|
Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2008 11:43:31 AM · #1 |
This thread has obviously outlived any usefulness it may have at one point had.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:41:27 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
Originally posted by me:
I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology |
I really don't think I need to write what I know eveyone else is thinking. Next! (ROTFLMAO)
|
Like it or not, that was my intent when I wrote it and if you look closely, it fits. Of course if you can't see that, don't strain your eyes too hard, it's not that big of a deal if you don't pick up on my subtle jabs... someone else can get them for you. They might enjoy them more too.
You didn't. Which is why I said that I didn't mind any of the other demonstrations of 'lax english rules' that are common on the 'net, however I did find it particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors by using a word which seemed to have the sole purpose of making you sound smarter
Originally posted by SouperN:
Now, why would I need to try to sound smarter, when I have you doing a fine job on your own, with clever tests like, I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology to see if I would notice? (LAFF. OUT. LOUD.) |
Uhh. Actually it wasn't to see if you would notice. I was content with the idea that just a few people would notice and get a smile or a smirk from it. After all - art cannot be appreciated by every viewer.
Originally posted by SuperNaughty:
Secondly: I didn't know I'd entered the "Defintions For English Words Special Olympics". |
Perhaps not, but if you look at your posts in this thread, you sure do seem to spend a lot of time quoting dictionaries, talking about the meanings of definitions from dictionaries and railing on pretty heavily on the significance of subjectivity objectivity. You might get less flak from folk like me if you first learned a bit more about the roles and definitions of the subject and the object.
Originally posted by snoopaught:
Dr. Eschelar's motivisational, improvisational, grammtastical, grammary sampulary of sentacular structicle |
Originally posted by Dr. me... can I say that? Actually, scratch that... just[quote:
[quote=me]...particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors
...to have to read you make obvious errors
...to read you make obvious errors |
One of these things is not like the others....
Anyhow, I think I've run out of patience with your rambling. You are quite rude and have little control of your gift of speech. I appreciate that you tried to be friendly, but some things have their limits.
Also, I'm holding back from posting the contents of your interesting email specifically to spare the local gentry.
This particular tidbit appears intended to make me be ill-inclined to post the contents as some form of threat. Let me say straight up that it does not have the intended effect of making me afraid of and untoward effects that may result from posting it for public view.
Originally posted by a polite and well-worded PM from a certain genteel soul:
But the fact is: you could hit me in the head with a bag of monkey dicks, and I'd still make you look like the dipshit you are: regardless of your standing on this site. I already got 4 p.m.'s laughing their asses off at how I handled you in the last post, you should read it.
For you to even be credible, we'd have to see you posting such trite, little-girl nonsense on more posts than mine. I was just fine debating the thread issue, bereft of your nonsense, and others because you don't like ideas different from your own.
You don't want to flame me on that site, period. 'Cuz I'll just keep flaming back.
Go ahead and try to post this private messege, or it's content on that thread -I'll have that site council kicking you to photobucket before you can say "rat's monkey." So, let me have my say, you have yours, and we'll debate like the intelligent adults we are. No more garbage. |
Edit: Dangit, missed a squarebracket.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:43:05. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:11:56 AM · #3 |
I'll debate whatever you want - just answer me this:
What is your point?
N
EDIT: Here's a newcomers guide for you :)
02/03/2008 12:57:59 PM
Quasi's Braindump of Everything I've Learned About DPC in 3 Months
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Eye candy does well in challenges
2. The voting system is flawed but stable - it's not the voting system, it's your photo.
3. Focus and appropriate DoF are as or more critical than colour or composition.
4. Understand DPC voter taste better by rating more challenges. Understand taste + good execution = ribbon
5. Trolls exist but the problem isn't epidemic. Malicious voters exist but there are several more who just don't like the photo. Live with it.
6. If people don't "get" your photo and you were expecting it to do well, it's your fault not the viewer's.
7. Lower your voting expectation and raise your final selection standard.
8. Ignore comments from people whose work you don't admire. Everyone has an opinion but you don't have to take every one to heart, just those from people you value. If you expect that to be everyone in voting you'll be disappointed.
9. If you're not improving you're doing something wrong. Try something new. Think differently. It works.
10. Creativity and "Art" does have it's appreciators here but don't expect mass appeal from niche images.
11. It's all about learning and improving, creativity and fun. If it's all about ribbons and accolades then it becomes a barrier to progress (imho).
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:25:57.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:07:06 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
It's probably more in the way those differences are pointed out. |
Really? Fine. Then let's point out how some of you are expressing your differences.
