| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2006 01:24:11 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
I think of it like I do Halloween candy.
10/31 - I have a bag of candy.
10/31 - I go to sleep and my boyfriend stays awake unattended with my candy.
11/1 - I wake up and there's one piece of candy in the bag.
The bastard ate ALL my candy!
Even though there's still one piece of candy left the vast majority of it is gone so therefore it's all gone. One person left in a stadium that holds hundreds or thousands is clearly an empty stadium to me. |
bummer about the candy. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:25:46 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by fracman:
I don't know if I've entered/voted/forumed enough yet for anyone to care about my opinion (been hammered for this before in other threads), but I can't help wonder if there doesn't need to be a way for voters to flag an image as DNMC w/o resorting to lowering the score. Maybe a DNMC checkbox or something and then some rule about DQ if 2/3 of the voters check the DNMC box. Perhaps something like that would allow the score to be a reflection of the quality/impact of the photo, but also allow a way to separate out images that clearly didn't meet the challenge requirements. |
I'll take a low score over a DQ any day. |
Perhaps a DQ isn't the right action. Maybe it would be enough to put the checkbox in and include a stat for how many DNMC's were received, or average score w/o DNMC's, or something like that. Maybe there's a different kind of DQ for DNMC that doesn't involve suspension, just removal from that particular challenge. Maybe the image doesn't get DQ'd, but is not eligible for a ribbon/top 10. Or, how about making it so that comments are mandatory if you want to vote a 1. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 01:50:17 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
I think of it like I do Halloween candy.
10/31 - I have a bag of candy.
10/31 - I go to sleep and my boyfriend stays awake unattended with my candy.
11/1 - I wake up and there's one piece of candy in the bag.
The bastard ate ALL my candy!
Even though there's still one piece of candy left the vast majority of it is gone so therefore it's all gone. One person left in a stadium that holds hundreds or thousands is clearly an empty stadium to me. |
Great story. Reminds me of this time a guy handed me his pistol and told me to take the bullets out, load it with blanks, and 'shoot' him in the chest with it as part of a play. Can you believe that when the police were questioning me later outside his hospital room they didn't believe that I thought 'take the bullets' out didn't mean 'take all the bullets out'? Talk about narrow minded. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:00:32 PM · #54 |
Did nt mean to ruffle anyone feathers bringing up the Wrong Game thead.
But I have taken my share of negative comments when I posted picture that did nt
fit the description of the challenge.So I myself I'm guilty of submitting picture outside of the description.Those that voted & commented on picture that I myself went outside of the description of challenge all let me know what I did wrong and what LOW vote was giving to justified.The picture that started this thead are 2 very beautiful picture.My problem not with anyone that submitting a picture that had people.Those who voted those 2 picture into the top 10 have to look in the mirror. But I voted all the picture that had anyone person or person's very low.None recieved more than a 4 most recieved scoce between 1 & 3. All between 1 & 3 left comment. Letting photographer know that picture did nt fit the description of challenge.
So from now on what? We vote high on pictures outside of the detail of challenge? Has anyone ever won a ribbon with picture that did nt meet challenge details?
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 16:40:58.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:05:10 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by dv_rock:
Has anyone ever won a ribbon with picture that did nt meet challenge details? |
Of course, in the opinion of a small minority of voters. A photo which wins a ribbon has, by definition, met the challenge in the minds of enough voters to garner all those points. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:15:53 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dv_rock:
Has anyone ever won a ribbon with picture that did nt meet challenge details? |
Of course, in the opinion of a small minority of voters. A photo which wins a ribbon has, by definition, met the challenge in the minds of enough voters to garner all those points. |
El Sapo's "Enchanted Falls" took blue in the "2 second exposure" challenge, where the the challenge description said "use a shutter speed of exactly 2 seconds" and he used a 1/2 second exposure. There was quite a flap over that. But the voters had know way of knowing it wasn't 2 seconds; that fact came out when the image details were revealed.
