| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2004 06:22:33 AM · #1 |
Hello everyone,
It seems to me that a large number of voters judge a picture only if it might fit into a challenge. We are talking about a piece of technology that is 40 years old and that most of our kids would consider as very low technology.
So please let me ask: Why do the voters tell me that it is not "Low Tech". Two third of the comments to that picture refer to "... that is Electronic, not Low Tech ...".
I would like to appeal everybody who votes and comments to keep an open mind and to be a bit more generously.
Best regards and happy race,
Ralf
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed description of current challenge entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 06:25:13 AM · #2 |
Well first of all I don't agree that you should be telling us which is your picture here, it's supposed to be anonymous.
Anyway, I see what you're saying, but I also said it was electronic because it is, and the challenge guidelines clearly stated it had to be non-electronic.
Electricity was invented when many other low tech things are about, electrical appliances can also be low tech, but it syas in the guidelines that they are not to be entered, otherwise it paves the way for other electronic outdated things, such as old mobile phones and Acorns.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed quoted description of current entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:14:30 AM · #3 |
If someone thinks that a picture violates the submission guidlines, then he should click the "Recommend this photograph for disqualification" link.
My posting was not necessarily about the question whether a small piece of plastic is electronic or not.
But I do think the voters should look at the picture and judge lightning, quality, subject. Just let the admin decide whether a picture does or does not follow the guidlines.
Ralf |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:16:03 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Winterberg:
If someone thinks that a picture violates the submission guidlines, then he should click the "Recommend this photograph for disqualification" link.
My posting was not necessarily about the question whether a small piece of plastic is electronic or not.
But I do think the voters should look at the picture and judge lightning, quality, subject. Just let the admin decide whether a picture does or does not follow the guidlines.
Ralf |
No it actually says in the DQ window not to ask for DQ if it doesn't meet the challenege, just show this in your rating. DQ's are only for rule breakers.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:26:39 AM · #5 |
There is nothing electronic about that subject.
On another note, just because something is electric, doesnt mean it's electronic.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed description of current challenge entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:35:59 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
There is nothing electronic about that subject.
On another note, just because something is electric, doesnt mean it's electronic. |
That's true in a sense, but there's nothing electronic about a CD either and that wouldn't go down well.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed quoted description of current entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:38:13 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
There is nothing electronic about that subject.
On another note, just because something is electric, doesnt mean it's electronic. |
I'm with you on this. The entry rules say no electronics it does mention electrical at all.
There is a country mile between electrical and electronic.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed quoted description of current entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:44:27 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Rankles:
Originally posted by jmlelii:
There is nothing electronic about that subject.
On another note, just because something is electric, doesnt mean it's electronic. |
That's true in a sense, but there's nothing electronic about a CD either and that wouldn't go down well. |
CD's arent low tech.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed quoted description of current entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:49:57 AM · #9 |
Dictionary.com:
e·lec·tron·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lk-trnk, lk-)
adj.
1) Of or relating to electrons.
2) Of, based on, operated by, or otherwise involving the controlled conduction of electrons or other charge carriers, especially in a vacuum, gas, or semiconducting material.
3) Of, relating to, or produced by means of electronics: electronic navigation; electronic books.
4) Of or relating to music produced or altered by electronic means, as by a tape recorder or synthesizer.
5) Of, implemented on, or controlled by a computer or computer network.
Your subject relies on elctronics to be functional just as the some other entries submitted submitted are low-tech, they are electronic as well.
I hate to be harsh here, cuz I liked a lot of those pics, but the title is not the only thing to consider and many seemed to only pay attention to that portion of the challenge. Can't remember whose voting 'picture' I saw posted recently, but it was a colorful grid that indicated if a shot did not meet the challenge, it was in the red column (or similar), could meet the challenge (yellow), definitely met the challenge (green). Each column began then with technicals and the top score of Red was 4, Yellow I think was 6, Green was 10 all bounded by technicality and challenge.
(EDIT: found the chart, Thanx Scott (SDW) for a concise summary:  )
...when faced with the literal boundaries by which someone may judge our art, we can either choose to create art within those boundaries seeking an intangible reward or create our art outside of those boundaries, seeking a more satisfying personal reward with the full knowledge that art is often misunderstood and thusly may fall short of others expectations.
