| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2005 10:35:05 AM · #151 |
Originally posted by fotolady:
I am no longer going to post threads or even take part in them. |
Then all the namecallers got exactly what they wanted. In a site this size, there are sure to be dissenters for any opinion and in them, there are sure to be a few who are unable to do it diplomatically. However, quitting isn't exactly taking the high road either. Just know that for every opinion you have, someone has an opposite one and they aren't always capable of expressing it in a polite manner. Take their comments for what they're worth (sometimes nothing), choose not to let what other people say affect you and continue on. It will make your experience everywhere on the internet much more enjoyable. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:37:45 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I hope the site council in the future will step in directly and try to stop even minor name calling like that, because I don't think a SC member would have been told to "bite" part of someone's anatomy for doing it (whereas I was).
|
You'd be surprised what we're told. ;)
But seriously, if you see comments that you take issue with, use the "report comment" function. Even with the large group we have, we can't be everywhere (I can't even be here during the work day now !@&@^@&*(@(@&!) but we're glad to step in and do what we can. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:42:34 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I hope the site council in the future will step in directly and try to stop even minor name calling like that, because I don't think a SC member would have been told to "bite" part of someone's anatomy for doing it (whereas I was).
|
You'd be surprised what we're told. ;)
But seriously, if you see comments that you take issue with, use the "report comment" function. Even with the large group we have, we can't be everywhere (I can't even be here during the work day now !@&@^@&*(@(@&!) but we're glad to step in and do what we can. |
Thanks. Yes, I reported it, and that entire post was deleted. Hopefully a reprimand went with it. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 11:35:42 AM · #154 |
2 things that I feel would help. I agree with the "does not meet challenge" button, however after a certain number of clicks, the picture should not DQ'd but reviewed by site council. Also if the challenge period was shortened by several days, people would either be unable to participate in the given challenge due to time constraints, or if they really wanted to submit something, they would have to make the time to produce a quality image.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 06:41:46 PM · #155 |
I think it would help this discussion if posters would try a little harder to stick to the facts of the situation and try to avoid using charged terms, exaggerating, and presenting their own opinions as if they were proven facts.
There is no "heavy overload" in the challenges. An overload occurs when the mechanism is burdened beyond it's capacity. That has not happened yet, and we have no evidence that we are anywhere close to overload.
The alledged problem was first presented as people not having enough time to vote on all entries in big challenges. Several posters rebutted that arguuement so now the complaints seem to have shifted to voters are get "bored and tired of it all". And several old proposals for changing the structure, such as tiered competitions and excluding participation, have resurfaced. Reaching a consensus on whether there is a problem, and on defining the problem, should come before the proposals to remedy it.
Some of us seem to have forgotton that the site is supposed to be all about learning/teaching. I think that the people Artyste refers to as "people that are simply here to throw photos in for validation reasons", or what the original poster calls "low quality photos.... what i mean by that is really bad pictures, not just some blur or a little grain...I'm talking about pictures that look like they took a picture of anything and entered it in. They paid no attention to composition, focus, contrast, etc." really are, in fact, the newbies to digital photography that the site was intended to help. These people are not complaining about too many entries. They are happy to have a venue to show their works and get help toward producing better shots in the future. We should not forget about them, and should include their interests in any plan for future challenges, even though they are not as vocal in the forums as the site's veterans.
Several posters have said things along the lines of "Very difficult for any good image to bubble to the top", or "quality photographs are being destroyed", or other words to indicate images that should get a ribbon are being "lost in the shuffle". I think this is a fiction, a myth. As long as the images are presented randomly to the voters all entries will get nearly equal consideration. The cream will rise to the top of a gallon jug just as it does in a quart bottle. Dividing the challenges into smaller groups will give out more ribbons (is that the goal here?) but the ones earned in the unlimited challenges should carry much more prestige.
