"Ignorant" voters - DPChallenge Forums

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

06/10/2004 11:40:10 AM · #52

Guys, guys, guys...!
I've rated 163 of the waiting pictures so far, and am ASTOUNDED by how many just don't fit the challenge.
I usually mark in the region of 0-3 photos per challenge lower than a three.
This challenge, I've marked 66 so far with a score of 1 or 2.
I've NEVER marked like this in any challenge so far.

The way you're all thinking is like this...
Everything in the universe has to change at some point or another... nothing stays static. Therefore, ANYTHING can be said to be 'waiting' for itself to change in some way, as is inevitable in this world.
This is not creative thinking, this is cheating!
The challenge says to 'convey the feeling of waiting for something'.
To creatively meet the challenge, you have to create this FEELING, not the concept!
I think that waiting is what happens when you take yourself out of the present moment which is endless and project your thoughts into the future, because you don't want to experience the present.
So when someone says that a flower 'waits' to bloom, I totally disagree.
A flower that has not bloomed is experiencing the present moment where everything unfolds and takes place in it's own time. This is as spiritual as it gets. In spirituality, there is no waiting, everything is already perfect! For a flower to wait, says that the flower is unhappy about something in that moment and wants the future to arrive more quickly.
Just my thoughts...

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

06/10/2004 11:57:54 AM · #53

The shot I entered was one I got because I spent the better part of two hours waiting for a particular action to take place in the natural world. I was going to shoot a particular train platform for the "waiting" challenge. When I reviewed my shot the train waiters looked very dynamic and the natural world shot showed the long stillness between actions.
I realized that I had gotten a better shot unintentionally than the one I hunted. Boy was I happy. Then the judging began. Boy was I wrong. It seems creatures are not capable of waiting. Only people can wait. For that matter only love struck teenagers looking out windows can wait properly. Next time I will know. It seems I am technically competent but have no ability to point my camera at a proper subject.

06/10/2004 12:01:01 PM · #54

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

The way you're all thinking is like this...
Everything in the universe has to change at some point or another... nothing stays static. Therefore, ANYTHING can be said to be 'waiting' for itself to change in some way, as is inevitable in this world.
This is not creative thinking, this is cheating!
The challenge says to 'convey the feeling of waiting for something'.
To creatively meet the challenge, you have to create this FEELING, not the concept!
I think that waiting is what happens when you take yourself out of the present moment which is endless and project your thoughts into the future, because you don't want to experience the present.
So when someone says that a flower 'waits' to bloom, I totally disagree.
A flower that has not bloomed is experiencing the present moment where everything unfolds and takes place in it's own time. This is as spiritual as it gets. In spirituality, there is no waiting, everything is already perfect! For a flower to wait, says that the flower is unhappy about something in that moment and wants the future to arrive more quickly.
Just my thoughts...

I totally agree with this....I found many photos that tried to make the title fit the challenge. This bugs the heck out of me. This goes for the spider shots and most of the bird shots (I found some exceptions that truly conveyed a bird or birds waiting for something). What else does a spider do most of the time but sit in her web? If a bird isn't flying it is sitting still or wading around in the water, or something, looking for food. The majority of an animal's life is spent in looking for food. The smaller the animal, the more time is spent hunting. I don't think showing an animal doing what it is almost always doing is a fair way to convey the idea of waiting.

I say, try harder. Of course, my photo might very well be in the doesn't fit the challenge category but I will accept any comments like that (so far, I haven't gotten any--but then I've only gotten three). I did not put 'wait' or 'waiting' in the title, however...I truly want the photo to speak for itself. My husband and I thought it conveyed a feeling of waiting so I submitted it.

Edited for typos...eek!

Message edited by author 2004-06-10 12:04:13.

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

06/10/2004 12:09:24 PM · #55

I also don't find that a picture of an obviously happy child at play (unless he/she is dressing-up or otherwise play-*acting the role of a grown-up) conveys the idea of waiting just because someone gives it the title, "Waiting to Grow Up". Sometimes a child does wish he was older but "Waiting to Grow-up" is a an adult concept thrust on the child who most of the time is waiting for much simpler things in life; an older friend to come home from school, their birthday, a favorite show, Christmas, etc.

