| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2006 02:11:36 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
lazy :P |
Hey, I resemble that remark ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 02:08:48 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Gonna have to say it again ... voting twice ... oh ,hell nah... |
lazy :P |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:58:02 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Gonna have to say it again ... voting twice ... oh ,hell nah... |
I hate it when you have to repeat yourself... lol |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:54:36 AM · #4 |
Gonna have to say it again ... voting twice ... oh ,hell nah...
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:47:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I think we should have 2 lines to vote on for each photo - one for concept and one for photography. |
But if we did that then it would reduce arguments about why an image finished with whatever undeserving score it got. Then people would have fewer reasons to whine and complain about how poorly their image scored. That would be horrible turn of events. Forum posts would dwindle to practically nothing.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 12:25:30 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by treenode:
maybe if the website EXPLICITLY simply stated:
"Please consider composition, technicial, appeal, and meeting the challenge criteria when choosing a score."
Or, even more criteria. But the point is, if the website did have a guide or something even in the FAQ about WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON ... |
I suspect that any guidelines would be ignored by many people, in the same way as someone pointed out that people ignore the guideline about leaving comments whenever you vote 1/2/3.
Besides, any guideline on how to breakdown your vote reflects a value judgement about what is important in photography. Some people value technical considerations highly and would object to a scoring guideline that values creativity over technical factors, while people who value creativity above all would object to high-scoring shots that were technically perfect but didn't inspire.
And how far do you go? There are far more than just two factors for how to rate a photo. I'm in a print postal folio where the scoring system is out of 20, broken down:
Impact 4
Subject 4
Story 4
Composition 4
Technique 2
Presentation 2
which covers all sorts of angles - and in doing so, penalises certain types of photography enormously. I wouldn't want to see DPC make the same mistake.
Maybe a checkbox on the voting page, which you can tick for DNMC. If an image gets enough (whatever "enough" is) votes for DNMC then it's moved to a separate section at the end as if it had been DQd - leaving open debate on whether the DQ penalties should apply or not. That way it would get scored like any other photo, but wouldn't win a challenge simply for being an excellent photo that is irrelevant to the challenge?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:32:58 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I think we should have 2 lines to vote on for each photo - one for concept and one for photography.
I see a lot of technically great shots get voted down because of a "weak" concept
I also see a lot of technically challenged photos get voted up because of a "great" idea.
With the number of photos submitted to each contest MANY people don't get comments that would really like them. If there were 2 categorize to vote on at least they'd know if it's their photography skills or their brainstorming they need to work on.
There could still be a single winner (an average of the scores would give you the most balanced winner) and it seems like it would probably be a simple way to offer more help and information to the community without trying to force people to comment more.
edited for spelling - damn fingers. |
As you can see by negative reaction regarding your good idea about voting separately on concept and photography skills is bit to challenging for this sight I think
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:04:27 PM · #8 |
Wow, I'm glad I searched for this topic before creating a new post.
I like your idea Terry, but maybe if the website EXPLICITLY simply stated:
"Please consider composition, technicial, appeal, and meeting the challenge criteria when choosing a score."
Or, even more criteria. But the point is, if the website did have a guide or something even in the FAQ about WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, someone's photo will not end up in the garbage because the picture appeals only to half the people voting (even though it is technically genius). |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 08:30:42 PM · #9 |
Conceptually, there's a lot of merit to this idea. Anything that provides more feedback to the photographer is a good thing.
The fatal flaw for this idea is that if we ask 20 voters what criteria they vote on, and how they should be weighted, you're likely to get 20 different answers. Personally, for example, I base my score about 30% on technicals, 50% on how well it communicates its point something to me as a viewer, and 20% on how well it stands on its own outside the context of a challenge. Then, if I can't in any way connect the photo to the challenge, I halve the result. That's very different than how anyone else I know votes, but it works for me.
