| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2005 08:18:45 AM · #1 |
I have to point out two superb photos that finished low or middlin' in this challenge:
Scott O'Raw's depiction of "primordial soup" was so good I wanted to lick the monitor when I saw it. Such a simple execution of a wonderful idea. The label is gold Scott. You done good man. I guess his score of 5.1 indicates that either some voters just didn't appreciate the full science connection, or were kept from fully appreciating it because of doctrinal differences? I don't know, but I scored this gem HIGH.
Next is Shannon Calvert's Java Man. I thought of Shannon immediately when I saw this entry because I have learned to recognize his imagination, though I admit, I thought he might be behind the "soup" image above too. Shannon, a multiple, habitual ribbon-winning photographer here, scored 4.5 with this brilliant and laugh-out-loud piece. I just can't imagine how people cannot appreciate such incredible work. The commenters seemed to "get it" but the average commenter scores is only 5.8??
In the case of both these photos, I always end up saying to myself, "I could have shot that..." if only I had Shannon and Scott in my living room, feeding me their ideas. Way to go guys, I'm still chuckling and will be for some time.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 11:30:48. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:24:31 AM · #2 |
i feel there is a hellofa lot of low to mid scoring on this site due to extreme jealousy........ ..like you say, i think most can 'pick' who has done what photo and wants to keep them low or thinks the photo just may beat their's, so they vote low........just my 2c worth
i for one won't be taking things too serious or personal... i find it all fun and interesting......
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 08:26:23. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:54:03 AM · #3 |
Thanks for the plug, John. Fortunately, the medics were able to restart my heart, so I can try to make up for it in the future. Maybe if the background was a monitor... ;-P
I agree that Primordial Soup should have done better. 18 votes of 2 or less? That's a crime! |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 12:05:07 PM · #4 |
I think this shot is awesome...extremely creative, well thought out, and well executed. 5.3? You are kidding me!
Why does this double post sometimes? I have no idea....
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 12:05:54.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 12:32:21 PM · #5 |
That's weird.
That's weird.
:-)
:-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 12:34:46 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by roadrunner:
i feel there is a hellofa lot of low to mid scoring on this site due to extreme jealousy........ ..like you say, i think most can 'pick' who has done what photo and wants to keep them low or thinks the photo just may beat their's, so they vote low........just my 2c worth
i for one won't be taking things too serious or personal... i find it all fun and interesting...... |
I agree with you on all accounts |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 12:53:44 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by roadrunner:
i feel there is a hellofa lot of low to mid scoring on this site due to extreme jealousy........ ..like you say, i think most can 'pick' who has done what photo and wants to keep them low or thinks the photo just may beat their's, so they vote low........just my 2c worth
i for one won't be taking things too serious or personal... i find it all fun and interesting...... |
Keeping it fun is the key, and we do tend to take it all too seriously at times.
I do disagree strongly that there is any significant amount of "jealousy" voting.
First, it is not very common at all to be able to definitely identify a photographer's work.
Second, voting others lower to boost one's own score will have no effect, if we assume that others will do the same (which we must if we assume it is a common practice). The effect of this will simply average out to lower scores for everyone.
Third, statistical voting patterns do not suggest that this is a common practice.
One repeated topic that keeps coming up is that of "troll" voting. Even though there is never a shred of evidence to support that it happens with any great frequency, people just assume that it does. Maybe it's just our own paranoia. I prefer to look at the statistics and judge based on facts, not assumptions.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 01:21:27 PM · #8 |
Hi all,
I thought that I should post here since my photo is one of the ones being discussed.
Firstly, thanks strangeghost and everyone else for your comments - much appreciated!
I must admit that I was a bit disappointed with my scoring as I watched the challenge progress through the week. I just assumed that all the other pics must simply be incredible! Having said that, when I was looking through some of the other entries it did cross my mind that maybe I had offended some people as there were quite a few religious references in some of the submissions.
I have to say that I am a newcomer to this site and a total newbie in terms of photography. I only started taking photos "seriously" for my first submission to this site which was the Light On White challenge. I still have a LOT to learn but I am really enjoying being a member here.
As kirbic says "keeping it fun is the key" and the process of 'meeting the challenge' coupled with taking the best photo I can given my inexperience is what is fun to me. However, if anyone wants to give the photo an honorary ribbon, I wont say no ;-)
Scott. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 01:34:26 PM · #9 |
As Kirbic said, I doubt that more than a handful of people (if any) really vote others low to boost their own scores. I do think that people vote according to their own prejudices, even when they probably shouldn't. Those who are blinded by their views (on any matter) can't be expected to judge fairly.
In my case, I think most voters just plain missed it. It didn't help that some people may have never heard the term Java Man either. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 01:48:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
As Kirbic said, I doubt that more than a handful of people (if any) really vote others low to boost their own scores. I do think that people vote according to their own prejudices, even when they probably shouldn't. Those who are blinded by their views (on any matter) can't be expected to judge fairly.
