| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2006 07:55:19 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
People buy this stuff? Isn't that what the work stationery cupboard is for? |
People use the office stationery cupboard?
The only reason I go to so many meetings in London is to collect pens, pencils and pads of paper from lawyers and accountants...
Roger
Message edited by author 2006-07-14 08:04:14. |
|
|
|
07/14/2006 04:33:35 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
as in "stuff you'd buy in a stationery store"... |
People buy this stuff? Isn't that what the work stationery cupboard is for?
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 10:58:40 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
But evidently several didn't read the updated description. I have the dnmc's that testify to that! ;) |
Feh. Your image rocked! |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 09:49:30 PM · #4 |
| But evidently several didn't read the updated description. I have the dnmc's that testify to that! ;) |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 09:07:19 PM · #5 |
The ORIGINAL challenge description said "something you write on"... They changed it 24 hours into the challenge, to "Simply photograph stationery." This was apparently based on an extended thread pointing out that paper clips, pens, pencils, and such fell under the accepted definition of "stationery" as in "stuff you'd buy in a stationery store"...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 05:59:02 PM · #6 |
yanko,
I really liked the blue ribbon shot. I think it meets the challenge a lot better than the photo that started this thread. The blue ribbon shot is obviously pieces of paper rolled up and wavy. you could take any one piece and write a letter. The other shot being discussed is something that was constructed and w/o the original showing how it was made I had no idea it was just construction paper. To really nit pick, construction paper isn't really stationery.
I did really like the photo of Apolo, but not for this challenge, had I voted it would have gotten something low, probably no better than a 3 or 4. I don't vote down shots just to be mean, but I am pretty unforgiving if it DNMC. To me voting a DNMC anything higher than a 3 really kills the whole idea of themed challenges.
Just my opinion, but in all reality I don't really like to vote anyway. I tend to get bored and more critical as I go along. If I do vote, I never vote in a challenge Im in, I like to vote on teh others.
JM |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 05:25:24 PM · #7 |
I think that if you read his comments under his blue ribbon he summs it up best him self.
"I thought I had something good right of fthe bat but you just never know how somethings will be recieve"
Need there be more said. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 05:21:37 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by theSaj:
No one has yet been able to give me a reason why they would think something else. |
Several people pointed out in this thread that it looked like a store-bought crepe paper decoration, which is NOT something you write on (any more than a candy wrapper or fortune cookie slip), nor is it a common office supply. |
I understand, but that IMHO, requires the assumption that the photographer did not enter something intended for the challenge. That's my whole point.
Anyways, I think I've dragged this on too long, so I will rest my case. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 05:11:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
No one has yet been able to give me a reason why they would think something else. |
Several people pointed out in this thread that it looked like a store-bought crepe paper decoration, which is NOT something you write on (any more than a candy wrapper or fortune cookie slip), nor is it a common office supply.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 17:14:07. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 04:44:50 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I truly would love to know just how you could clearly substantiate this perception... there exists absolutely no empirical data whatsoever that can be used to substantiate your views in this regard.
Ray |
I have had personal experience and dialogue with people over a few of my entries on these matters.
As for statistics, it truly would be interesting to see. There are methods of making such determinations. For instance, if one had acccess to all the right tools and the data. One could evaluate whether certain voters were deliberately "sinking" votes on good photos.
There are in statistical analysis recognized patterns. The bell curve is a common example. Often, when a bell curve is broken (as it was in the case of this photo) it shows something amiss.
"The challenge said 'stationary as in something you write on'. It didn't say something made of paper that under some circumstances could be used to write on. I think that you should be able to know what the challenge is by looking at teh photo."
If that is to be the case, then a good 20%-40% of ribbon winners would likely have to be dropped. And yes, the image did do well because it was a nice image. And most people were able to easily and compentently deduce that thin rolled things were likely paper as paper was a main focus. No one has yet been able to give me a reason why they would think something else. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 04:22:54 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
thinking outside of the box is a waste when it comes to challenges so specifically written. The challenge said 'stationary as in something you write on'. It didn't say something made of paper that under some circumstances could be used to write on. I think that you should be able to know what the challenge is by looking at teh photo. That is why there are free study challenges to let the creative out of the box photo flourish. I think people get an idea and think of ways they can cram it into a specific challenge. |
What is your opinion on timfythefoo's blue ribbon shot, if you don't mind me asking? Knowing this was a stationery challenge I clearly saw timfythefoo's shot as being paper. Heck he even titled it as such but outside of this challenge had I seen it I may have been more inclined to think it was something generated in a software program such as a fractal. In any case it doesn't scream "something you specifically write on" as the challenge description stated but rather a form of paper art like origami or Artoole's shot, neither of which would technically be used for writing in the form they were photographed in.