I'll take supernaught more seriously when he demonstrates his own skill behind the camera. Manners wouldn't hurt either.
Also please don't insult his hypothetical 3 year old. It might well be able to speak more fluently than you.
Don't let some newbie, that's all fired up because of seeing their initial challenge score fail to break 5, get under your skin.
Oh d SuperN, I don't mind the careful use of conjunctions at the beginning of sentences and other grammatical errors (it's just the internet), but if you misuse the word 'whom' one more time to make yourself sound smart/literate/whatever, I think I'm going to have to say something about it. Oops - too late!
That's a ridiculous argument,which extends my statement about voting on a photography website to an opinion on how we should aproach and critique all our systems of knowledge. I would say that that's 'patently dishonest'.
People who think they are being objective are the least objective. People who think they are at core rational beings are the least rational.
Why? Because they have blinded themselves to their own humanity, which is essentially subjective and biased. It is only by admitting your subjective nature that you can hope to give a thoughtful and well-reasoned assessment of a photo.
It's not friggin' enough there is thread after thread tell us how we should comment-lets tell people how they should vote too. Seriously...WTF!
So, I'm inhuman, a disgruntled newbie, I'm irrational, I try to sound smart by using "whom", 3 year olds speak more fluently, I'm patently dishonest, and I have no sense of reason. And yeah, you un-substantive trolls can quote this, (you know you're watching!!!)since you can't contribute intellectually in any way.
But keep this in mind: Not a single damn one of you, save melethia, answered my question, or tried to rebuke my old man analogy, or my football themed challenge hypothetical, as support for more objective voting, versus subjective voting. Not a one
At every turn, I've been misrepresented, steered off topic to defend my grammar, and responding to schoolyard taunting while melethia debated strongly for her stance.
If you guys disagree with my stance: Put up, or shut up. In case you didn't notice, there were others in here that understood my position, who I will mention here, with the exception of a couple more long-winded postings from scalvert - read the posts yourselves. Answer my positions. Let's debate. I posited my position on how I score images objectively, read them for once, and if you disagree, posit it here.
These support my core arguments for objective scoring of Photos, let me know what you think is wrong with it.
Quote from: Quasimojo
It's when people (with fabulous ideas) stubbornly defend their blurry photos as their artistic style but also with a kind of 'can't learn, won't learn' attitude to modern post production techniques that I get concerned, because I'm guessing that these are the same people who might repeatedly harshly vote widely regarded good photos poorly. Jealousy, sour grapes, bitterness...whatever you call it...I can't think of any other reason as to why someone's perception/interpretation/appreciation of a photo would be so fundamentally different to everyone else (perhaps autism or aspergers at the far end of the scale???).
[supernaught]Quasimojo: Jealousy, sour grapes, bitterness...whatever you call it...I can't think of any other reason as to why someone's perception/interpretation/appreciation of a photo would be so fundamentally different to everyone else (perhaps autism or aspergers at the far end of the scale???). [All tenets of subjective, emotionally biased scoring. Exemplary in fact, by definition. That's why I inserted this quote.]
Quote from: cpanaioti
If a strong negative impact is recorded as a one , to me it is ignoring the strong impact and writing off the image.
To me, a strong impact, positive or negative, means the image connected with the viewer, big time, which should lead to a higher score, not a lower one.
Quote from: Bear_music
I'm not sure what exactly others believe, but I don't personally think that being "objective" means "voting solely on the technical merits of the image". For me, being objective means trying to eliminate personal bias from my voting. It mostly works on the negative side: if I "hate" pictures of babies, personally, I have to be really careful when I vote on baby pictures to ensure that I am scoring them fairly on their own terms. I'd feel real bad if I gave a crappy score to a brilliant baby picture just because I don't like baby pictures, see?
Quote from: Yanko
I would have to disagree. Being objective (to me) is simply the act of keeping your personal bias in check and not have it cloud your judgement. It has nothing to do with appreciating technicals over meaning. It's acknowledging when one or the other exists in a photo and weighing that in your judgement regardless of whether or not you personally connected with the photo. This is not to say that personal bias/connection with the photo shouldn't be factored in because it should. I just think it's silly to demand that a shot of a falling fruit should have the same emotional punch of that of a starving child in Africa. It's apples and oranges and should be treated differently and that's what being objective is all about. Same goes for those who shoot the falling fruit and troll the grainy street candids just because the technicals are not crystal clear.