Message edited by author 2004-12-01 20:10:55.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:56:40 AM · #10 |
I would just like to point out, in lieu of a recent comment I got on my low tech entry in case anyone doesn't know...
Details: Shoot something non-electronic that would be considered "low" technology.
The 'old' was changed to 'low'.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:58:55 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
...when faced with the literal boundaries by which someone may judge our art, we can either choose to create art within those boundaries seeking an intangible reward or create our art outside of those boundaries, seeking a more satisfying personal reward with the full knowledge that art is often misunderstood and thusly may fall short of others expectations. |
well put...that is why i turn the scores off when i submit a shot i like ;-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 08:10:09 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
On another note, just because something is electric, doesnt mean it's electronic. |
e·lec·tron·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lk-trnk, lk-)
adj.
(1). Of or relating to electrons.
(2). Of, based on, operated by, or otherwise involving the controlled conduction of electrons or other charge carriers, especially in a vacuum, gas, or semiconducting material.
(3). Of, relating to, or produced by means of electronics: electronic navigation; electronic books.
(4). Of or relating to music produced or altered by electronic means, as by a tape recorder or synthesizer.
(5). Of, implemented on, or controlled by a computer or computer network.
Sounds like your subject is electronic to me.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed description of current challenge entry. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 08:16:26 AM · #13 |
Well, I guess the cat's out of the bag now... Rather than hide the entire thread and delete the valid discussion, I'll simply reiterate to the original poster that any discussion that reveals a current challenge entry is frowned upon. Also as previously pointed out, the disqualification request should only be used where rules or site ToS (terms of Service) violations are suspected. Not meeting the challenge is not a violation of the rules, but rather is something the voters must decide.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:17:26 AM · #14 |
What a fascinating discussion. I joined late, just now, and have the smirk of recogonition on my face. Wow, don't we just love to try to shove someone else outside the boundry of the rules.
I think that it is part of the brilliance of this site that whether an image meets a challenge is simply left to the voters - all voters. This venue finds its balance in that. It's messy sometimes, but ultimately (like democracy) it works.
Instead of trying to kick others outside the boundries of qualification, simply take a minute to evaluate their images based on a multitude of factors, see if quality overrides a your opinion of a "misinterpretation of the challenge," and then vote and comment. I shake my head sadly when I read someone gave someone's work a 1 because the voter believed it didn't meet the challenge. I think there should be a deduction for missing the mark, but a 1? That just seems obstinate and misguided. Still, I guess, it is that voter's right.
God help us if we try to define art and someone else's interpretation of it. We all need to stay true to the intent to learn and help others. As I tell my students, if you are unsure about your actions or comments, ask yourself about your motivation. Is it well intentioned, or do you intend some sort of damage, punishment, or harm? Let your answer guide you.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:22:17 AM · #15 |
Shoot something non-electronic that would be considered "low" technology.
That is the challenge stated. To me, personally, anything that requires electricity to work is electronic. BUT I did not automatically give you a low score if you shot something that either required electricity or obviously had electricity involved, what I did was check the shot, looked at the composition and such, made my decision on the score and then deducted one point for involving electricity in the shot. Doesn't matter if it's older than me, that just makes it an antique but it's still electronic if it requires electricity to work.
Deannda
Some nice shots overall in the challenge |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:30:20 AM · #16 |
I agree to. I really don't understand what people read in the themes...
It might be something like that "OH! look no electronic, lets put a playstation, or a radio... hmmm... maybe a car!!" Guys read the F**K theme. is that too difficult. i just hate when people try to but something that ain't what its about... If you don't have nothing in mind don't submit... I just took a quick browse and i see somethings related to electronic and i think that is not what the challenge asked for.
People sometimes say they have a hard time going throw the votings, and if people put there things that aren't for the challenge it will make things harder.
Now imagen you win the ribbon with a non challenge topic, would you be happy with that, and would you think it would be fair for the others?!? guess not, I would not be happy.
Ok technically its good but not for this challenge. thats like a decoy to good voting.