Anyway, I just find these discussions fasinating so I hope people don't see this as being anything but that.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 16:23:15.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 04:08:01 PM · #12 |
| thinking outside of the box is a waste when it comes to challenges so specifically written. The challenge said 'stationary as in something you write on'. It didn't say something made of paper that under some circumstances could be used to write on. I think that you should be able to know what the challenge is by looking at teh photo. That is why there are free study challenges to let the creative out of the box photo flourish. I think people get an idea and think of ways they can cram it into a specific challenge. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 03:57:28 PM · #13 |
it came 13th out of 121 I,d be over the moon with that
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 03:57:15 PM · #14 |
| I think it may have been hard to see that it was stationery, but great job putting it all together! |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 03:50:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think the way creativity, and thinking outside the box, are used as excuses for not meeting the challenge hinders the developement of many dpc'ers, and are a copout on really trying to acquire photographic skills. People can very easily slip into thinking that they don't have to study and master technique because they can throw anything they want into a challenge, and then say anyone who doesn't like it didn't understand how creative the shot was, or that their creativity is being stifled. I think that happens too often around here |
I agree with this statement, because I have often represented this statement.
Many times I have become so entranced with a certain train of thought or subject I lost objectivity. Also, how many times have you found yourself shooting lots of photos of a subject only to have the one you love most being not-so-perfect? I know I have.
And when faced with the above situations I may have said "I can crop it or adjust it in photoshop" losing site of the deficiency that is fatal and ...actually...unfixable.
My wife doesn't help me any because, bless her, she loves all my stuff and rarely is critical enough.
I am not suggesting people don't take chances or enter photos that may be flawed in ways that most people will not accept. But when you do enter a photo like that, be prepared to take the wrath of the voter who you sought approval from.
I know I have had a string of photos in the last month that were not big hits with the voters mainly because I was lazy, entered what I wanted and lost site of what does well at DPC.
In hindsight, it wasn't the voters problem, it was mine. The best part though was the fact that I had a place like DPC to tell it to me cold and hard....the kind of honesty I don't get from friends and family.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 03:42:23 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Do people vote the competition lower to help their own entries place higher? Yes, I think it happens, at least to some very small extent because of human nature. Even with the best of intentions people will have their own interests, and score, in their head when voting, and may be tempted to knock a few points off their vote on an image they perceive as threatening to their placing. Many people will tell you that they don't ever do that. But they may only be kidding themselves. However the vast majority of our voters, I believe, make an honest effort to be objective in their votes. If we prohibited users from voting in a challenge they had entered, we would have fewer votes casts. I don't know how many fewer it would be, but regardless, it is not a tradeoff I would see as beneficial. We need all the voters we can get. |
I admit, my speculations are just that but what you post here is also just speculation. There is no evidence to suggest the vast majority votes honestly or dishonestly. I agree the number of votes would drop under my "test" but all I proposed was a test, i.e. a trial run but even if it were fully adopted the nature of this site is one that is growing and thus over time the voting difference would be made up. In any case it's just curiousity more than anything else. Even if this test showed scores were markedly higher across the board I doubt people would want to give up their vote in the long term even if that meant fairer results.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 15:43:25.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 03:31:19 PM · #17 |
Do people vote the competition lower to help their own entries place higher? Yes, I think it happens, at least to some very small extent because of human nature. Even with the best of intentions people will have their own interests, and score, in their head when voting, and may be tempted to knock a few points off their vote on an image they perceive as threatening to their placing. Many people will tell you that they don't ever do that. But they may only be kidding themselves. However the vast majority of our voters, I believe, make an honest effort to be objective in their votes. If we prohibited users from voting in a challenge they had entered, we would have fewer votes casts. I don't know how many fewer it would be, but regardless, it is not a tradeoff I would see as beneficial. We need all the voters we can get.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 03:09:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have to take EXTREME exception to this statement, and I am hoping you don't mean it the way it sounds. I would say something like:
"Since DPC features themed challenges, our task as photographers is to harness our creativity to the theme, not think of ways to make end runs around it."
Is that closer to what you wanted to say?
R. |
Yes, I guess so. It's close enough that I can live with it. To me back burner means something is still included but not as high a priority as it might have been. Sorta like it's still on the stove, simmering on low heat, able to be brought to a full boil quickly when needed.
