| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2004 12:20:01 AM · #1 |
The way I normally vote, in most cases...
If the Picture meets the challenge, it automatically starts at 4. Unless its a black or white screen, it starts at 4. If the photo doesnt meet the challenge, I start from one and that has a heavy part in my voting. I look for sharpness, awesome colors, good use of composition, etc. Also, I try and comment on photos that I mark below a 5.
I ask, because I wanna know what goes through peoples minds when you are voting 4's on a photo that meets the challenge, and is very sound in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, etc.
Message edited by author 2004-06-09 00:21:12.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 08:15:35 AM · #2 |
Why starting at a 4 when it's a 1-10 scale? If a photo meets the challenge, it automatically starts at 5 for me. It drops down to a 4 only if there's a pretty solid technical error. (overexposed, bad cropping etc). I'm also pretty broad minded in "meets the challenge". If I can't see that it meets the challenge initially, I skip it and go back later. It's pretty rare that I can't get a photo to meet the challenge.
One is reserved for images that do not meet the challenge, are flat, washed out, over/underexposed, and have nothing solid compositionally to draw my attention. I give out maybe 1 or 2 ones every challenge. Very, very few images "do not meet the challenge". Usually the photographer just has trouble communicating their vision across.
Clara
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 08:46:30 AM · #3 |
I do the same... I start at 5 if it meets and 1 if it doesn't... The rest is left to technical aspects.
I do have some pet hates. One is over processing and the other is sloping horizons. I think there is no excuses for over sharpening, unrealistic colours and sloping horizons. Some shots would rate a 10 if they had just left them alone after a slight sharpen and some curve adjustments. Whether they meet the challenge or not I give them a 1.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 09:00:42 AM · #4 |
Wish I knew how to use the Curve adjustments
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 09:06:08 AM · #5 |
I rate each photo from 1 to 5 on how well it meets the challenge then rate it from 1 to 5 on overall quality. But I think I actually agree with JML that it might be better to rate from 1 to 4 for challenge and 1 to 6 for quality. I've found myself rating some photos higher than ones that I liked much better when scoring challenges that way. Since it's pretty easy to make almost any photo fit the challenge, I think it's probably better to give more weight to the quality of the photo. I plan to start that weighted rating with the next challenge.
My overall scoring is a fairly steep bell curve. I very rarely give a 1 or a 10, but I do give lots of 8s and 9s. I think there's something good to find in almost all pictures, especially on this site, but it's really hard to take a perfect photo. I don't think I've ever taken a '10' but that's not going to stop me from trying. :-)
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 09:36:31 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
Wish I knew how to use the Curve adjustments |
have a look at this it was posted here last week it has helped me understand... just need the practice now
//www.gurusnetwork.com/tutorial/curves/
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 09:52:18 AM · #7 |
I vote the same as blemt. It it meets the challenge I automatically give it a 5 because I think that is half the battle unless there are some focus/technical issues then I would vote less. Even then I comment as to why I voted less. I try to make up the remainder of the score on the picture itself.
We all see things differently and I try to keep the whole thing in perspective. I try to be as fair as possible and found that I am more objective if I vote as soon as voting starts. I noticed that as my scores dropped I had a tendancy to vote others lower and that just isn't right. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 01:03:21 PM · #8 |
a question related to this subject, since im new here,
What is a reasonable rating to get?
I'm now comparing my current score to the outcome of the last open challenge, to make an estimate of my rating
But is this method worth trusting?
Im curious. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 01:29:23 PM · #9 |
And how does originality fit into your voting? We all get tired of the fire and ice opposite, of the lots of candles multiple light sources. Since I tend to think of what turn out to be obvious solution I know that many people will vote a few points off if the solution is a common solution, even though it fits the challenge and is technically decent.
As for my voting I start with a five, that is I assume it will be an average shot before I look at it. Then it can climb or drop a point or two on meeting the challenge (if so how well, and how originally) The focus, composition and colors ect are another point or two one way or the other. Then the wow factor is worth a point or so.