Some posters have said things like "I guess I just have personel issues I need to deal with" and "I'm tired and burned out myself". Being as sympathetic as I can to those, and others, who are feeling stressed by the big challenges, I still think they are a small minority of the dpc community as a whole. We don't all have the same amount of time to devote to dpc, or to our digital photography education. Some people function better in small groups than in large ones. I believe there will always be a constant flow of new users to dpc. As I said in an earlier post, people need to adjust as dpc grows. Hopefully, the vast majority of us will be able to make the necessary adjustments.
Some of the ideas put forward in this thread, both old and new, appeal to me.
The idea of preventing cherry-picking by allowing entries to be viewed as thumbs only after the user has voted on them would, IMHO, do a lot to strengthen the randomness of voting. I judge from this thread that randomness becomes more important as the challenges grow.
Hiding the number of entries until voting is finished would calm some of the "anxiety" and "chaos" resulting from large challenges. I don't see any downside to this proposal.
Requiring a minimum number of comments for your votes to be counted might generate some low quality comments, but it would strengthen the notion that commenting is an important part of any challenge. I think that is a trade-off we should consider. I'd reccommend that the required comments be a set number as opposed to a percentage; and be set relatively low, certainly lower than the 20% required for votes. Maybe we could even waive the requirement for people very new to the site who may not feel qualified to comment yet.
As always, just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 06:51:42 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
and presenting their own opinions as if they were proven facts. |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Being as sympathetic as I can to those, and others, who are feeling stressed by the big challenges, I still think they are a small minority of the dpc community as a whole. |
Given the increased number of such threads, and the number of people posting in them, why not test out the hypothesis that such people are in a minority? We could certainly use a new poll (including an option to not muck with the challenge format at all).
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 07:21:46 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The truth of the matter is that the heavy overload of entries is certain to affect and defeat the purpose of the challenges. |
This, and bear-music's comment about two-tier voting, really bother me, because I think it's based on a completely mistaken notion of the purpose of the challenges and the site overall.
The purpose of the site is to help people help each other become better photographers, through a system of assigned topics and mutual feedback. The purpose is not to determine the "best" of a pool of photos as efficiently as possible.
The challenges and the ribbons and all are just a mechanism for achieving this feedback, and we could just as easily have a system without voting and rankings and all -- this just happens to be the vehicle chosen. The challenges do not have to function "effectively" (in terms of determining winning photos) to be effective at stimulating the creative efforts of photographers. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am sorry, but you missed my point. It is not as shallow as you understood it.
Again: the high number makes learning difficult because each image gets less time. The drive of the challenge is to learn but when images can not receive enough attention for a vote, let alone a comment: hence the challenges suffer.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 07:28:04 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Again: the high number makes learning difficult because each image gets less time. The drive of the challenge is to learn but when images can not receive enough attention for a vote, let alone a comment: hence the challenges suffer. |
dan, most of the time i can agree with you, but here i beg to differ. if someone is waiting around for comments in order to improve, they will wait forever. if they really want to improve, they need to be focused on giving comments. they more time they spend critically looking at a handful of images will be far more valuable than the time they spend clicking the update button waiting for comments. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 07:41:09 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
dan, most of the time i can agree with you, but here i beg to differ. if someone is waiting around for comments in order to improve, they will wait forever. if they really want to improve, they need to be focused on giving comments. they more time they spend critically looking at a handful of images will be far more valuable than the time they spend clicking the update button waiting for comments. |
Would you like to explain to me just how looking at something is going to tell me how to fix my own pictures? For Composition perhaps, but that doesn't tell me about dof or apurature or lighting or anything. The only thing someone learning is really qualified to give comments on is how they feel a picture looks.
Just looking at the mona lisa is NOT going to make me a better painter.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 19:41:52.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 07:54:15 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by chesire:
Just looking at the mona lisa is NOT going to make me a better painter. |
Well, it will if you get inspired, ask questions, take an active roll in your growth and learning, etc, etc. A string of comments will not automatically instill in you the knowledge and ability to take wonderful, memorable photos...but, it may get the ball rolling in the right direction. Still, it is your job to steer that ball, as it is up to you where it goes and just how long it rolls.