In my case, I think most voters just plain missed it. It didn't help that some people may have never heard the term Java Man either. |
Who in the world does not vote based on their own prejudices, experiences, culture, etc.?? This is clearly how people vote and it would only be possible NOT to vote that way if we were all machines running the same program.
There may be trolls, there may not be - who cares?? There will always be people on that end of the spectrum as will there be people who think every shot is the most awesome thing they've ever seen and they give everything a 9 or 10 (anti-trolls, I guess) - but I don't see many posts about those. If someone gives my photo a 1, I assume they really didn't like it or think it was at all worthy for whatever reason. Let people have their opinions no matter how they reached them or what "prejudices" prompted them.
Whew. Now that I got that off my chest :) let me say that I voted much higher than the average on all the photos shown in this thread - but I have a prejudice toward humor.
I missed out on entering this particular challenge, but am very impressed with the entries as compared to some of the other recent challenges. Great job to all! |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 02:01:59 PM · #11 |
With no disrespect to Shannon (scalvert) or Scott (exbionic), I think both of these shots suffer technically. When I look at an image, I first use a mental "go/no-go" gauge on the composition and the distractions (or lack thereof) in an image. Only when my mind is satisfied that the image I'm looking at was composed well and is technically well-executed do I start looking at the details of an image.
Yes, the messages put forth in both of the these images is right on w/ respect to the challenge topic, but one needed to stop and read each of the labels on the can/cup to get a sense of the achievement made in the photo. To me, it takes simply too much mental acuity at voting time to recognize such things when I'm so leisurely in my voting habits. I should reserve voting on images until the latter half of my internal image critique has completed, but I often don't.
I can't speak for anyone else, but perhaps similar voting styles contributed to these low scores. BTW, for what it's worth, I didn't vote in this challenge. :) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 02:04:21 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Who in the world does not vote based on their own prejudices, experiences, culture, etc.?? |
Nobody, but you missed the all-important "...when they probably shouldn't." It's one thing to vote selective desaturation a point lower because it's not your cup of tea, but quite another to give a stunning picture of an angel a 1 just because you don't believe in them.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 14:07:20. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 02:41:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kpriest:
Who in the world does not vote based on their own prejudices, experiences, culture, etc.?? |
Nobody, but you missed the all-important "...when they probably shouldn't." It's one thing to vote selective desaturation a point lower because it's not your cup of tea, but quite another to give a stunning picture of an angel a 1 just because you don't believe in them. |
I understand your point, but I'm ok with someone giving my angel a 1 for whatever reason they like. I'm happy to rely on the fact that the overall score is a composite of many differing opinions, prejudices, etc. Best to ignore the bottom 10% and the top 10% for that matter and take the 80% in between as useful. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 03:14:01 PM · #14 |
I agree with Kirbic and add this. I think that many of us just don't see the photographers point right away. I'll admit it happens to me. When there are 300 pics to vote on I have to break it up into smaller chunks or I burnout. I often go back and "up" my vote because I missed something the first pass, and as I said with 300 photos (and a family, etc,...) I just cant always spend the time that I should voting.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by roadrunner:
i feel there is a hellofa lot of low to mid scoring on this site due to extreme jealousy........ ..like you say, i think most can 'pick' who has done what photo and wants to keep them low or thinks the photo just may beat their's, so they vote low........just my 2c worth
i for one won't be taking things too serious or personal... i find it all fun and interesting...... |
Keeping it fun is the key, and we do tend to take it all too seriously at times.
I do disagree strongly that there is any significant amount of "jealousy" voting.
First, it is not very common at all to be able to definitely identify a photographer's work.
Second, voting others lower to boost one's own score will have no effect, if we assume that others will do the same (which we must if we assume it is a common practice). The effect of this will simply average out to lower scores for everyone.
Third, statistical voting patterns do not suggest that this is a common practice.
One repeated topic that keeps coming up is that of "troll" voting. Even though there is never a shred of evidence to support that it happens with any great frequency, people just assume that it does. Maybe it's just our own paranoia. I prefer to look at the statistics and judge based on facts, not assumptions. |
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 15:15:07.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 04:12:53 PM · #15 |
This photo didn't score well and it was my favorite: :)
My favorite photo
Just for the record....I still don't recognize anyone's photos....and I have never given a 1,2, or 3. Why? Because I start at 5 and work up or down according to the photo....I personally can't understand why anyone would give a 1 or 2....to me that's just rude....but I'm just a newbie...what do I know
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 16:16:31. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:21:30 PM · #16 |
This gets a 4.1?
 |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:56:45 PM · #17 |
|
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 12:12:50 AM EDT.