My point is that there are as many different ways to vote as there are voters, and so long it's approached honestly and within the rules, all are equally valid. Other than a single voting scale, no system we could come up with could possibly encompass everyone's individual voting style.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 08:11:14 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
"the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly."
Read this again because it is the viewer who determines the appeal and then uses the challenges guidelines to make his determination. No need to add the second sentence if I meant any image that looks good wins. |
Agreed, there is no argument or conflict.
What this thread is all about is providing a tool for the viewer to make that determination easier. It makes assessment and therefore voting faster and more accurate - with the substantial bonus of providing feedback to the photographer which the current system doesn't.
The current system leaves the photographer in a void without any feedback on what they need to do to improve. We know that the level of comments is way too low to do that. This looks like a way forward.
Brett |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 09:33:19 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Again: the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly. |
Then why are we here in DPC? This site is different to the hundreds of others. They look for and vote on exactly what you're saying, great images in which the subject matter is largely irrelevant.
DPC is about challenges. So the critical difference is that DPC is about submitting photos to meet a challenge subject/topic/brief with an expectation that the images submitted will at least try to be on topic.
However what happens in reality at voting time is that we are emotional creatures stirred by beauty, that's why we're photographers. When faced with a beautiful image, we vote with our hearts, not our heads. The result is anomalous voting results which seriously disadvantages those who are compromising sometimes to stay faithful to the challenge subject.
Graphicfunk, if we could stop people voting blindly with their hearts then your position is valid but we just know that's not what happens.
Surely, anyone not comfortable with being constrained by a challenge subject and who wants to be free to 'explore their art' should be on a different site to this one?
Brett |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First, I am not a flippant thinker. The fact is that whatever you do in concept and execution in whatever challenge will be judged by the voter in consideration of his vote. Again:
"the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly."
Read this again because it is the viewer who determines the appeal and then uses the challenges guidelines to make his determination. No need to add the second sentence if I meant any image that looks good wins. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 06:34:50 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
The stunning night landscape across water with twinkling stars can be given a 10 for technical but maybe you feel only 4 for concept because it's barely on challenge. End score 7 |
And here's where this whole concept runs into real problems, because by "my" way of integrating the two scores that might be a 9 (or a 5).
Some people feel that an oustanding concept far outweighs any technical shortcomings. Other people feel that without sharp focus and good exposure no image deserves more than a 4.
We all take in and weigh the various technical, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of the image in our own, individual way -- there is no one algorithm which would accurately compile those scores as well as we do it ourselves.
Basically, I reserve the right to decide for myself how much the different components should contribute to the aggregate score, not you and not a machine.
You can solve the problem with about a five word comment, such as "great idea, want more contrast" or whatever.
Message edited by author 2005-12-13 18:36:00. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 06:19:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Again: the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly. |
Then why are we here in DPC? This site is different to the hundreds of others. They look for and vote on exactly what you're saying, great images in which the subject matter is largely irrelevant.
DPC is about challenges. So the critical difference is that DPC is about submitting photos to meet a challenge subject/topic/brief with an expectation that the images submitted will at least try to be on topic.
However what happens in reality at voting time is that we are emotional creatures stirred by beauty, that's why we're photographers. When faced with a beautiful image, we vote with our hearts, not our heads. The result is anomalous voting results which seriously disadvantages those who are compromising sometimes to stay faithful to the challenge subject.
Graphicfunk, if we could stop people voting blindly with their hearts then your position is valid but we just know that's not what happens.
Surely, anyone not comfortable with being constrained by a challenge subject and who wants to be free to 'explore their art' should be on a different site to this one?
Brett |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 03:13:45 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by bpickard:
And with a single post she destroyed 150 yrs. of photographic art. |
A bit harsh perhaps? She has a point and of course is only talking about DPC challenges. There have been some stunning winning landscapes in challenges where the link to topic is very tenuous. Really this whole debate is addressed by this suggestion.