Quotes from: supernaught
Actually, yes you can be open minded as to what the image is conveying without being subjective, since the definition of objective includes A term used to describe information which is without bias or prejudice and attempts to present all sides of an issue which is also in the definition of open minded, and the opposite of subjective.
And if you can't see how it's unfair, and in fact, dishonest, to critique someone's photo arbitrarily because you hate guns,[if it's an otherwise well composed gun photo] then so be it. At least you've provided a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with some voting habits on this site.
The problem is the difference between objective(undistorted by emotion or personal bias)voting, and subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias) voting. People whom vote subjectively aren't capable of critical thought, because they are biased to an emotional degree on what is what is appealing to them, rather than what may otherwise be an expertly composed photo, fitting within the challenge constraints.
What's so wrong with with scoring the capture objectively, and commenting subjectively? Is there some reason you think your emotional opinion needs to reflect on the score, other than to potentially skew the score to the extreme, low, or high? I like the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, but in a NFL DP challenge, if someone gets a better shot of a Cleveland Browns scene (The Steelers' arch rivals), I'm giving it a better score. Hell, if the challenge is "significant others", and someone gets a better shot of theirs than I do of mine, I'm also going to give it a better score. And guess what? My perfectly objective, non-emotional-wreck fiancee would totally AGREE.
Each of these comments are substantively objective in standpoint, and therefore, inherently unbiased, fair, and open minded, because they cannot be distorted by emotional, subjective viewpoints. That's a key word, distorted. I offered several examples of how using only a subjective viewpoint, with no objectivity can be unfair, and dishonest. I used the gun picture as an example of how voting with raw emotion can be dishonest.
If you can find any dishonesty above, point it out.
If you guys wanna name-call without being substantive, fine - I'm one of the best. But until someone here can refute these comments above, all tenets of strict objectivity, as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary, and all known vernacular, then please do so. I'll be here, when you decide whom you'd rather have vote, and score your photos.
And a special shout-out to melethia, who was the only one to debate me substantively on this subject, and in fact, was the first one to do so. I would imagine she's the one who found me, in fact.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:37:43.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 10:56:30 AM · #5 |
To repeat: I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how. I personally think the impact of a photograph is not only a valid part of the assessment, but a necessary one. I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate. I want the reaction to be included in the votes I receive.
I don't wish to debate the above. I answered your question. I was being polite in responding to your query. The information was not meant for you to analyze, find fault with, or otherwise nitpick. Note that each of the statements in my response begins with "I" and therefore is of no concern to you.
Originally posted by supernaught:
The one's that aren't motivated to compete, and to participate don't get very far in life.
Some are content with this, as perhaps you are.
Personally, I like engaging, participating - learning how to improve my photography by emulating, and perhaps discovering something new in this medium. What a wonderful web site to foment creativity in digital photography, by asking enthusiasts to participate, and gauge themselves against others to improve their skills. |
I would offer that my participation in this site is significant. (And it's not "The one's" - "one's" implies the possessive or the contraction of "one is." "Ones" is the plural.)
Originally posted by supernaught:
And I think you should consider how your subjectivity might be undermining your own sensibilities, for example:
I want the reaction (which I consider subjective) to be included in the votes I receive.
I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate.
I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how.
You're ardent defense of subjective criteria suggests a little intellectual dishonesty here - no offense. |
I stand by what I said. I am not dishonest. No offense taken. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:57:02 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
... I simply outlined some fractures in her argument, as anyone defending their position would do.
I'll debate anyone ... |
The Philosophical Debates - Sounds like your cup of tea. :-) |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:47:22 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'll take  supernaught more seriously when he demonstrates his own skill behind the camera. Manners wouldn't hurt either.
As for me, I vote how I damn well please. |
I will be glad when this thread is locked. I don't think the majority of us are into bashing one another.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:42:07 AM · #8 |
| It's probably more in the way those differences are pointed out. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:40:35 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Originally posted by supernaught:
Alright, let's start here then: Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing
N-i-c-e eschelar! Fantastic grammar. And don't worry about whether or not I'm trying to sound smart - I'll let my articulations speak for themselves. Of course, maybe your 3 year old had a go at the keyboard, just for that brilliant sentence? Just a guess.
|
I know I'm going to regret this, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence fragment of eschelar's you quoted; unless you're actually getting hung up on the typo 'art' where he meant 'are'.
I'm not replying for the sake of being confrontational, but because I really don't want people to go away from this discussion with the wrong idea of what proper English really is. We get a lot of non-native speakers on this site and they could do without the confusion.
