone snapped a shot of someone's birthday party better than a brilliantly photographed wine glass with an ice cube dropped into it *sigh* but, if that birthday party shot is really poor quality, I can't justify putting it above the dreaded ice cube, wine glass shot.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

01/29/2009 11:43:41 PM · #161

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Lock the thread? Joking or, serious? If serious, why?

OK, your amazing persistence should have some reward. I have just taken a look at your last four challenge entries. I voted on every one, and gave every one a score of 3. Normally I don't explain my low scores of course, just as a small mercy to the photographer, but as you are insisting I'll oblige.

If you agree, I'll post the four of them here and attach to each my reasons for scoring them as 3s. Just one proviso; after I have given my reasons, you don't post another word to this thread. No contesting of my reasons, no rationalizing or appealing for other opinions (you already had those, in all the other scores). My explanation of my score is final. As all you wanted was an explanation, I assume that will be agreeable?

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/29/2009 11:49:55 PM · #162

I can understand the perspective of people like Ubique, who are voting based on a photos real world appeal for them, and especially that they are looking for something that speaks to them. It helps to understand some of those lowball votes.

As for myself, I do similar to Photointerest. If it is a good shot, but not to my tastes, the personal preference may still have some influence, but I will not lowball it. A well done floral shot will still get a good vote from me. Perhaps not as high as from the person who loves florals, though. I think the comparison to a professor grading assignments was a good comparison.

I do not believe a photo must speak something profound to me in order to be good. It's also good to just admire an awesomely done scene, without needing to derive some deeper meaning or intent from it. Sometimes all it needs to be is a pretty picture.

Message edited by author 2009-01-29 23:51:58.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/29/2009 11:54:08 PM · #163

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Lock the thread? Joking or, serious? If serious, why?

OK, your amazing persistence should have some reward. I have just taken a look at your last four challenge entries. I voted on every one, and gave every one a score of 3. Normally I don't explain my low scores of course, just as a small mercy to the photographer, but as you are insisting I'll oblige.

If you agree, I'll post the four of them here and attach to each my reasons for scoring them as 3s. Just one proviso; after I have given my reasons, you don't post another word to this thread. No contesting of my reasons, no rationalizing or appealing for other opinions (you already had those, in all the other scores). My explanation of my score is final. As all you wanted was an explanation, I assume that will be agreeable?

I humbly thank you for your offer,

Ubique. It's a very generous one, given your position and status in DPC. I very much appreciate the time that you'd have to take to post my 4 photos and then, have to publicly give me YOUR reasoning behind your comments and 3 scores to my photos in exchange for my not posting another word. It's a really hard and tough decision for me to have to make here....

BUT...

YOUR sole reasons for having given my photos a 3 are not of that much interest to me at this moment. So, I shall have to decline your wonderful offer. ;-)

ETA: My sides still hurt from laughing. Thankfully, I wasn't drinking anything this time!!! ;-)

Message edited by author 2009-01-29 23:56:31.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/30/2009 12:23:30 AM · #164

Just an anecdote that I think is appropriate here.

I had a PM exchange a while back with two different members (no names, but I expect their ears to ring) about one of my low scoring shots. One of them said they low voted it with a 2, because it met the challenge, but had no "artistic intent". "Ok, fair enough", I thought. It was intended to be humorous, not artistic, and that is their personal criteria. The second member said I was expressing my sense of humor though my photography. Hmmmm,... self expression strikes me as artistic in nature. Two different views on the same thing.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/30/2009 12:36:17 AM · #165

Personally I don't much care what anyone's "intent" was in making the image. I vote on what I receive, not on what I think someone was trying to transmit. Makes life a lot simpler :-)

R.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 00:36:46.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/30/2009 02:19:01 AM · #166

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

So, I shall have to decline your wonderful offer.