The stunning night landscape across water with twinkling stars can be given a 10 for technical but maybe you feel only 4 for concept because it's barely on challenge. End score 7. Currently, because it's "pretty" and takes our breath away photographically, its vote would be no less than 8, 9 or 10. At the moment all you have to do to get high scores is live in Iceland :)
This would give others who work hard at creativity to meet challenge topics a better and more equitable score. They might not win, but the playing field would be more level.
Brett |
LOVE your second paragraph the best! The Iceland thing was hilarious, but seems to be true as well! LOL....I have that same problem elsewhere. I may have what I think is a wonderful shot of a baby duck, but who the heck can compete with Kowala Bears and Arangatangs? (or however you spell it! LOL...)
But, I'll tell you what, even the most breathtaking of all landscape shots doesn't get anywhere near a high vote from me IF it doesn't meet challenge, OR I suspect it was an excuse for the challenge by just barely fitting in. Just because it was taken during the time frame allowed, it doesn't mean you HAVE to use it in a challenge it really doesn't meet; BUT, if that floats your boat, go for it. In the meantime, I will just try to meet each challenge specfically and for its sole individual purpose and description.
I really think this "voting should not be lowered if photo doesn't meet challenge rule" doesn't wash with me. When others try really hard to MEET challenge, then why should I vote some lovely landscape shot high for technicals and beauty if it doesn't meet challenge? I think it hurts those that really put effort into meeting challenge descriptions, and those landscapes and such should be saved for the challenges so described as such. Just my opinion.
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/13/2005 02:00:38 PM · #15 |
It is my belief that each image should stand on its visual impact. Not everything can be separeted as to concept and technique. Besides, a rare technically perfect image without the visual appeal may be devoid of visual beauty, while some great concept captured with inferior workmanship may fail. There is an inbetween in both of the above, that is technically perfect and having some degree of visual beauty or a concept captured with just above average technique to pass or over ride the defect.
Again: the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 01:43:38 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
And with a single post she destroyed 150 yrs. of photographic art. |
A bit harsh perhaps? She has a point and of course is only talking about DPC challenges. There have been some stunning winning landscapes in challenges where the link to topic is very tenuous. Really this whole debate is addressed by this suggestion.
The stunning night landscape across water with twinkling stars can be given a 10 for technical but maybe you feel only 4 for concept because it's barely on challenge. End score 7. Currently, because it's "pretty" and takes our breath away photographically, its vote would be no less than 8, 9 or 10. At the moment all you have to do to get high scores is live in Iceland :)
This would give others who work hard at creativity to meet challenge topics a better and more equitable score. They might not win, but the playing field would be more level.
Brett |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 01:15:15 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Some people are basically creatively starved. They see a landscape, a bug macro, and a flower in each challenge (or nudes..LOL) nd nothing more comes to them. Tunnel visioned. Although I do enjoy all of the above, I also find that in most cases it is just an excuse for a challenge entry, and to show technicals hoping for high marks for those technicals rather than creativity. |
And with a single post she destroyed 150 yrs. of photographic art.
How blind were those that came before this day of days.
;-) |
I was speaking in regards to the challenges specifically here, and not those shots in general. Actually, flowers, macros, and landscapes are my favorite shots to take, but i don't use them any way I can just to fit them into a challenge.
Rose |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 01:13:46 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
As to the coding and whether it would be a massive overhaul or not it seems that it would be an added 2 columns to the database and a minor change to the voting and results page. Since the final score would be an average of the 2 scores the way the site runs would not be fundamentally changed. |
I still support the idea, this is a hot idea. I just thought I would raise this since Drew and Langdon have created one of the most impressive data manipulation sites around and some of the database work is very clever and by no means simple. We appreciate what we have and should recognise their committment and effort.
This change would be a major piece of work involving almost every page in the site. Sure it's only two more data items but databases are not about the data, they're about the way you can query, analyse and report it. In DPC we have the most wonderful analyis and stats. This new data would be terrific analysis to have - it just involves a fair bit of work.
