| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2006 06:02:46 AM · #1 |
...or any score you consider to be very low?
I ask only because I'm still a baby around these parts. Thanks.
edit: damn, wrong forum...sorry about that :(
Message edited by author 2006-07-05 06:03:46. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 06:14:41 AM · #2 |
If it's 50pxx50px, from what i can make out has nothing to do with anything. Over exposed to the point of being a pure white/black sheet.
Out of focus, noisey and extrememly badly composed, all the usual.
Rarely ever have to vote lower than a 3 though.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 07:24:35 AM · #3 |
| Blatantly not meeting the challenge. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:07:35 AM · #4 |
If the shot is better than mine.
:p
Just kidding. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:17:37 AM · #5 |
in my opinion ....
the reason we vote is to seperate the photos so the one's you like the most are ranked highest, and the one's you like the least are ranked lowest.
people who refuse to use the entire scale to vote aren't doing anything different than the people who use the whole scale - they still give bad photos the low score and good photos a high score. we're not grading papers where every photo is going to receive a perfect 100%, we're trying to determine which photo is MOST liked.
if kiwiness, larus, heida, and scalvert were the only participants in a challenge, surely all the entrees would be worthy of a 10, but you still attempt to choose the one that most appeals to you - so you'd have to give someone a lower score in order to do that.
i give out 1's and i give out 10's ... it's not a grade so much as a way to sort out the pictures. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:19:44 AM · #6 |
Great opinion (and one that I happen to share).
Originally posted by hopper:
in my opinion ....
the reason we vote is to seperate the photos so the one's you like the most are ranked highest, and the one's you like the least are ranked lowest.
people who refuse to use the entire scale to vote aren't doing anything different than the people who use the whole scale - they still give bad photos the low score and good photos a high score. we're not grading papers where every photo is going to receive a perfect 100%, we're trying to determine which photo is MOST liked.
if kiwiness, larus, heida, and scalvert were the only participants in a challenge, surely all the entrees would be worthy of a 10, but you still attempt to choose the one that most appeals to you - so you'd have to give someone a lower score in order to do that.
i give out 1's and i give out 10's ... it's not a grade so much as a way to sort out the pictures. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:43:28 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Great opinion (and one that I happen to share).
Originally posted by hopper:
in my opinion ....
the reason we vote is to seperate the photos so the one's you like the most are ranked highest, and the one's you like the least are ranked lowest.
people who refuse to use the entire scale to vote aren't doing anything different than the people who use the whole scale - they still give bad photos the low score and good photos a high score. we're not grading papers where every photo is going to receive a perfect 100%, we're trying to determine which photo is MOST liked.
if kiwiness, larus, heida, and scalvert were the only participants in a challenge, surely all the entrees would be worthy of a 10, but you still attempt to choose the one that most appeals to you - so you'd have to give someone a lower score in order to do that.
i give out 1's and i give out 10's ... it's not a grade so much as a way to sort out the pictures. |
|
so, technical merit doesn't enter into your scoring system then? I realize, of course, that a pleasant photo is often one that was technically well executed, but we've also all seen shots that are technically sound yet visually unappealing. does a very well executed shot, yet an unappealing one, deserve a 1, 2, or 3? |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:48:55 AM · #8 |
voting criteria is up to you ... technical, artistic appeal, rules, and like-ability all factor in. it wouldn't be much of a contest if there was a 20 way tie for first place cuz they were all equally technically perfect.
Originally posted by photoheathen:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Great opinion (and one that I happen to share).
Originally posted by hopper:
in my opinion ....
the reason we vote is to seperate the photos so the one's you like the most are ranked highest, and the one's you like the least are ranked lowest.
people who refuse to use the entire scale to vote aren't doing anything different than the people who use the whole scale - they still give bad photos the low score and good photos a high score. we're not grading papers where every photo is going to receive a perfect 100%, we're trying to determine which photo is MOST liked.
if kiwiness, larus, heida, and scalvert were the only participants in a challenge, surely all the entrees would be worthy of a 10, but you still attempt to choose the one that most appeals to you - so you'd have to give someone a lower score in order to do that.
i give out 1's and i give out 10's ... it's not a grade so much as a way to sort out the pictures. |
|
so, technical merit doesn't enter into your scoring system then? I realize, of course, that a pleasant photo is often one that was technically well executed, but we've also all seen shots that are technically sound yet visually unappealing. does a very well executed shot, yet an unappealing one, deserve a 1, 2, or 3? |
Message edited by author 2006-07-05 08:49:22. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:52:28 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by photoheathen:
so, technical merit doesn't enter into your scoring system then? I realize, of course, that a pleasant photo is often one that was technically well executed, but we've also all seen shots that are technically sound yet visually unappealing. does a very well executed shot, yet an unappealing one, deserve a 1, 2, or 3? |
Nah, it doesnt deserve it, but that is the unfortunate flaw in what is DPC.