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:18:41 PM · #57 |
this discussion seems to be going around and around in circles. FWIW, I submitted a shot that had neither people or players in it, because I recognized that such a shot would be considered dnmc by a large portion of the voters. this has been proven in this thread. however, when voting, i also recognized that there might be another interpretation -- the stadium/venue is empty except for the one person left behind, for whatever reason. Heck, following the logic some of y'all are presenting, all the photos are dnmc because *you, the photog* was there (except for the one who set the timer and exited quickly ).
Is the challenge important? Yes. very much so.
Does submitting a picture with a person in it make it not meet the challenge in this one? I don't think so.
Submitting a picture of a leaf floating down the Mississippi would, IMO, be dnmc.
I think I am most frustrated by some of the arguments in this thread because, if I had the time/desire, I could go to other threads and find comments that the *same* posters have made about various "interpretations" and how wrong it is to only have one viewpoint.
Whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with it or not, there is more than one way to interpret "after the players and people have gone home."
Obviously, how you vote is your business, and I encourage everyone to do what they feel is right. But, don't say there is only one way to interpret this.
Portrait in Landscape orientation/Landscape in Portrait is a bit more obvious. It "stands" or it "lays." Of course, next week, we'll probably be arguing about what is a portrait and what is a landscape, really. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:23:33 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by dv_rock:
Has anyone ever won a ribbon with picture that did nt meet challenge details? |
This one
while an outstanding image, I am of the opinion that it did not meet the challenge requirements.
Gather exactly two objects that are completely unrelated (for example, a carrot and a yo-yo) and make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking.
Bold added to show the key part of the challenge that IMO was not met.
Almost all the other images consisted of 2 objects, the ones that had more than 2 objects were voted low, except for this one. My feeling is it did well on the strength of the image regardless of the number of objects.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 14:25:37.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:24:25 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by karmat:
following the logic some of y'all are presenting, all the photos are dnmc because *you, the photog* was there (except for the one who set the timer and exited quickly ) |
Not me I took my shot in a restaurant not the stadium. My shot had not a soul in it. I am the only one who truly meet the challenge. :-P |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:32:46 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by dv_rock:
So from now on what? We vote high on pictures outside of the detail of challenge? |
No, we vote high on the photos that we like, just as we always have. ;P
You can vote however you want to. If you feel that a particular photo doesn't meet the challenge, then give it a low(er) vote. Just don't expect everyone else to agree on your interpretation of the challenge criteria.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:33:14 PM · #61 |
All week I held my breath because I figured I could do at least top 5 (after seeing the amount of pics that DNMC imo), so I was pretty disappointed to see pictures with people in them ahead of mine. What is the point in having a challenge when people are just voting for what they think looks cool, not what fits the challenge?
(i'm just being bitter and venting here) |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:39:00 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by becky-lee:
All week I held my breath because I figured I could do at least top 5 (after seeing the amount of pics that DNMC imo), so I was pretty disappointed to see pictures with people in them ahead of mine. What is the point in having a challenge when people are just voting for what they think looks cool, not what fits the challenge?
(i'm just being bitter and venting here) |
Don't be too bitter. You have a nice image and a personal best! Congrats!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:40:00 PM · #63 |
I like Fracman's comment about making comments mandatory for votes of 1. I also would like to add that I also like that idea applied to votes of 10 as well. Vote of 1? You REALLY didn't like my picture. Tell me why. Vote of 10? You thought my picture was incredible. What did you like about it?
A lot of the reason why I forked out money to be a member on this site was so that I could have challenges to make me think of new ways to take pictures of different subjects. It was also to get honest and open feedback on my photography.
So going back to the earlier comment about having one person in the picture make it a DNMC? Its all up to the voter and if the voter believes that its a DNMC I'd like them to share that with me...especially if its on a specific point within the challenge description that I might have missed. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:41:50 PM · #64 |
This is the reason I post this thead.Becky dont blame the person that posted the picture.The one that voted them in the top 10 have the look in the mirror.