Ok...enough ball metaphor. Giving comments helps you learn to look at other photos critically, and in turn helps you look at your own photos more critically, and to generate better photos.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 07:57:18 PM · #161 |
"Giving comments helps you learn to look at other photos critically, and in turn helps you look at your own photos more critically, and to generate better photos" by w24x192...
Must agree with that. You might be surprised by what you see when you look and what you learn by looking. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 07:57:33 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by chesire:
Would you like to explain to me just how looking at something is going to tell me how to fix my own pictures? For Composition perhaps, but that doesn't tell me about dof or apurature or lighting or anything. The only thing someone learning is really qualified to give comments on is how they feel a picture looks.
Just looking at the mona lisa is NOT going to make me a better painter. |
I respectfully disagree with you. When I joined this site, I didn't know jack squat about photography. I didn't know DOF from a hole in the wall, and I didn't even know dSLR's existed. I didn't know anyone in this community, and I had a crappy camera, so before jumping in with both feet, I started looking at everyone else's work. Then when I felt more comfortable, I started leaving comments. Very simple, two-to-three word comments at first, and I'm sure many were not helpful. But it got me to noticing things. Before too awful long, I began to expand my comments a bit more...not just saying "nice pic" but figuring out WHY it was a nice pic. I didn't know the verbage yet, but I was able to at least get a point across as to what I liked and didn't. When I started doing that, I began to notice subtle changes in my OWN photograpy. I could apply the things I liked in other's work, the things I commented on, to the choices I made regarding my own photos. Later, my comments evolved into critiques...as my photographic vocabulary improved, so did the level of critique. Now we all know that I still don't know jack squat about most things photographic, but I do believe that my transformation continues still to this day. I'm a hell of a lot better than I was, I know that for sure.
I would venture to say that truly critiquing on other's work here, and really discerning what it is about an image that moves you (or DOESN'T move you if the case may be) is one of the best exercises you can do to improve your own photography skills. :)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:02:29 PM · #163 |
posted by coolhar:Several posters have said things along the lines of "Very difficult for any good image to bubble to the top", or "quality photographs are being destroyed", or other words to indicate images that should get a ribbon are being "lost in the shuffle". I think this is a fiction, a myth. As long as the images are presented randomly to the voters all entries will get nearly equal consideration. The cream will rise to the top of a gallon jug just as it does in a quart bottle
Yea, the randomness is working so well that in the last two challenges I saw most of the top ten for the first time. Some of those I did vote on, I missed essential aspects of because I didn't have the time to look properly or I've reached stauration point...When I see '200' photos for the first time when results are published, I don't feel like I've participated at all...it's already a two tier system for me and others, and it doesn't feel right |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:03:22 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by chesire:
Originally posted by skiprow:
dan, most of the time i can agree with you, but here i beg to differ. if someone is waiting around for comments in order to improve, they will wait forever. if they really want to improve, they need to be focused on giving comments. they more time they spend critically looking at a handful of images will be far more valuable than the time they spend clicking the update button waiting for comments. |
Would you like to explain to me just how looking at something is going to tell me how to fix my own pictures? For Composition perhaps, but that doesn't tell me about dof or apurature or lighting or anything. The only thing someone learning is really qualified to give comments on is how they feel a picture looks.