We've called them trolls, bastards... (possibly a list of other names) but in essence some well executed shots that may only be appealing to the trained eye will unfortunately be doomed to 1's and 2's. Nothing can change that unfortunately.
There is a certain way to please the dpc crowd, (I think there's also a thread about it) a formula if you will, and if your shot doesnt fulfill the criteria... dont feel bad. It's probably by all standards an awesome shot and may even start a cult gathering, but by the judging you'll soon come to realise what works and what doesn't.
:) |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:54:18 AM · #10 |
no, haha, I suppose that would lead to some rather boring results.
I appreciate everyone's response here. makes it a bit more clear to me why people vote the way they do :D
Originally posted by hopper:
voting criteria is up to you ... technical, artistic appeal, rules, and like-ability all factor in. it wouldn't be much of a contest if there was a 20 way tie for first place cuz they were all equally technically perfect.
Originally posted by photoheathen:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Great opinion (and one that I happen to share).
Originally posted by hopper:
in my opinion ....
the reason we vote is to seperate the photos so the one's you like the most are ranked highest, and the one's you like the least are ranked lowest.
people who refuse to use the entire scale to vote aren't doing anything different than the people who use the whole scale - they still give bad photos the low score and good photos a high score. we're not grading papers where every photo is going to receive a perfect 100%, we're trying to determine which photo is MOST liked.
if kiwiness, larus, heida, and scalvert were the only participants in a challenge, surely all the entrees would be worthy of a 10, but you still attempt to choose the one that most appeals to you - so you'd have to give someone a lower score in order to do that.
i give out 1's and i give out 10's ... it's not a grade so much as a way to sort out the pictures. |
|
so, technical merit doesn't enter into your scoring system then? I realize, of course, that a pleasant photo is often one that was technically well executed, but we've also all seen shots that are technically sound yet visually unappealing. does a very well executed shot, yet an unappealing one, deserve a 1, 2, or 3? |
|
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:56:03 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by photoheathen:
so, technical merit doesn't enter into your scoring system then? I realize, of course, that a pleasant photo is often one that was technically well executed, but we've also all seen shots that are technically sound yet visually unappealing. does a very well executed shot, yet an unappealing one, deserve a 1, 2, or 3? |
Technical merit surely fits in. There are alot of factors that play in. I rarely gives ones and twos - but I do. It's not fun. But the pic has to be really really bad all around. A DNMC shot if executed well won't necessarily get a 3 but I have a hard time scoring it higher than a 4 if its blatant DNMC. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 08:57:46 AM · #12 |
ah, well, that formula pretty much exists everywhere :)
Originally posted by Guyver:
Originally posted by photoheathen:
so, technical merit doesn't enter into your scoring system then? I realize, of course, that a pleasant photo is often one that was technically well executed, but we've also all seen shots that are technically sound yet visually unappealing. does a very well executed shot, yet an unappealing one, deserve a 1, 2, or 3? |
Nah, it doesnt deserve it, but that is the unfortunate flaw in what is DPC.
We've called them trolls, bastards... (possibly a list of other names) but in essence some well executed shots that may only be appealing to the trained eye will unfortunately be doomed to 1's and 2's. Nothing can change that unfortunately.
There is a certain way to please the dpc crowd, (I think there's also a thread about it) a formula if you will, and if your shot doesnt fulfill the criteria... dont feel bad. It's probably by all standards an awesome shot and may even start a cult gathering, but by the judging you'll soon come to realise what works and what doesn't.
:) |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 09:00:20 AM · #13 |
an out of focus cat that does not meet the challenge.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 09:05:55 AM · #14 |
4 = does not meet challenge, but excellect photo OR meets challenge, but bad photo
3 = does not meet challenge, okay but not perfect photo
2 = does not meet challenge, bad photo
1 = does not meet challenge, really bad photo
Message edited by author 2006-07-05 09:08:18.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 09:07:39 AM · #15 |
| Any picture with DrAchoo in it. (jk - I gave him a 7) |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 09:24:23 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Blatantly not meeting the challenge. |
Yep, that does it for me. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 09:33:58 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Blatantly not meeting the challenge. |
Yep, that does it for me. |
Okay, but what does "blatant" mean in your opinion.
