| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2004 12:33:02 PM · #151 |
The problem I see is that we have about 20 threads discussing how this photo or that photo may or may not have met the challenge. In "Threes," it's pretty simple,you need three visible objects. In "Choices," it's alot harder.
You certainly have the right to give 1s to every picture if you don't see how it meets the challenge, but that's a very subjective theme, and just because you don't see the connection, doesn't mean it's not there.
It could be a cultural gap, social class gap, even a regional eccentricity. I agree that every entry should meet the challenge as a given, but I also try to give the benefit of the doubt to the photographers.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:34:21 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Oh good Lord! Don't ya'll have pictures to take or something? Somebody gave Jacko's photo a 2 because they didn't like it. Jacko is a talented guy and obviously his scores aren't suffering so the merit of a 6 page discussion on this "criminal act" is beyond me. |
I think for some it has become a mission in life right now to get their points across. Is it working? No. Will if work if this continues? No. It should just be accepted that everyone has their own opinions on how to vote. Suprisingly enough the website still seems to be up and running fine. The major part of the best images still end up in the top ten. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:43:47 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
10 boobies
5 beer |
Yep, sounds like the start of a good night out.. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:46:08 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by Gordon:
10 boobies
5 beer |
Yep, sounds like the start of a good night out.. |
Dunno - seems that you'd be one beer short for the first round.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:46:15 PM · #155 |
Gordon, I find it impossible to believe that how well an image meets the challenge can have no basis in your scoring. Whether you recognize it or not, I'm sure it plays a role in your voting.
Jon, I have given lame photos scores as high as 4 or 5 if they meet the challenge dead-on. An image that meets the challenge well will never get a 1 from me because SOME photographic skill is necessary to communicate the topic. Topicality and photographic skill are both important, which is why I have a problem with ignoring the former.
Again this thread is about RIBBON WINNING SHOTS. To say that you can recognize an image as technically sound and meeting the challenge, yet still give it a 1 or 2 just for personal taste is tantamount to admitting that you give no weight to the challenge topic or technical prowess. I know you can't please everybody, but if voting were based purely on personal taste, then there would be no objective way to learn and improve. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:49:16 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Gordon, I find it impossible to believe that how well an image meets the challenge can have no basis in your scoring. Whether you recognize it or not, I'm sure it plays a role in your voting. |
If you think that it doesn't, then you haven't paid attention at all.
But once more - I'm not trying to convince you to vote in the way that I vote, I'm still trying to merely point out that a vote that doesn't agree with you, or anyone else, is not automatically a troll. It would be nice to get enough respect that didn't need to be argued over for so long.
I vote differently to you. The rules clearly state that how I vote and how you vote are both correct and obviously also very different.
If I think an image is mindnumbingly dull, technically hideous, or drearily processed digitally, I reserve the right to give it a 1 or 2, even if it happens to have wandered in to the same ballpark as the challenge theme. There are several images that have ribbons that I would honestly say, in my opinion, based on only a few years of quite intensive study of art and photography, that are completely crap. Yes they happen to meet the challenge. Yes they are crap. Terrible. Ugly, badly exposed, badly processed, poorly conceived. and no, I will not point them out. Even though some have stated that this view doesn't have respect for the photographers, I still do and am not willing to point them out in this forum. Nor do I feel I should justify any particular vote I've given on any particular image. We are voting on artistic images. It isn't a science. We don't have to have the same taste.
Why on earth would I have to agree with the deluded masses and vote them high - just because you think I should ?
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 12:54:18.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:55:40 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Except that I'd argue that what you've defined is contradictory. I've never seen an image that superbly meets the challenge that I'd consider a terribly bad image. |
OK... using your own example: if someone voted Jacko's dragonfly down solely because it had been done before, then you've got a bad image (for lack of originality) that superbly meets the challenge. In that case, Jacko's excellent macro would be treated as the equal of (or inferior to) a poor image that only squeaks by as a close-up.
BTW- never once have I uttered the T- word.
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 12:56:51. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 12:56:55 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Except that I'd argue that what you've defined is contradictory. I've never seen an image that superbly meets the challenge that I'd consider a terribly bad image. |
OK... using your own example: if someone voted Jacko's dragonfly down solely because it had been done before, then you've got a bad image (for lack of originality) that superbly meets the challenge. In that case, Jacko's excellent macro would be treated as the equal of (or inferior to) a poor image that only squeaks by as a close-up. |
No. it does not superbly meet the challenge. I look at that image and think 'dragonfly' not 'macro' for example. Again, you are making up arguments by misunderstanding words. it certainly meets the challenge.