However, I'll add this, which you may not agree with - learning should almost always come before creativity in the dpc context, and if you invoke creativity as an excuse to deviate further from a topic you risk not learning what was intended in the assignment. I am a firm believer that the proper way to become a good photographer is to master technique first and then let the creativity flow naturally. dpc's cup runneth over with poorly executed shots that are claimed to be exercises in creativity. I do not believe that you can teach true creativity, it is something that comes from deep within. It is something that many of us have very little of, while others have a ton of it. You can encourage people to "think outside the box" but often your result will be people being different for the sole reason of being different, but that does not fit my definition of true creativity. I think the way creativity, and thinking outside the box, are used as excuses for not meeting the challenge hinders the developement of many dpc'ers, and are a copout on really trying to acquire photographic skills. People can very easily slip into thinking that they don't have to study and master technique because they can throw anything they want into a challenge, and then say anyone who doesn't like it didn't understand how creative the shot was, or that their creativity is being stifled. I think that happens too often around here. Hope this makes sense. If not, just take it as venting and pass on by.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:40:22 PM · #19 |
Bear,
I respectfully disagree. However, I've never said there was actual proof of this sort of voting but I suspect it. Why because there isn't any proof to suggest it doesn't happen. Simply there is no proof one way or the other. You posting that one photo isn't any more evidence then me posting another that did get a lot of low votes. I only suggested a test for the curious like me to see if scores did changed significantly. Whether it's done on purpose or not I believe people do vote differently when they have an entry in the challenge. Some people have even admitted to that in fact in the forums. Now whether this is truly a problem or not is certainly debatable (as is my speculation) but if it did exist I'd rather see some measures taken than for it to be ignored entirely. I understand the award is just a virtual ribbon but I'd still prefer to see it run like 99% of every other competition out there that does award real prizes and does it for a reason. Just my opinion though.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 14:52:58.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:35:47 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Artoole's shot communicated quite clearly it met the challenge by virtual that it finished 13! |
That's one way of looking at it. In my view, MOST of the voters either thought it met the challenge or were willing to give the benefit of the doubt. However, the large number of low votes suggests that there was a substantial number of people who DIDN'T get the challenge connection (but that's just as much speculation on my part). |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:22:40 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
... Another thing which I have been a big supporter of is not allowing people who enter challenges to vote because I bet most of these "DNMC" votes are really given for other more sinister reasons like trying to hurt your competition. It would be nice in the future to test this out with an Open challenge where competitors can't vote and see exactly how many 1s, 2s and 3s are given out to top ten photos but I doubt that will happen. |
I truly would love to know just how you could clearly substantiate this perception... there exists absolutely no empirical data whatsoever that can be used to substantiate your views in this regard.
What we have here is at best speculation... and even that would not withstand scrutiny. If indeed what you are proposing were true... every winning photo would have a bevy of 1 scores levied by jealous competitors... but fortunately such is not the case, witness the winning shot by Scalvert in the "Fireworks" challenge. Surely there had to at least one person that was envious of this image... but you didn't see me err that person vote it a 1.
Ray |
Not only that, but this photo was clearly, unmistakably mine for anyone who "knows" my work & locations. If there were trolls out there, surely SOME of them would have knocked it down just because it's "mine"? But look at the scores; only 16 5's and ONE 4, nothing lower. I completely reject that kind of thinking, I really do. I don't think there's ANY evidence that this behavior is a problem at DPC.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:20:15 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
... Another thing which I have been a big supporter of is not allowing people who enter challenges to vote because I bet most of these "DNMC" votes are really given for other more sinister reasons like trying to hurt your competition. It would be nice in the future to test this out with an Open challenge where competitors can't vote and see exactly how many 1s, 2s and 3s are given out to top ten photos but I doubt that will happen. |
I truly would love to know just how you could clearly substantiate this perception... there exists absolutely no empirical data whatsoever that can be used to substantiate your views in this regard.
What we have here is at best speculation... and even that would not withstand scrutiny. If indeed what you are proposing were true... every winning photo would have a bevy of 1 scores levied by jealous competitors... but fortunately such is not the case, witness the winning shot by Scalvert in the "Fireworks" challenge. Surely there had to at least one person that was envious of this image... but you didn't see me err that person vote it a 1.
Ray |
Which is why I suggested the test. Sure even that won't be conclusive if it's done just one time.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:18:13 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... Another thing which I have been a big supporter of is not allowing people who enter challenges to vote because I bet most of these "DNMC" votes are really given for other more sinister reasons like trying to hurt your competition. It would be nice in the future to test this out with an Open challenge where competitors can't vote and see exactly how many 1s, 2s and 3s are given out to top ten photos but I doubt that will happen. |
I truly would love to know just how you could clearly substantiate this perception... there exists absolutely no empirical data whatsoever that can be used to substantiate your views in this regard.
What we have here is at best speculation... and even that would not withstand scrutiny. If indeed what you are proposing were true... every winning photo would have a bevy of 1 scores levied by jealous competitors... but fortunately such is not the case, witness the winning shot by Scalvert in the "Fireworks" challenge. Surely there had to at least one person that was envious of this image... but you didn't see me err that person vote it a 1.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:07:00 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
It gotta 6.2... Do we have to go through this every challenge? 56 people didn't like it but it got a 6.2... |
Ditto. |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 02:03:31 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
As a learning site with themed competitions a photographer is expected to put their creativity on the back burner while they to shoot to a certain topic. |
I have to take EXTREME exception to this statement, and I am hoping you don't mean it the way it sounds. I would say something like:
"Since DPC features themed challenges, our task as photographers is to harness our creativity to the theme, not think of ways to make end runs around it."
Is that closer to what you wanted to say?
R.
|
|