Once we capture this split voting, we have the opportunity to produce tracking for photogs of averages for each category across all of their images. Sounds easy. Well that part is but what about all the previous images and how do you integrate the 'new' scores with those? etc etc
It's actually not that hard to do ... but someone has to do it, test it, refine it, commit it and then deal with all of the hiccups until it shakes down. So whilst many ideas put forward in these forums might be 'nice' a very few are actually worth the work they would take. This is one of them.
Brett
Brett |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 01:07:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Some people are basically creatively starved. They see a landscape, a bug macro, and a flower in each challenge (or nudes..LOL) nd nothing more comes to them. Tunnel visioned. Although I do enjoy all of the above, I also find that in most cases it is just an excuse for a challenge entry, and to show technicals hoping for high marks for those technicals rather than creativity. |
And with a single post she destroyed 150 yrs. of photographic art.
How blind were those that came before this day of days.
;-) |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 12:35:10 PM · #20 |
Reply to Rose8699:
It doesn't sound like we're too far off from each other. I understand what you are saying and agree with most of it.
The "what I like factor" already goes on right now though. More often what I see is people NOT factoring in the photography. It's not everyone and it's not on all shots, but I think the imbalance leans more that way than the other. I would appear that a lot of people look at a shot and think "I like it / I don't like it" and move on to the next shot without really giving much thought as to why they don't like it. Without having to write and essay on why they do don't like it now at least you'd know if it's your photography or idea that appealed to them.
I understand there are different cameras and different levels of cameras - however, at 640X480 the megapixels don't make much difference. Unless a person is taking the picture with a cheap camera phone (in general) there's not going to be a tremendous amount of difference. If there is - if your camera is so bad it makes a huge difference in your 640X480 image then it's likely to get voted down whether you have one category or two. If you leave the system the way it is though you have no idea whether it's your camera or not.
What is photography? Things like lighting, composition, focus - all of these things are external from the camera and can be adjusted no matter what camera you have.
What is concept? Things like originality, meets the challenge, draws my interest.
These are things we already (at least should) be considering in our votes. I'm now suggesting everyone change the way they vote just how they vote. Everyone still has an opinion and may vote accordingly.
A nude in the fork challenge may get a 1 for concept but a 10 for photography - the image would get a 5 overall which is probably correct if it is a technically perfect picture.
On the other hand if you have the most fantastic idea ever thought of but are starting out with photography you stand a chance of getting an overall 5 as well.
It's really not biased one way or the other.
Reply to fotomann_forever:
I think that's an excellent idea to have on the comments page as an option. With the voting though I think we would dissuade people from voting if they had an entire form to fill out with each picture.
I'm trying to come up with a solution that is simple quick and easy but will yield better results. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 11:46:33 AM · #21 |
just an aside ... instead of voting for concept and photography... why not just having check boxes with photos.
ie:
This photo has problems with:
·focus
·exposure
·saturation
·lighting ....
Could be a quick way for voters to leave "comments" without having to write.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2005 11:37:56 AM · #22 |
Mega, here lies the problem.
Some people on here are not using top of the line cameras (WHO? ME? LOL...), and we have to rely more on creativity sometimes in concept then in composition and lighting source. Therefore, with your scoring concept, I would usually always get a bad score in photography and good in concept. Evening each other out, I suppose.
Then there is the "what I like and dont like factor" that comes into play. My candle light photo right now is tanking, yet I thought it was very unique and a one of a kind capture. Alas, someone voted it down based on the background and how they don't understand the background???? LOL....WELL, I will explain that after challenge in the comments area, but it just goes to show you that there are your technical voters and your concept voters.
What I do is start out at a 5. Every photo starts at a 5. I simply move on from there to whether I enjoy the subject matter along with the title and concept, and it either goes down from there, or up. Then I take the technical into account, which either brings it up or down again, and what they end up with is what they end up with, based on my own personal judgement.
