| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2006 01:48:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Rebel_L:
Either it meets the challenge or not. If I feel it doesn't, I don't vote on it.
I don't have a system like yours. That's too much work for my pea brain. I know what I like and how much I like it and I vote accordingly. |
And I respect the way you see and do, particularly with regards to abstaining under the circumstance you describe.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 01:49:50 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by BakerBug:
I use dice. :-P |
How come??? do you have dice that role 10 in total ???? I tried that too but mine go up to 12 LOL
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 13:50:22. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 01:55:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by diner24:
Originally posted by BakerBug:
I use dice. :-P |
How come??? do you have dice that role 10 in total ???? I tried that too but mine go up to 12 LOL |
11s or 12s get added to my favorites! :-D |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 01:56:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bvoi:
I pretend I am an editor of a magazine who has asked for a specific assignment (challenge). |
The only problem with this system is that the challenge often requests that we "creatively interpret" the topic. Or, if the photographer meets the challenge, but in an oblique or "out-of-the-box" way, maybe your assignment instructions (challenge description) weren't specific enough -- hardly fair to punish the photographer for that ... |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:06:14 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by diner24:
Originally posted by livitup:
Originally posted by diner24:
That's why it's easier for me to have a system ... if the image doesn't meet the challenge outline, but is still technically a great picture then I still give it a 8-9 final mark if all the rest is top mark...
|
This is a very old argument, and I hate to stir it up again, but...
Doesnt't that basically make every challenge a free challenge? Why bother having challenge discriptions at all then? Couldn't I just take an incredible ocean landscape photo, so great that you say "Wow!" when you see it and enter it in the "Urban Cityscape" challenge and get a 9 from you? |
That is right ! But I think one would then have to disqualify it it from the challenge, as we do with those images that have been post edited in a certain way. If DP challenge would change the voting system then I believe the members would have to filter it as a we already do when a picture looks too doctored. |
DPC doesn't need to change the voting system. The rules already request "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly." |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:28:37 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by mk:
...The rules already request "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly." |
Unfortunate phrasing. If it said "Entrants (submitting photographers) are asked to keep in highest consideration the challenge topic..." or something similar, we could argue about something more relevant to photography and do so more intelligently.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:45:10 PM · #32 |
Personally, I think that if a photo does not show me at least some connection to the challenge, then I'm happy to mark it down a couple of points. I see that some people are saying that this is unfair to the photographer's vision, but the way I see it, if the vision isn't coming across in the photo, then the vision isn't worth anything.
We can't live in the mind of the photographer, we can only judge what is presented, not some abstract concept of "well he must have though this fit somehow". Otherwise you may as well award every image a 10, on the basis that the photographer must have wanted to present an out of focus, dark picture of their pet dog Wuffles' hind quarters for the "architecture" challenge. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:53:33 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Just curious, how can you give 0, 1 or 2 on 'meets challenge'. It either meets the challenge or doesn't, I'm having a hard time seeing how something can sort of meet the challenge.
No I don't use a system. I can't count past 4 and I live under a bridge. These factors make it difficult to come up with a system. ;) |
I don't get why people are considered TROLLS. Just because someone thinks their photo is a 5 or better doesn't mean it is to everybody else. Not every photo submitted is average or better. I don't care who shot it. There are some people around here who think every time they push the shutter button they should get at least a 5 regardless of whether or not it meets the challenge. You submitted your entry into a multi-national voting pool. You get what you get based on somebody elses view point, interpretation of the challenge and opinion. Your view point, interpretation of the challenge and opinion on your photo doesn't matter. If the challenge says GOLD, then take a picture of something gold, not a yellow flower or something else irrelevant and then slap a title on it referring it to gold when it isn't, trying to justify it to yourself and others. If you ask for grape jelly and get strawberry jam, something isn't right. But then there are the people who would argue that you still can put it on toast and biscuits so it must be the same.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 02:56:06 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by mist:
Personally, I think that if a photo does not show me at least some connection to the challenge, then I'm happy to mark it down...
the way I see it, if the vision isn't coming across in the photo, then the vision isn't worth anything.
...we can only judge what is presented... |
• The fact that there are voters who are happy to mark it down, because they cannot readily find a connection to a challenge topic, troubles me.
