DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Stunning Photos Scoring 1 - Why?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 105, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/07/2006 10:05:54 AM · #51
Originally posted by paddles:

... Anyway, that's my two bits worth, feel free to critique the ideas though. And they're only ideas, not recommendations.

Regards

Tim


Critique...did you say critique!!! Lord I will have to re-read this just to make sure I understand it. Just kidding... but I will re-read it as I found the article very interesting.

Ray
01/07/2006 12:17:11 PM · #52
Originally posted by ubique:


Sure there is, Brett. They're just dickheads who vote low for the same vapid reason that idiots spray obscene graffiti and dogs piss on trees: to mark their territory.


You know something..this is a fascinating statement to make on a site dedicated to choices and personal taste as much as anything else.

Because somebody hates something (personal opinion) and you don't agree..they are either idiots, dickheads, or dogs.

Wow.....

If I took this same approach with my customers who made my company ( group of professionals with 20 years of winning awards and being published) reshoot an entire layout because their marketing director hated our look I guess my response should be something like...

"Well Mr. Customer, we are the professionals here, we know best and you are a big idiot dickhead that just likes to piss on others to mark your territory"

Of course I would say this with a smile :-D

Message edited by author 2006-01-07 12:17:58.
01/08/2006 12:06:46 AM · #53
Originally posted by hokie:

...this is a fascinating statement to make on a site dedicated to choices and personal taste as much as anything else. Because somebody hates something (personal opinion) and you don't agree..they are either idiots, dickheads, or dogs....


Presumably you are being deliberately obtuse, Scott?

This thread was discussing "Stunning Photos Scoring 1 - Why?".
Not photos scoring 3, or 5, or even "low".

The original post specifically referred to blue ribbon photos scoring 1's.

Like these:
and even this

To give any of these photos a 1 is not an act of "personal taste" or "personal opinion" as you suggest - it is an act of wilful malevolence, and has noting to do with credible photographic critique. Such people cannot be taken seriously here, and they know it - why do you think they never make a comment to explain their score?
01/08/2006 12:12:04 AM · #54
Originally posted by ubique:

Like these:
and even this

To give any of these photos a 1 is not an act of "personal taste" or "personal opinion" as you suggest - it is an act of wilful malevolence, and has noting to do with credible photographic critique.


And you know this how? You've given out 1's as an act of willful malevolence? I'm in the pizza business. I've come to the conclusion that the only people who will ask me not to spit in their pizza are the type of people who will spit in someone's pizza...

01/08/2006 12:31:09 AM · #55
Originally posted by ubique:


Presumably you are being deliberately obtuse, Scott?

Like these:
and even this

To give any of these photos a 1 is not an act of "personal taste" or "personal opinion" as you suggest - it is an act of wilful malevolence, and has noting to do with credible photographic critique. Such people cannot be taken seriously here, and they know it - why do you think they never make a comment to explain their score?


I simply disagree with your premise that great photos appeal to everyone. Subject matter may encourage someone to dislike something even if the technical aspect is superb.

That doesn't make me obtuse..that makes me have an opinion that varies from yours.

Do I suspect some of the people voting 1 on high scoring photos are doing so for less than altruistic purposes...perhaps.

But that would be a supposition on my part, especially to paint all votes of 1 that way. My point and response to the original post is that this is a public voting sight and minus a conspiracy people can dislike a photo for any reason their heart desires and vote accordingly....even if that reason is to go against the grain of popular opinion.

Look around..women are willing to shave their head, people peirce their face in all manner of ways, people paint their house pink, drive cars with camou paint schemes, put silly dresses on dogs...all things I find unusual but there you have it :-/
01/08/2006 12:38:04 AM · #56
look at this picture for example:

or even:

They got quite a few 1's - but then it got quite a few 10's as well. There was no conspiracy. It just goes to show there are a WIDE variety of opinions on what a really good or really bad photo is.

(thanks Fotoman for being so lovable/hateable ;) )


Message edited by author 2006-01-08 00:40:45.
01/09/2006 01:26:28 AM · #57
Originally posted by hokie:

I simply disagree with your premise that great photos appeal to everyone.

That wasn't the premise at all. It was that any score below 4 is because a photo is bad. It has to be really bad to be worth a 2 and really really bad to get a 1. To get that low, it must have serious technical issues as well as subjective ones.

None of those photos have any technical deficiencies at all therefore they should score 4 or better. For one of those images to be given a 1 can have no other motivation than malevolence.

