|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2008 09:21:13 AM · #101 |
What if instead of being "forced" to comment on peoples pictures you were relaxed forced? Going off of something just like the 20% voting scale.
Currently right now you if you give someone a 3 or below a pop up box that reminds you to comment on those pictures that receive those scores. Instead of that pop up box saying please remember to comment… it said, please remember to comment your low votes before rollover!
My suggestion is: If you give someone a 3 or below you have X amount of days to comment on that picture or your vote will be dropped off after roll over. If you vote a 3 or below on the first day of voting you have 7 days remaining to comment on those images. With everyday that passes it lowers your time to comment. All votes that have not been commented on with a score of 3 or below will be dropped off.
Doing this would force people to either NOT give a 3 or below OR comment on the 3's and below. I think this could make better photographers and seriously help others do better.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2008 09:38:15 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
The less we have to worry about people's personal biases/feelings getting in the way, the better. That, over time, would translate to a wider berth for new enthusiasts to stretch creatively, and find a happy home on the DPC, bereft of ideological voting scores. |
heh. Let's not use emotions and feelings to judge pictures that some art trying to take for the purpose of expressing, capturing, referring to, implying, hinting at, toying with, mocking, getting people to think about, juxtaposing.................... feelings and emotions.
Let's get down and define art. And while we're at it, let's apply our own definitions to everyone. But please check your emotions at the door. They have no place in the arena with a camera.
(uhm just in case ya don't get it, that's got a 'subtle' vein of sarcasm floating around in it and I am not actually advocating this...)
Oh and SuperN, I don't mind the careful use of conjunctions at the beginning of sentences and other grammatical errors (it's just the internet), but if you misuse the word 'whom' one more time to make yourself sound smart/literate/whatever, I think I'm going to have to say something about it. Oops - too late!
tee hee.
oh yeah, I was actually going to say this...
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Qart:
 
A great deal of effort went into these images and they WERE NOT created as a 'short cut' to a ribbon. |
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 agree with this statement. But I would like to add a couple of thoughts.
#1 - not everybody who takes pictures looks at all the pictures on DPC before they do a shot.
#2 - not everybody who shoot specifically for a challenge goes out and looks for pictures to copy - although some pics end up looking like this.
#3 - some people take pictures solely for working on the technicals. I don't see the problem with this with any definition of photography. I also don't see the problem with this within the context of DPC challenges.
#4 - some people put pictures without any emotion into challenges simply because they want them evaluated. I don't really see a problem with this either - not much actually at stake here.
#5 - some challenge descriptions are well and truly wide open for shots devoid of any deeper emotional level. It's cool if you have a shot that does capture emotions in the viewer, but the net result of that is in the response from that viewer, along with the possibility of a vote or comment.
yadda!
Message edited by author 2008-03-09 09:55:05. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 09:43:56 AM · #103 |
If you are to completely to take out the emotion in the voting process then the site needs to supply the same prop, lights, camera, technical subject so the technicals alone may be evaluated.
Some here are trying to learn and improve on the emotional impact of a photograph. So if you sterilize the voting to technicals only, you have limited their ability to grow.
ETA:
Here is my entry from 'Birds' - I new it was going to get hammered for noise, softness, B&W conversion, etc. All that you say to vote on. I think the emotion of the shot pulled it much higher than I ever thought it would.
Message edited by author 2008-03-09 09:47:48. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 10:02:38 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
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? ... |
Deb, surely you jest. You're a breath of fresh air to this site, and your voting, if it matches your commenting in any way, is certainly more than justified.
Don't let some newbie, that's all fired up because of seeing their initial challenge score fail to break 5, get under your skin.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2008 10:11:20 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Melethia:
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? ... |
Deb, surely you jest. You're a breath of fresh air to this site, and your voting, if it matches your commenting in any way, is certainly more than justified.