Just looking at the mona lisa is NOT going to make me a better painter. |
you are quite right, that just looking is not going to do anything for you. but, if you look critically at another image, and try to articulate for yourself what you like and don't like, how it makes you feel, you will start to learn. if you look at the technical aspects in terms of composition, focus, depth of field, control of lighting, you'll start to get a better idea of how those things come together to make a better image. after a challenge is over, if you look at the top 20 finishers, you can examine their settings and start to draw conclusions about the relationships between the settings and the end results. then you can go out and apply what you are seeing in other images to what you see through your viewfinder.
honestly, if you submit an image that scores 5.2 and you get 25 comments that say "too dark", "too light", "don't like the title", "didn't meet the challenge for me", "needs sharpening", "over-sharpened"--what are you going to do with those comments? how are they going to help you?
on the other hand, if you look at the top rated images and the bottom rated images, you should be able to start to differentiate for yourself the elements that make up a better image.
nobody, and i mean NOBODY, on this site gets better just because of getting comments. they help, and yes, they are fun to get, but they are really play a minor role in learning about how to become a better photographer. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:09:38 PM · #165 |
My brief message to Site Council:
It is apparent that huge entry numbers are having adverse effects on the majority of regular participants of this site, including:
-Degradation of comment quality and decrease in constructive feedback
-Voters throwing most pictures into 5's or 6's...
-Increased bandwidth usage (from entries and from all these angry forum posts).
The bulk of DPC members would agree that these problems cannot be ignored, and that the Site admins have the power to mend them. I sincerely hope the Site Council is listening to all of our whole hearted suggestions and proposed solutions. And if you are not, how come? The SC seem unable or unwilling to give the people a straight answer. Even if no gears are in motion to end this catastrophe, would someone of authority at least let us know why not?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:11:12 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
if someone is waiting around for comments in order to improve, they will wait forever. if they really want to improve, they need to be focused on giving comments. the more time they spend critically looking at a handful of images will be far more valuable than the time they spend clicking the update button waiting for comments. |
Couldn't have said it better myself...
edit: correcting skiprows english ;P
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 20:14:01. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:16:53 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by chesire:
Would you like to explain to me just how looking at something is going to tell me how to fix my own pictures? For Composition perhaps, but that doesn't tell me about dof or apurature or lighting or anything. The only thing someone learning is really qualified to give comments on is how they feel a picture looks.
Just looking at the mona lisa is NOT going to make me a better painter. |
You could not be more wrong.
You have to look at how the really good images use things like exposure, DOF and lighting to their advantage.
One of the most useful exercises to do is to look at a really good photo and try to figure out how the photographer lit it. Maybe it was it just existing light and if so, how did the quality of that light diffuse, overcast, direct sun, etc affect the final image?
A similar exercise can be done with DOF, perspective etc. What aperture gave that shallow DOF? What lens gave that perspective. Where was the photographer shooting from, a ladder, lying on his belly?
Same thing with exposure. How do you think the photographer exposed the scene relative to what the meter told them? Was it right on, +1/3, +1, -2/3 or what? If they used studio lights, what is the ratio between the main and the fill, 3:1, 2:1 or....?
You cn also look at composition in the same way, but it's certainly not the entire look at what was going on behind the camera.
If you really look at what a good photographer does with his tools and most importantly consider WHY they did what they did and what the results were. It's all there in the picture, you just have to decypher it and understand the message.
It's not something you can be spoonfed or learn well from a book, you just have to look at LOTS of photos, preferably good ones.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:23:15 PM · #168 |
You are assuming Dan that a person knows what depth of field (and all ther rest) is and how to use it to better their images. Only when someone takes the time to leave a comment on your photo saying WHY your DOF is wrong and HOW to change it, will you really learn.
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 20:24:25. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:25:42 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by chesire:
Would you like to explain to me just how looking at something is going to tell me how to fix my own pictures? For Composition perhaps, but that doesn't tell me about dof or apurature or lighting or anything. The only thing someone learning is really qualified to give comments on is how they feel a picture looks.
Just looking at the mona lisa is NOT going to make me a better painter. |
I have to disagree as well, but this thread also points out the problem with trying to learn and widen your views this way. It is very hard to sit and give 500+ photos a fair shake during voting. I know there is the 20% rule but I hate seeing a image coming up in the top 3 I didn't even see. That sucks. Something will have to be done.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:27:57 PM · #170 |
Well I think to many entries does effect a challenge but I will just quote stats. As you can see the more entry the less comments are given out 'most' of the time and the more entries equal less votes.
