| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2008 11:48:03 AM · #26 |
I've raised the issue before, as I think others have before me. I think the DPC view is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and vote, irrespective of how contrary it is. It isn't right that such obviously well executed photographs receive a poor rating, when at worst they should be 4's and 5's.
My view is that if it's a rare thing for a particular voter then fair enough...but if people repeatedly vote 1s unreasonably then I think some kind of action should be taken (i.e. trolls).
N
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 11:49:19 AM · #27 |
I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this other possible reason for very low votes on what turn out to be the winning images: that there may be voters who are trying to make a statement against "eye candy" images by voting them very low. These hypothetical voters may be tired of seeing the "same" safe-and-spectacular images win time after time, and may be using their votes to protest...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 11:49:47 AM · #28 |
| Multitiered voting systems have been suggested. It would just take too much time. It takes me a week to vote something like Free Study as it is. I really don't want to have to enter three votes for each photo. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:08:51 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by smithma:
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I have an issue. Almost every picture in every challenge has at least 1 "1". I don't understand why these photos deserve the lowest of the low score available. Let's take the most recent free study challenge for example.
|
One thing people here don't seem to factor in. Fatigue.
People get tired of seeing the same thing over and over AND cast a vote (as Robert just suggested) to rage against "the eye candy".
I get annoyed when people enter the same thing over and over for the sake of a Ribbon. I don't feel like crediting someone for taking the same shot, again and again. That's Not to say that I give them 1's for it but I certainly have in the past.
It's like awarding a Grammy to an artist for releasing the same Grammy winning song on a different album. With the exception of Santana, it doesn't happen (tongue in cheek).
The purist in me takes the word Challenge maybe a little too seriously but I don't see any Challenge in repetition.
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 13:03:55. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:11:51 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this other possible reason for very low votes on what turn out to be the winning images: that there may be voters who are trying to make a statement against "eye candy" images by voting them very low. These hypothetical voters may be tired of seeing the "same" safe-and-spectacular images win time after time, and may be using their votes to protest...
R. |
I think that this is probably not an uncommon occurrence. It would be nice if they left a comment stating the such but then they would probably be chastised in the forums. I believe a person has the right to vote however they want without having to explain there reasoning, otherwise there is no point in having an anonymous voting system like we have.
edit grammer
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 12:15:32. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:15:42 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this other possible reason for very low votes on what turn out to be the winning images: that there may be voters who are trying to make a statement against "eye candy" images by voting them very low. These hypothetical voters may be tired of seeing the "same" safe-and-spectacular images win time after time, and may be using their votes to protest...
R. |
I agree with this, but I don't down grade for it.
Its like a guy at work that liked to play jokes on people. If he got under your skin, he got his thrill, but if you ignored it he would just go bother someone else.
So if some low scores are bothering you, just ignore it. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:22:24 PM · #32 |
| ow many are also accidental votes? Relatively recently I happened to sort a challenge reult by the score I had given - I was apalled to discover I had somehow managed to giev a vote of 9 to photo I thought absolutely awful! I may well have done the same before, but don't regularly check. I am certainly being more careful now! |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:23:32 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:26:36 PM · #34 |
Also note that while  Firsty has some awesome shots of the Sydney Opera House, this one was by Owen. I'll be in London next week and will undoubtedly shoot things that have been shot before. I may even enter one in a challenge! I'm pretty darn sure, though, that anything I submit won't be mistaken for something by  Simms or AlexSaberi. :-) |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:39:12 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this other possible reason for very low votes on what turn out to be the winning images: that there may be voters who are trying to make a statement against "eye candy" images by voting them very low. These hypothetical voters may be tired of seeing the "same" safe-and-spectacular images win time after time, and may be using their votes to protest...
R. |
I agree 100% with this statement. While it is a fantastic image, it is just another image of the Sydney Opera House to me...and I don't care WHO shot it. I hate seeing the same types of images over and over again. I could make a list that is 10 or 15 subjects long, but I am not aiming to be offensive. Shooting the same image that someone else, or you have already created shows a severe lack of creativity in my opinion. While I don't hand out a vast amount of 1s, I will toss one out occasionally despite the quality of the image. I get tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just my thoughts on the low votes.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:43:46 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jonfrommk:
My own view is that DPC does have some people who think that it is either 'funny' or 'making a statement' to hand out 1's to great photos |
There is at least one idiot in here that waits til a challenge goes to roll over and votes everything a 1. Man, they got me good the first time I encountered that! I was royally pissed. I found out later the modus operandi was to vote them all 1 at rollover and come back in a day or so and change them all to something else. That person will be digging ditches in hell. LOL I solved that problem by turning off the update button in the profile. I find I can tell when I have a good one purely from the comments I get.
