|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2008 09:57:02 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
... I simply outlined some fractures in her argument, as anyone defending their position would do.
I'll debate anyone ... |
The Philosophical Debates - Sounds like your cup of tea. :-) |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 10:56:30 AM · #177 |
To repeat: I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how. I personally think the impact of a photograph is not only a valid part of the assessment, but a necessary one. I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate. I want the reaction to be included in the votes I receive.
I don't wish to debate the above. I answered your question. I was being polite in responding to your query. The information was not meant for you to analyze, find fault with, or otherwise nitpick. Note that each of the statements in my response begins with "I" and therefore is of no concern to you.
Originally posted by supernaught:
The one's that aren't motivated to compete, and to participate don't get very far in life.
Some are content with this, as perhaps you are.
Personally, I like engaging, participating - learning how to improve my photography by emulating, and perhaps discovering something new in this medium. What a wonderful web site to foment creativity in digital photography, by asking enthusiasts to participate, and gauge themselves against others to improve their skills. |
I would offer that my participation in this site is significant. (And it's not "The one's" - "one's" implies the possessive or the contraction of "one is." "Ones" is the plural.)
Originally posted by supernaught:
And I think you should consider how your subjectivity might be undermining your own sensibilities, for example:
I want the reaction (which I consider subjective) to be included in the votes I receive.
I think a vote based on both objective and subjective criteria is appropriate.
I don't care who votes on my pictures nor how.
You're ardent defense of subjective criteria suggests a little intellectual dishonesty here - no offense. |
I stand by what I said. I am not dishonest. No offense taken. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:07:06 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
It's probably more in the way those differences are pointed out. |
Really? Fine. Then let's point out how some of you are expressing your differences.
I'll take supernaught more seriously when he demonstrates his own skill behind the camera. Manners wouldn't hurt either.
Also please don't insult his hypothetical 3 year old. It might well be able to speak more fluently than you.
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.
Oh d 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!
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'.
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.
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!
So, I'm inhuman, a disgruntled newbie, I'm irrational, I try to sound smart by using "whom", 3 year olds speak more fluently, I'm patently dishonest, and I have no sense of reason. And yeah, you un-substantive trolls can quote this, (you know you're watching!!!)since you can't contribute intellectually in any way.
But keep this in mind: Not a single damn one of you, save melethia, answered my question, or tried to rebuke my old man analogy, or my football themed challenge hypothetical, as support for more objective voting, versus subjective voting. Not a one
At every turn, I've been misrepresented, steered off topic to defend my grammar, and responding to schoolyard taunting while melethia debated strongly for her stance.
If you guys disagree with my stance: Put up, or shut up. In case you didn't notice, there were others in here that understood my position, who I will mention here, with the exception of a couple more long-winded postings from scalvert - read the posts yourselves. Answer my positions. Let's debate. I posited my position on how I score images objectively, read them for once, and if you disagree, posit it here.
These support my core arguments for objective scoring of Photos, let me know what you think is wrong with it.
Quote from: Quasimojo
It's when people (with fabulous ideas) stubbornly defend their blurry photos as their artistic style but also with a kind of 'can't learn, won't learn' attitude to modern post production techniques that I get concerned, because I'm guessing that these are the same people who might repeatedly harshly vote widely regarded good photos poorly. Jealousy, sour grapes, bitterness...whatever you call it...I can't think of any other reason as to why someone's perception/interpretation/appreciation of a photo would be so fundamentally different to everyone else (perhaps autism or aspergers at the far end of the scale???).
[supernaught]Quasimojo: Jealousy, sour grapes, bitterness...whatever you call it...I can't think of any other reason as to why someone's perception/interpretation/appreciation of a photo would be so fundamentally different to everyone else (perhaps autism or aspergers at the far end of the scale???). [All tenets of subjective, emotionally biased scoring. Exemplary in fact, by definition. That's why I inserted this quote.]
Quote from: cpanaioti
If a strong negative impact is recorded as a one , to me it is ignoring the strong impact and writing off the image.
To me, a strong impact, positive or negative, means the image connected with the viewer, big time, which should lead to a higher score, not a lower one.
Quote from: Bear_music
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?
Quote from: Yanko
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.
Quotes from: supernaught
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,[if it's an otherwise well composed gun photo] then so be it. At least you've provided a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with some voting habits on this site.
The problem is the difference between objective(undistorted by emotion or personal bias)voting, and subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias) voting. People whom vote subjectively aren't capable of critical thought, because they are biased to an emotional degree on what is what is appealing to them, rather than what may otherwise be an expertly composed photo, fitting within the challenge constraints.
What's so wrong with with scoring the capture objectively, and commenting subjectively? Is there some reason you think your emotional opinion needs to reflect on the score, other than to potentially skew the score to the extreme, low, or high? I like the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, but in a NFL DP challenge, if someone gets a better shot of a Cleveland Browns scene (The Steelers' arch rivals), I'm giving it a better score. Hell, if the challenge is "significant others", and someone gets a better shot of theirs than I do of mine, I'm also going to give it a better score. And guess what? My perfectly objective, non-emotional-wreck fiancee would totally AGREE.