Also please don't insult his hypothetical 3 year old. It might well be able to speak more fluently than you. |
Nah, I'm pretty sure eschelar can defend himself just fine. And it was he who started this. Oh, and you didn't notice, obviously, that the the joke was about him making me sound smart by putting a "test" in the post? Hmmm... comprehension can be fun, kids! And this thread was about unfair voting - not my misuse of "whom", which was started by him. You expect me to what, bow down, not defend myself? He had some other sentence issues you didn't cite, btw.
And when you find that 3 year old - I'll buy him! That's a money maker, fer-sher.
You guys wouldn't even care, if I weren't of a different opinion than you as to voting standards, so take all the cheap shots you want - it's only proving your disgust with people that have differing opinions from yours.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:32:26 AM · #10 |
I'll take supernaught more seriously when he demonstrates his own skill behind the camera. Manners wouldn't hurt either.
As for me, I vote how I damn well please. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:30:45 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
Alright, let's start here then: Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing
N-i-c-e eschelar! Fantastic grammar. And don't worry about whether or not I'm trying to sound smart - I'll let my articulations speak for themselves. Of course, maybe your 3 year old had a go at the keyboard, just for that brilliant sentence? Just a guess.
|
I know I'm going to regret this, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence fragment of eschelar's you quoted; unless you're actually getting hung up on the typo 'art' where he meant 'are'.
I'm not replying for the sake of being confrontational, but because I really don't want people to go away from this discussion with the wrong idea of what proper English really is. We get a lot of non-native speakers on this site and they could do without the confusion.
Also please don't insult his hypothetical 3 year old. It might well be able to speak more fluently than you. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:29:09 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
supernaught,
The fact that you chose to respond to  Melethia, and how you chose to respond, says a lot about you. It shows that you have an instinct for figuring out who the most caring person is in a given situation, and then an impulse to try to hurt that person by attacking what you perceive to be her vulnerability. It's a character trait I wish I were less familiar with.
I hope she ignores this thread. |
Well, then I would suppose you give Melethia very little credit, for being able to hold her own in a debate. I think she handled herself admirably, under intense disagreement with her philosophy. I simply outlined some fractures in her argument, as anyone defending their position would do.
If I were her, I'd be more offended by your assumption of her weakness, which she hasn't demonstrated here. I'm pretty certain she's dealt with alot more controversy in her life than I could provide. You must really have an advanced impression of me!
And suggesting that I have an impulse for attacking weak people is disturbing, and hateful.
So by your observation, melethia is a weak person, who can't hold her own in a passionate debate, with a little invective thrown in. You're the one who should be ashamed.
I suppose you view eschelar the same way? Was my impulse to "hurt" him in debate a threat to his "weakness" too? What an insult to them! You're really a do-gooder!
I'll debate anyone, and I'm not going to insult them by "downsizing" my debate to accomodate some deranged notion you have of their "weakness". How absurd, and demeaning to these people.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 09:29:45.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:19:48 AM · #13 |
Was there an attack? No kidding, this whole thread has become incomprehensible to me. However, sorry to hear it. Melethia left a terrific comment for me this week.
:-)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:17:52 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Quasimojo:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Is this a well executed shot?
...
Doesn't look like the voters got the point. |
Even I know that this line of argument is in dead horse territory for around here! Someone said it to me - you can't expect the voters to 'get' your photo, or be upset when they don't. If there's a failure in the process it's either in your expectations or your assumptions of the voters.
Look, to me that's a fuzzy cat photo. I know you intended something differently, and maybe you achieved it, but to me it's still a fuzzy cat. There are also other creative or artistic mechanisms to provide greater contrast on the cat (as you mention in that photo's comments re: light and dark) or the surround other than very soft focus...
So, yes, it's a well executed shot for what you had intended, but no, I didn't interpret it as well executed because I wasn't aware of your intention (and a photo shouldn't need supporting evidence or a prologue!). Even if I had been I'm not sure that the soft focus really does anything for the subject matter or light/dark other than to confuse the viewer. |
I agree with quasi, it's just a fuzzy cat, with no real composition, other than basic positioning, and the conrast/overexposure elements don't help it much. There are ways to do that that are more generally appealing, but I don't see it here. How the heck would I know if the photgrapher meant to do this, or was submitting a frivolously bad picture? If I look at it objectively, that is to say with an open mind, and from all possible sides, I would rate this below average.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 09:12:45 AM · #15 |
supernaught,
The fact that you chose to respond to Melethia, and how you chose to respond, says a lot about you. It shows that you have an instinct for figuring out who the most caring person is in a given situation, and then an impulse to try to hurt that person by attacking what you perceive to be her vulnerability. It's a character trait I wish I were less familiar with.