Don't let some newbie, that's all fired up because of seeing their initial challenge score fail to break 5, get under your skin. |
I agree! |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 10:15:45 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
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. |
You are one of my favorite photographer on the site. I appreciate that you can see past the technicals of a shot to the deeper feelings and meanings. Don't let someone who is new to this site, who hasn't had the opportunity to experience the value of the OOBIE's and the posthumus ribbons get under your skin enough to make you stop voting. Part of the reason I am still here is because of people like you who have been able to show me that it's ok to step outside of the DPC comfort zone and appreciate photography in so many other ways.
Besides, if we all stopped voting with any emotion and based things merely on technicals, couldn't someone just write some program to have a computer judge the photos? What fun is that? We'd all gain back hours of our life that we currently spend on voting and commenting. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 10:19:31 AM · #107 |
I do believe that 1's can affect high ranking photos in a contest, even with all the votes that get cast, case in point, I came in 9th place in a challenge and received (9) 1's, with no negative comments. This perplexed and pissed me off for awhile, I got over it, but it is very frustrating when it happens. Here is the image.
 |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 10:37:25 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
Originally posted by Melethia:
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. |
Music to my ears! Any other takers?
I'm not joking: The more the merrier. The less we have to worry about people's personal biases/feelings getting in the way, the better. That, over time, would translate to a wider berth for new enthusiasts to stretch creatively, and find a happy home on the DPC, bereft of ideological voting scores.
I can dream, can't I?
Sorry, melethia, but as soon as you put that little word "emotionally" in there, you default to biased. It's nature. It's only wrong when you apply it to a vote, or critique, where people (rightfully) demand fair, unbiased, objective appraisals and scores. Not when appreciating, or simply viewing a photograph.
Members have every right to a fair vote, and it's better for the growth of DPS. I'll bet the sheer number of people whom have abandoned this site over the years had many of the same misgivings as I and others, regarding the voting controversies.
This thread was concerned with people scoring the lowest possible, on otherwise average, to fine pictures. It's not hard imagine how it happens, if you look at how subjective viewpoints can engender spite in some people ( and I don't mean melethia, whom was actually quite polite ). Does it hurt DPC overall? Absolutely not. But it needs to be addressed, regardless of how it affects final scores.
It'll be interesting to see how DPC evolves over time, and I look forward to it! |
Comment: I love your image, it reminds me growing up on the Connecticut river as a young boy. I gave this image a 2. The tree on the left is 2.5mm to the right of a 3erds line. You presented this as a B&W, but you have no true blacks, and 473 pixels of white which is technically unbalanced. The leading line of the shoreline is 3 degrees below the swan. Added to favorites. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 10:53:21 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Redneck:
Originally posted by supernaught:
Originally posted by Melethia:
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. |
Music to my ears! Any other takers?
I'm not joking: The more the merrier. The less we have to worry about people's personal biases/feelings getting in the way, the better. That, over time, would translate to a wider berth for new enthusiasts to stretch creatively, and find a happy home on the DPC, bereft of ideological voting scores.
I can dream, can't I?
Sorry, melethia, but as soon as you put that little word "emotionally" in there, you default to biased. It's nature. It's only wrong when you apply it to a vote, or critique, where people (rightfully) demand fair, unbiased, objective appraisals and scores. Not when appreciating, or simply viewing a photograph.
Members have every right to a fair vote, and it's better for the growth of DPS. I'll bet the sheer number of people whom have abandoned this site over the years had many of the same misgivings as I and others, regarding the voting controversies.
This thread was concerned with people scoring the lowest possible, on otherwise average, to fine pictures. It's not hard imagine how it happens, if you look at how subjective viewpoints can engender spite in some people ( and I don't mean melethia, whom was actually quite polite ). Does it hurt DPC overall? Absolutely not. But it needs to be addressed, regardless of how it affects final scores.
It'll be interesting to see how DPC evolves over time, and I look forward to it! |
Comment: I love your image, it reminds me growing up on the Connecticut river as a young boy. I gave this image a 2. The tree on the left is 2.5mm to the right of a 3erds line. You presented this as a B&W, but you have no true blacks, and 473 pixels of white which is technically unbalanced. The leading line of the shoreline is 3 degrees below the swan. Added to favorites. |
LOL Love it.