This isn't to say there weren't photos of children that conveyed the idea of waiting. I just don't think you can show any shot of a child and call it "Waiting to Grow Up" and expect it to meet the challenge. That is in the same realm as the blossoms, IMHO.

dadas115

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

06/10/2004 12:14:55 PM · #56

I think mainstream subjects are perfectly fine and certainly belong in the challenges as much as any other â��more creativeâ�� subjects and interpretations of them. I sometimes get the impression from posts here and comments that I have read on peopleâ��s photos that there are people around who see a subject that is not mainstream and vote it down because they say it doesnâ��t meet the challenge even though it very well might. I say that is closed minded.

One example was my butterfly photo in the multiple light sources challenge. I got comments that hinted that a butterfly picture couldnâ��t meet the challenge for multiple light sources. The fact is that the use of multiple light sources was the single most important part of that picture. Without them I would have only had a silhouette. To me the multiple light sources are very obvious in the picture, but I got the impression that they werenâ��t so obvious to a lot of the voters. I blame this on ignorance. If you havenâ��t really worked very much with multiple light sources the signs of their use might be more difficult to identify. I am not trying to insult anyone by saying that they might be ignorant. Before I started using multiple flashes and whatnot in my photography I was ignorant about them too. This doesnâ��t mean I am stupid or canâ��t figure it out.

In my ibis picture for the opposites challenge my use of opposites was more subtle than many of the other entries. I titled it black and white to try to get people to see where the opposites are coming from but many felt that I was trying to force a fit. Well the truth is that I have spent a lot of time photographing these birds. When I started out I would just stand on the ground and take pictures of them against the sky. The pictures usually lacked punch or pop. I found that if I took the pictures from a higher elevation and looked at the birds against a green background that the birds looked a lot more bold and really stood out better. The red in the birds beaks and feet really stands out against the green of the trees and the white feathers really stand out against the darker background (white feathers against a white sky donâ��t have much punch). The black wingtips really give the picture punch also when contrasted with the white feathers and make the picture appear to be sharper. These were all very key factors in the composition of the image and had been done purposely. Anyway, I think I should have titled my picture black and while, green and read light and dark. It seems a bit lengthy but hopefully it could clear up how the picture fits for those who donâ��t care to look any deeper into it than that the picture isnâ��t of two opposite things side by side. There are still closed minded people. I had a conversation with one such person who got very angry that I suggested that my picture actually does fit the challenge quite well.

Anyway, thatâ��s my POV,

Greg

06/10/2004 12:28:24 PM · #57

Originally posted by melismatica:

I completely agree, but didn't want to single out those few pictures!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/10/2004 12:39:47 PM · #58

CREATIVITY AND CHALLENGE TOPICS:

Right then, here's my opinion on the use of creativity in meeting the challenge topic...
You should meet the SPIRIT of the challenge.
The challenge of the challenge(!) is to meet the topic in a creative way, that would show the topic in a not too subtle way.
The way I and many others here see these challenge topics is like working for a magazine, where the editor will give you a brief and say 'shoot a picture that fits this theme'. There's LOADS of room to be creative about this without ending up obtuse. You may be able to argue you met the challenge, but you have to image what your editor of this hypothetical magazine would say. Sometimes you KNOW you'll be stretching his/her patience, and then when you don't score well, you shouldn't be surprised and blame unimaginative voters. There's still room for creativity in how you meet the challenge and the techniques you use.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/10/2004 12:44:37 PM · #59

Originally posted by Lafaminit:

Should overly critical voters have to be able to take a decent photograph themselves? That would be interesting....

You read my mind...

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/10/2004 12:47:59 PM · #60

> dadas

I can relate to the scenario you paint and cannot agree more.

In the Threes challenge (hell, I don't know how many challenges I could cite here!) I submitted a photo of a sphere (Science World dome, Vancouver, BC, Canada) entirely made of triangles.

In order to emphasize the triangles, I stripped them of the reflective material spanning the space between them, leaving nothing but threes. I estimate there are perhaps 3.700 triangles shown in the image and nothing else on a black background. To aid viewers further in seeing what was there, a prominent, representative single triangle is clearly visible via its distinct bluish highlights.

Yet (and, perversely, I am no longer surprised by this) of all the commenters who argued that this entry did not meet the challenge, some did not see the triangles, some could not relate triangles to threes and another who both noticed them and realized that a triangle consists of three parts, chose to look at these in patterns forming a heaxagon. His comment concludes: "...It doesn't communicate as a shot of three of something...".

This is how an, argueably, good shot, which not only meets a challenge but demonstrates the topical requirements clearly and repeatedly, can end up with a score of 4.8.

Message edited by author 2004-06-10 12:57:27.

06/10/2004 12:55:55 PM · #61

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

I completely agree, but didn't want to single out those few pictures!