• Michael Angelo does not appeal to everyone either. Is his vision (his work) worthless because of this?
• Yes, we can only judge what is presented and I wish we would instead of imposing preconceived ideas far removed from the facts of an image.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:00:28 PM · #35 |
| Vote with your heart, rather than your head. If your heart is sensibly calibrated, I think you'll find that your highest-rated images will also work for your head. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:04:57 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by mist:
Personally, I think that if a photo does not show me at least some connection to the challenge, then I'm happy to mark it down...
the way I see it, if the vision isn't coming across in the photo, then the vision isn't worth anything.
...we can only judge what is presented... |
• The fact that there are voters who are happy to mark it down, because they cannot readily find a connection to a challenge topic, troubles me.
• Michael Angelo does not appeal to everyone either. Is his vision (his work) worthless because of this?
• Yes, we can only judge what is presented and I wish we would instead of imposing preconceived ideas far removed from the facts of an image. |
Art is subjective. One's personal feeling for it is different from it's overall worth. There are people who don't like Michaelangelo and wouldn't want his works in their home. There are people who don't like images in challenges and wouldn't want to hang them on the wall. There's no difference.
A vote is not a personal attack on an image. It is a highly subjective rating from a single person, averaged with many more. A low vote does not mean that you didn't produce worthwhile art, just that this particular community didn't care for it. If you still love it, great - that's what matters.
Images that I don't find meeting the challenge, I do mark down, as they fail to meet the basic criteria for the challenge, IMO. And in the end, we're all voting our opinions.
Frankly, if people cannot handle low votes, if they are this concerned with scoring and Trolls and adjusting the system to salve their egos, then they shouldn't be entering contests to begin with.
DPC is for fun - it's not the end of the world.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 15:05:46.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:08:18 PM · #37 |
This is a good example of how one picture can have different interpretations, thus different scores or maybe the same.
From Signfeld Show:
 :I sense great vulcrability. A land child crying out for love, an
innocent orphan in the post-modern world.
 :I see a parasite.
:A sexually-depraved miscrient, who is seeking to gratify only his
most basic and immediate urges.
:He is struggled, he is man-struggled. He lifts my spirit!
:He is a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I can't look away.
:He transcends time and space.
:He sickens me.
:I love it.
:Me too.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 15:13:13.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:21:54 PM · #38 |
First pass:
1 - what the hell were you thinking?
2 - doesn't meet challenge, bad photo
3 - Doesn't meet challenge, okay photo
4 - Doesn't meet challenge, excellent photo OR meets challenge, bad photo
5 - meets challenge, okay photo
6 - meets challenge, better photo OR okay photo, very creative/intriguing concept/composition
7 - meets challenge, pretty nice photo w/ creative/intriguing concept/composition
8 - so good that I want to take a second look. And oh yeah, meets challenge.
Second pass:
1-7 stay where they are
7 - sometimes will bump an 8 down if it doesn't live up to the rest of that field
8 - excellent work
9 - stands out above the rest in the second pass
10 - reserved for personal favorites
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 15:26:52.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:29:48 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by mist:
the way I see it, if the vision isn't coming across in the photo, then the vision isn't worth anything.
...we can only judge what is presented... |
• Michael Angelo does not appeal to everyone either. Is his vision (his work) worthless because of this? |
I think the point is that if we, as a group of creative minds, can't see the connection to the challenge theme, then you have failed to get your message across. Personal taste is irrelevant in that regard.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:36:01 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
...
Art is subjective. One's personal feeling for it is different from it's overall worth.
There are people who don't like Michaelangelo and wouldn't want his works in their home...
A vote is not a personal attack on an image. It is a highly subjective rating from a single person, averaged with many more. A low vote does not mean that you didn't produce worthwhile art, just that this particular community didn't care for it...
...in the end, we're all voting our opinions.
Frankly, if people cannot handle low votes, if they are this concerned with scoring and Trolls and adjusting the system to salve their egos, then they shouldn't be entering contests to begin with.
DPC is for fun - it's not the end of the world. |
[omissions and line-breaks mine]
• Let there be people who do not appreciate Michaelangelo. Let them, however, refrain from declaring his work worthless. Let them decorate their homes in whatever suits their appetite.