Five is ment to be the average vote on any challenge. On member challenges that means that scores might be lower on a given shot than they would be in an open challenge. The notion some folk have that their 3.24 average vote is justified by their superior taste and refined judgment tends to make me annoyed. The standards to hang in a museum are different from what it takes to hang in a gallerey, and those in turn are not the same as photojournalism standards. I know that few shots posted here are worthy of the MOMA, judge them based on their environment.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 01:55:33 PM · #10 |
Lifted from similar past threads:
This is how I try (very hard) to vote:
1 > a technically (focus, exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to the size of an image), an 'offensive' one to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'
2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no perceptible artistic (choice of subject, composition, perspective, manner, emotional energy and range, etc.) merit or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or a gross and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling in the context of the challenge; the pursuit of cliché without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, persiflage etc.)
3 > a photo of mixed or questionable merit, both artistically and technically; a technically 'acceptable' one without marked artistic or journalistic interest; a sentimental or highly 'commercialized' image designed to 'sell' a product or (worse!) person of reasonable or considerable technical merit; a potentially 'interesting' or 'promising' photo (subject matter/perspective) with 'severe' technical flaws and/or without 'clear' intent or direction
4 > a 'pretty' photo reminiscent of many; an otherwise captivating image with one or more clearly distracting elements, either within the capture itself or via border and/or title; a technically accomplished photo relying predominantly on an idea and/or title for impact; an artistically 'promising' capture with clearly noticeable technical defects; a technically 'stunning' capture bare of 'feeling' or aesthetic 'sense'
5 > a 'good' photo by most standards; one that communicates capably without teaching or exhilarating us; an artistically interesting photo pointing an unusual view, perspective or matter, even if it suffers from distinct technical 'flaws'; a technically 'stunning' capture with limiting human or artistic 'range'
6 > a remarkable image, well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image imitative within a 'classic' fashion, but well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait etc.)
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'inventive' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight
9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other.
On (Challenge) Topicality
Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a baseball bat.
I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.
I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs severely penalized here for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 02:13:24 PM · #11 |
i'm generally taking up the cause agaisnt macro shots...filthy spawn of diseased bastard lenses. Instant 2s or 3s for me >:[
Message edited by author 2004-06-09 14:13:45.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 02:34:06 PM · #12 |
I tend to rate in waves. My goal is to make sure that simlar quality photos are in simlar groups. In my first wave I sort quickly into three classes: 4's are snapshot quality, 5's are well composed snapshots through average quality submission, and 6's are the shots which exhibit some form of above average merit. This usually takes the form a shot that grabs my eye. If I see something amazing I'll shoot it to a 7 on my first round, or really awful goes to a 3.
Second wave I compare the entries in each category to get a feel for the best and worst in each. I usually raise or lower my rating on some of those which stand out (good or bad) to me. As time allows I then go back through and add comments from the most extreme good/bad inwards. I don't comment on many 4/5 just because there are so many unless I see somethign specific I can quickly explain. I always try to comment on +7 or -4. I strive to comment on anythign below 5, but I often don't have time as I really like to comment on both good and bad.
Looking at the posts in this thread, I was surprised to see people write that an entry which meets the challenge starts at a 5. I don't think that's how most people vote judging by my scores. That's not meant as a gripe - my low scoring shots definitely had flaws! But in the scheme of things I rarely take a strict view on meeting the guidelines. I'd rather view an amazing picture than squabble over whether or not it is geometrically centered.
I do tend to rate cliche shots more harshly than unique ones. To get away with a basketball hoop, fire and ice, or macro you need to make a great image to get a high rating, otherwise you're not stretching your creative wings - which is the point of this site. Interestingly, in each challenge there is always at least one person who does a cliche shot which I find to be exceptional, and I usually leave a "thank you!" type comment when I see it. Cliches used well are fine - but cliches done poorly are simply too painful after 200+ ratings. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 02:44:22 PM · #13 |
I always vote by clicking on the little numbers above the photo. It usually involves a minimal amount of vertical mouse movement. I also vote with the browser in full screen mode (F11 for IE), so I can see the whole image without scrolling.
edit: Oh yeah, and I prefer a Louisville Slugger. Classic wood - it gives a more satisfying "thunk" than those aluminum ones.
