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

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

01/30/2009 02:11:57 PM · #203

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Personally, if an image seriously disturbs me, I'm more likely to throw a ten at it for having that profound effect.

Likewise here. If I find it disturbing, that was probably the intended effect the photographer was trying to convey and effectively conveying that means they succeeded and deserve a higher vote for it. It's certainly a judgement call on that, however. Your mileage may vary. Please don't drink and derive.

citymars

Nikon D700

01/30/2009 02:15:39 PM · #204

Originally posted by yospiff:

... I think the comparison to a professor grading assignments was a good comparison. ...

I do, too.

I mentioned this once before, but here's another example of the vagaries of online voting: The movie The Godfather ranked third in the American Film Institute's list of top 100 films of all time (it is first among gangster films). It received 10 Academy Award nominations and won 3 of them, including best picture of 1972. The film won five Golden Globes. It has been selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry. It is widely regarded as an American classic and a landmark achievement in cinematography (see "Visions of Light").

IMDB (The Internet Movie Database) uses the same 1-10 rating scale as DPC. The Godfather is number two in their top user-rated films of all time. However, out of 337,889 (as of today) registered users who voted on the movie, 22,624 gave The Godfather a '1'. That's 6.7% who either relied solely on their gut reaction (for example, "I hate gangster films") or felt it was more important to counterract the high votes than to acknowledge any of the movie's strengths.

J-Me

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

01/30/2009 02:19:30 PM · #205

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?

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. Now, that doesn't mean that the better quality photo is going to be at a 10 and the one that appeals to me but, is less well done, is going to score a 3! It means that I may give the higher quality shot an 8 and the more appealing shot a 7.

But, let's not forget the overall message that we have all learned in DPC, consciously or subconsciously. The technicals are truly what gets the higher votes. Not that I agree with this and thus, part of my opening "rant"/"vent". I'm actually against "technicals only voting". I have had some shots that people have given me some really great comments on, telling me that they really liked it, loved it, it made them smile, it made them laugh, they loved the creativity, beautiful set up, etc.. yet, the score was at a 4.xx or lower. So, IF as a lot have suggested in this thread, people are only voting according to what they "like", technicals more or less aside, these types of shots should have scored higher than they did. Likely, the truth was, the technicals in mine were lacking and therefore, likely that more voters than not, were scoring my shots according to technicals, rather than the "like factor".

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! I've seen his posthumous ribboners and been the recipient of one myself (for which I am grateful as it is one of my all time fave shots of my own work). He also encouraged me to keep on striving for photos like that one. I did and I was knocked down in scores. So, when I tried a typical DPC fave (the water drop/glass shot), my score soared again by comparison.

All of that was to say that I totally agree that one should vote more according to what one likes as opposed to the technicals only. I do vote that way myself. However, I also have to take into consideration that I have to temper my votes as well at times. Again, to the idea that the rolled up piece of paper, studio style shot, almost perfect technically, is going to score lower than a less technically perfect but, artistic and emotive shot in my scoring system. Equally, though....if that emotive shot is blurred horribly or terribly over exposed or whatever, I also have to take that into consideration and weigh it out. Therefore, in this case, the more emotive shot, may score a 7 while the studio shot may score an 8. It's all on a case by case basis. Is that unfair?

J-Me

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

01/30/2009 02:26:24 PM · #206

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Aren't you supposed to be calming the waters rather than stirring.......the pot?....8>)

Few things cause as much stress and complaints here as troll voting, so addressing that issue could be considered calming the waters.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'd consider the possibility that this voter is ranking images on an absolute scale, where high votes are reserved for work the quality of the best of, say, Cartier-Bresson's or Edward Weston's or (name your own demigod of photography here) work, that this is a voter who thinks "commercial quality" photography has little or no redeeming value; a voter, in short, who operates from a highly-developed, very personal aesthetic platform and is consistent about it to boot.

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.

I have to totally agree with you on this one, Shannon.

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

01/30/2009 02:35:43 PM · #207

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.than not, were scoring my shots according to technicals, rather than the "like factor".

Rings true. I have two photos in voting right now. One is the technically good "wow" shot and it is doing a nice chunk over a 6. It has no real message or deep meaning, but it's nice to look at. The other entry I was not happy with and knew it had some serious technical flaws. I like the idea I was trying to capture and the look I *tried* to achieve, but the pic really is lacking and is getting the low 4 that I would have given it.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/30/2009 02:44:30 PM · #208

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

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)

In practical terms, what it means is that I'm a lot less likely to give out a 9 or a 10 in a "Money" challenge than I am in a "Landscape" or "Street Photography" or, especially, a "Free Study" challenge. I still give the highest scores in that challenge to the pictures I think are best.

R.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

01/30/2009 02:51:03 PM · #209

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.

Message edited by author 2009-01-30 14:51:34.

J-Me

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

01/30/2009 02:55:45 PM · #210

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.

freakin_hilarious

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/30/2009 02:56:58 PM · #211

Originally posted by Melethia:

.... And who knows - I may even leave a comment or two...

Thanks for the comment, Deb. :)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

01/30/2009 02:59:36 PM · #212

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?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

01/30/2009 02:59:54 PM · #213

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

tnun

Ricoh GR III

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

01/30/2009 03:12:43 PM · #214

Photointerest, I have no quarrel with your voting strategy, and should have said that your attempts to be fair are more laudable than mine. I have almost given up voting (but not commenting) because I felt very uneasy about giving higher scores to pictures that were more polished than they were meaningful (to me). Posthumous's criteria articulated desiderata that resonated, and refocused (for me) how I really see and feel, and it really did seem to come down to the difference between emotional gestalt and technical seduction. This is probably a facile distinction, and one posthumous does not make; his point that in a good picture you are not aware of the "technicals," should be a caveat to people like me who place too high a value on mere argument.

eamurdock

Pentax KP

Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited AF

01/30/2009 03:20:10 PM · #215

Everything's fine with me in terms of justifying ones own voting system, until you start telling other people how they should vote. That's what I'm seeing here.

Everybody looks at a picture, and picks a number 1-10. It may not be perfect, but it's fair. While I might criticize people's voting decisions (voting 1 on nudes) I think it's silly to suggest that they should somehow be prevented from allocating their votes however they see fit. That's why it's called a vote.

01/30/2009 03:24:05 PM · #216

Originally posted by eamurdock:

Annnddd... Thread Over. ;D

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/30/2009 03:32:07 PM · #217

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Annnddd... Thread Over. ;D

You really think so, eh?

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

01/30/2009 03:32:31 PM · #218

(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.

01/30/2009 03:32:53 PM · #219

Originally posted by yospiff:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Annnddd... Thread Over. ;D

You really think so, eh?

No, no I don't, hence the sarcastic winky wide mouth smile.

01/30/2009 03:35:47 PM · #220

Originally posted by ubique:

You keep on keeping on my friend.

Your Macbeth quote was dead on, IMO, and DPC is full of it. We find our own place within it, it is the best that we can ask for.

01/30/2009 03:36:51 PM · #221

Well, at least one of the low votes on my tree entry is now explained!