This discussion, every time it comes up, is very entertaining.
Entertainment aside,
The connection an image has with the viewer is important. This is the impact, whether it be due to showing something that looks very difficult to achieve or it be the anguish on a child's face. The level of impact, in every case, will be different for everyone.
Now, if someone wants a critique on how well their technicals are, impact aside, they can post the image in the forums, explain what they were trying to do and ask for comments in that regard. Attempting to do this during a challenge would be impossible in my mind, no matter how much direction is given to the voters.
Message edited by author 2008-03-09 10:53:59. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 11:20:56 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
I'm not joking: The more the merrier. The less we have to worry about people's personal biases/feelings getting in the way, the better. That, over time, would translate to a wider berth for new enthusiasts to stretch creatively, and find a happy home on the DPC, bereft of ideological voting scores. |
This is all fairly ridiculous. To suggest the essence of fair voting is robotically excising one's emotional connection to any given photograph is pretty silly, and, I dare say, completely the opposite of what taking pictures is all about. As has been pointed out recently, this site is not a juried competition, but one based on peer review, and therefore all voting styles are valid save those which break the rules. You are welcome to assess each entry in Data-esque fashion, since your right to vote as you please is recognized. Please courteously reciprocate.
Message edited by author 2008-03-09 11:23:41. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 11:27:38 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
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.
|
That's a ridiculous argument,which extends my statement about voting on a photography website to an opinion on how we should aproach and critique all our systems of knowledge. I would say that that's 'patently dishonest'.
The reason that science, maths and (good and rigorous) philosophy work as objective systems, is that each have an underlying structure which allow for proof; scientific proof is not, strictly speaking, proof in the way that logical proof is, but it'll do. Science works by a presentation of a falsifiable hypothesis, which is then either disproven, or not yet disproven by experiment. If experiments continue to fail to disprove it, and it fits the available evidence we assume the hypothesis is true until such time as it is disproven. Maths and philosophy work on a logical system based on certain accepted axioms which form a self-contained logical structure, in which almost all propositions made within the structure can be definitively proved or disproved.
Outside these fields, objectivity, though an integral part of my own critical process, is nothing more than a personal best guess at what you can persuade others to agree with through argument.
In any case, my average vote cast shows that mostly I give scores based equally on technicalities and personal response; I'm just not arrogant enough to assume that there is a right way to approach this kind of semi-artistic system.
Message edited by author 2008-03-09 11:31:05. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 11:46:18 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Redneck:
Originally posted by supernaught:
...It'll be interesting to see how DPC evolves over time, and I look forward to it! |
Comment: I love your image, it reminds me growing up on the Connecticut river as a young boy. I gave this image a 2. The tree on the left is 2.5mm to the right of a 3erds line. You presented this as a B&W, but you have no true blacks, and 473 pixels of white which is technically unbalanced. The leading line of the shoreline is 3 degrees below the swan. Added to favorites. |
genius, Alan. :) QED,  supernaught |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 11:57:06 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, we've dealt with people whose voting pattern indicates obvious malicious intent (it tends to be VERY obvious). |
Dern, I guess I'll have to start voting 10's on the Icelander
images again. LOL |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 11:57:51 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think I actually got that comment once. |
Yeah, yeah, yeah, damn braggart. heheheh |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 12:03:48 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by kteach:
Besides, if we all stopped voting with any emotion and based things merely on technicals, couldn't someone just write some program to have a computer judge the photos? What fun is that? We'd all gain back hours of our life that we currently spend on voting and commenting. |
I went out this afternoon to work on my technicals. :-) But while I was out, I had this very same thought - I'm sure we could find an already devised computer program that would technically and VERY objectively analyze (or analyse if you prefer) each photo entered in a challenge and assign it a numeric rating. And as  kteach points out, it would save a whole lot of time we spend voting, which in my case is a lot of time. I enjoy viewing challenges. Yes, viewing. I like to take time to try to see each shot. And for those of you who are worried, I will indeed continue to vote, and probably continue to vote using my own perfected DebScale, which if you have a very technically competent, well presented, balanced, etc photograph of who cares what, I will start your numeric assignment at either a 6 or a 7, with a bump probably later on depending on a few very "subjective" things, like "I like it". Almost always an "I like it" gets you another point. Sorry about that. I'd try to stop, but it's ingrained at this point in time.