Message edited by author 2004-06-09 14:47:39. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 03:15:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
I always vote by clicking on the little numbers above the photo. It usually involves a minimal amount of vertical mouse movement. I also vote with the browser in full screen mode (F11 for IE), so I can see the whole image without scrolling.
edit: Oh yeah, and I prefer a Louisville Slugger. Classic wood - it gives a more satisfying "thunk" than those aluminum ones. |
ROFLMAO !!!
Outstanding. hehehe... I now feel enlightened as to the intricacies of profound voting. :-)
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 03:15:37 PM · #15 |
I guess I'm backwards compared to everyone else. I already briefly mentioned this elsewhere in the DPC forums but I'll re-babble again just because I like to. :)
I start off with the full 10 points and deduct from there. Here are some sample questions I ask myself when voting: Does it meet the challenge? Is the main subject in focus? How does the color look and is it balanced? Are there any distracting objects in the way? Is contrast good? Any annoying compression artifacts and/or noise? Is it well cropped? There are many others but I don't want to take up too much space. More often than not, there will be some specifics that will make me deduct a point or two. In that case, the photo must be very original and creative to earn back any points that I've deducted. Maybe I'm too picky I don't know but I only issue 1 or 2 tens per challenge that I vote in.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 03:33:43 PM · #16 |
I'm pretty new to the site and have only voted in a few challenges but this is what I've been doing.
I open an image starting with a rating of 5. If I can't figure out how it relates to the challenge theme (and I can't believe how many don't!) I don't rate it higher than a four, even if I would otherwise like it. If it's snapshot quality, looks like it was taken with a very poor quality camera, or has obvious technical flaws, it will also fall below a five. If the image is on topic, but doesn't hold my interest in any way, I leave it at five -- average. Good shots get a six. Very good shots get a seven. Greats get an eight or nine. I haven't given any tens yet... I want to leave room for something that just blows me away I guess. :)
After I've gone through all the photos, I go back and make sure that the images falling in groups towards the extremes deserve to be next to each other. A few get moved up or down, but I find my first impressions are usually pretty accurate.
The end result is pretty bell-curved, with most falling between four and six and tapering to the end points.
Message edited by author 2004-06-09 15:36:14. |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 03:53:43 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by turquoise919:
I'm pretty new to the site and have only voted in a few challenges but this is what I've been doing.
I open an image starting with a rating of 5. If I can't figure out how it relates to the challenge theme (and I can't believe how many don't!) I don't rate it higher than a four, even if I would otherwise like it. If it's snapshot quality, looks like it was taken with a very poor quality camera, or has obvious technical flaws, it will also fall below a five. If the image is on topic, but doesn't hold my interest in any way, I leave it at five -- average. Good shots get a six. Very good shots get a seven. Greats get an eight or nine. I haven't given any tens yet... I want to leave room for something that just blows me away I guess. :)
After I've gone through all the photos, I go back and make sure that the images falling in groups towards the extremes deserve to be next to each other. A few get moved up or down, but I find my first impressions are usually pretty accurate.
The end result is pretty bell-curved, with most falling between four and six and tapering to the end points. |
You cant blame folks for having poor quality cameras.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2004 03:59:56 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
You cant blame folks for having poor quality cameras. |
I don't see why not if it contributes to a poor quality image. I'm talking mainly about images that look like they are from cell phones or web cams. I just don't think those are competitive in photography contests, nor should they expect to be.
*shrug* |
|
|
|
06/09/2004 11:47:31 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
i'm generally taking up the cause agaisnt macro shots...filthy spawn of diseased bastard lenses. Instant 2s or 3s for me >:[ |
Umm... are you serious? I guess you're not looking forward to the next Macro challenge then. :-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:50:40 PM EDT.