Brett
01/09/2006 01:39:06 AM · #58
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by TooCool:

There has been to my knowledge no proof of any troll voting. I have not seen any results ever come in that did not fit a general bell curve. I think that this is just paranoid people trying to fit a conspiracy around the fact the not all people see 'art' the same way they do...

Then you might have been looking in the wrong place?

Look at a history of Blue Ribboners for the last month, there's your proof
Oops: 1x1s, 3x2s, 12x3s
Pattern: 1x1s, 2x2s, 2x3s
Phobia: 1x2s
Shallow DOF: 2x1s, 4x2s, 6x3s
Visual Puns: 1x1s, 3x2s, 3x3s
Holiday Catalogue: 2x1s, 2x3s
4-5am: 1x1s, 1x2s
Say Cheese: 1x1s, 2x2s, 8x3s
Candlelight: 3x2s, 2x3s
Too Early: 1x1s, 1x2s, 6x3s
Too Late: 2x2s, 4x3s
Knife Fork Spoon: 1x1s, 2x2s, 4x3s
Collections: 2x1s, 1x2s, 4x3s
Industrial: 1x1s, 1x2s, 4x3s
Adulthood: 5x3s
Even: 2x2s, 2x3s
Odd: 6x3s
Cheater: 1x1s, 2x3s
Singel Light: 2x2s, 9x3s
Camouflage: 1x2s, 7x3s
Triptych: 1x1, 1x2s, 3x3s
LandscapeII: 2x1s, 2x2s, 3x3s
GarbageII: 2x1s, 1x2s, 5x3s

Not one of those images deserves a 3, let alone worse! A 3 or less is a bad photo which is out of focus or has terrible exposure problems or is 100% off challenge.

Consider too that these are just the Blues and not every top 5 image. The Top 10 images are certainly fairly easy to spot during voting so it's not at all beyond belief that people who consider themselves in contention are voting down the obvious threats.

There is absolutely no other explanation for the above images getting a 3 or worse.

Brett


All of these voting records show a general bell curve... If anything, many of them are skewed at the top end...
01/09/2006 01:44:41 AM · #59
Originally posted by TooCool:


All of these voting records show a general bell curve... If anything, many of them are skewed at the top end...


As it should be. If it's good enough to blue, it doesn't deserve below a 4 let alone a 1.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 01:45:03.
01/09/2006 01:47:08 AM · #60
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by hokie:

I simply disagree with your premise that great photos appeal to everyone.

That wasn't the premise at all. It was that any score below 4 is because a photo is bad. It has to be really bad to be worth a 2 and really really bad to get a 1. To get that low, it must have serious technical issues as well as subjective ones.

None of those photos have any technical deficiencies at all therefore they should score 4 or better. For one of those images to be given a 1 can have no other motivation than malevolence.

Brett


You just can't conceive someone doesn't like something and just pounds the "1", or "2" button regardless of how sharp or well compositioned something is?

Look, I hated that latest Clint Eastwood movie that won an Oscar (Million Dollar Baby). I don't mean sorta disliked it..I mean flat out glad I didn't waste time going to the movies to see it. (My wife rented it and we both hated it).

If it were a photograph I would have given it a 1. Was the acting good? I guess. Was the cinematography well done? Yeah. It was just the culmination that just made me say ..."1"

I own lots of movies on DVD...many are highly rated like "Taxi" or "Raging Bull" or "Cinderella Man". Many are considered by some to be crap like "Fantastic Four" or "Family Vacation".

It all boils down to taste and taste means people can vote "1" on what may be considered a good photo...and I am glad it is that way..makes life interesting :-)

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 01:49:45.
01/09/2006 02:02:41 AM · #61
My humble opinion on this subject is as follows: we all have a different rating system for things we like and dislike. However, this is a learning site. As such, I can not conceive giving a 1 to an image, although not quite to my liking, if the image meets the challenge and the technique is good. To do so is to penalize the total effort of the photographer by cutting into whatever score advantage they hold.

There is no law that you can not give a one. The penalty goes to the member you voted on and to your average vote cast. It is a two way thing.

If your object here is to learn then vote your conscience. If you are merely a critic then perhaps photography does not mean the same to you as someone who seeks to grow in their hobby.

I always learn something when looking at some of the great efforts and studies. I learn both from the ribbon winners and from those that trail low. My vote is fair and when an image beats my image I can safely say it open and I am all to ready to congratulate the winners. They have bested me and bested my ideas. Again, if you want to learn there are a lot of lessons to win from the winners as well as lessons from the losers.
01/09/2006 02:15:17 AM · #62
I guess the reason this thread still keeps my attention is that it touches on one of my core beliefs in life.

