Scoring and Interpretation - DPChallenge Forums

10/16/2004 06:17:49 AM · #1

Now scroll down to read on.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A. Is it a list of what's in the picture?

B. A story about what's happening in the picture?

C. Have you tried to find the hidden meaning in this picture?

D. Or lots of ideas inspired by the picture?

.
.

If you wrote A or B you are a 'facts' person, the C's and D's are more ideas people.

So what is this for? I here you ask...

A significant percentage of the population will be 'facts' people they tend to process the base information in front of them in terms of what they see, rather than how it makes think and feel.

Whilst this may be a viewed as a broad sweeping generalisation. It does never the less have some important impacts on the DPC challenges.

If a photographer submits a picture which is not spot on the middle road of interpretation of the theme. A number of voters will perceive this as not meeting the challenge, a will give a lower mark.

Whether we like it or not, this is reality, and is something that will not change, in the same way as me being naturally right handed will not change.

It is up to the photographer to help the voters 'understand' the picture not the other way round.

If you want everyone to give you a good score use the Titles more effectively to guide the voters, or avoid moving towards the 'looser' or 'emotional' interpretations.

I'm sure this will get slated for some of these comments and that is great, debate is wonderful and should be encouraged. I have only put up this information to try and help us all understand why some people see things differently to others, and offer some ways of managing these difference.

For me digital photography is a fantastic medium and it allows me to explore the full gamut of feelings senses and emotions. I would love to push the boundaries in the competitions. But I take part in these competitions to do well, so I adjust my entries accordingly.

I just show my other pictures else where.

10/16/2004 01:42:24 PM · #2

A good critique, of course, should be a fair balance of A. through D.

When you say "It is up to the photographer to help the voters 'understand' the picture not the other way round", it would be useful if you could substantiate this opinion. I, for one, disagree with it. Part of my disagreement stems from the fact that I believe, a picture (or any work) can be thoroughly enjoyed or appreciated without an intellectual 'understanding' of what it is or 'means'. After all, its maker, himself, may be hard-pressed for such an 'understanding'.

The suggestion to "use titles... effectively to guide voters" is very valuable, IMO.

To attach my own view to your conclusion, I'd like to point to the practice of several participants known to me, here at DPC, who do not enter challenges for the sole purpose of winning and scoring but with an eye on the collective culture at work here, on which they may wish to exert the small degree of influence permitted them to contribute their very own vision, sense and interpretations.

This, to me, is worth more than the glitter of ribbons.

Message edited by author 2004-10-16 13:42:41.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

10/16/2004 02:15:42 PM · #3

Originally posted by zeuszen:

A good critique, of course, should be a fair balance of A. through D.

When you say "It is up to the photographer to help the voters 'understand' the picture not the other way round", it would be useful if you could substantiate this opinion. ....

..........To attach my own view to your conclusion, I'd like to point to the practice of several participants known to me, here at DPC, who do not enter challenges for the sole purpose of winning and scoring but with an eye on the collective culture at work here, on which they may wish to exert the small degree of influence permitted them to contribute their very own vision, sense and interpretations.

This, to me, is worth more than the glitter of ribbons.

Thanks for the opportunity to substantiate some of my original comments.

After every competition, on the forums there is always a post comp. debate. In every one of these debates, a number of people complain the voters did not understand their photo, or took too literal a view of the scope of the challenge.

It is to these people I aim my observations about helping out the voter by using the title to help explain the shot.

I believe we should always take the opportunity to push the boundaries through experiment. And this competition based site allows this experimentation to be critiqued by ones peers.

I also appreciate that a number of the entrants don't enter for the sole reason of gaining ribbons, but as a general rule these same people don't complain if the votes don't go their way.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

10/16/2004 02:21:07 PM · #4

Originally posted by Artan:

If you want everyone to give you a good score use the Titles more effectively to guide the voters,

I've been scored low for "Using the Title to explain the image" several times... There are folks that believe titles shouldn't be included and will lower the score saying "This isn't a title challenge. Your image doesn't stand on it's own". So be careful using this if you want to do well. I'm not saying these folks are right, just that they exist...

Originally posted by Artan:

I would love to push the boundaries in the competitions. But I take part in these competitions to do well, so I adjust my entries accordingly.

I use to take part to do well... Now I just take part to enjoy myself :) I'm much happier now :)

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

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

10/16/2004 02:21:31 PM · #5

What a nice choice of topic for discussion.