Originally posted by becky-lee:
All week I held my breath because I figured I could do at least top 5 (after seeing the amount of pics that DNMC imo), so I was pretty disappointed to see pictures with people in them ahead of mine. What is the point in having a challenge when people are just voting for what they think looks cool, not what fits the challenge?
(i'm just being bitter and venting here) |
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 15:05:22.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 02:59:15 PM · #65 |
| And when that person looks in the mirror, he/she is probably going to say, "Self, you had an unpopular interpretation of what met the challenge. So be it." |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:00:04 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by becky-lee:
All week I held my breath because I figured I could do at least top 5 (after seeing the amount of pics that DNMC imo), so I was pretty disappointed to see pictures with people in them ahead of mine. What is the point in having a challenge when people are just voting for what they think looks cool, not what fits the challenge?
(i'm just being bitter and venting here) |
Based on your definition. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:04:38 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
while an outstanding image, I am of the opinion that it did not meet the challenge requirements. |
I don't have any problem with this photo. There are two completely unrelated objects hanging from the tree. The challenge description...
"Gather exactly two objects that are completely unrelated (for example, a carrot and a yo-yo) and make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking."
...doesn't state that there absolutely cannot be any other objects in the photo. It's quite obvious to me that the photo is about the two objects in the tree. Coley used artistic license in order to "...make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking."
Just out of curiosity, can you give us an example of a photo that you think did meet the challenge?
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:11:31 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I like Fracman's comment about making comments mandatory for votes of 1. I also would like to add that I also like that idea applied to votes of 10 as well. Vote of 1? You REALLY didn't like my picture. Tell me why. Vote of 10? You thought my picture was incredible. What did you like about it? ... |
Just a heads-up on some reading material for you if you're interested in the subject you mention. Results pulled from just the last year. Many, MANY, more available. :-)
Comments when voting 3 or below
Require Comment On 1 Votes (example included)
DPC, Please require Comments When Voting
Not worthy of comment
This tool was used to find these ==> Advanced Forum Search |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:19:12 PM · #69 |
I am more frustrated because I took this to be a technical challenge than a creative one. I carefully read and re-read the challenge description and worked out what it meant (and not implied, what it said). Your challenge this week is deceptively simple: photograph a sporting venue after the game is over and the players and people have gone home :-)
So, a sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
Players and people have gone home, means there is no one in the venue.
Hence the deceptively simple part of it.
Just because the sentence did not include "every single spectator, cleaner, player or otherwise" does not mean it meant almost everyone, or a good majority. This is plain English, not interpretation.
I joined this site because there are lots of sites out there to submit your photos and have them rated, or even where they have challenges, but they are very broad and easy topics, but DPC is different, or I thought it was?! There are many challenges we do that are very open artistically, and some that are very open technically. This one, to me at least, was a technical challenge, but with an artistic flip. To convey the feeling of "after the game", but without using people to envoke the feeling, which makes the challenge that much harder. It is hard to make a field or a stadium or an arena feel like anything, and this was part of the challenge. Mick said "After all, what's more important, encouraging good, artistic photography, or blind adherence to the exact letter of a challenge description?". Why can't we have both? It took an artistic eye to find the shots that both adhered to the challenge and were photographically well done.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:21:03 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Just out of curiosity, can you give us an example of a photo that you think did meet the challenge? |
I'd offer up  .
When words such as 'exactly' are used in the challenge description, that does indicate to me that 'artistic license' in whatever area the word exactly is referring to is being purposely curtailed in order to make a challenge of the challenge. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:25:49 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by justine:
I'm not that much of a hard liner on the entry description. In fact the  was my highest voted shot. |
I think this photo actually does a better job of showing an empty stadium 'after the game' than a similar shot without the person.