That core belief is that in a free society..you are allowed to be a curmudgeon. :-)

I don't argue for a minute that there are not some nice little whacko's (wankers for the brits out there) that just love to screw with people and vote 1's on good photos.

But...

In an effort to get at these miscreants of the photographic world we all seem to forget about the honest curmudgepons, the anti-socials and whoever else that simply goes against the grain of popular and even educated opinion.

These people are the ones I support. I guess the constant attempt to paint everyone that votes abnormally low with the same broad brush of "Competetive jacka-ass that is just voting to raise themselves up" is something I cannot subscribe to..no matter how many statistics or impassioned speeches are made :-/

(BTW...I don't give very many 1's, 2's or 3's...but I reserve the right to do so any time I feel grumpy :-P )

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 02:22:08.
01/09/2006 02:22:51 AM · #63
Originally posted by hokie:

I own lots of movies on DVD...many are highly rated like "Taxi" or "Raging Bull" or "Cinderella Man". Many are considered by some to be crap like "Fantastic Four" or "Family Vacation".

Fantastic Four, crap..? Dude... are you insane? It's got Jessica Alba! It may not have a bunch of that touchy feelie story and acting crap that some people like, but Dude, it's got Jessica Alba!

BTW, I recently saw "Into the Blue" and it's got even more Jessica Alba! Super movie! Wow, she's a really gifted actress.

01/09/2006 02:27:18 AM · #64
Originally posted by micknewton:


Fantastic Four, crap..? Dude... are you insane? It's got Jessica Alba! It may not have a bunch of that touchy feelie story and acting crap that some people like, but Dude, it's got Jessica Alba!

BTW, I recently saw "Into the Blue" and it's got even more Jessica Alba! Super movie! Wow, she's a really gifted actress.


EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!

I didn't say it was crap (although at times it does make me twinge) but the Jessical Alba moments and the fact that the Fantastic Four are my all-time favorite superheroes wins me over :-)

Rotten Tomatoes is my favorite movie review site. They really hate a lot of my favorite movies...the philistines! And I really hate some of their highly rated movies.

Go there sometime and read reviews by critics that go against huge majority opinion (they hate a great movie or love a suck movie). I wonder what kind of hate mail they get form all the other people in the movie industry :-p

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 02:29:28.
01/09/2006 11:11:46 AM · #65
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by micknewton:


Fantastic Four, crap..? Dude... are you insane? It's got Jessica Alba! It may not have a bunch of that touchy feelie story and acting crap that some people like, but Dude, it's got Jessica Alba!

BTW, I recently saw "Into the Blue" and it's got even more Jessica Alba! Super movie! Wow, she's a really gifted actress.


EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!

I didn't say it was crap (although at times it does make me twinge) but the Jessical Alba moments and the fact that the Fantastic Four are my all-time favorite superheroes wins me over :-)

Rotten Tomatoes is my favorite movie review site. They really hate a lot of my favorite movies...the philistines! And I really hate some of their highly rated movies.

Go there sometime and read reviews by critics that go against huge majority opinion (they hate a great movie or love a suck movie). I wonder what kind of hate mail they get form all the other people in the movie industry :-p


Movies and photos are not the same. Movies are way more subjective.
01/09/2006 11:14:53 AM · #66
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:


Movies and photos are not the same. Movies are way more subjective.


Why?
01/09/2006 11:28:23 AM · #67
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:


Movies and photos are not the same. Movies are way more subjective.


Why?


Because it's more than one art form.
Photography is photography.
A movie is Photography, cinematography, music, graphic design, acting, etc.
Way more to influence the viewer's decision.
IMO.
01/09/2006 11:31:01 AM · #68
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by hokie:

I simply disagree with your premise that great photos appeal to everyone.

That wasn't the premise at all. It was that any score below 4 is because a photo is bad. It has to be really bad to be worth a 2 and really really bad to get a 1. To get that low, it must have serious technical issues as well as subjective ones.

None of those photos have any technical deficiencies at all therefore they should score 4 or better. For one of those images to be given a 1 can have no other motivation than malevolence.

Brett


You just can't conceive someone doesn't like something and just pounds the "1", or "2" button regardless of how sharp or well compositioned something is?

Look, I hated that latest Clint Eastwood movie that won an Oscar (Million Dollar Baby). I don't mean sorta disliked it..I mean flat out glad I didn't waste time going to the movies to see it. (My wife rented it and we both hated it).

