Who is handing out the lowest scores possible? NSFW

03/08/2008 08:12:44 PM · #76

Originally posted by citymars:

... Meaning is subjective, unless it's not? And look at your own top scorers, Steve. All beautiful shots and deserving of high praise. Filled with meaning? Technical exercises?

"Meaning", according to Pound, "is that which exists through itself."

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

03/08/2008 08:14:29 PM · #77

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by supernaught:
But should we apply that to our score, when it's obviously a neatly composed, and otherwise fine composition?

Yes. A turd is still a turd no matter how technically perfect the shot is though probably more a 5 or 4 in my book rather than a 1 or 2.

If the image does not connect with the viewer, it doesn't connect, period.

ETA: before anyone else jumps to any conclusions: this is a general statement -- it is NOT about a specific picture -- gees -- some people take this virtual ribbon business way too seriously

Message edited by author 2008-03-08 20:21:21.

owen

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/08/2008 08:42:30 PM · #78

Thanks for the thread and the insight.

I appreciate all the different views expressed here. DPC is a good place for this.

I personally don't agree with giving 1's to a any shot that got over about 6.5. I think that is not an honest critique but merely a silent protest. Silent because without a statement to back it up we don't know what you are protesting about.

I have in the past given a one to an overdone subject a couple of times and when one turned out to be not taken by who I thought took it I felt quite foolish and empty as well as cruel.

I now obviously deduct marks for not meeting my personal taste but will not go below a 4 and quite often will give a 7 to a shot that I'm not personally that fussed about but can see it is a fine shot.

I still will give out an occasional one when everything is bad about a shot in my opinion, I think we should use the whole range of numbers and when it's deserved is helpful for the photographer.

Qart summed it up best for me about being fair and respectful in your voting.

Getting an eye candy shot is not easy and I find it a compliment for mine to be given this tag.

The shot in question is a bit different to the other ones previously submitted though I liked some of those more than my own. It has a vertical aspect, it has the stars and what really was a very blue sky. It was quite windy and I used a long exposure to deliberately get the blur in the clouds and this also gave some nice smooth reflection.

Before DPC I never though of taking a long exposure shot, especially to deliberately give blur which could actually make something look smoother.

I have since dabbled in the long exposure and have previously taken shots of the Opera House which I didn't think worthy to enter.

I got up at 3AM drove 2 hours, took many shots, came home and deliberated over which one to use.

Deliberated over the editing. Trying to get the right tone of Blue without oversaturating and tring to get the tone of the sails right without blowing it out too much but trying to avoid making the whole shot too dark.

I had it sitting on DPC for a week before deciding I didn't like a light in it so I redone all the editing again. (I hadn't saved the TIFF and it was hard to get the blue back the same).

After all this I did like the shot and wanted to test it with the DPC crowd whether it was done similarly by someone else before or not.

As for emotion in shots.

The Sydney Opera House has a very checkered beginnings with architects, engineers and owners squabbling for years before the architect resigned and left the country. He has since been acknowledged as a brilliant man and the building is now an icon and admired by all Australians.

It is a place purely for the arts where emotions are expressed, shared and enjoyed.

I didn't like the shot at first because I thought the stars trails were camera shake. When I realised it was the earth turning it made me think of the the universe out there for eternity and the water in the harbour for nearly that long and this man made beauty of only just over 30 years looking just as beautiful in that same picture, and so I called it Moving Canvas.

On a more personal note I proposed to my wife outside the Opera House 7 years ago and she said yes.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/08/2008 08:46:39 PM · #79

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by smithma:
Maybe this has been discussed before, but I have an issue. Almost every picture in every challenge has at least 1 "1". I don't understand why these photos deserve the lowest of the low score available. Let's take the most recent free study challenge for example.

Clearly a fantastic photo. Was it better than every other photo in the challenge? Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it's a good photo because it took the blue ribbon in this particular challenge. Why then did someone give it a 1? How many twos did it get? 2... Out of the comments we can see that everyone thought it was a great picture.