Oops..Should I edit that out? I have a big mouth and it gets me in trouble. No offense meant. I actually liked a lot of the shots that I didn't think met the challenge but that makes it worse during the voting.

While we are on the subject of meeting or not meeting the challenge can I just make a request on behalf of those people who get slammed with comments that point out how a photo doesn' t meet a challenge yet neglect to comment on the photo in any other way? Let's be fair folks, you may not get why a photographer chose to enter a photo in a specific challenge and you are free to vote as you see fit regarding that aspect but lets also give the photographer the benefit that he submitted the photo with some notion of how it suited the challenge. If you are going to bother to comment, at least add something about the photo as it stands on its own merit, outside the boundaries of the challenge. It is very disheartening (it happened to me with the Multiple Light Sources challenge but I'm thinking of another talented young photographer who got slammed with the same comment nearly 30 times) to get umpteen comments on why a photo failed to meet the challenge but nothing about the photo itself. The challenge is important but would it kill you to say something about the photo as long as you took the time to leave a comment? You can vote however you like.

Message edited by author 2004-06-10 12:58:40.

06/10/2004 12:57:52 PM · #62

Originally posted by zeuszen:

> dadas

I can relate to the scenario you paint and cannot agree more.

In the Threes challenge (hell, I don't know how many challenges I could cite here!) I submitted a photo of a sphere (Science World dome, Vancouver, BC, Canada) entirely made of triangles.

In order to emphasize the triangles, I stripped them of the reflective material spanning the space between them, leaving nothing but threes. I estimate there are perhaps 3.700 triangles shown in the image and nothing else on a black background. To aid viewers further in seeing what was there, a prominent, representative single triangle is clearly visible via its distinct bluish highlights.

Yet (and, perversely, I am no longer surprised by this) of all the commenters who argued that this entry did not meet the challenge, some did not see the triangles, some could not relate triangles to threes and another who both noticed them and realized that a triangle consists of three parts, chose to look at these in patterns forming a heaxagon. His comment concludes: "...It doesn't communicate as a shot of three of something...".

This is how a perfectly good shot (I believe it is), which not only meets a challenge but demonstrates the topical requirements clearly and repeatedly, can end up with a score of 4.8.

I think you're being unfair there. The commentator you chose to single out here made it clear that they understood your intentions for the challenge, but that their perception didn't quite see it the way you intended. Surely this is your failing, and not his?

Did your take on the challenge really meet the spirit of 'threeness'? I'm on the fence on this one, as I can see both sides but surely you can understand the controversy?

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

06/10/2004 01:04:29 PM · #63

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

[quote=zeuszen]
In order to emphasize the triangles, I stripped them of the reflective material spanning the space between them, leaving nothing but threes. I estimate there are perhaps 3.700 triangles shown in the image and nothing else on a black background. To aid viewers further in seeing what was there, a prominent, representative single triangle is clearly visible via its distinct bluish highlights.

Yet (and, perversely, I am no longer surprised by this) of all the commenters who argued that this entry did not meet the challenge, some did not see the triangles, some could not relate triangles to threes and another who both noticed them and realized that a triangle consists of three parts, chose to look at these in patterns forming a heaxagon. His comment concludes: "...It doesn't communicate as a shot of three of something...".

I totally got the idea of threes from that shot. I didn't even question it. The sphere was made up of, hello? TRIANGLES. It is the ultimate mathematical expression of three when you consider it. It wasn't my favorite photo of yours Zeus (still got a decent vote from me) but I appreciated the idea.

dadas115

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

06/10/2004 01:14:22 PM · #64

Then the topics should be more along the lines of this:

Take a picture of two opposite objects sitting next to each other

Or

Take a picture of two or more light bulbs

Or

Take a picture of sports paraphernalia/uniforms with no people in the frame

You get the idea. That would make the challenges pretty boring and largely a waste of time in my opinion.

Just because you canâ��t think outside of the box doesnâ��t mean that others who can should be penalized for it.

Greg

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/10/2004 01:24:57 PM · #65

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

... The commentator you chose to single out here made it clear that they understood your intentions for the challenge, but that their perception didn't quite see it the way you intended. Surely this is your failing, and not his?

Did your take on the challenge really meet the spirit of 'threeness'? I'm on the fence on this one, as I can see both sides but surely you can understand the controversy?

No, I do not see a controversy here, at all.
What I do see, frankly, is a somewhat less pedestrian interpretation than, say, one of a photo of a big '3' in arabic numerals, which, to me, is not only more interesting but also less insulting to a viewers intelligence, never mind his or her sensibilities.

