| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2009 07:26:30 PM · #126 |
I don't have much of a gripe with the (predictable) score. I don't have a gripe with the comments either. Quite a few were worth reading.
Numerous commenters found the image too dark. I don't, but I can see how some would feel this way.
There were at least three commenters who found it soft, out of focus and blurry.
I see it tack sharp, given the dof, of course. What gives?
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 06:12:34 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I don't have a gripe with the comments either. Quite a few were worth reading.
|
I've read the comments and agree that they are worth reading. Quite a few were effectively telling you it was a boring photo or that they didn't understand it or what you were trying to convey. The majority of these comments were not marked as 'helpful'. Did you really not find them helpful or did you just not like them?
Surely all comments are helpful, at least in the context that they help us understand the preferences of the voters. If somebody founf it dull or uninspiring it shouldn't affect the way you feel about it, but it is surely helpful to understand how others feel?
This is not a criticism of you, more an observation on the perceived value of comments. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:20:29 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Surely all comments are helpful, at least in the context that they help us understand the preferences of the voters. If somebody founf it dull or uninspiring it shouldn't affect the way you feel about it, but it is surely helpful to understand how others feel?
This is not a criticism of you, more an observation on the perceived value of comments. |
Its strange but I went to the effort of not just putting 2 or 3 word comments but saying something unique about each image I commented on. I find it strange that a lot of them are not marked as helpful. Granted, most of the cases where my comments aren't marked as helpful its for an image submitted by someone fairly new to the site. Still...its nice to know that my comments are appreciated.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:22:00 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
Some people would find the picture incredibly dull and wonder why anyone would ever take a picture of that. That's what they're trying to understand. They're giving you the benefit of the doubt--they're thinking that you saw something worthwhile in your subject, and they'd like to know what that was. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:30:45 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Somebody complains about 2-3 1s he got but fails to mention that his same 'whatever' image got 2 10s too.
I just wonder why do we have voting scale less than 4. |
Just wait til they get hit by the rollover troll bandit. I got madder than hell the first time I got hit. LOL He/she will vote *ALL* images a 1 in the first few minutes after rollover. If you're a update button addict, like I was at the time, it will damn quick get you attention!!!!
(The bandit will usually change the votes later on to whatever they would normally vote.) After that I disabled the update button and really wish I could disable the comments til after the challenge is over. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:40:54 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
When have you been brainwashed? You used to rate images low that had not an obvious meaning (aka eye candy) and were just there for the beauty of themselves or for the joy of the viewer. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:42:38 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Originally posted by mikeee:
Surely all comments are helpful, at least in the context that they help us understand the preferences of the voters. If somebody founf it dull or uninspiring it shouldn't affect the way you feel about it, but it is surely helpful to understand how others feel?
This is not a criticism of you, more an observation on the perceived value of comments. |
Its strange but I went to the effort of not just putting 2 or 3 word comments but saying something unique about each image I commented on. I find it strange that a lot of them are not marked as helpful. Granted, most of the cases where my comments aren't marked as helpful its for an image submitted by someone fairly new to the site. Still...its nice to know that my comments are appreciated. |
I was curious, so I went through your comments that are not marked as helpful. You're giving the type of comments that I love to receive (whether I agree with them or not :) Keep doing it--you may hit my photos! |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:46:32 AM · #133 |
Score: 5.7137
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 x 5
2 x 2
3 x 12
4 x 40
5 x 153
6 x 178
7 x 80
8 x 21
9 x 12
10 x 0
I really don't know how much my image deserves. Please give your view on it and please let me know how can I improve.
Thank you, |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:50:55 AM · #134 |
| I gave it a 6--I think the guy is absolutely wonderful, and he alone is worth more--but the lines of the background going through his head were very distracting to me. Also, I'm not sure about the strong, brown, sepia tone--it seems overdone to me, but in many cases I don't let that affect my score--I see that as a personal preference of the photographer, and unless it really gets in the way of my enjoyment of the photograph, I can live with it. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:54:45 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by ankursomani:
Score: 5.7137
|
If you remove the 1s and 2s (which I can't beleive for a second were genuine votes and were probably just malicious or misguided) your revised score would be 5.7762. However, the score is irrelevant when you consider the wonderful memories the photo has for you.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 07:59:22 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
Originally posted by ankursomani:
Score: 5.7137
|
If you remove the 1s and 2s (which I can't beleive for a second were genuine votes and were probably just malicious or misguided) your revised score would be 5.7762. However, the score is irrelevant when you consider the wonderful memories the photo has for you. |
That's true.. :)
I have lots of nice memories with me :-) |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 08:14:34 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
I was dissapointed to say the least with 5.1 this got.... |
I gave this a 7 ... thought it was a great action shot ... |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:10:33 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I try to ask myself what it is or might be about an image that should interest me as much as anyone else, i. e. what are the universal qualities of a photo, what range does it have, etc. I do acknowledge subjective appeal, particularly with regards to aesthetics, but... aesthetics (to me) are a little thin... |
Of all the people to harbor that particular gripe! You have often expressed the conviction that the picture itself is not as important as its meaning. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:17:55 AM · #139 |
I didn't expect a better score, 5.36 is not that bad. I was happy to be part of this, I really have enjoyed those days.