So where are the comments from the people who handed out the lowest scores? What about the picture was a total failure? Please offer some suggestions from your vast knowledge of photography that determines that great photos are complete trash.

I think people who leave a 1, 2, or 3 should be forced to give a comment on why they voted the way they did.

I awarded it a 4, mainly for its postcard appeal and the manner chosen for a well-known and often photographed subject like this. I can't say what anyone else is willing to pay for pretty picture of a familiar vista, but the association was too easy to fetch a higher score.

On the other hand (and despite the strong saturation of blues and smoothed out cloud and foreground reflection), it's a decent exposure, representative of both sentiment and subject and well ordered. The title, to my senses, is somewhat unduly ambitious.

In the scheme of my angle, here are my stats for it:

Energy/Range/Story: 3/3/1
Composition/perspective/manner: 6/6/3
Aesthetics/Technical: 3/7
Presentation: 5
Total: 4.1
Vote: 4

I agree, the photo falls short of what the title suggests and on that ground I would judged it differently than had it just been worded, "Sydney Opera House" (i.e. intent vs execution).

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/08/2008 08:59:29 PM · #80

owen, I like that this subject and location is important to you, and that you shared both this image with us, and some of the meaning behind it. I hope you continue to shoot what is meaningful to you, and not what you think will "win" here.

We can try to duplicate winning shots, or we can all shoot stuff we love (and there is room for overlap there), and we can do both.

Shooting stuff we love, and sharing it here is, to me, the best possible thing. Full speed ahead and curse the scores.

smithma

03/08/2008 09:21:08 PM · #81

Originally posted by MattO:

You do realize that your average vote given is 4.4xxx. I'm pretty sure someone with an average vote cast that low will hand out plenty of 1's 2's and 3's to be able to achieve a score that low.

I see this post as Pot-Kettle kind of situation.

Matt

You can see it that way if you'd like, but that isn't the case. I've always been frustrated that fantastic photos get a score of a 1. I left DPC a few years ago because of that fact. I also never said that photos are immune to a bad score. Some of my photos are terrible and I know it. When I revisit some of them I think... Dang... that is horrible... what was I thinking? Some of them aren't great, but they don't deserve a 1 either.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/08/2008 10:01:11 PM · #82

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I awarded it a 4, mainly for its postcard appeal and the manner chosen for a well-known and often photographed subject like this.

At least that's still an above average score by your standards. The point of the OP was that it's hard to justify a 1 for a ribbon winner.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/08/2008 11:41:30 PM · #83

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
I awarded it a 4, mainly for its postcard appeal and the manner chosen for a well-known and often photographed subject like this.

At least that's still an above average score by your standards. The point of the OP was that it's hard to justify a 1 for a ribbon winner.

But nobody knows it's going to be a ribbon winner until after the voting is over. Unless someone has the only working crystal ball on DPC, that is.

Mike

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/09/2008 12:03:37 AM · #84

Originally posted by MikeJ:

But nobody knows it's going to be a ribbon winner until after the voting is over.

The fact that it wins a ribbon means that it's at least a competent image with some connection to the topic, and that's all you really need to know.

03/09/2008 12:37:07 AM · #85

Originally posted by supernaught:

Originally posted by zarniwoop:

Originally posted by citymars:
Many of the people who rail against eye candy have beautiful images of their own, with no deeper meaning than the winning shots. It's possible that every photo that is not strictly photojournalism is eye candy of one sort or another.

Also, the problem I find with this is that there is no question of any consensus over whether a picture has 'deeper meaning'.

The point is that any image might be both shallow and meaningless eye candy and an aesthetic and intellectual revelation depending on who's looking at it. Surely we should allow people to vote accordingly, or with whatever other criteria they feel like imposing without assuming that their intentions are malicious?

Objectivity is fine if if that's what you're into??? Holy Smokes!!! Hey, guess what? Subjectivity, and personal bias is patently dishonest, and if we apply that philosophy to other systems designed to critique information, the system will fail to achieve what it originally intended.