From DPC Challenge Data base:
Comments per vote based on challenge entries:
Entries-------Total Votes-------Total Comments-------Percentage
<100----------751283------------78710----------------10.48%
101-200-----4730817-----------298948---------------6.32%
201-300-----6444241-----------308309---------------4.78%
301-400-----2049676-----------84368----------------4.12%
401-500-----1405103-----------60023----------------4.27%
500 + ---------865931------------32562----------------3.76%
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 20:37:28.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:32:36 PM · #171 |
Very interresting comment Scott, thanks for posting
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 20:32:52. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:32:57 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by amber:
You are assuming Dan that a person knows what depth of field (and all ther rest) is and how to use it to better their images. Only when someone takes the time to leave a comment on your photo saying WHY your DOF is wrong and HOW to change it, will you really learn. |
My comment was directed mainly at the question of why someone can improve their photography by looking at photographs.
If you wait around for someone to tell you specifically why doing this or that differently will improve your work, you will only learn how you could have made that specific image better as opposed to teaching yourself how something works and how to use it to communicate through your photography better.
It's like buying a hammer, some nails and a whole lot of wood then sitting around waiting for someone to wander by and tell you how to build a house. Even though you may want to build a barn.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:35:13 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by amber:
You are assuming Dan that a person knows what depth of field (and all ther rest) is and how to use it to better their images. Only when someone takes the time to leave a comment on your photo saying WHY your DOF is wrong and HOW to change it, will you really learn. |
sorry, amber, but you are wrong. you are not going to learn those things by getting comments. maybe, but highly doubtful.
you can learn then, though, by visiting your local library and checking out a few books on basic photography, or by buying then from a local bookstore, or buying them online.
you can learn how to apply them by viewing and studying the images online.
scott yes, the stats may show a trend, but all the same, it's up to the individual participants to determine how much their participation means to them. active participants always get more out of things than passive ones... |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:37:41 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by amber:
You are assuming Dan that a person knows what depth of field (and all ther rest) is and how to use it to better their images. Only when someone takes the time to leave a comment on your photo saying WHY your DOF is wrong and HOW to change it, will you really learn. |
You really learn when you get out your camera and take dozens and dozens of pictures at various aperture/shutter speed settings and begin to understand the relationship between the two as well as focal length, distance to subject, and all the other things that make photography as much a science as an art form. If someone perceives themselves to be weak in these areas, making comments on others' work will help enormously, as the commenter is learning to identify key features in an image that affect the DOF.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 08:44:16 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by amber:
You are assuming Dan that a person knows what depth of field (and all ther rest) is and how to use it to better their images. Only when someone takes the time to leave a comment on your photo saying WHY your DOF is wrong and HOW to change it, will you really learn. |
sorry, amber, but you are wrong. you are not going to learn those things by getting comments. maybe, but highly doubtful.
you can learn then, though, by visiting your local library and checking out a few books on basic photography, or by buying then from a local bookstore, or buying them online.
you can learn how to apply them by viewing and studying the images online.
scott yes, the stats may show a trend, but all the same, it's up to the individual participants to determine how much their participation means to them. active participants always get more out of things than passive ones... |
Thanks, I never seem to tire of hearing I'm wrong;)
As a newbie. I look at the top three winners...I've never shook hands with DOF;I wouldn't know DOF if it came up hit me across the head and introduced itself. I look at the top three and know they're good but I haven't the knowledge and language to say why. Until some kind person looks at my image and says your DOF is wrong here, if you set an aperture of F22 your subject would be in focus from front to back. Aha! so that's what DOF is! And that's why that ribbon winner's image is so good! Then I go research DOF... |
|