• A vote can be more less meaningful, depending on how considerate we are of the facts the image presents and the context it may relate. A respectable, fair vote can well be highly subjective, but not necessarily exclusively. I know of a number of voters (myself included), whose vote may come highly considered (via comparison and available measures). Both kinds, in my view, are valid.
The debate, I believe, is not about people who can't handle low votes, as you say. It is about a culture of voting, something which can be helped along by debate.
• In the end you make light of it, and that's harmless and fair enough. But fun alone, is not the end-all to everything and everyone.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:40:46 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by mist:
the way I see it, if the vision isn't coming across in the photo, then the vision isn't worth anything.
...we can only judge what is presented... |
• Michael Angelo does not appeal to everyone either. Is his vision (his work) worthless because of this? |
I think the point is that if we, as a group of creative minds, can't see the connection to the challenge theme, then you have failed to get your message across. Personal taste is irrelevant in that regard. |
I think the point is that if we, as a group of creative minds, can't see something, if would be regrettable if we did nothing but attach our personal failure to a work offered for criticism and appreciation.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 03:51:46 PM · #42 |
| some people are saying that it doesn't meet the challenge, for gold the rules do not say complete gold it just has to do with gold or have a little gold in it mine has a little gold with diffrent colors suronding it but it's still a nice picture it's down to a 4.5 right now which i believe that is why so just because theres a little gold and a lot of other colors don't rate it low it should make it a little more unique |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 04:01:19 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I think the point is that if we, as a group of creative minds, can't see something, if would be regrettable if we did nothing but attach our personal failure to a work offered for criticism and appreciation. |
That depends on how you view the voting. Your view seems to be that failing to recognise a photo for its fit to a challenge is a failure of the viewer.
My view is that that is a failing of the photographer. As such I'm inclined to give the picture a lower vote, being as, for me, it didn't meet the challenge.
Either way, whatever my vote may be it doesn't ascribe worth (or lack of worth) to the picture. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 04:20:31 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by mist:
...Your view seems to be that failing to recognize a photo for its fit to a challenge is a failure of the viewer.
My view is that that is a failing of the photographer....
Either way, whatever my vote may be it doesn't ascribe worth (or lack of worth) to the picture. |
[omissions and line-breaks mine]
• My view is that a voter's failing to recognize something is his own and that a photographer's failing to be topical is his. To make no distinction, in my view, is unconscionable.
• A vote very clearly ascribes a measure of value in the context of DPC, and as such, I prefer to vote on what I see, without registering my own lack of vision, education or finesse, however probable.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 05:07:42 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by mist:
...Your view seems to be that failing to recognize a photo for its fit to a challenge is a failure of the viewer.
My view is that that is a failing of the photographer....
Either way, whatever my vote may be it doesn't ascribe worth (or lack of worth) to the picture. |
[omissions and line-breaks mine]
• My view is that a voter's failing to recognize something is his own and that a photographer's failing to be topical is his. To make no distinction, in my view, is unconscionable.
|
I admit to not really seeing what you're getting at there.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
• A vote very clearly ascribes a measure of value in the context of DPC, and as such, I prefer to vote on what I see, without registering my own lack of vision, education or finesse, however probable. |
A vote for me ascribes a relative value in the context of other pictures and a particular challenge, it does not sum up the photo as a whole. Again I would suggest that if you are purely voting on the photo without taking into account the context then you are somewhat missing the point.
Why is there a need for people to continue to invent challenge suggestions if someone could take a technically perfect picture of a cornfield and get a 10 for it in a cityscape challenge? |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 05:20:36 PM · #46 |
This almost belongs in the ranting and raving section, but, I think this sort of conversation is essentially good and healthy. I don't think so very much of the idea of telling others how to vote, but I do think a fair bit of the presentation and exchange of how each of us sees the problem - which is what I see happening here.
Whoopee :)
As for Michelangelo - if it were only continents, oceans and hundreds of years that separated us, well - but the whole thing is out of our league anyway. The comparisons here are within this peer group. It's as tangible and contemporary a measure as you're ever likely to get. If you think you're the digital messiah to get the Renaissance reborn one more time, then you may well find shortcomings in the evaluations you get here. Personally, I would prefer them any day to those of Dark Age clerics or of art historians that can't take a camera out of a bag without getting their fingers caught in the zip.