Show it to any random non-photographer and ask them what the first word in their head would be - it wouldn't be 'macro'
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 12:57:36.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 01:05:01 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Show it to any random non-photographer and ask them what the first word in their head would be - it wouldn't be 'macro' |
.. but you could say that about almost any picture .. I'm sure if I showed 10 blue ribbon photos to people at my work .. 9 out of 10 times the first thing in their mind wouldn't be the actual challenge either.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 01:08:13 PM · #160 |
OK forget superb (sheesh). That doesn't change the premise: ignoring the topic means that you could have a bad image (purely for lack of originality) that meets the challenge well treated as the equal of (or inferior to) a technically poor image that only squeaks by as a close-up.
I'm done here. [white flag] |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 01:11:00 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Jon, I have given lame photos scores as high as 4 or 5 if they meet the challenge dead-on. An image that meets the challenge well will never get a 1 from me because SOME photographic skill is necessary to communicate the topic. Topicality and photographic skill are both important, which is why I have a problem with ignoring the former.
|
What did you give this?  I would have given it very low, perhaps a 1 or 2. However I feel he has met the challenge.
Originally posted by scalvert:
To say that you can recognize an image as technically sound and meeting the challenge, yet still give it a 1 or 2 just for personal taste is tantamount to admitting that you give no weight to the challenge topic or technical prowess. |
But I do admit that I give no weight to the challenge or technical prowess once I start voting. If it doesn't meet the challenge at all it's not going to score with me at all so it doesn't even figure in the voting.
As for technical prowess, well that is often but not always inbuilt into what makes a good photograph.
I think the difference between us is that you try and break down why you like a picture (it meets challenge, it's technically very good, and i like it)
Where as i simply say "I like it this much 1-10". At the end of the day i am going to like a relevant, technically sound picture better than an irrelevant, badly taken photograph. I simply do not analyze my thoughts they way you seem to. And I don't consciously think about each aspect of photography when doing so"
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 13:12:53.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 02:26:35 PM · #162 |
| Ok, I was gonna stay out of this one but I just have to put in my two cents worth. This may have already been said because I honestly couldn't suffer through seven pages of this thread. I hit the first three pages and most of the last one. My point: Jacko's blue ribbon winner was a great photo and deserved the blue ribbon. There was a handful of voters who for whatever reason didn't like it so they scored it low. But it still won the blue ribbon so who cares? The system works! Would it have won two blue ribbons with the 1's and 2's voters scoring it a 10? I don't think so. It would have still won a blue ribbon. There is nothing higher. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 02:58:14 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by maharris:
Ok, I was gonna stay out of this one but I just have to put in my two cents worth. This may have already been said because I honestly couldn't suffer through seven pages of this thread. I hit the first three pages and most of the last one. My point: Jacko's blue ribbon winner was a great photo and deserved the blue ribbon. There was a handful of voters who for whatever reason didn't like it so they scored it low. But it still won the blue ribbon so who cares? The system works! Would it have won two blue ribbons with the 1's and 2's voters scoring it a 10? I don't think so. It would have still won a blue ribbon. There is nothing higher. |
Surely the 'system works' is only working to your tastes then...? Not to those people that voted it 2 (whoever they are) otherwise a working system to them would be last place with a score of 2.
It would be dull if the system worked so that your 10's always came first, your 9's second and so forth. Life would be dull and predictable and we would all think the same thoughts and share the same tastes.
I am glad not everyone likes things the same, what would be the point of these forums? D:
Message edited by author 2004-08-12 15:01:37.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 03:05:09 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by cooliak:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Show it to any random non-photographer and ask them what the first word in their head would be - it wouldn't be 'macro' |
.. but you could say that about almost any picture .. I'm sure if I showed 10 blue ribbon photos to people at my work .. 9 out of 10 times the first thing in their mind wouldn't be the actual challenge either. |
and the 1 out of the 10 images that does, really nails the challenge theme - and I think those are often the exceptionally good images as well.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 03:15:39 PM · #165 |
diverse opinions: yet the winning shots get filtered quite neatly; some shots get high scores just because they show exotic places - to me more a travel agency item than a winner, except for novelty value; some shots try to make us see more than we normally do - the macro-related type of pictures - but how many educational points is that in itself?
Do we give praise for nebulous "liking" or for "technical merit" or what?? Let's keep trying to analyze our own rationale - |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 06:09:13 PM · #166 |
| i still don't see why it matters when almost every picture in the challenge receives a 1 or 2. whether or not you think it is justified is another matter. however, as far as ruining the voting process, or the site in general, it's not happening. |
|
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: 04/19/2024 04:38:53 PM EDT.