As a for instance -  Yanko's free study started out as a 7 from me. But it addition to being a technically well done photograph, it also had a nice warmth, a good feeling to it, and I realize now that's purely subjective. I'm also fascinated by the way it's lit (maybe that's objective?). At any rate, I did indeed bump it up.
I do not deduct points for "I've seen that" either. I've seen a lot of the stuff that gets submitted here simply because I've been here awhile. (I do fail to learn, however, but that's a whole 'nuther post.) I appreciate (more than you know) the technical difficulty of getting some things done well - like fruit in water. I don't have the equipment to try (no flash) but I did try a Yanko-esque shot only to discover I suck at it, and that's yet another post. But I do appreciate that not everyone has been here for a long time, and that people do want to try to replicate techniques, compositions, what have you, and that capturing the same landmark that's been captured 100 times before may be trite, but I know that when I go somewhere, I don't want to buy a postcard of that landmark, I want to take my own shot of it. And I now return you to your regularly scheduled editing for the member challenge. :-) (And Alan, that cracked me up.) |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 12:04:55 PM · #116 |
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. |
Somehow I hear you saying the above in the voice of the dog on The Family Guy. I don't know why. I've never met you. hehehe |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 12:21:39 PM · #117 |
zarniwoop is spot on. A true scientist would laugh at supernaught's illusion of objectivity.
People who think they are being objective are the least objective. People who think they are at core rational beings are the least rational.
Why? Because they have blinded themselves to their own humanity, which is essentially subjective and biased. It is only by admitting your subjective nature that you can hope to give a thoughtful and well-reasoned assessment of a photo.
Let's take Melethia's robot, for instance. What rules would you program into that robot? A well-balanced histogram? The rule of thirds? A strong focal point? Sharp focus?
Think a moment: where do these criteria come from? There is nothing at all objective about these criteria. They were devised ex post facto by art critics, and for what purpose? The purpose of creating pleasure for the viewer. Pleasure, in case you don't know, is an entirely subjective experience.
To apply these same criteria to a photograph while not accounting for your own personal, emotional reaction to that photograph is a fool's errand. All you've accomplished is to forget the original purpose of photography.
All these tears cast for ribbon winners who receive 1s, while *my* tears were cast for the brown ribbons, many of which are striking, original, personal visions that people dismissed because they think that there are "objective" criteria that photos must conform to.
There are no official score guidelines on this site whatsoever. Look at my own score tutorial, I say nothing about what specific score is appropriate for what level of quality. Therefore, you cannot tell people to not give 1s to blue ribbon shots, particularly those shots that have no humanity, no spirit, no vision. I usually give them 4s, but I maintain my right to go lower, and threads like this, where the bias towards illusory arbitrary criteria is so evident, tempt me mightily to do so.
Message edited by author 2008-03-09 12:23:25. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 12:27:20 PM · #118 |
I'm not sure what exactly others believe, but I don't personally think that being "objective" means "voting solely on the technical merits of the image". For me, being objective means trying to eliminate personal bias from my voting. It mostly works on the negative side: if I "hate" pictures of babies, personally, I have to be really careful when I vote on baby pictures to ensure that I am scoring them fairly on their own terms. I'd feel real bad if I gave a crappy score to a brilliant baby picture just because I don't like baby pictures, see?
So with me you can rest securely knowing that I'm not going to hammer you into submission if you shoot images of subjects that turn me off. That, to me, is "objective voting".
Of course, there's another side to that coin that's a little harder to deal with; what about those subjects that really, REALLY turn me on? I mean, I love landscape photography with a passion. So I'm emotionally inclined to score landscapes a little better than, say, bug macros, which don't interest me quite as much, though I still like 'em OK.