Each of these comments are substantively objective in standpoint, and therefore, inherently unbiased, fair, and open minded, because they cannot be distorted by emotional, subjective viewpoints. That's a key word, distorted. I offered several examples of how using only a subjective viewpoint, with no objectivity can be unfair, and dishonest. I used the gun picture as an example of how voting with raw emotion can be dishonest.
If you can find any dishonesty above, point it out.
If you guys wanna name-call without being substantive, fine - I'm one of the best. But until someone here can refute these comments above, all tenets of strict objectivity, as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary, and all known vernacular, then please do so. I'll be here, when you decide whom you'd rather have vote, and score your photos.
And a special shout-out to melethia, who was the only one to debate me substantively on this subject, and in fact, was the first one to do so. I would imagine she's the one who found me, in fact.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:37:43.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:11:56 AM · #179 |
I'll debate whatever you want - just answer me this:
What is your point?
N
EDIT: Here's a newcomers guide for you :)
02/03/2008 12:57:59 PM
Quasi's Braindump of Everything I've Learned About DPC in 3 Months
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Eye candy does well in challenges
2. The voting system is flawed but stable - it's not the voting system, it's your photo.
3. Focus and appropriate DoF are as or more critical than colour or composition.
4. Understand DPC voter taste better by rating more challenges. Understand taste + good execution = ribbon
5. Trolls exist but the problem isn't epidemic. Malicious voters exist but there are several more who just don't like the photo. Live with it.
6. If people don't "get" your photo and you were expecting it to do well, it's your fault not the viewer's.
7. Lower your voting expectation and raise your final selection standard.
8. Ignore comments from people whose work you don't admire. Everyone has an opinion but you don't have to take every one to heart, just those from people you value. If you expect that to be everyone in voting you'll be disappointed.
9. If you're not improving you're doing something wrong. Try something new. Think differently. It works.
10. Creativity and "Art" does have it's appreciators here but don't expect mass appeal from niche images.
11. It's all about learning and improving, creativity and fun. If it's all about ribbons and accolades then it becomes a barrier to progress (imho).
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:25:57.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:41:27 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by supernaught:
Originally posted by me:
I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology |
I really don't think I need to write what I know eveyone else is thinking. Next! (ROTFLMAO)
|
Like it or not, that was my intent when I wrote it and if you look closely, it fits. Of course if you can't see that, don't strain your eyes too hard, it's not that big of a deal if you don't pick up on my subtle jabs... someone else can get them for you. They might enjoy them more too.
You didn't. Which is why I said that I didn't mind any of the other demonstrations of 'lax english rules' that are common on the 'net, however I did find it particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors by using a word which seemed to have the sole purpose of making you sound smarter
Originally posted by SouperN:
Now, why would I need to try to sound smarter, when I have you doing a fine job on your own, with clever tests like, I intentionally supplanted 'are' with 'art' as a little dig at your ideology to see if I would notice? (LAFF. OUT. LOUD.) |
Uhh. Actually it wasn't to see if you would notice. I was content with the idea that just a few people would notice and get a smile or a smirk from it. After all - art cannot be appreciated by every viewer.
Originally posted by SuperNaughty:
Secondly: I didn't know I'd entered the "Defintions For English Words Special Olympics". |
Perhaps not, but if you look at your posts in this thread, you sure do seem to spend a lot of time quoting dictionaries, talking about the meanings of definitions from dictionaries and railing on pretty heavily on the significance of subjectivity objectivity. You might get less flak from folk like me if you first learned a bit more about the roles and definitions of the subject and the object.
Originally posted by snoopaught:
Dr. Eschelar's motivisational, improvisational, grammtastical, grammary sampulary of sentacular structicle |
Originally posted by Dr. me... can I say that? Actually, scratch that... just[quote:
[quote=me]...particularly grating to have to read you make obvious errors
...to have to read you make obvious errors
...to read you make obvious errors |
One of these things is not like the others....
Anyhow, I think I've run out of patience with your rambling. You are quite rude and have little control of your gift of speech. I appreciate that you tried to be friendly, but some things have their limits.
Also, I'm holding back from posting the contents of your interesting email specifically to spare the local gentry.
This particular tidbit appears intended to make me be ill-inclined to post the contents as some form of threat. Let me say straight up that it does not have the intended effect of making me afraid of and untoward effects that may result from posting it for public view.
Originally posted by a polite and well-worded PM from a certain genteel soul:
But the fact is: you could hit me in the head with a bag of monkey dicks, and I'd still make you look like the dipshit you are: regardless of your standing on this site. I already got 4 p.m.'s laughing their asses off at how I handled you in the last post, you should read it.
For you to even be credible, we'd have to see you posting such trite, little-girl nonsense on more posts than mine. I was just fine debating the thread issue, bereft of your nonsense, and others because you don't like ideas different from your own.
You don't want to flame me on that site, period. 'Cuz I'll just keep flaming back.
Go ahead and try to post this private messege, or it's content on that thread -I'll have that site council kicking you to photobucket before you can say "rat's monkey." So, let me have my say, you have yours, and we'll debate like the intelligent adults we are. No more garbage. |
Edit: Dangit, missed a squarebracket.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:43:05. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:43:31 AM · #181 |
This thread has obviously outlived any usefulness it may have at one point had.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:29:39 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: 04/19/2024 03:29:39 AM EDT.
|