The comment, instead and poignantly so, demonstrates the poster's clear perception of 'threes' as a pervasive element, while he consciously chooses to see another as its main subject.

I am all for interactivity. I am not, however, taking pictures to accommodate people unwilling to engage with them.

Message edited by author 2004-06-10 13:26:52.

MyD2

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2

06/10/2004 02:41:02 PM · #66

It has come to my attention that the voter here are of varying degrees of experience (photographically, life wise, and creatively) therefore being considered an "idiot", "ignorant", or otherwise in this forum is reflective of the diversity that we have here. so i think we we all look at the comment we should only consider those that have a value to them being in a positive light or negative one. all else are just opinions and we all know about opinions we all have them just like we all have a**holes

Chiqui

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

06/10/2004 02:54:07 PM · #67

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

I don't think they were talking about you. When someone says Ignorant voter, they are often referring to people who do not read the challenge rules (and vote without knowing what they are really voting on). I've heard it used to describe voters who vote without 'giving the photo a thought'. Usually when somone hardly looks at the photo for more than 1 second, they've been referred to that way at times I have noticed.

Personally, I vote according to quality, not taste. I may hate a photo (subject wise), but if it's a good photo, it's getting a high score. If it's a good photo and I love the subject, it's getting a very very high score!

I always look at photos for quality, lighting, clarity, artistic feel, composition, color, contrast, mood and then of course, subject matter. I know many people who do look at photos this way often get annoyed when others don't take any photographic qualities like these into consideration. It can be upsetting, but I wouldn't say ignorant because it sounds negative. I would just say they haven't been properly trained to critique. I can't even imagine how many people aren't trained in critiquing, it must be high! So, I can't take it personally or hold it against anyone. I hope that the ones who do know how to critique, will indeed do so. For those who don't know how, I hope they like my photo (in a general way).

All we can do is be tolerant & hopeful! :)
arie

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, photography is subjective. What one person finds absolutely stunning might be the most ugly thing to someone else, even if it is technically flawless. It's like paintings. I know that Van Gogh is supposed to be one the best painters of all time, but I just don't like his work. So, when I'm in an art museum I pay little or no attention to it, and when I do, I critique it according to my taste.

June

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/10/2004 03:07:06 PM · #68

Originally posted by chiqui74:

...I know that Van Gogh is supposed to be one the best painters of all time, but I just don't like his work. So, when I'm in an art museum I pay little or no attention to it, and when I do, I critique it according to my taste.

I'd rather study it, then share my findings in the form of a critique. I consider my 'taste' to have evolved from original works. It makes good sense to me to go to the original before following my own appetite.

Message edited by author 2004-06-10 16:33:41.

fallingretina

Nikon D70

06/10/2004 04:47:29 PM · #69

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

thank you. finally some one that agrees with me

Message edited by mk - language.

photom

Nikon D200

06/10/2004 05:05:39 PM · #70

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

Well - for whatever reason, including weak links to the challenge, my AVERAGE score after my first pass at "Waiting" is a full point lower than the last two open challenges. I don't use a curve in my scoring, but a set mental standard. After my first pass I do a quickie Excel spread sheet with the scoring. (For me, open challenges usually have lower scores than member challenges.)

06/10/2004 05:26:08 PM · #71

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by chiqui74:
...I know that Van Gogh is supposed to be one the best painters of all time, but I just don't like his work. So, when I'm in an art museum I pay little or no attention to it, and when I do, I critique it according to my taste.

I'd rather study it, then share my findings in the form of a critique. I consider my 'taste' to have evolved from original works. It makes good sense to me to go to the original before following my own appetite.

I like this kind of thinking. Before dismissing art that is considered to have had seminal influence on 20th century art it is wise to at least know something about what we are dismissing. Yes, one can go with the old saw, "I may not know about art but I know what I like" but sometimes by studying the things we don't initially 'like' we develop a deeper understanding. We may still not care for the work on an asthetic level but at least we understand the significance of the work in the greater scope of history. When I look at the works of the Impressionist I think, 'how lovely" but I'm not deeply moved. However, I know a little about what these artists had to suffer through in the form of criticism for their peers for their revolutionary style of painting. What we take for granted today on gazillions of greeting cards, stationary, college dorm posters, you name the merchendise, was considered outrageous in it's time. I'm not really sure if I'm making a clear point. I just think that it is too easy to dismiss certain artists, as 'not to my taste' without even a shallow understanding of the impact the artist had.