I hope she ignores this thread.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 09:13:20. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 08:41:48 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
... I'm comfortable with you voting however you like and I don't give a rat's monkey about what you think everyone else should be doing or what you think art is or blah blah blah... ... |
Hooray! Thank you!!! OMG, did I just AGREE with eschelar??? Quick! Mark the calendar. :-) |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 08:29:07 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by supernaught:
Alright, let's start here then: Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing
N-i-c-e eschelar! Fantastic grammar. And don't worry about whether or not I'm trying to sound smart - I'll let my articulations speak for themselves. Of course, maybe your 3 year old had a go at the keyboard, just for that brilliant sentence? Just a guess.
|
Heh. I'm glad you noticed that. I was worried that I would need to italicize it or something so you would notice it. I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology of trying to fit your definitions of how things 'are' within the realm of what others are trying to present as 'art'. It was pretty sneaky of me and I'm glad that you at least saw what I was doing even if you completely missed the meaning of what I did. But that's the beauty of art isn't it? Not everyone sees the same thing.
I don't think I need to respond to the rest of your posts since I'm comfortable with you voting however you like and I don't give a rat's monkey about what you think everyone else should be doing or what you think art is or blah blah blah...
Originally posted by S00per0:
Knuck up, Doc, I write gooder than you (Oh, Sssnap!) |
oh snap indeed. |
I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology
I really don't think I need to write what I know eveyone else is thinking. Next! (ROTFLMAO)
You didn't. Which is why I said that I didn't mind any of the other demonstrations of 'lax english rules' that are common on the 'net, however I did find it particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors by using a word which seemed to have the sole purpose of making you sound smarter
Now, why would I need to try to sound smarter, when I have you doing a fine job on your own, with clever tests like, I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology to see if I would notice? (LAFF. OUT. LOUD.)
Dr. Eschelar's motivisational, improvisational, grammtastical, grammary sampulary of sentacular structicle
...particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors
...to have to read you make obvious errors
...to read you make obvious errors
(Agh, it HURTS! The lafftacular, spectacular, master of the sentacular!! LMAO!!!)
But I can help: ... to have to read your obvious errors, or even better...having to read your obvious errors - it's okay, man. Nobody's King Of The World, no matter what
Leonardo DiCaprio taught you about love, loss, and the high seas. It's okay - I cried too...
Yet another grammatical expose' from the good Dr. Eschelar!!! (Remember: My use of "whom" as a subject, rather than an object
was "grating" on this guy.)
My point: Glass houses, and stones, Good Dr.!
Also, I'd be curious to know which ideology I represent, because I didn't identify myself with one. My hope is that you somehow
think objectivity is a society people with objectivitis. I KILL ME.
I don't give a rat's monkey about what you think
Dammit, Jim - I'm a DOCTOR, not a veteranarian!!! What can I possibly do with a... a... ??? A rat's monkey???
Au contrarical, Dr. Eschelar! If you didn't give a rat's monkey (New photo challenge?), whatever that is, you wouldn't
have responded. Relax, you're a Dr. Of Grammtology, it's your job to care.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 06:04:18 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
Alright, let's start here then: Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing
N-i-c-e eschelar! Fantastic grammar. And don't worry about whether or not I'm trying to sound smart - I'll let my articulations speak for themselves. Of course, maybe your 3 year old had a go at the keyboard, just for that brilliant sentence? Just a guess.
|
Heh. I'm glad you noticed that. I was worried that I would need to italicize it or something so you would notice it. I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology of trying to fit your definitions of how things 'are' within the realm of what others are trying to present as 'art'. It was pretty sneaky of me and I'm glad that you at least saw what I was doing even if you completely missed the meaning of what I did. But that's the beauty of art isn't it? Not everyone sees the same thing.
Originally posted by supe:
Secondly: I didn't know I'd entered the "Defintions For English Words Special Olympics".
You didn't. Which is why I said that I didn't mind any of the other demonstrations of 'lax english rules' that are common on the 'net, however I did find it particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors by using a word which seemed to have the sole purpose of making you sound smarter - especially since this word was incorrectly used.