This shot of mine got a few DNMC's (i'm assuming by the comments, yet it could just very well be a bad shot :P )
It was for the "something old" challenge, and it is in fact a tree stump, which, in all possible meanings, is ancient.
So would this classify as 'blatantly not meeting challenge?"
I still believe I met it head on.
I have a closet full of examples :p
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 09:48:14 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Any picture with DrAchoo in it. (jk - I gave him a 7) |
That's when you wish for a negative scale :)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:03:47 AM · #19 |
1/2/3 votes from me are 1 - DNMC, 2 - too plain/overdone/not well done, 3 - bad composition/out of focus/poor perspective/explanatory titles (these really annoy me as if you have to explain your shot in the title, something is lacking)/spelling errors in titles (you don't care enough about your shot to spell the title correctly - and sorry, having a different language than English as your primary language is no excuse as far as I am concerned - spell it in your native language and get it right, I know how to translate)/shoehorned shots. Other than that I use the top end of the scale, 6-10, on an overwhelming majority of shots.
Others that get a lower vote from me: shots with vulgar content (don't feel they have a place here at all) example would be profane gestures, the product of deffication, superfluous grossness (not necessarily dead animals, some of those have been very well shot) but the ones that are there simply for shock value.
A low score for me in general is a 5 or 6, usually for lacking in technical merit; 7 or 8, usually for shots where technical merit is ok, but composition/perspective is just a little too contrived or off; 9 or 10, the shots that obviously stand out in the crowd.
And it seems strange too that my average vote given is only a 6.02. Seems no matter how many shots I vote above a 6 it never seems to move up very much. There are challenges when 98% of the shots were 6 or above and it still doesn't seem to move very much.
Message edited by author 2006-07-05 10:05:13. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:12:54 AM · #20 |
Suppose someone finds an attractive young woman and has her wear nice panties and bra. Suppose the resulting photo is well-lit and perfectly sharp. If the photo looks to me like it belongs in the underware section of the K-Mart flyer in the Sunday paper, I'm going to give it a ONE. I know that it takes a lot of skill on the part of both the photographer and the model to produce the completely sexless look, but this is not a skill I care to encourage.
More seriously, technical quality alone is not enough to get a good score from me.
--DanW |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:15:03 AM · #21 |
| I made a New Year's Resolution for 2006 that nobody gets a five from me this year. I vote 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10. Haven't given a one or two in AGES! :P |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:17:44 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
Suppose someone finds an attractive young woman and has her wear nice panties and bra. Suppose the resulting photo is well-lit and perfectly sharp. If the photo looks to me like it belongs in the underware section of the K-Mart flyer in the Sunday paper, I'm going to give it a ONE. I know that it takes a lot of skill on the part of both the photographer and the model to produce the completely sexless look, but this is not a skill I care to encourage.
More seriously, technical quality alone is not enough to get a good score from me.
--DanW |
hmmm,, you would have trouble in a "underware section of the K-Mart flyer" challenge
:P
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:24:14 AM · #23 |
A total crap picture, so I don't usually get down that far. Also, material I find offensive, namely suicide or "snuff" pics.
Total crap = out of focus or motion blurry without intention or purpose, very bad pixelization, or a snapshot of uncle bob pinching aunt harriett's butt while they both have beer hats on. possibly blank grey/white/black space, but in Desolation, I may have voted that higher than a 1.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:38:12 AM · #24 |
| I vote based on 1 point for each of the following: focus, exposure, image quality, composition/POV, creative use of lighting, creative use of color, wow factor, and a personal tilt of 3 points to make a total of 10. So, to give a 1-3 (what I consider REALLY low scores) I have to see a picture that satisfies less than 3 of those criterion that I don't see much merit in creativity, humor, or anything else to cause my personal tilt to be a 2 or 3. |
|
|
|
07/05/2006 10:55:51 AM · #25 |
Everyone has their own system for voting. For me, I tend to only use the range from 3 to 7-8 (it just works out that way) with 5 being a completely average shot. If you look at DPC photo scores, I guess my system follows the same guidlines (a really bad shot is about a 3 and a phenomenal shot is around 7-8), not that I need to justify my voting :)
Don't think I've ever given a 1-2 in voting nor a 9-10 and I don't know if I ever will. I know there are some people here that have a problem with voters that don't use the full spectrum (1-10) for voting, but to each his own :) |
|