I try to avoid this bias as well, but it's harder to do. Why? Because I really *know* landscapes, I know what it takes to make 'em, I know what makes 'em sing, and so I can *appreciate* them more, perhaps, appreciate what went into making them, and that tends to push the scores up. But I'm OK with that, because I figure there are others who WAY prefer bug macros to landscapes, and it all evens out in the end.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2008 12:28:52 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
Sorry, melethia, but as soon as you put that little word "emotionally" in there, you default to biased. It's nature. It's only wrong when you apply it to a vote, or critique, where people (rightfully) demand fair, unbiased, objective appraisals and scores. Not when appreciating, or simply viewing a photograph. |
Some of the finest images I've ever seen on DPC are those that evoke an emotion. As far as bias is concerned, I doubt that many of us vote without it slipping into our rating process no matter how simple or complex it is.
Originally posted by supernaught:
I'll bet the sheer number of people whom have abandoned this site over the years had many of the same misgivings as I and others, regarding the voting controversies.
|
Sheer what? The sentence makes no sense. I suspect you're trying to say many people left because of voting controversies. IMHO I doubt more than the number I can count on my fingers left for that purpose.
But we're both just guessing and blowing hot air. The one thing that will never make me leave DPC are the voters. While I didn't understand this when I first started.... after about a year here I realized: The voters are never wrong. Memorize it. Live it. These controversies would disappear if we just believed it. And if you really think about it a long time, you'll realize it's true. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 12:43:05 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
zarniwoop is spot on. A true scientist would laugh at supernaught's illusion of objectivity.
People who think they are being objective are the least objective. People who think they are at core rational beings are the least rational.
Why? Because they have blinded themselves to their own humanity, which is essentially subjective and biased. It is only by admitting your subjective nature that you can hope to give a thoughtful and well-reasoned assessment of a photo.
Let's take Melethia's robot, for instance. What rules would you program into that robot? A well-balanced histogram? The rule of thirds? A strong focal point? Sharp focus?
Think a moment: where do these criteria come from? There is nothing at all objective about these criteria. They were devised ex post facto by art critics, and for what purpose? The purpose of creating pleasure for the viewer. Pleasure, in case you don't know, is an entirely subjective experience.
To apply these same criteria to a photograph while not accounting for your own personal, emotional reaction to that photograph is a fool's errand. All you've accomplished is to forget the original purpose of photography.
All these tears cast for ribbon winners who receive 1s, while *my* tears were cast for the brown ribbons, many of which are striking, original, personal visions that people dismissed because they think that there are "objective" criteria that photos must conform to.
There are no official score guidelines on this site whatsoever. Look at my own score tutorial, I say nothing about what specific score is appropriate for what level of quality. Therefore, you cannot tell people to not give 1s to blue ribbon shots, particularly those shots that have no humanity, no spirit, no vision. I usually give them 4s, but I maintain my right to go lower, and threads like this, where the bias towards illusory arbitrary criteria is so evident, tempt me mightily to do so. |
Beautifully written and very insightful. Let me be equally as eloquent. Anyone who votes down an image as a form of protest is a low down dirty dog. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 01:13:45 PM · #121 |
Hear, Hear, Robert and Don!
Deb, I'm happy to hear that you don't plan to stop. I'll take the risk in speaking for a majority of the DPC community; we wouldn't want you to change a thing.
I think the supernaught notion I find most insulting, especially if directed even in part to Melethia, is that critiquing subjectively is dishonest. I think that for this position to be remotely true you have to assume that the dishonest voter offers their vote with no explanation. Deb has voted ~48,000 times and amazingly she has commented on ~17,000; more than one comment for every three votes! I can only hope to approach her level of honest participation in this community. (I have a long way to go).