I wondered for a moment if you were trying to do something clever by showing your inability to distinguish the difference in a sentence between the subject and the object while you were attempting to set everyone straight on the definition of subjective and objective, but looking closer - and having a second example to draw on - I saw that it was pretty much simply that you could not actually tell the difference.
Thanks for confirming this for me with a third instance of misuse.
[quote=soup-o-naut] Or someone like Dr. Eschelar whom (Yay! I used "whom" correctly!!) likes to redefine others positions to suit his own criteria for the sake of a laugh, because he's "a regular?" |
Uhhh. Not quite there yet.
Originally posted by SuperNaught:
They become less interesting over time, but that doesn't mean they should be thrashed in the scoring - especially if they are done competently. Again, whom would you rather have voting on your submission: Dr. Eschelar, Pawdrix, etc. if you had a "fruit dropping" submission, after these comments? Or someone more objective, and open-minded? (I put that "whom" in there to confuse you, Doc - refering to names on one hand, then simply referred to "someone"!)
|
Hey, you did it! Fourth time's a charm. But one in four isn't a passing grade, so you might want to keep practicing and review to make sure you actually understand and it wasn't just a fluke this time.
I don't think I need to respond to the rest of your posts since I'm comfortable with you voting however you like and I don't give a rat's monkey about what you think everyone else should be doing or what you think art is or blah blah blah...
Originally posted by S00per0:
Knuck up, Doc, I write gooder than you (Oh, Sssnap!) |
oh snap indeed.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 06:07:02. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 04:45:21 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
If a strong negative impact is recorded as a one , to me it is ignoring the strong impact and writing off the image.
To me, a strong impact, positive or negative, means the image connected with the viewer, big time, which should lead to a higher score, not a lower one. |
I partially agree. But once I get over my enthusiasm for the impact of the image, which is only a component of fair, objective critique, I would have to study the rest of the equation to determine compositional quality and overall skill of the photographer.
Nonetheless, emotional impact can't always be imparted to every viewer. Which is obvious, and why I defend, staunchly, a more objective approach.
But you're right - positive and negative shouldn't affect the scoring , in regard to a low score if it's subject matter is something you detest. That is impact!
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 04:35:43 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I will answer your question. I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how. I personally think the impact of a photograph is not only a valid part of the assessment, but a necessary one. I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate. If I enter a picture of a gun pointed at the viewer, I am fully cognizant that it will have an impact on the viewer, and that impact may be negative. I want the reaction (which I consider subjective) to be included in the votes I receive. |
I want the reaction (which I consider subjective) to be included in the votes I receive.
There you go again - defying english and all known vernacular to apply your own definition to a perfectly functional, and comprehensive word (objective) to mean something it does not. Whimsical.
I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate.
This is an example of allowing your own self-indulgent criteria to distort an otherwise objective opinion.
What's so wrong with with scoring the capture objectively, and commenting subjectively? Is there some reason you think your emotional opinion needs to reflect on the score, other than to potentially skew the score to the extreme, low, or high? I like the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, but in a NFL DP challenge, if someone gets a better shot of a Cleveland Browns scene (The Steelers' arch rivals), I'm giving it a better score. Hell, if the challenge is "significant others", and someone gets a better shot of theirs than I do of mine, I'm also going to give it a better score. And guess what? My perfectly objective, non-emotional-wreck fiancee would totally AGREE.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp???
And here's a great one: I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how.
Then there is no reason to be concerned with this discussion, period. Most people, I think you'll find, enjoy winning things... competing in some way to strive for some sort of reward. A reward from your peers can be a powerful, constructive force in a person's life, and in many instances. It's a human tenet, and part of our nature, and it serves to make us better, to foment new ideas, and to creatively find new ways to improve at something. Do you think we'd even have these wonderful, new digital camera's if not for competition amongst the manufacturers, to continually improve their product? Artists, engineers, carpenters, CEO's, laborers all want their piece of the pie, and will compete for it. The one's that aren't motivated to compete, and to participate don't get very far in life.
Some are content with this, as perhaps you are.
Personally, I like engaging, participating - learning how to improve my photography by emulating, and perhaps discovering something new in this medium. What a wonderful web site to foment creativity in digital photography, by asking enthusiasts to participate, and gauge themselves against others to improve their skills.
If you don't care, then I don't see any reason to continue discussing this with you, because there's plenty of people here who want a fair shake at achieving a reward for there work and diligence. It's what motivates some to improve and become better at this. And then there is the simple, subjective reward of looking at your own image, and seeing perfection, where other's may not - because they too may be looking subjectively, at your work. Your work. They have no business doing so when critiquing for a competitive score, period. Subjective commenting? Fine. Scoring? No.