Amorphous emotional critique, like whether it's shallow, or meaningless to a voter should be irrelevant to the voters scoring. Look at the picture on it's technical merits, make a judgement or guess on what the photographer intended, and finally, score it on how well you think it achieved it's goal, and challenge criteria. It's the photographer, as much as the photo, whom is being critiqued here. We don't need to apply emotional crap to our scoring. Some people will get it, and some won't.

Again, not everyone has the skill, and studious eye for this kind of critique. But we must recognize that some have that skill, and many more emphatically do not. Pandering to those who do not, by using strawman arguements like "that's how they feel", or "they're entitled to their opinion" only serve to perpetuate their ignorance of objectivity, rather than teaching them to be less emotional in their scoring traits.

I would like to see two votes. A peoples vote, such as we have here, and a peer vote, either from strictly blue-ribbon winners, or some other means of selecting objective, skilled reviewers.

This way, we have a voting system that where one shows us a.) How appealing our photos are to the DPChallenge public, and the other shows us b.) How well we are with our technique, and what our peers think of our work, and how well we expressed our intent with our photography.

I disagree. Voting should be a combination of objective and technical. If all we are voting on is technical merit, then all submissions should be perfectly executed stock shots of products taken in a light tent. You mention the photographer's intent - what if my intent is to convey or share an emotion? Joy, for instance? Or shyness? Or "cold", however you may take that? My success at sharing that will depend a great deal on the viewer's subjective response. Of course I should have some knowledge of the technical skill needed to compose and present my image, but in trying to convey my intent, I may purposely skew or ignore a technical "rule" (the "rule of thirds" for instance). If I subjectively see a shot as shallow or meaningless but technically excellent, I will not give it a 1. I will also most likely not give it a 9 or a 10 either. On the other hand, a photograph that is emotionally, subjectively powerful to me may get a 9 or 10 despite some technical flaws. Subjectivity is not patently dishonest. It's how we feel.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

03/09/2008 01:22:38 AM · #86

Something to consider: (This goes along with Melethia's statement below)

An image for challenges has 4 components, 1) exposure; 2) composition; 3) impact; and 4) how well it meets the challenge.

For argument's sake, let's say we score an image out of 40 (10 marks max for each component):

Even if the first 2 (exposure and composition follow the rules (no room for improvement), if the image has no impact and does not meet the challenge (the subjective parts) the score is still 5. In this situation, once you start deducting for exposure and composition, well, you see where that goes. This example is simplistic for illustration purposes. In the real world of DPC, it would be much more complicated - 8, 5, 0, 5 - something that has pretty good exposure, average composition and challenge compliance but no impact = 6.

This takes far too much time with a challenge of 400+ images but you get the idea.

1's would be very hard to achieve (with this formula anyway) unless everything is completely off or more weight is given to one or more of the components over the others (i.e. meeting the challenge).

Message edited by author 2008-03-09 01:23:22.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

03/09/2008 01:23:36 AM · #87

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by pawdrix:
I think a point to make here is the point of "meaning". I don't find either of those shots to be the slightest bit meaningful. They do look very cool but who cares. They don't say anything to me whatsoever. I've been around here since 2004-2005...seen one, seen'em all.
I also look at them more like technical exercises. Anyone can do them if they take the time. Read all the tutorials and go to town....

I guess you can have your cake and eat it, too. Meaning is subjective, unless it's not? And look at your own top scorers, Steve. All beautiful shots and deserving of high praise. Filled with meaning? Technical exercises?

For what it's worth, I think my highest rated shots aren't that good and are as I can them "tourist bullshit".
Full Metal Candy as far as I'm concerned. Not much there other than high vote getters.

If they have anything going for them it's that they may be slightly different than the usual takes of the same scene, probably not much else.
They did score well and I knew they would but let's call a Spade a Spade. That is the point I was trying to make.