If it were a photograph I would have given it a 1. Was the acting good? I guess. Was the cinematography well done? Yeah. It was just the culmination that just made me say ..."1"

I own lots of movies on DVD...many are highly rated like "Taxi" or "Raging Bull" or "Cinderella Man". Many are considered by some to be crap like "Fantastic Four" or "Family Vacation".

It all boils down to taste and taste means people can vote "1" on what may be considered a good photo...and I am glad it is that way..makes life interesting :-)


I SO agree with this, and your analogy is great about the movie. (By the way, it is ONLY an analogy, and not meant to compare with photography I would assume. Just said to make a point by the poster, as I myself will use famous painters below.)

I usually start a photo at 5. It usually goes up from there or down depending on appeal and technicals, BUT BUT BUT, if I find it totally distasteful or just plain hate it, I WILL vote it a 1 or 2 and forget the technicals involved OR the artistic whatever someone was trying to portray and move on. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened.

I may like Vango, you may like Monet. Doesn't mean that every time a voting challenge comes around I am going to try and find a reason to like a Monet when I don't. No matter how famous or technically sound the painting is.

As for here, I am also not going to waste my time scrutinizing the techical well done photos of the human ass..LOL..for example (sorry fotomann..LOL), when other more appealing photos to me are lying in wait of my vote.

Art comes in many forms. What is great is that it may appeal to you, or it may not. Appealing to the majority seems to be the challenge in every challenge, and that is what is great about the challenges.

Rose
01/09/2006 11:45:05 AM · #69
While we're all throwing around ideas for catching/curbing "troll" votes, why not try this on for size:
Part of the reason that there are so many 'outlying' votes on challenge submissions may be the simple fact that we all have our own voting scales. Like Rose said, just because a photo may be technically good (or perhaps even excellent), if the subject is distasteful to her or does not appeal, in her voting scale it may end up a 1 or 2. (Not picking on you, Rose, just using you as an example!) Now, someone else may have a voting scale that says something more like "Well, I really hate the subject, but it meets the challenge and there's nothing technically wrong with it, so it gets a 5."
Personally, I don't think either voter would be wrong. But it's bound to cause some discrepancies in the votes.
Sooooo....
One solution might be to define a voting scale and then make sure everyone uses the same scale, but there again, you would have to rely on the honor system when it came down to policing it, and you would have to get everyone to agree on one scale.

A more practical solution (and one that I think would be easier to implement) would be to have a multi-vote system: for each entry have a vote for technical aspects, artistic impression, and whether or not it meets the challenge. Each voter would be required to vote on each aspect before moving on to the next photo.

Anyway, it's just a thought...
01/09/2006 12:02:40 PM · #70
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:


Because it's more than one art form.
Photography is photography.
A movie is Photography, cinematography, music, graphic design, acting, etc.
Way more to influence the viewer's decision.
IMO.


I don't disagree that they are different in many ways...However... both movies and photography are a sum of their multiple parts.

Granted, photography is less technical with fewer parts than movies in the sense it doesn't have dialogue, music scores, complex storylines, etc...but in a way..that makes a photograph more supceptible than movies to minor variations that may destroy the whole photo.

A movie with so many parts can have flaws that may not kill the complete presentation...but a photo could have one element...whether it is the color, or the angle and composition or just the way the subject appeals or does not appeal that can totally turn a viewer on or off and can overide almost all of the photo for the viewer.

Look...I am swimming in photos and graphic designers every day...I can appreciate all the details that make a photo wonderful (If only I would apply all of this to my personal phtography more :-/

But....a lot of people..my wife for instance...doesn't care if the color is great, or the technical difficulty was high for a shot or any number of things you or I may appreciate. She just knows whether she likes it or not.

My wife is a big hater of gratuitous nudity..I mean hates it to where we have had in the past knock down fights about assignments I go on where models may be nude. She ahs been married to me for 20 years and knows I have a job to do but she still gets hostile about gratuitous nudity in any advertising I do..regardless of the photography being done by some of the best in the business.

And you know what, as much as I find her attitude weird at times I have come to understand she will never change and it's her right to feel that way.

So, I feel the same about people not liking things for whatever reason...if its their emotional response and it's honest for them...fine...vote anyway you want.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 12:12:01.
01/09/2006 12:10:15 PM · #71
Originally posted by saracat:



A more practical solution (and one that I think would be easier to implement) would be to have a multi-vote system: for each entry have a vote for technical aspects, artistic impression, and whether or not it meets the challenge. Each voter would be required to vote on each aspect before moving on to the next photo.

Anyway, it's just a thought...


I think there are a lot of valid reasons to get frustrated about crazy voting patterns but what is the ultimate goal here? To learn, have fun, interact, give goals to your photographic endeavors and maybe inspire you to expand your horizons.