As for the OP, (sorry got carried away) I do find it very hard to come up with a comment for the extremely bad images. First thing that comes to mind for many is, "Why?" And that's not very polite. Fortunately the number of votes of 3 or less I give out in a year probably could be counted easily on my 20 digits. To get a one you have to offend me. This is not easy. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:44:14 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this other possible reason for very low votes on what turn out to be the winning images: that there may be voters who are trying to make a statement against "eye candy" images by voting them very low. These hypothetical voters may be tired of seeing the "same" safe-and-spectacular images win time after time, and may be using their votes to protest...
R. |
I agree 100% with this statement. While it is a fantastic image, it is just another image of the Sydney Opera House to me...and I don't care WHO shot it. I hate seeing the same types of images over and over again. I could make a list that is 10 or 15 subjects long, but I am not aiming to be offensive. Shooting the same image that someone else, or you have already created shows a severe lack of creativity in my opinion. While I don't hand out a vast amount of 1s, I will toss one out occasionally despite the quality of the image. I get tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just my thoughts on the low votes. |
It presents a quandary for me, actually; there's a certain sort of image I just LIVE to make, and by now when I enter these images people can recognize my shots easily. I keep getting high scores for them too, but that's not why I take them. They are what I do in "real life", and some of them find a home in challenges. I make a real effort to vary the sorts of images I enter in challenges, even though I know what I enter will not score well. But it sort of bums me out when people suggest I'm not "creative" because I explore the same theme over and over again.
For me, that's the essence of art; not creating something new, but delving deeper and deeper into the familiar.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:46:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
If you have a look at the top 5 of almost any challenge, you will notice that every shot that looks like a typical dpc ribboning shot ... gets more 1s and 2s than shots that are not as easily recognizable as ribbon candidates ... so obviously there are some people that try to identify a future ribboner and vote it down by purpose. |
This is a revealing piece of information, but not surprising or rare. People vote against winners. Look at IMDB. Their top rated film of all time, as voted by 266,322 IMDb users, is The Godfather. 15,900 of those voters gave a vote of "1"! Anyone with the least interest in cinema, even if they hate gangster movies (as I do), cannot objectively think this movie deserves a 1 vote. To think that way would mean they are willfully ignoring the myriad elements of filmmaking.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... there may be voters who are trying to make a statement against "eye candy" images by voting them very low. These hypothetical voters may be tired of seeing the "same" safe-and-spectacular images win time after time, and may be using their votes to protest... |
I think this is also true, though gawd I'm beginning to get sick of the term eye candy and how freely it is tossed around. Many of the people who rail against eye candy have beautiful images of their own, with no deeper meaning than the winning shots. It's possible that every photo that is not strictly photojournalism is eye candy of one sort or another.
In the meantime, maybe it's time to reinstate that little pop-up suggesting leaving a comment on the 3 or lower votes?
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 12:47:51. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:48:15 PM · #39 |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:49:44 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Shooting the same image that someone else, or you have already created shows a severe lack of creativity in my opinion. While I don't hand out a vast amount of 1s, I will toss one out occasionally despite the quality of the image. I get tired of seeing the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just my thoughts on the low votes. |
I think there would be creativity if the depiction is in a manner not generally seen. The image in question I liked because of the slow shutter dragged clouds and reflections in the water. Not extremely unique, but enough to tag it as the photographers own. I'd be hard pressed to vote less than 5 for this image in a FS. Now, shoe horned into a portrait challenge would be an entirely different matter. :) |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:52:40 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by citymars:
...gawd I'm beginning to get sick of the term eye candy and how freely it is tossed around. Many of the people who rail against eye candy have beautiful images of their own, with no deeper meaning than the winning shots. It's possible that every photo that is not strictly photojournalism is eye candy of one sort or another. |
For me, "eye candy" means "devoid of intellectual or emotional content". I like images that evoke emotions in me, or that make me think. "Pretty pictures" can evoke emotions, for sure; I don't hold it against an image that it is pretty. How could I, when I look at my own work? But I try to avoid doing eye candy, I really do. I think my landscapes, or at least the best of them, evoke real emotions in the viewer; they certainly do in me.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:55:32 PM · #42 |
I'm trying to figure out why people care so much about who's handing out the low scores. No, actually that's a lie, I'm not trying to figure it at all because I don't really care.
No great injustice has been perpetrated. People vote how they vote and who are we to tell them otherwise. We all have our own tastes and biases and suggesting that people put that aside while considering a photograph is patently absurd. And about the commenting on low scores given on top images...do people really want to hear:
"...again?"
"Oh look, how stock like of you."
" {{{yawn}}} "
"You and Neat Image must be best friends."
"I'm sorry you feel the need to pander."