PS: Why have cake if you can't eat it? j/k

Message edited by author 2008-03-09 13:17:25.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

03/09/2008 01:34:57 AM · #88

I too take exception to supernaught's qualification of subjectivity and personal bias as "patently dishonest." If there is no subjectivity there is in the end no real viewer, but a mythical universe of meaningless perfections which no one can appreciate. supernaught's suggestion of a 2nd "peer" vote has appeared in other forms in other forums; there are other photography sites that have juried admissions, and that may be more to his taste. It would in any case be difficult to judge just who exactly is one's "peer." Or, as someone posted recently, some are more equal than others?

Alas I rarely vote (still on dial-up), and more rarely vote 100%, but I do give comments for a 3 or less, and if I find myself feeling emotional in a very unpositive way, I tend not to give any vote. Though I am not all that serious about the significance of numbers, I am very serious about trying to be fair within my skill-challenged limitations.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/09/2008 01:52:06 AM · #89

Yup! No Mathematical formula can be applied here, even the proposed breakdowns of exposure, composition, etc, are all still going to be Subjectively Assessed to determine an "objective' score.

If it was math and formulae, the people and artists and vision and experience and emotion would have no part in it, and neither would I.

Keep in mind the challenges are a game, a fun tool, but not a Purpose.

03/09/2008 05:10:16 AM · #90

melethia

I disagree. Voting should be a combination of objective and technical. If all we are voting on is technical merit, then all submissions should be perfectly executed stock shots of products taken in a light tent. You mention the photographer's intent - what if my intent is to convey or share an emotion? Joy, for instance? Or shyness? Or "cold", however you may take that? My success at sharing that will depend a great deal on the viewer's subjective response. Of course I should have some knowledge of the technical skill needed to compose and present my image, but in trying to convey my intent, I may purposely skew or ignore a technical "rule" (the "rule of thirds" for instance). If I subjectively see a shot as shallow or meaningless but technically excellent, I will not give it a 1. I will also most likely not give it a 9 or a 10 either. On the other hand, a photograph that is emotionally, subjectively powerful to me may get a 9 or 10 despite some technical flaws. Subjectivity is not patently dishonest. It's how we feel.

Whom exactly are you disagreeing with? It sounds like you're agreeing with my objective vs. subjective stance, because you talked yourself into one big circle. If I subjectively see a shot as shallow or meaningless but technically excellent, I will not give it a 1. I will also most likely not give it a 9 or a 10 either.

So you freely admit, that if a shot is meaningless or shallow yet technically excellent, you might give it a lower score because you don't emotionally connect with the image? So we're down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder, now?

Example: I might behold an image of an old man, sitting in his chair, with a profoundly sullen look upon his face as he gazes out his window, sunshine streaming in. The image and lighting, color are perfectly composed, and all the angles converge flawlessly. Hypothetically, let's imagine someone on DPChallenge knows this old man and his family, and knows he just lost his wife of 56 years, that she was stricken down unexpectedly hours before the photo was taken.

Now, since he's not crying, or showing any overtly explicit actions that would imply sorrow, many might consider this a pretty stock image. Perhaps just another old man, contemplating his twilight years, or what have you. The person that recognizes this man and his plight is going to have a much more powerful connection to this image, and see the emotion captured there.

Some more objective viewers aren't going to score such an image lower, because it is a superbly captured moment in the otherwise unknown aspect of the subject's life and history. In fact, they may even score it a 10, just as the viewer whom knows the subject would probably do.

A more subjective person might see nothing interesting at all, because it doesn't conform to any emotional attachment they would assign to this photo. You admitted to this yourself. You might score it lower. Maybe give it a 3, or a 4.

Which seems more fair, and appropriate to you? Whom would you rather have voting if this were your photo? The subjective zealot, whom can't see past his or her own lack of emotional connection to the image? I would beg an answer to this.

Which would you rather voted on your photos?

