| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2009 10:38:27 AM · #1 |
I'm new to this site -- I just placed my first entry in the "Lucky" contest and am anxiously awaiting the results... but as I'm going through and voting in the challenges, I wonder how other people base their votes?
Maybe I'm too generous, but what I've basically been doing is starting out with a vote of 5 (average) and then moving the slider up or down depending on what I notice in the shot... whether it meets the challenge, whether it is in focus, do I have an emotional reaction to it (good OR bad -- both get a high score from me).
I am trying to set up certain rules in my head -- I score 1 if it doesnt meet the challenge, I score a 2 if someone has just taken an artisc photo of someone else's art (a sculpture, chutchka, decorative vase, etc)... but other than that, I more-or-less award 5 to most photos, less for bad ones, and more for good ones.
Am I being too generous giving most people basically a 5?
What is your rating process?
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 11:03:42. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 10:50:48 AM · #2 |
| Similar. If it's in focus and reasonably framed/cropped, it gets a five. A little more thoughtful, an interesting perspective, good lighting nudges up to 6 or 7. If I'd hang it on the wall at home then it's an 8+. Bad lighting, focus etc gets a 3 or 4. I don't tend to go below a three. I'm fairly relaxed about shots meeting the challenge. I'd rather someone shoehorn a good shot than enter a worse one that more clearly meets the challenge. And so many of the themes are open to interpretation - as you'll see if they ever re-run 'the road less travelled'. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 11:07:28 AM · #3 |
So far, same-o, same-o but if my initial reaction is a bit higher I'll start at 6 since neither 5 or 6 is absolute middle. Contrived or very stock looking shots usually don't score as high with me as some of the more artistic. Those are my often broken rules, but ya have to have something to try and guide you. :)
Welcome!! |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 11:17:26 AM · #4 |
Big-Johnson - if you were given a choice between a bad shot that meets the challenge vs. a good shot that doesn't, wouldn't you prefer the third option -- that neither of them were entered into the challenge?
It's called a challenge for a reason, imho. I'd rather that both of the two photographs mentioned above would stay out of it.
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 11:18:12. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 11:31:11 AM · #5 |
| probably the best advice I got was to "try to comment on as many photos as you can"...and boy is that hard when you are new and unsure of what you are seeing and looking at in a shot. Especially if that shot doesn't have anything wrong technically, but it just doesn't float your boat or doesn't "wow" you. I have gotten braver with "really nice shot, but doesn't wow me." First I cruse the challenge and the ones that really catch my eye will get the instant vote/comment (usually the funnier/better ones) Then I vote each challenge first, later adding my comments...I rearrange repeatedly according to what makes them more notable. I usually stay between 4 - 8's on each challenge...if I give a 9/10 (rare for the 10) they made my toes curl...a "wow" shot. If they get below 4 I try to make a comment as to what I don't like as we learn from what people do not like as well as what they do like. Trying to be tactful...but be prepared as some just don't take critique of any kind well. The reason I stick to 4 or higher...is that at least they entered the challenge, if their shot is either very bad, repetitive or offensive it drops like a rock...and one thing that I think many miss is that there is just going to be some very good shots and some very bad shots in every challenge. That is why I continue to shuffle the photos and my votes during the days of voting (also to bugger up those with charts...). Welcome!!! and enjoy the site... |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 12:14:17 PM · #6 |
I would advise you to be careful in making judgements about whether or not something meets or does not meet the challenge, Sometimes its easy like a color shot in a black and white challenge but many time it is far more difficult, it is very possible that you may not be understanding the photographers concept and may peg something as DNMC when it really does.
Personally I find that it is more interesting to me to see how a photo fits with the challenge rather than its overall quality(within limits of course) an average shot that really fits with a difficult challenge will get a higher score from me than a great shot that is a stretch, or that is really predictable.
When I vote I tend to run through all the shots and do a quick first impression vote, I dont think too much about details I just think about the theme and whether I like the shot in that theme. Then I go back through later and look more closely at the shots I found better than average.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 12:38:02 PM · #7 |
If it completely fails to meet the challenge, it deserves and gets a 1 rating. Only because we cannot vote a zero. If it shoehorns or visualizes the challenges in an oddball way, then it meets the challenge.
After that, I put average photos at a 4 or 5 (mostly five) and then work up or down from there. 9s and 10s are rare as they should be.
Some people will give their favorite photo in the bunch a 10, thinking they are awarding first place. This is their choice, but isn't right IMO because the photos should be rated as how well you like them and go from there.
BUT, everyone rates their own way, so it's not possible really to compare one challenge with another.
So long as you're consistent in how you vote it's fine. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 12:39:14 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I would advise you to be careful in making judgements about whether or not something meets or does not meet the challenge, Sometimes its easy like a color shot in a black and white challenge but many time it is far more difficult, it is very possible that you may not be understanding the photographers concept and may peg something as DNMC when it really does.