I was surprised with the many 1, 2 and 3 in so many good photos, of course I've been out here long while...
There's something I haven't understood : the reasons of a DQ, for  , specially this "Also, your JPG was tagged with Lightroom software", I don't understand what that means. (I'm french living in Spain.)
I visited the profile of the photographer who took the lions photo, it was her first challenge, but what caught my attention was this:
Votes Cast: 17
Avg Vote Cast: 4.0000
Maybe someone with another identity here?
As some here have pointed out, favorites and comments are a great reward. I have voted this challenge and left around 50 comments, I tryed to avoid the classical "great shot" and "nice photo", I spent many hours watching the photos.
Some were excellent, just to pick one  .
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:28:29 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Mambe:
There's something I haven't understood : the reasons of a DQ, for , specially this "Also, your JPG was tagged with Lightroom software", I don't understand what that means. (I'm french living in Spain.)
|
When you submit the original file (JPEG or RAW), it has to be the original from the camera (and the camera type is recorded in the EXIF information along with the image). If the image submitted as the original had "Lightroom" in the EXIF it means it was not the original from the camera, but a version saved from Lightroom instead.
Hope that makes sense :-)
[Edit for spelling]
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 09:28:47. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:37:26 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
When have you been brainwashed? You used to rate images low that had not an obvious meaning (aka eye candy) and were just there for the beauty of themselves or for the joy of the viewer. |
I see no inconsistency in zeuszen's comment. From what I've seen, his aesthetics have never been about understanding or meaning, and have always included beauty and joy.
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 09:37:42. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:57:20 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I do have one gripe. I wish people wouldn't try so damn hard to understand an image. It' a picture, for Christ's sakes, not a philosophical treatise. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I try to ask myself what it is or might be about an image that should interest me as much as anyone else, i. e. what are the universal qualities of a photo, what range does it have, etc. I do acknowledge subjective appeal, particularly with regards to aesthetics, but... aesthetics (to me) are a little thin... |
Of all the people to harbor that particular gripe! You have often expressed the conviction that the picture itself is not as important as its meaning. |
I understood zeuszen's gripe a little differently. Many of the commenters on his photograph seem fixed on the need to recognize the object as a prerequisite to feeling able to react to the photograph at all. Even the comments that are moaning about it being too dark or too soft (though it is neither), are really protesting that they consequently don't know what it is. But it isn't necessary to know what it is ... although it may be useful to reflect on what it might be because its point lies in that direction: the fact that what is clearly some kind of technological installation nevertheless has such a pleasing graphic character when seen (composed/presented) like this. Everyday technology as art, and vice-versa. The expository title was presumably just a prompt for the imaginatively deprived. Alas, in retrospect it was probably counter-productive; some comments effectively said, "Card lock? Can't see it!" You weren't supposed to see it, you poor blockheads. At least not in that sense.
So, when zeuszen said understand, I actually took him to mean recognize. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 09:59:10 AM · #143 |
My gripe is people whose "Avg Vote Cast" is less than 4. IMO people so narrow minded that thinks that only their way of seeing things is the only way, should better not vote at all.
When I see a great photographer in this site with an Avg Vote Cast of 3.58 I sincerely loose any respect I could have for him/her.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:08:54 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by Rgarcia:
My gripe is people whose "Avg Vote Cast" is less than 4. IMO people so narrow minded that thinks that only their way of seeing things is the only way, should better not vote at all.