Conversely, there are decidedly generic images, like fruit falling into water, that generally seem pretty average, simply because no emotion can be assigned assigned to it. Maybe it makes you thirsty, I don't know. That's why I tend to start with 5 on the scale, and modulate upwards or downwards based on creativity, originality, composition and skill etc. It takes no mathematical formula, because the vast lexicon of photography gives us plenty of history to learn from, and decipher such platitudes.

I'd like to be critiqued by the more objective viewer. If that makes anyone feel bad, I suggest a visit to your "happy place".

03/09/2008 05:35:21 AM · #91

I don't think we're using "subjective" in the same way. Objective to me means merely viewing the object, without feeling or connection, and in the case we're discussing here, looking only at the technical aspects. Lighting, focus, composition. Subjective to me means bringing in a connection, an emotion, a feeling. To me, that shot of the gentleman in the chair as you've described it would probably elicit a 9 or a 10. The fruit falling in water would likely get a 6 or 7 from me depending on the technicals. Why? Shots of people generally are more emotive than shots of falling fruit.

In essence, I think you've switched what I know as the meaning of the words?

03/09/2008 05:52:56 AM · #92

Almost forgot this zinger: tnun I too take exception to supernaught's qualification of subjectivity and personal bias as "patently dishonest." If there is no subjectivity there is in the end no real viewer, but a mythical universe of meaningless perfections which no one can appreciate.[/b]

Subjectivity, IS a patently dishonest means to critique anything. You understand, that when you apply your own emotion to something to a point that you're willing to thumb your nose at it, because it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be, that you've quite dishonestly neglected your own lack of knowlege on the subject being critiqued, right? I mean, all you have is a photo, nothing else.

Since there is no universal measuring tool for emotion and subjective viewpoints, I submit that only an objective viewpoint can be fair in a critique forum. Refer to my "sullen old man" example above.

So you don't quantify me as a real viewer, because I don't apply emotion when being critical of anothers submission for review?? Quote again: If there is no subjectivity there is in the end no real viewer. That would consolidate my "old man" image example, since by your standard, the only real viewer would be the hypothetical one whom knows the subject. Even though I demonstrated how an objective viewer would probably score it high, because of it's excellent technical and spatial merit, and open-mindedness to what the image might represent?

I'm here to critque others compositions, to learn about them, and to posit my own for critique. In the end, my photos are never going to mean as much to someone else as they do to myself. The best I can hope for is that some objective viewers might see into what I had in mind, determine if I composed in a way that is interesting and visually appealing, and be open minded as to what my images might be conveying visually.

I've found alot of wonder on this website, and alot of places and people exposed that I will never know, or meet. A great photo offers a looking glass, or a window, that has used light to capture a moment in time, or an inspired artistic vision. Does that mean it has to conform to my personal tastes for me to appreciate it? Hell no, it does not. Each photo is an offering of one's soul: black as coal, bright as the sun, empty of creativity, or bursting with it that I might never understand, or that I might completely empathize with.

It's trying and failing to understand, being selfish, that prohibits the real exploration of these submissions.

03/09/2008 06:13:51 AM · #93

If you still think I'm nuts after you read what I wrote to your last post, then cool - I'm nuts. I will react, and vote, subjectively. If a picture strikes an emotion in me, it tends to get higher consideration. If that emotion is based on a KNOWN personal prejudice (I hate guns, for instance) then I will either assess the technical aspects and vote accordingly, or just not vote at all. I would not, for instance, hang pictures of guns in my home regardless of how technically perfect they were. And I do not think that it at all dishonest.

03/09/2008 06:17:12 AM · #94

Originally posted by supernaught:

I'm here to critque others compositions, to learn about them, and to posit my own for critique. In the end, my photos are never going to mean as much to someone else as they do to myself. The best I can hope for is that some objective viewers might see into what I had in mind, determine if I composed in a way that is interesting and visually appealing, and be open minded as to what my images might be conveying visually.