Although supernaught is entitled to his opinion he need to spend a little more time getting to know this community before he concludes that the potential loss of a valued member’s voting participation is “music to his ears”
|
|
|
|
03/09/2008 01:14:03 PM · #122 |
Personally, I won't vote in a challenge in which I have a shot entered. I feel that I cannot be truly "objective" in my scoring. So, I take scoring out of the equation since that is what we all look at most and have broken our fingers on our "update buttons". *smile*
When I take scoring out of the equation, I'm able to go in and give comments freely and with objectivity. I find that I'm much more able to appreciate the shot itself this way.
Hey, we are all human and unfortunately, when our own shots are not doing as well, or even when they are hitting all time highs, we tend to not want others to do "better" than us.....at least, somewhere, deep down inside, hidden away in a dark corner of our minds that we tend not to want to admit exists. The fact is, I know that it's there in ME somewhere, even if I try to deny it.
But, even in challenges where I'm not entered and am in there scoring and commenting without any personal or emotional attachments detouring objectivity, I find that it's my "tastes" that are going to give out the scores and the comments. When I'm seeing challenges filled with flowers and insects (pratically every challenge has 'em *grin*) I'm naturally going to head towards those that have dared to be different. When I see 50 technically perfect studio style shots, then see a great more candid shot that emotes something from me, well that's going to take my vote over the 50 techincally perfect studio shots by far. Unfortunately, I'm the exception to that it seems because those technically perfect shots are the ones that win or come in top 20. (Thank the heavens for OOBIE's and POSTHUMOUS awards!)
Bottom line is, I won't fool myself into believing that I can be truly objective in a challenge that I'm entered into. I'd certainly not head towards giving out a pile of 1's or 2's.....but, I'd always feel that I'm not giving out scores as freely as I'd give were I not subjectively invested in the challenge. I don't really feel that anyone can truly be. If we were to fully allow ourselves to admit that to ourselves.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2008 01:21:08 PM · #123 |
I just finished reading the rest of this thread since my posting yesterday...zoiks.
It's not friggin' enough there is thread after thread tell us how we should comment-lets tell people how they should vote too. Seriously...WTF!
If you want to vote like a machine, by all means do it. If you want to vote your heart, do that too. Just be consistent and true to your ideals, tastes, and preferences. Vote objectively, subjectively, who gives a shit, just vote. I'm not going to let anyone tell me how I should vote, certainly not someone who has been here a mere 3 weeks...patently ridiculous.
This is a website, not an actual university/college folks. Oh absolutely there is much to learn here but I think maybe it's time for a reality check.
And to stress what Don mentioned, all these tears for the handful of low scores Ribbon winners are getting? I get low scores all the time, me and low scores are the best of friends, that's just the way this place is. I don't make DPC friendly images. I can if forced, but I choose not too. Whatever you do, however you choose to vote and comment, the images you enter in challenges, just be true to yourself and you can never go wrong. |
|
|
|
03/09/2008 01:26:10 PM · #124 |
I initially wrote that I think people should HAVE to comment on votes given to a 3 2 or 1. and even 10 9 or 8 ... but I actually change my mind.
Its very true, that people are very different and have very different styles. And just because a picture is perfectly crisp, technically perfect focus (and so on) it shouldnt not recieve a one. Because some people have different ideas of what a technically good picture looks like.
(It took me a couple days to realize this. Perswonally, When it comes to my art work, I am not a perfect artist. But the way I decide to paint is the way I want it too look. And many people think its different and not "technically" perfect, but to me its beautiful. So who am I to say that a photographer can't be that way!!) So my apologies for my last reply yesterday.
however, I do believe if people are giving a 1 it would be nice to recieve some constructive criticism as to what would make the picture better, or whether the voter just doesnt like the style of photography.
Thanks Jessy! :)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2008 01:30:29 PM · #125 |
| Interesting reference point - since they added the "Average vote given" feature, I discovered I'm much more generous score-wise with challenges I'm in than those I am not. I'm probably the exception, though. (And if no one who entered member challenges voted, no one would get votes. Those aren't open to registered users for voting.) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 08:56:46 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 08:56:46 AM EDT.
|