When I see a great photographer in this site with an Avg Vote Cast of 3.58 I sincerely loose any respect I could have for him/her. |
I'm afraid that your argument defeats itself. You are saying that a particular way of voting, of viewing images, is unacceptable to you, to the point that it should not be allowed. The same argument must apply to any particular way of voting, including your own. If earning your respect depends on conforming to your own point of view I think your respect is not worth having. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:15:20 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I'm afraid that your argument defeats itself. You are saying that a particular way of voting, of viewing images, is unacceptable to you, to the point that it should not be allowed. The same argument must apply to any particular way of voting, including your own. If earning your respect depends on conforming to your own point of view I think your respect is not worth having. |
Can you tell me, sincerely with your heart, that the Avg quality of most of the work in this site deserves such a low average? For me it's a matter of respect for the work of fellow DPC'ers.
You can twist my words to fit your opinion, and I won't debate that. But I will debate anyone that tells me that most of the photographs in DPC deserves a 4- Avg. Vote Cast.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:15:36 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Rgarcia:
My gripe is people whose "Avg Vote Cast" is less than 4. IMO people so narrow minded that thinks that only their way of seeing things is the only way, should better not vote at all.
When I see a great photographer in this site with an Avg Vote Cast of 3.58 I sincerely loose any respect I could have for him/her. |
I quite agree with you but if the low vote would be explained with a comment, that would be very useful.
Sometimes it's better to received let's say a 3 with a technical explanation to know what was wrong, but it seldom happens. |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:21:00 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by Rgarcia:
My gripe is people whose "Avg Vote Cast" is less than 4. IMO people so narrow minded that thinks that only their way of seeing things is the only way, should better not vote at all.
When I see a great photographer in this site with an Avg Vote Cast of 3.58 I sincerely loose any respect I could have for him/her. |
There are other reasons, like they might only vote on poor photos, but then you'd expect a lot of comments on why they were so poor. DPC is like the real world; there are some great people and some less great. There are people you're going to agree with and others you're not.
My initial aspiration was to use this site to learn and to improve my photography. I have found that I am improving, but I rarely get a comment that makes me think about a way to do something better, so I'm not improving through encouragement or guidance. I get the same random spread of scores everybody else gets and I get as baffled as everybody else when I get hit with a 2 or 3 or 4 and no comment. I have stopped whining about it because there's no point, and it hasn't affected my voting and commenting because I'm true to myself and that's what matters. That, and being the best goddam photographer on this site ;) |
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:31:25 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by mikeee:
There are other reasons, like they might only vote on poor photos, but then you'd expect a lot of comments on why they were so poor. DPC is like the real world; there are some great people and some less great. There are people you're going to agree with and others you're not. |
If that is the case, I'll gladly stand corrected. Unfortunately I think it might not be the case, anyway I only wanted to say what my personal gripe was, I won't let this people dampen my spirits.
I rejoice on the great photographs and photographers in this site through whom I can learn and improve myself day by day.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:36:33 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Rgarcia:
I rejoice on the great photographs and photographers in this site through whom I can learn and improve myself day by day. |
....but it would also be nice if you got helpful advice from the Masters of Photography too!
|
|
|
|
03/19/2009 10:46:48 AM · #150 |
I look forward to the day when we can stop with this whole "I want comments on my low votes!" stuff. (although I recognize that that's like looking forward to the day when the world achieves self-sustainability and the end to all conflict)
The reality of the situation is that advice/suggestions/etc. when voting on photos in a challenge is a crap shoot and it is unrealistic to expect such things. To give such comments opens one up to a wide range of reactions, many of which are completely undesirable, and many of which are probably not going to help a person out at all.
For many people, a vote of a 1 to 4 isn't a vote because they actually have anything constructive to say. I know that if I vote that low, it's simply because, 99% of the time, I just don't like a photo. That's it. "I don't like this.". What kind of comment would that be to give? I've given you a low vote already, it should be pretty obvious that that means I don't like it already, no need for the redundancy.
If you really, truly, absolutely, completely desire advice and suggestions and help and constructive reasons for why your photo didn't do well in a challenge, for how to improve your shooting/processing/etc. for challenges, or just for validation, then there is a simple solution that saves the angry PMs and thin-skins and potential wastes of comments.
The solution is this: Post your photo in a thread after the challenge and ASK for advice. Include everything about your photo that you possibly can. Why you shot it like you did, what your concerns about it are, the technical details behind it. Then ask the community to help. Chances are, they're going to try their very best, and you'll receive advice and suggestions in spades, and I can guarantee it'll all be a million times better than thirty comments saying "I don't like this."
Message edited by author 2009-03-19 10:47:38. |
|