As for comments, I give comments on the photos that end up with my 1's and 2's, and then those that are my top pics. Those in the middle are left without comment unless I see something phenomenal I care to comment on.
BUT to break it down to concept, technical, etc, by numbers for each one, would really not do a lot of good. I do see your point though, and it is a very good one. It would virtualy rid of the need for comments since the scores would actually reflect what they thought of concept, technicals. To me, that is better than comments actually. I really care more about the scores then the comments that usually are all over the place anyway. So the concept is good, but it is basically not practical when so many different cameras, photography knowledge and little knowledge is in place, and those that depend more on technicals then creativity are in place.
Some people are basically creatively starved. They see a landscape, a bug macro, and a flower in each challenge (or nudes..LOL) nd nothing more comes to them. Tunnel visioned. Although I do enjoy all of the above, I also find that in most cases it is just an excuse for a challenge entry, and to show technicals hoping for high marks for those technicals rather than creativity. Therefore the technical scores in your idea would outshine those that have more creativity. So, all in all, it is best for the one score and move the numbers up and down accordingly to find your own personal score system to give them out.
Just my take.
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-13 11:41:23. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 11:09:19 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
Originally posted by megatherian:
Why do you think there is such a variety of scores on every image.
|
Personal taste - which (inconsiderately) differs between individuals.
Also no-one has mentioned that 'concept' is a pretty arbitrary characteristic:
While it is obvious here
I can't really work out what the 'concept' of this is
Maybe it's from the 'flightless animals' challenge but that's not why it's good.
In my opinion, excessive sub-classification doesn't really examine the picture as a whole. |
Yes it's all personal opinion, the amount of personal opinion reflected in the votes wouldn't change, it would just be displayed in a clearer fashion for people to understand.
There would still be challenge topics so I don't know why concept would be that hard to judge separately. The concepts would be evaluated based upon the known topic.
"Knife Fork Spoon", the first image makes sense and is well executed under that topic. It's a very clever idea so I image would do well in the concept score. The picture is rather dark though and there are spots where the spoons have some detail loss. Given that the spoons are the main topic I would imagine this photo would score lower on photography.
"Fear", the second image makes sense too and is also well executed under that topic. In that common fear of heights scenario it's easy to relate to the goat being in that situation and "feel" the fear of trading places with it. I imagine it would also do very well in concept. The exposure is good and the composition fairly nice, I imagine it would do pretty well on photography too.
As to the coding and whether it would be a massive overhaul or not - while I do not know how this specific site is set up it seems that it would be an added 2 columns to the database and a minor change to the voting and results page. Since the final score would be an average of the 2 scores the way the site runs would not be fundamentally changed.
Remember this is change is only helpful to the user, I'm not suggesting we have new ribbons. Just a VERY MINOR break down that suggest what the scores mean to help people understand their own results a little better. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 07:30:09 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
Why do you think there is such a variety of scores on every image.
|
Personal taste - which (inconsiderately) differs between individuals.
Also no-one has mentioned that 'concept' is a pretty arbitrary characteristic:
While it is obvious here
I can't really work out what the 'concept' of this is
Maybe it's from the 'flightless animals' challenge but that's not why it's good.
In my opinion, excessive sub-classification doesn't really examine the picture as a whole. |
|
|
|
12/13/2005 06:28:08 AM · #25 |
Actually, this is a very simple and rather cool idea and is worthy of discussion. The idea addresses two things that are always coming up as frustrations in these forums. All of the discussions go on for days but there's no easy way of resolving them and so they die ... until next time. This suggestion is the first that seems to make sense.
The two areas I refer to (we know them well) are
- addresses the issue of no comments in 99% of the votes
- forces voters to at least consider whether an entry is somewhere near on-challenge.
There's never something for nothing and the downside of this is that we're asking the site admins to rewrite a huge bunch of code again.
Brett |
|