" Winning vs. creative growth as a photographer is not the way to go."
"...sell out."
" Blue ribbons must be like crack to you."
I could go on...and on, and I'm not knocking all top images, not at all. Steve and Robert kinda hit the nail on the head for me and probably for many who have been here a while. I feel the need to be honest with my voting and if I want to hand an image a 1, 2, or 3 that I find boring, even though technically "perfect", I'm gonna do it...and I probably won't leave a comment because I hate when people PM about comments, and I hate whining even more than monotonous images. I rarely comment at all anymore and I don't find voting on every challenge like I used all that intriguing. Life is too short to really be concerned with all these trifles.
ETA: typo
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 12:56:55. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 12:55:41 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Their top rated film of all time, as voted by 266,322 IMDb users, is The Godfather. 15,900 of those voters gave a vote of "1"! Anyone with the least interest in cinema, even if they hate gangster movies (as I do), cannot objectively think this movie deserves a 1 vote. |
Yes they can. Objectivity is fine if that's what you're into, but there's no reason why everyone should have to vote objectively. I like the Godfather, but I'm aware enough of the variety of taste that exists in the world to realise that some people will genuinely hate it and they are within their rights to give it a 1. Whatever the technical merits of any piece of art, surely one can view it as an abject failure if it still bores the hell out of you and gives you nothing to think about?
I'm getting really tired of these threads that attempt to dismiss minority opinions as inherently dishonest. There is a system in place for detecting abuse and trolling; can we please just accept that art is subjective?
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 12:57:40. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:08:13 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Many of the people who rail against eye candy have beautiful images of their own, with no deeper meaning than the winning shots. It's possible that every photo that is not strictly photojournalism is eye candy of one sort or another.
|
Also, the problem I find with this is that there is no question of any consensus over whether a picture has 'deeper meaning'.
The point is that any image might be both shallow and meaningless eye candy and an aesthetic and intellectual revelation depending on who's looking at it. Surely we should allow people to vote accordingly, or with whatever other criteria they feel like imposing without assuming that their intentions are malicious? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:08:18 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For me, that's the essence of art; not creating something new, but delving deeper and deeper into the familiar.
R. |
If you got any deeper into your subjects...you might actually drown and I mean literally drown. ;) |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:15:05 PM · #46 |
Only shot this are once, one of these was used in the Best Of challenge.
I'll give you this one, though it was an improved angle and improved post-processing.
And how many other well-done shots of these do you see? The Antelope Canyon, maybe a few. The building in Atlanta...NONE. Submitting the same thing TWICE is not the same thing as entering it over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have done several images TWICE, and improved on them the second time. Here are some that you forgot when initiating your personal attack on me:
 
 
 
 
These are all mine, not replicas of anyone else's work. Also, these have been done twice, not several times then repeated again. Anything else you'd like to attack me about, Sara?
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:20:02 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RKT:
"...again?"
"Oh look, how stock like of you."
" {{{yawn}}} "
"You and Neat Image must be best friends."
"I'm sorry you feel the need to pander."
" Winning vs. creative growth as a photographer is not the way to go."
"...sell out."
" Blue ribbons must be like crack to you." |
Rachel hit the nail on the head. The above comments all explain why I give low scores to ribbon winners. What good would it do for me to leave them? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:36:34 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Objectivity is fine if that's what you're into, but there's no reason why everyone should have to vote objectively. ... Whatever the technical merits of any piece of art, surely one can view it as an abject failure if it still bores the hell out of you and gives you nothing to think about?
I'm getting really tired of these threads that attempt to dismiss minority opinions as inherently dishonest. There is a system in place for detecting abuse and trolling; can we please just accept that art is subjective? |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
... any image might be both shallow and meaningless eye candy and an aesthetic and intellectual revelation depending on who's looking at it. Surely we should allow people to vote accordingly, or with whatever other criteria they feel like imposing without assuming that their intentions are malicious? |
You make very good points. I don't think people should be forced to vote one way or another (nor forced to comment, for that matter). I do think completely discounting technical competence (i.e., by giving a 1 to the type of photo that generally wins) is probably a reaction against something more than a true assessment of a photo, but as you say, it's up to the voter how they want to vote, and if they don't want to mitigate their score by including technical competence in their evaluation, that's their perogative.
Also, I agree that finding meaning is subjective, too, I just think people throw the term eye candy around a little too loosely and dismissively. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:40:57 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by citymars:
a true assessment of a photo |
most votes don't include anything even close to that. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:44:34 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by citymars:
a true assessment of a photo |
most votes don't include anything even close to that. |
Yeah, you gotta watch every little word around here. Time to go out with the camera, heavy rain or not. Peace, bro. |
|
