| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2005 06:34:50 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
The stunning night landscape across water with twinkling stars can be given a 10 for technical but maybe you feel only 4 for concept because it's barely on challenge. End score 7 |
And here's where this whole concept runs into real problems, because by "my" way of integrating the two scores that might be a 9 (or a 5).
Some people feel that an oustanding concept far outweighs any technical shortcomings. Other people feel that without sharp focus and good exposure no image deserves more than a 4.
We all take in and weigh the various technical, emotional, and aesthetic aspects of the image in our own, individual way -- there is no one algorithm which would accurately compile those scores as well as we do it ourselves.
Basically, I reserve the right to decide for myself how much the different components should contribute to the aggregate score, not you and not a machine.
You can solve the problem with about a five word comment, such as "great idea, want more contrast" or whatever.
Message edited by author 2005-12-13 18:36:00. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 09:33:19 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Again: the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly. |
Then why are we here in DPC? This site is different to the hundreds of others. They look for and vote on exactly what you're saying, great images in which the subject matter is largely irrelevant.
DPC is about challenges. So the critical difference is that DPC is about submitting photos to meet a challenge subject/topic/brief with an expectation that the images submitted will at least try to be on topic.
However what happens in reality at voting time is that we are emotional creatures stirred by beauty, that's why we're photographers. When faced with a beautiful image, we vote with our hearts, not our heads. The result is anomalous voting results which seriously disadvantages those who are compromising sometimes to stay faithful to the challenge subject.
Graphicfunk, if we could stop people voting blindly with their hearts then your position is valid but we just know that's not what happens.
Surely, anyone not comfortable with being constrained by a challenge subject and who wants to be free to 'explore their art' should be on a different site to this one?
Brett |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First, I am not a flippant thinker. The fact is that whatever you do in concept and execution in whatever challenge will be judged by the voter in consideration of his vote. Again:
"the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly."
Read this again because it is the viewer who determines the appeal and then uses the challenges guidelines to make his determination. No need to add the second sentence if I meant any image that looks good wins. |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 08:11:14 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
"the image, in my opinion, stands as one unit and it is judged solely on its visual appeal. The viewer makes the assessments and decides accordingly."
Read this again because it is the viewer who determines the appeal and then uses the challenges guidelines to make his determination. No need to add the second sentence if I meant any image that looks good wins. |
Agreed, there is no argument or conflict.
What this thread is all about is providing a tool for the viewer to make that determination easier. It makes assessment and therefore voting faster and more accurate - with the substantial bonus of providing feedback to the photographer which the current system doesn't.
The current system leaves the photographer in a void without any feedback on what they need to do to improve. We know that the level of comments is way too low to do that. This looks like a way forward.
Brett |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 08:30:42 PM · #29 |
Conceptually, there's a lot of merit to this idea. Anything that provides more feedback to the photographer is a good thing.
The fatal flaw for this idea is that if we ask 20 voters what criteria they vote on, and how they should be weighted, you're likely to get 20 different answers. Personally, for example, I base my score about 30% on technicals, 50% on how well it communicates its point something to me as a viewer, and 20% on how well it stands on its own outside the context of a challenge. Then, if I can't in any way connect the photo to the challenge, I halve the result. That's very different than how anyone else I know votes, but it works for me.
My point is that there are as many different ways to vote as there are voters, and so long it's approached honestly and within the rules, all are equally valid. Other than a single voting scale, no system we could come up with could possibly encompass everyone's individual voting style.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:04:27 PM · #30 |
Wow, I'm glad I searched for this topic before creating a new post.
I like your idea Terry, but maybe if the website EXPLICITLY simply stated:
"Please consider composition, technicial, appeal, and meeting the challenge criteria when choosing a score."
Or, even more criteria. But the point is, if the website did have a guide or something even in the FAQ about WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, someone's photo will not end up in the garbage because the picture appeals only to half the people voting (even though it is technically genius). |
|
|
|
01/25/2006 01:32:58 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I think we should have 2 lines to vote on for each photo - one for concept and one for photography.
I see a lot of technically great shots get voted down because of a "weak" concept
I also see a lot of technically challenged photos get voted up because of a "great" idea.
With the number of photos submitted to each contest MANY people don't get comments that would really like them. If there were 2 categorize to vote on at least they'd know if it's their photography skills or their brainstorming they need to work on.
There could still be a single winner (an average of the scores would give you the most balanced winner) and it seems like it would probably be a simple way to offer more help and information to the community without trying to force people to comment more.
edited for spelling - damn fingers. |
As you can see by negative reaction regarding your good idea about voting separately on concept and photography skills is bit to challenging for this sight I think
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 12:25:30 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by treenode:
maybe if the website EXPLICITLY simply stated:
"Please consider composition, technicial, appeal, and meeting the challenge criteria when choosing a score."
Or, even more criteria. But the point is, if the website did have a guide or something even in the FAQ about WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON ... |
I suspect that any guidelines would be ignored by many people, in the same way as someone pointed out that people ignore the guideline about leaving comments whenever you vote 1/2/3.
Besides, any guideline on how to breakdown your vote reflects a value judgement about what is important in photography. Some people value technical considerations highly and would object to a scoring guideline that values creativity over technical factors, while people who value creativity above all would object to high-scoring shots that were technically perfect but didn't inspire.
And how far do you go? There are far more than just two factors for how to rate a photo. I'm in a print postal folio where the scoring system is out of 20, broken down:
Impact 4
Subject 4
Story 4
Composition 4
Technique 2
Presentation 2
which covers all sorts of angles - and in doing so, penalises certain types of photography enormously. I wouldn't want to see DPC make the same mistake.
Maybe a checkbox on the voting page, which you can tick for DNMC. If an image gets enough (whatever "enough" is) votes for DNMC then it's moved to a separate section at the end as if it had been DQd - leaving open debate on whether the DQ penalties should apply or not. That way it would get scored like any other photo, but wouldn't win a challenge simply for being an excellent photo that is irrelevant to the challenge?
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:47:25 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I think we should have 2 lines to vote on for each photo - one for concept and one for photography. |
But if we did that then it would reduce arguments about why an image finished with whatever undeserving score it got. Then people would have fewer reasons to whine and complain about how poorly their image scored. That would be horrible turn of events. Forum posts would dwindle to practically nothing.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:54:36 AM · #34 |
Gonna have to say it again ... voting twice ... oh ,hell nah...
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:58:02 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Gonna have to say it again ... voting twice ... oh ,hell nah... |
I hate it when you have to repeat yourself... lol |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 02:08:48 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Gonna have to say it again ... voting twice ... oh ,hell nah... |
lazy :P |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 02:11:36 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
lazy :P |
Hey, I resemble that remark ;-)
|
|
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: 04/25/2024 07:38:47 AM EDT.