Oh yes, the voting. I can't brag. I have a quick-browse tactic, with which I run through a bit rapidly and give five to the pictures that 'don't make it' - which includes failure to address the challenge description as I understand it - and six to those that do make it. I then have two groups through which to run and adjust more attentively. As I know I'm going to do that, then I can also give higher points to pictures that reach out and grab me, as well as lower ones that seem very clearly to deserve it.
It's not unusual for me to have read some forum commentaries on challenge interpretations by the time I take a second run through, and my next round of vote-adjustment will bear some influence from them if that is the case.
It's not much of a system. In any case I never make rules for myself that I can't break myself. (That even includes e.g. giving up smoking, but then I remind myself who wins and who loses). There is a strong tendency to gravitate toward the 5.5 average and the greatest failing, as I see it, for me and my 'system', is that I (it) fail(s) to use the full width of the voting spectrum - i.e. I don't give enough 1's 2's 9's and 10's. This reduces my contribution to the whole, but I'm a drop in the ocean, so plip. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 05:28:06 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by raish:
This almost belongs in the ranting and raving section, but, I think this sort of conversation is essentially good and healthy. I don't think so very much of the idea of telling others how to vote, but I do think a fair bit of the presentation and exchange of how each of us sees the problem - which is what I see happening here.
Whoopee :)
As for Michelangelo - if it were only continents, oceans and hundreds of years that separated us, well - but the whole thing is out of our league anyway. The comparisons here are within this peer group. It's as tangible and contemporary a measure as you're ever likely to get. If you think you're the digital messiah to get the Renaissance reborn one more time, then you may well find shortcomings in the evaluations you get here. Personally, I would prefer them any day to those of Dark Age clerics or of art historians that can't take a camera out of a bag without getting their fingers caught in the zip.
Oh yes, the voting. I can't brag. I have a quick-browse tactic, with which I run through a bit rapidly and give five to the pictures that 'don't make it' - which includes failure to address the challenge description as I understand it - and six to those that do make it. I then have two groups through which to run and adjust more attentively. As I know I'm going to do that, then I can also give higher points to pictures that reach out and grab me, as well as lower ones that seem very clearly to deserve it.
It's not unusual for me to have read some forum commentaries on challenge interpretations by the time I take a second run through, and my next round of vote-adjustment will bear some influence from them if that is the case.
It's not much of a system. In any case I never make rules for myself that I can't break myself. (That even includes e.g. giving up smoking, but then I remind myself who wins and who loses). There is a strong tendency to gravitate toward the 5.5 average and the greatest failing, as I see it, for me and my 'system', is that I (it) fail(s) to use the full width of the voting spectrum - i.e. I don't give enough 1's 2's 9's and 10's. This reduces my contribution to the whole, but I'm a drop in the ocean, so plip. |
Thats about how I do it too!
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 05:42:26 PM · #48 |
| Pitchers I like I give high scores... Pitchers I don't like I give low scores... |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 05:54:10 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Pitchers I like I give high scores... Pitchers I don't like I give low scores... |
That's a good method. |
|
|
|
07/24/2006 06:26:28 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by mist:
•...I admit to not really seeing what you're getting at there....
• Again I would suggest that if you are purely voting on the photo without taking into account the context then you are somewhat missing the point.
• Why is there a need for people to continue to invent challenge suggestions if someone could take a technically perfect picture of a cornfield and get a 10 for it in a cityscape challenge? |
Yes, and I feel there's probably not much I could say to change this.
• I believe I already stressed the relevance of context to an image in an earlier post. My reading of the term, however, is not limited by a given challenge description.
• I really have no idea. Limiting topicality is a proven tool to foster creativity, a stance which I fully embrace. It can be there there, however, for the benefit of participating photographers and not for prejudiced voters gleefully swinging a bat.
Message edited by author 2006-07-24 18:29:47.
|
|
:I sense great vulcrability. A land child crying out for love, an
:I see a parasite.