And I think you should consider how your subjectivity might be undermining your own sensibilities, for example:
I want the reaction (which I consider subjective) to be included in the votes I receive.
I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate.
I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how.
You're ardent defense of subjective criteria suggests a little intellectual dishonesty here - no offense.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 02:49:15 AM · #21 |
| Next time I see a thread complaining about low votes, I think I'd feel better if it were a good photo, deserving of a decent score, but one that placed somewhat lower. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 02:13:26 AM · #22 |
If a strong negative impact is recorded as a one , to me it is ignoring the strong impact and writing off the image.
To me, a strong impact, positive or negative, means the image connected with the viewer, big time, which should lead to a higher score, not a lower one. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 01:39:41 AM · #23 |
| I will answer your question. I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how. I personally think the impact of a photograph is not only a valid part of the assessment, but a necessary one. I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate. If I enter a picture of a gun pointed at the viewer, I am fully cognizant that it will have an impact on the viewer, and that impact may be negative. I want the reaction (which I consider subjective) to be included in the votes I receive. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 12:42:40 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by supernaught:
The less we have to worry about people's personal biases/feelings getting in the way, the better. That, over time, would translate to a wider berth for new enthusiasts to stretch creatively, and find a happy home on the DPC, bereft of ideological voting scores. |
heh. Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing, capturing, referring to, implying, hinting at, toying with, mocking, getting people to think about, juxtaposing.................... feelings and emotions.
Let's get down and define art. And while we're at it, let's apply our own definitions to everyone. But please check your emotions at the door. They have no place in the arena with a camera.
(uhm just in case ya don't get it, that's got a 'subtle' vein of sarcasm floating around in it and I am not actually advocating this...)
Oh and SuperN, I don't mind the careful use of conjunctions at the beginning of sentences and other grammatical errors (it's just the internet), but if you misuse the word 'whom' one more time to make yourself sound smart/literate/whatever, I think I'm going to have to say something about it. Oops - too late!
tee hee. |
Alright, let's start here then: Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing
N-i-c-e eschelar! Fantastic grammar. And don't worry about whether or not I'm trying to sound smart - I'll let my articulations speak for themselves. Of course, maybe your 3 year old had a go at the keyboard, just for that brilliant sentence? Just a guess.
Secondly: I didn't know I'd entered the "Defintions For English Words Special Olympics".
But once more, for the attentive crowd, p-u-h-l-e-e-e-s-e welcome, The applicable Definition of Objective: (Fanfare!! Explosions!!! Weeee!!!!) undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" , emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art"
Now I'll go through this s-l-o-w-l-y, so everyone is sure to understand the confusing array of letters smattered above, but I assure you, they actually form coherent, arranged words.
1.) At no time, did I, or anyone else articulate that emotion was exempt from objectively critiquing a photograph submitted for a challenge. In fact, the body of the debate on my end was simply arguing that your scoring of the subject shouldn't be distorted by your personal emotions, and is patently dishonest, and unfair to the submission. Melethia didn't cop to being a dishonest reviewer, when she said that she hated guns, and wouldn't have pictures of them in her home. She instead posited that she would objectively rate the photo based on it's overall composition. This is Good! (Yay!)
But what if the inverse were true, and she would instead "give it a one", because she hates guns? Even if it's an expertly composed capture? Is there anyone here that would argue that this is exemplary of a dishonest, biased review?
If any of you have a hard time understanding my position, I suggest "Hooked on Monkey Phonics."
2.)Let's get down and define art. And while we're at it, let's apply our own definitions to everyone. But please check your emotions at the door. They have no place in the arena with a camera.
Eschelar, a wonderful, sarcastic, and patently strawman statement. Is there some reason you're completely misrepresenting my stance? I don't know you, but I suspect you might be King Of The World, and nobody wants to upset the King, Right? Except me.
I noticed that no one, including Melethia, and Dr. Eschelar here ever answered my question. Who would you guys rather have reviewing your "Gun" photo? Someone that's willing to put aside their personal feelings for the sake of honest evaluation, or a self-righteous, self indulgent subjective person? Or someone like Dr. Eschelar whom (Yay! I used "whom" correctly!!) likes to redefine others positions to suit his own criteria for the sake of a laugh, because he's "a regular?"
Sorry, Esch, but I'm not the guy that beat up on the new kid in school, you, and some others here apparently were. I beat up the guy that beat up on the new kid. Genius!