And you know what...the current voting system does nothing to discourage any of that.

I just don't think having complicated voting systems to address a few crazy voters and then making the whole process less user friendly is the way to go.

If people were less anal about the numbers with all the crazy stat sheets and watching their score go up and down by every 10 thousandth of a point (yes that is 1/10,000 of a point...insane) maybe all this talk of trolls and complicated scoring systems would just go away.

Then again..maybe not :-/

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 12:25:22.
01/09/2006 12:33:46 PM · #72
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by saracat:



A more practical solution (and one that I think would be easier to implement) would be to have a multi-vote system: for each entry have a vote for technical aspects, artistic impression, and whether or not it meets the challenge. Each voter would be required to vote on each aspect before moving on to the next photo.

Anyway, it's just a thought...


Look...I think there are a lot of valid reasons to get frustrated about crazy voting patterns but what is the ultimate goal here? To learn, have fun, interact, give goals to your photographic endeavors and maybe inspire you to expand your horizons.

And you know what...the current voting system does nothing to discourage any of that.


I agree. But it doesn't do as much as it could to encourage it, either.

Originally posted by hokie:


I just don't think having complicated voting systems to address a few crazy voters and then making the whole process less user friendly is the way to go.

If people were less anal about the numbers with all the crazy stat sheets and watching their score go up and down by every 10 thousandth of a point (yes that is 1/10,000 of a point...insane) maybe all this talk of trolls and complicated scoring systems would just go away.

Then again..maybe not :-/


I totally agree about the stat counting and worrying over .0001 point, but I think being able to vote (and to see the vote received) on each aspect of a submission would really help us as photogs, especially those who are newer to photography.

I also think it would reduce complaints of 'why didn't I get comments? what's wrong with this?' because you could see that the reason you didn't get a 7.0471 (or whatever) was more because viewers didn't like your subject or thought it did not meet the challenge than because of the technical aspects (see the recent thread about the tiger in the snow).

It may also give commenters a starting point or direction for their comments, as well as give an indicator for how well the voters felt it met the challenge and whether or not the technical/artistic aspects overrode the DNMC.

It would also give us a direction as far as what we need to improve. Something along the lines of 'Well, it met the challenge and they liked the idea, but my technicals suck, so I need to improve that', and it would do it without having to rely on comments to that effect. So many of us (myself included) fall into the 4.5-5.5 range where we get few comments and little direction for improvement. This is one idea that has the potential to help with that.

I'm sure that people would still be moved to comment, as they do now, but this would give everyone feedback on each of the three aspects without foring more commenting.

And it's just a thought, anyway. :)
01/09/2006 12:34:21 PM · #73
Cant understand why "Twisted Mother" got hammered as much as it did!
01/09/2006 12:37:59 PM · #74
Hokie, me and your wife would get along great! LOL...

I really abhore the nudity aspect. Yes, yes, I know all about "the human body is art" thing, but to me? Nope. Not liking it one bit, here or anywhere else in photos. I just find it distasteful and no matter how technically good it may be, it makes no difference.

I also abhore social views for that matter. Booze, ciggarettes, politics, but I don't usually vote them ALL down based on my preference. It just depends on how it looks to me when it POPS in my face after each vote. LOL.....

I am also against making the voting more complicated. What I am NOT against though, is having juried voters that do not enter the challenges. Maybe 3, 5, 12, whatever, assigned for each challenge to vote by unanimous concensus. But here, that would be a full time position for whoever gets chosen at any given time. LOL...

Rose


01/09/2006 12:40:32 PM · #75
It might help if more people realized, and accepted, that DPC challenges are a POPULARITY CONTEST; the most popular image will win. The voter base is too varied in its photographic skill levels and "life experiences" both for it to be otherwise. Essentially, as Hokie is pointing out, to rant against the scoring is to rant against other peoples' personal, emotional reactions to the images. There's really no point in it. I've been guilty of it myself, but I think I'm beyond ranting now. Sometimes I like to throw an oar in the water and suggest that such-and-so an image was "underrated", because I think it was, but this is just ME arguing my personal perceptions.

If we, as a community, really want to ensure that the "best", "most original" images receive the highest scores, then we need to leave popular voting behind and move to a juried system, with the jurors both skilled and objective enough to overlook personal taste and zero in on true photographic merit. This isn't gonna happen, because it's not what the site is about.

So all this bemoaning of outlier votes is pretty much beside the point.

Robt.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:03:47 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 04:03:47 AM EDT.