"Your challenge this week is deceptively simple: photograph a sporting venue after the game is over and the players and people have gone home :-)"
Stadiums are often unused for long periods of time between events. If your photo only shows an empty stadium, how do you convey the 'after the game' aspect of the challenge? The ribbon winners all chose to use sporting equipment left behind. Having a lingering spectator or two, or perhaps a cleanup crew, in your shot is yet another way. |
That's an excellent photograph but I've been to hundreds and hundreds of sporting events all over the country and that doesn't depict "after the game" any more than not having a person in the shot. What I see after the game tend to be janitors, field crew and athletes getting in extra work and not someone sitting there in a large stadium looking posed as she does here. Perhaps if this person was jogging up the rows it would have seem believable but as it stands now it just looks like the staged shot that it is. Nothing wrong with that but to me that's not meeting the challenge. A person in the shot had little to do with. Personally, I liked the description because it TRIED to tell people the direction to go yet as always people will go in whatever direction that suits them best and not "challenge" themselves to do something different. That's the issue I believe most have with DNMC in general.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 15:26:02.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:30:26 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
while an outstanding image, I am of the opinion that it did not meet the challenge requirements. |
I don't have any problem with this photo. There are two completely unrelated objects hanging from the tree. The challenge description...
"Gather exactly two objects that are completely unrelated (for example, a carrot and a yo-yo) and make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking."
...doesn't state that there absolutely cannot be any other objects in the photo. It's quite obvious to me that the photo is about the two objects in the tree. Coley used artistic license in order to "...make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking."
Just out of curiosity, can you give us an example of a photo that you think did meet the challenge? |
Sure
as for the outstanding winning photo, yes the bicycle and the chair are 2 unrelated objects. So is the umbrella and the tree, not to mention the person.
You say that the challenge, "...doesn't state that there absolutely cannot be any other objects in the photo."
But the challenge description says "EXACTLY two objects" What else could "EXACTLY" mean?
I realize of course that the flower could be broken down to petals, stem, etc. But the flower is one cohesive object as is the A/C plug.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:36:45 PM · #73 |
okay, my frustration with topic has reached the point where i stop being diplomatic and "professional" (there are times i think it would be good for me to not be a SC member, then I would really let you know what I think), so I am bowing gracefully (well as gracefully as I can muster) of this conversation.
Interpretation is interpretation is interpretation. (Collective)you says "absolutely no people" or its dnmc, others of (collective) us say, it *could* (and was) taken differently by different people. The very fact that someone interpreted the challenge topic differently shows that there were different interpretations.
Carry on. |
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:40:20 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Mick:
Just out of curiosity, can you give us an example of a photo that you think did meet the challenge? |
I'd offer up .
When words such as 'exactly' are used in the challenge description, that does indicate to me that 'artistic license' in whatever area the word exactly is referring to is being purposely curtailed in order to make a challenge of the challenge. |
I don't disagree, but how does one go about photographing exactly two items? Remember, you also need to "...make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking." And, if you want to win a ribbon, you also need to make it an artistic photo (normally. there are lots of exceptions) with some WOW factor. If you take two objects and photograph them against a plain background, then you end up with more then two objects. The two objects plus the background. That's essentially what I see in Coley's photo. The tree, the grass, the person, and the rest are just the background for the two objects in the tree.
That's why I asked for an example of a photo that you thought did meet the challenge. Unfortunately, the example that you picked isn't from the same challenge, so I can't pick it apart as I was going to. :D
|
|
|
|
11/01/2006 03:51:05 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by mick:
how does one go about photographing exactly two items? Remember, you also need to "...make some sort of sense out of their combination, photographically speaking." And, if you want to win a ribbon, you also need to make it an artistic photo (normally. there are lots of exceptions) with some WOW factor.
|
I believe that's the challenge part of it.
edit: the specific photo was discussed to death at the time. I'm in the camp of tree/grass/sky are ancillary objects that don't count. The guy standing there looking at those other two things was most certainly a major subject and constituted one of three elements that when put together made the photo what it was. Three, not two. Take that guy out and look at the photo with just two pieces of whatever hanging from a limb. Still a 1st place shot? I wonder.
Message edited by author 2006-11-01 15:53:25. |
|