I agree with zeuszen, that a good critique will use all interpretation tools available to the viewer. I think many of us are heavily language-based in our everyday view of the world. So we begin our view of a photo with naming the thing(s) we see in it. But as photographers we tend to also be very visually oriented. Great light on a subject may grab me before I can even name what I'm looking at. It is after these initial impressions that I begin to interpret a work. Without "facts" there is no groundwork for interpretation. (Even in an abstract, we'll say to ourselves, this is blue, this is dark, this is light or heavy, symmetrical or akilter...)

I have learned through interacting at DPC, that commenting lets me revisit and revise my initial impressions. I slow down and think when I write. This often leads me to a better understanding and interpretation of what the photographer attempted. On the other hand, not everything has "a hidden meaning." During the "Wheels" challenge (my first), I often found myself saying, "Yup. That's a wheel."

Digital photography is a great medium. It allows me to shoot and re-shoot and to shoot more frames than I ever could have before. And DPC is a great place to come to play and learn and show off sometimes. For me, this is a beginning place--a place to refresh old ideas, to try something I've never tried, and to compare my beginning efforts with those of others. Sure, I might like to win one of these challenges, but that's not my goal. My goal is a self-challenge of being better than when I started, of doing more than I've ever done, of learning enough to make me confident I will succeed technically when that brilliant idea finally occurs to me.

10/16/2004 02:39:28 PM · #6

> Artan

True, and yes.

10/16/2004 02:58:56 PM · #7

Originally posted by myqyl:

It's our differences that make us interesting. Sometimes these differences seem poles apart.

One has to ask why it is that in nearly every photo exhibition or competition, the image has a title.

It would seem that it is generally excepted in most parts that the title is important. I however do have some empathy with those that criticise some titles.

A picture of a golf ball sitting up on its tee, does not need to be called - Golf ball on a Tee.

10/16/2004 03:24:50 PM · #8

Originally posted by myqyl:

...I've been scored low for "Using the Title to explain the image" several times... There are folks that believe titles shouldn't be included and will lower the score saying "This isn't a title challenge. Your image doesn't stand on it's own". So be careful using this if you want to do well...

A good title, I believe, does not 'explain', and, yes, they're right, these people, when they say a good image should stand on its own.

An 'apt' title may place the image in an appropiate context. It may, simply, name a flower, an animal, a mood, place or object. As in all writing and speaking, clarity (and often 'sound') is improved when specific names and terms are used. Latin names (botany etc.) may be appropiate for an illustration of a plant, for example. The same title would probably ruin the contemplative mood of a low-key image hinting at a the presence of a generic blossom in half-light or an emotive photo with strong human interest.

A really good title, however, can charge an image, which already has legs to stand on, to the point of transport. Ellamay, at one point, was at a loss at what to call this shot. I suggested 'Nude with Glasses', which, really, is an absudity. She was delighted by it, probably because the title addressed an attribute already given by the image, albeit in a humorous way. I'm sure there are better examples, but this is the first one I thought of.

A title, which goes through pains to explain an intention (often it is only the photographers intention, since an image is, presumably, inanimate) is the most distasteful title of all. Any good title should, I would think, first 'be' before it can be expected to allude. Like an image, it should have enough life in it to withstand abuse for purposes that lie outside of both the image and its imaginable context.

[edited to correct code]

Message edited by author 2004-10-16 15:28:26.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/16/2004 04:23:03 PM · #9

zeuszen - Good Call.

A rose by any other name is still a rose

but a great name can make it a great rose.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/16/2004 07:52:21 PM · #10

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Latin names (botany etc.) may be appropiate for an illustration of a plant, for example. The same title would probably ruin the contemplative mood of a low-key image hinting at a the presence of a generic blossom in half-light or an emotive photo with strong human interest.

Not exactly the Latin name, but ...

neilxt

Nikon D70

10/16/2004 09:55:59 PM · #11

Originally posted by Artan:

Taken from a personality test in the BBC's Science and nature web site.
//www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/

Look at the picture below. Write down on a piece of paper what you see.
Allow yourself about 30 seconds for this.

Now scroll down to read on.
.

A. Is it a list of what's in the picture?
B. A story about what's happening in the picture?
C. Have you tried to find the hidden meaning in this picture?
D. Or lots of ideas inspired by the picture?

If you wrote A or B you are a 'facts' person, the C's and D's are more ideas people.

Well, perhaps partly true - but it also depends on how you interpreted the question and the extent to which you chose to look for what the questioner wanted you to look for rather than what you would choose to look for.