I cannot be "open minded" as to what the images might be conveying if I cannot be subjective. To try to see what you had in mind, I have to subjectively consider the presentation. Objectively, I'd be able to assess whether your composition is in focus, but really, that's about it. To even assess whether your lighting is appropriate and well done, I would subjectively have to consider whether I thought you intended to light your subject that way or not. That is a subjective interpretation in my book.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/09/2008 06:24:55 AM · #95

Originally posted by Melethia:

Correction, and herein lay the hobgoblin of this debate. You said: Objective to me means merely viewing the object, without feeling or connection. No, it emphatically does not. I can subjectively view anything, it's subjectively critiquing that I find unfair, and by definition, biased.

So to wit, if you had said: Objective to me means merely critiquing the object, without feeling or connection, you would be correct.

Crap, now she's applying subjectivity to her definition of objectivity!!! lol!! Objective to me means...

This has been fun, but I think we've made our points.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/09/2008 06:43:11 AM · #96

Originally posted by Melethia:

I would have to disagree. Being objective (to me) is simply the act of keeping your personal bias in check and not have it cloud your judgement. It has nothing to do with appreciating technicals over meaning. It's acknowledging when one or the other exists in a photo and weighing that in your judgement regardless of whether or not you personally connected with the photo. This is not to say that personal bias/connection with the photo shouldn't be factored in because it should. I just think it's silly to demand that a shot of a falling fruit should have the same emotional punch of that of a starving child in Africa. It's apples and oranges and should be treated differently and that's what being objective is all about. Same goes for those who shoot the falling fruit and troll the grainy street candids just because the technicals are not crystal clear.

Message edited by author 2008-03-09 06:45:04.

03/09/2008 06:44:55 AM · #97

Originally posted by Melethia:

Actually, yes you can be open minded as to what the image is conveying without being subjective, since the definition of objective includes A term used to describe information which is without bias or prejudice and attempts to present all sides of an issue which is also in the definition of open minded, and the opposite of subjective.

And if you can't see how it's unfair, and in fact, dishonest, to critique someone's photo arbitrarily because you hate guns, then so be it. At least you've provided a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with some voting habits on this site.

Summarily, in regard to simply viewing submissions on this site, there's no unfairness to having an emotional opinion. But critiquing in this manner, or scoring in this fashion, is as unfair and dishonest as it gets, as melethia has nicely posited above.

She has just demonstrated wonderfully how subjective voting can limit expression on DP Challenge.

I don't particularly dig looking at supermodel guys with their shirts off in some pictures, but it's not going to affect my appraisal or score of the photograph as a composition.

Message edited by author 2008-03-09 06:53:36.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/09/2008 06:53:16 AM · #98

ARRRGGHHHH!!!!

Did I not say that if my prejudices interfere with my voting that I don't vote? I am cognizant of my prejudices in most cases. But, alas, you have convinced me. I shall simply cease and desist with my voting. Is it OK if I continue to comment, subjectively?

And Yanko, I more or less agree with what you said. So perhaps I'm using subjectively wrong. I just don't see how keeping an emotional connection (not a bias, a connection) out of appreciating a photograph is possible. At least for me. So on those grounds, I shall only comment from now on.

Message edited by author 2008-03-09 07:06:23.

total_novice

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/09/2008 07:27:16 AM · #99

I'd hate to see people afraid of voting how they think is appropriate just because others don't see it as fair. Granted I dont think its right to give a 1 to a technically brilliant photo just because u dont like the subject matter. But I dont think I or anyone has the place to say that.

At the end of the day hundreds of people vote and if your photo is good it will get the average score it deserves. If u have someone voting on purely subjective grounds then as long as they vote on all photos in the same way what does it matter. I think if a subject disgusts you enough to feel like dishing out a 1 this is actually a more valid vote than someone who throws out 1s if a photos got a bit of noise or poor focus. Saying you shouldn't vote but just comment is like saying your emotional response is not valid, which angers me slightly.

...but what do I know I have a handful of comments, a sprinkle of votes and no photos to my name on this site....backs of from conversation.