Yes, I thought you might.
And thus is the OP revealed: â��It is a tale â�¦ full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.â��

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 08:14:09.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

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

01/30/2009 03:55:26 AM · #167

Just tuned into the latter part of this thread and noticed

posthumous's remarks (without registering that they were his) and found myself nodding in agreement or perhaps more in appreciation for his articulation of what belongs where and why on his scale of 1 to 10. I only wish I could apply his standards more often to my own work. And I sigh in sorrow at

Photointerest's self imposed obligation to rate polish above preference.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/30/2009 09:20:55 AM · #168

Originally posted by tnun:

And I sigh in sorrow at Photointerest's self imposed obligation to rate polish above preference.

I don't feel that that is what she was suggesting at all. In fact, she has encouraged me to do what I like doing with y photos and to not seek the high votes for slick eye candy. I do have to say this whole thread has been quite an eye opener and has answered a few of my own questions about where some of those votes that are extremely low or high come from. Some people are rating on artistic value, some are rating on messages conveyed, others are rating simply on how much it appeals to them at that point in time.

My only beef is I would love to get that feedback along with the low vote. If you low vote my entry with a 2 because you feel it has no deeper meaning or social value, then tell me so.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 09:22:30.

01/30/2009 09:27:08 AM · #169

Originally posted by yospiff:

My only beef is I would love to get that feedback along with the low vote. If you low vote my entry with a 2 because you feel it has no deeper meaning or social value, then tell me so.

That's kind of what I'd like to see, too......the problem is that some people would get so upset at getting a 2, they wouldn't care what the basis was, or worse, would argue that it's not jusifiable.

I had a problem for a long time with a pretty well-regarded member of the community.....he has a 3-something voting average which to me *was* appalling.

Now that I have a better understanding in general of various methods of image rating, the most important point is his consistency.

He's more accurate and careful than I, because for starters, I'm much more visceral and subjective in my views. He's much more consistently analytical.

I think it's probably fair to say that this thread has actually opened some doors to understanding for many of us, yes?

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 09:28:02.

scalvert

01/30/2009 10:00:41 AM · #170

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I had a problem for a long time with a pretty well-regarded member of the community.....he has a 3-something voting average which to me *was* appalling.

Now that I have a better understanding in general of various methods of image rating, the most important point is his consistency.

Consistency only matters if you vote on all the entries. If your average voting criteria is especially harsh (or generous) and you only vote on 20-50% of the entries, then any personal consistency becomes irrelevant as other entries gain or diminish in comparison merely by your absence.

01/30/2009 10:06:18 AM · #171

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Isn't that the purpose of the randomizer that puts up entries for voting?

To ensure that the selection of diverse voting styles averages out?

scalvert

01/30/2009 10:15:46 AM · #172

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I had a problem for a long time with a pretty well-regarded member of the community.....he has a 3-something voting average which to me *was* appalling.

Now that I have a better understanding in general of various methods of image rating, the most important point is his consistency.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Consistency only matters if you vote on all the entries. If your average voting criteria is especially harsh (or generous) and you only vote on 20-50% of the entries, then any personal consistency becomes irrelevant as other entries gain or diminish in comparison merely by your absence.

Isn't that the purpose of the randomizer that puts up entries for voting?

To ensure that the selection of diverse voting styles averages out?

No, that only balances "typical" voters who don't get to every entry. Randomization doesn't average out wildly aberrant voters. If one person can't vote a single Free Study entry above 5 and only hits half of them, there are generally no "opposites" to provide that balance.

01/30/2009 10:32:09 AM · #173

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Isn't that the purpose of the randomizer that puts up entries for voting?

To ensure that the selection of diverse voting styles averages out?

Originally posted by scalvert:

This seems kind of like it's going down a weird path.....but I'm weird, so....

Do you think that the ratio of wildly aberrant voters on the low scale is any different than the high?

Look at the average of the votes I gave on Best of......8>)

I'd bet that there may even be more of the skewed higher voters than you might think......though you may very well know for sure which way it goes......8>)

Edited for phast phat phingers....

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 10:33:02.

scalvert