3.) Rather than follow the advice of Dr. Eschelar, I won't attempt to define what is "art" here (which he, by the way, suggests you can, if you're some amorphous, subjective, emotional person - read his words and think about it, and note that I may made no such proclamation.) but we can do this: Evaluate the body of work that is getting noticed on this site, in order to determine what has become average, and score it appropriately, (hint: I would start with 5!) since that is the definition of average. These things, such as the "fruit dropping" trend weigh heavily on the minds of enthusiastic DPC members, as Dr. Eschelar prescribed (Hee!).
Dr. Eschelar wisely submitted that many voters aren't aware of what has become mainstream on DPChallenge, my hope is that the voting system can be refined somehow to omit frivolous voting of this nature - but that isn't the nature of this thread.
They become less interesting over time, but that doesn't mean they should be thrashed in the scoring - especially if they are done competently. Again, whom would you rather have voting on your submission: Dr. Eschelar, Pawdrix, etc. if you had a "fruit dropping" submission, after these comments? Or someone more objective, and open-minded? (I put that "whom" in there to confuse you, Doc - refering to names on one hand, then simply referred to "someone"!)
Some you you referred to me as a newbie - that's so cute! (Tickle Tickle, children!) But guess what, I wasn't born seconds before you read my posts, and if you don't like them, at least try to be a little less like some high school clique' and be respectful. I was - until Dr. Eschelars, and others snide, sarcastic, elitist remarks - modulated toward debate, and critical discussion of potentially unfair voting practices.
Knuck up, Doc, I write gooder than you (Oh, Sssnap!)
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 04:53:15.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 12:33:54 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Quasimojo:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
My entire point was that by not allowing artistic merit, we are somewhat judging according to what technicals someone has mastered, be it through equipment or editing skills/software, those who have those advantages are more likely to have the advantage in the technical department |
Careful now - you're treading on "Photoshop Is Not Photography" ice there :)
But seriously though...what's wrong with technical merit or mastery? There are loads of technically well executed photos out there that don't have much of an idea or appeal behind it, and vice versa loads of original ideas but poor execution. It's when they come together that the ribbons and decent scores happen imho...so anyone can improve technically to be able to turn ideas into better reality.
It's when people (with fabulous ideas) stubbornly defend their blurry photos as their artistic style but also with a kind of 'can't learn, won't learn' attitude to modern post production techniques that I get concerned, because I'm guessing that these are the same people who might repeatedly harshly vote widely regarded good photos poorly. Jealousy, sour grapes, bitterness...whatever you call it...I can't think of any other reason as to why someone's perception/interpretation/appreciation of a photo would be so fundamentally different to everyone else (perhaps autism or aspergers at the far end of the scale???).
N |
I agree with you about there being some "sour graped" voters out there. Hopefully, they are in the minority. And, most certainly, the most appealing idea, if poorly executed, will fare very poorly overall in perception to most people in general. No argument there.
However, when there are the real basis for voting is pretty much heavily weighted towards technicals...which DPC voters tend to do, the entire idea of photography then becomes slanted towards one of technical merit and abilities. I've seen some pretty wonderful photographs that have become famous but, would have been shot down by DPC voters! *grin* And, equally, I've seen some really fabulous shots overlooked, marked low and shoved down the list. Not because they were not technically well done, but because they simply didn't have that "DPC Look" so to speak to them. They dared to go outside the box so to speak.
But, getting back to the original topic at hand, the fact that some voters are out there, giving very low scores......well, that may be an indication that PERHAPS, there are photography members of DPC who are in somewhat of a "quiet revolt" against this type of "narrowed field" that is expected in order to be seen well by DPC voters! It may be THEIR own way of attempting to create a stir of some sort.
Could it possibly be that some DPCers are making a "behind the scenes" statement????
Don't forget that hardcore technicals aren't the only viewpoint that one can consider a photo great upon, nor stock shots. So, is it just possible that others do not view technically perfect as the only vantage point on which to judge?
I kind of think that there is a "shift" coming eventually in DPC in which newer members are going to start pushing the envelope to be opened to a different vantage point by which to "judge" photography in time. :)
Edited to add: By the way...I wasn't at all intending on saying that Photoshop is not photography....it is! I think it enhances photography greatly! We've come a long way, Baby! ;) As for "thin ice".....I've got a raft! *grin*
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 00:36:04. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 05:17:15 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 05:17:15 AM EDT.
|