Not in anyway i what to offend anyone with this but its my truly thoughts about it. sorry if i did.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:36:15 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
To me, personally, anything that requires electricity to work is electronic. |
Ditto. While some objects might be considered "low" tech now due to obsolescence, they would still be high tech in many parts of the world. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:41:33 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by kdolso:
What a fascinating discussion. ... if quality overrides a your opinion of a "misinterpretation of the challenge," and then vote and comment. ... I think there should be a deduction for missing the mark, but a 1? That just seems obstinate and misguided. Still, I guess, it is that voter's right. |
I completely agree. Giving a 1 for a technically perfect or even a not technically perfect but beautiful image is simply wrong. I personally feel everyone starts at a 5 (average) and then gains or loses 1-2 points based on challenge, wow-factor, crops, art, interpretation, and so much more. Some images I want to give an eleven to, but in a case where the poster shot a low-tech electronic 8mm film camera and did a great job with it, they are probably never going to get past a 6 with me because ir falls outside the boundaries of the challenge. On the other hand, if they shot dirt (and shot it poorly at that), then a one is justly deserved.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:44:46 AM · #19 |
| Looks like CJ has been busy busy in here. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 09:52:46 AM · #20 |
I've gone ahead and edited all 8 posts in this thread that either directly discussed one or more challenge entries, or quoted posts that did. With that done, I want to respond to a couple points in this thread.
- Discussion of challenge entries currently in voting is not permitted. If you wish to discuss your challenge entry (or anyone else's) you must wait until voting on that challenge has completed.
- If you see a post that violates the above, please do not reply in a way that makes more work for Site Council. In other words, please do not quote a post that violates the above rule, and please do not further discuss the specific entry in your reply. Please also report the post (thanks to the people who did!)
- Each challenge has a title and a description. In your case I believe it is the description (particularly the non-electronic part) where you are running into trouble). It's certainly open to interpretation but some voters will undoubtedly feel your subject is electronic in nature.
- Voters should not request disqualification if they feel an entry does not meet the challenge. Disqualification requests should only be made if you believe an entry violates the Challenge Rules or the site's Terms of Use.
- This site is all about taking great photographs within the contraints of the challenge. It's the challenge that makes this site unique, and voters are encouraged to consider the challenge when voting. In fact, the challenge rules state in bold text, "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly."
Hang in there, and best of luck next time round!
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 11:42:33 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- This site is all about taking great photographs within the contraints of the challenge. It's the challenge that makes this site unique, and voters are encouraged to consider the challenge when voting. In fact, the challenge rules state in bold text, "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly."
-Terry |
Well said. For myself, meeting the challenge plays a large part of the score. It could be a great photo, but if it does not meet the challenge or is so vague that I can not imagine how it works with the challenge, it will probably get at best a "4" from me. I do not give out "1's", unless the photo is off topic, out of focus, and terribly composed:) Seriously, I think I doubt I have given out a "1" in the last 10 challenges. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:14:58 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by aguapreta:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
- This site is all about taking great photographs within the contraints of the challenge. It's the challenge that makes this site unique, and voters are encouraged to consider the challenge when voting. In fact, the challenge rules state in bold text, "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly."
-Terry |
Well said. For myself, meeting the challenge plays a large part of the score. It could be a great photo, but if it does not meet the challenge or is so vague that I can not imagine how it works with the challenge, it will probably get at best a "4" from me. I do not give out "1's", unless the photo is off topic, out of focus, and terribly composed:) Seriously, I think I doubt I have given out a "1" in the last 10 challenges. |
I fully agree with you aguapreta I might have given out only one 1. But I don't think any photo deserves that. Voters Opinions, that's why, were here! |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:51:27 PM · #23 |
my goodness, we've got quite a few analysts around here..and we all know you can't spell "Analysts" without Anal.
:-)
Low Tech doesn't HAVE to mean depicting a car Flintstone-style. Computers from 10 years ago are considered vastly inferior (and therefore low tech) by today's standards.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 12:53:06 PM · #24 |
Very few of the voters will actually read this post, and all of the voters will interpret 'non-electric' in their own way. So, there's really no point in debating the theme (as we do every week) since it seems that most everyone has their own vocabulary & verbal/image associations anyhow. I wish you all the best, but I think that the voters will decide what's low tech and what's not. Majority always wins around here :) Good luck to all!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 01:08:54 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Low Tech doesn't HAVE to mean depicting a car Flintstone-style. Computers from 10 years ago are considered vastly inferior (and therefore low tech) by today's standards. |
.Shoot something non-electronic that would be considered "low" technology.
you forgot about the NON-electronic part, though. (C:
something electronic or electric is probably screwed in this challenge, if you read the description, and not just the title.
|
|