Personally I find that it is more interesting to me to see how a photo fits with the challenge rather than its overall quality(within limits of course) an average shot that really fits with a difficult challenge will get a higher score from me than a great shot that is a stretch, or that is really predictable.
When I vote I tend to run through all the shots and do a quick first impression vote, I dont think too much about details I just think about the theme and whether I like the shot in that theme. Then I go back through later and look more closely at the shots I found better than average. |
But, if the photographer failed to convey it to the judge in question, then TO THAT JUDGE, it did DNMC. One person not getting it and voting accordining won't tank a score, but if the photographer fails to reach many, then that is feedback they need to get. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 12:57:48 PM · #9 |
1-totally sucks, blurry grainy, unidentifieable. I don't think I've ever given a 1
2- brown ribbon for sure. Grainy, blurry, lots of artifacts, shadows and blown highlights. lousy snapshot
3- The average snapshot someone takes if they don't know anything about photography. Or an entry from  Whiterook (He's awesome, BTW. Has quite a fan base here.)
4- basic exposure and composition is good and shows effort and some knowledge. A decent effort, but lacking somehow compared to other DPC stuff.
5- A good shot, but nothing that stands out over the rest. No shame in getting a 5. Something that averages in the high 5's will probably get wowed over elsewhere.
6- Something stands out to me about this one. Really liking it.
7- Really good stuff.
8- Getting into "WOW" territory. 50% chance I will fave this.
9- How to you do it? Do you have a life outside photography?
10- I am in awe.
Other factors:
-If I feel the entry does not meet the challenge topic (a.k.a. a "shoehorn" entry) I will rate it on the quality of the shot, but then deduct 1-3 points depending on how far off base I think it is. If I am the only one that feels that way, then my slightly lower vote won't hurt it much.
-Sometimes an extra point or two for an outstandingly creative idea, but an average shot.
-I often give a lower vote for visible compression artifacts that could have been easily avoided. If there are visible artifacts and a small file size, I will ding you. I have often low voted high scoring images for this when everyone else wows over it. If I ding you on this, I will leave a comment about it, so that you know why it got that low vote from me.
-Although personal taste is part of the process, I try to rate on the quality of the photo. If I don't personally care for it, but still think it is good work, I won't low vote it.
I think most members vote along a similar scale, with personal taste as an influencing factor. I have been trying to gain some insight as to some of the extremely low votes that are given on entries that are at least decent, but I think most of those folks do not frequent the forums.
I did have an interesting exchange with several other members over one of my entries that got a lot of low votes. (I won't call anyone out) One person said he gave my entry a 2 because it met the challenge, but they did not perceive "artistic intent" in my shot. I thought, "OK, I can't argue with that, my intent was meant to be entertaining, NOT artistic". Another member, regarding the same entry said I was expressing my sense of humor with my photography. Hmmm. Expression of oneself is certainly artistic in nature, isn't it? Two different points of view on the same thing. Neither one wrong, but it did give me some insight into the thought process of some people when evaluating entries.
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 13:12:32. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 01:11:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I would advise you to be careful in making judgements about whether or not something meets or does not meet the challenge, Sometimes its easy like a color shot in a black and white challenge |
Haha, still not an easy call...
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 01:20:50 PM · #11 |
Here's mine:
1 - because I feel like it when I look at that particular shot.
2 - because I feel like it when I look at that particular shot.
3 - because I feel like it when...
What? |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 01:25:37 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 01:40:24 PM · #13 |
| I think you have to be careful also of saying a vase or some other object is someone else's art. The transparency challenge for example may include a glass vase with something inside because the challenge is to take a photo of your subject through an object. There are many photos in that challenge of glass objects with colored water or objects inside them. They meet the challenge. I generally start with a 5 and work up or down considering the interest of the photo, focus, and general overall quality. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 01:46:50 PM · #14 |
From previous threads:
This is how I try (very hard) to vote:
1 > a technically (focus, exposure, balance, effects, lighting, sharpening, saturation, colour, cast, evidence of artifacts etc.) incompetent photo or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to image size), an 'offensive' one to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'
2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no perceptible artistic (choice of subject, composition, perspective, manner, emotional energy and range, etc.) merit or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or a gross and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling in the context of the challenge; the pursuit of cliché without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, allegory, metaphor etc.)
3 > a photo of mixed or questionable merit, both artistically and technically; a technically 'acceptable' one without marked artistic or journalistic interest; a sentimental or symptomatically 'commercialized' image designed to 'sell' a product or (worse! -of a person) of reasonable or considerable technical merit; a potentially 'interesting' or 'promising' photo (subject matter/perspective) with 'severe' technical flaws and/or without 'clear' intent or direction; a technically flawless image void of emotion and lacking sensory stimuli
4 > a 'pretty' photo reminiscent of many; an otherwise captivating image with one or more clearly distracting elements, either within the capture itself or via border and/or title; a technically accomplished photo relying predominantly on an idea, subject and/or title for impact; an artistically 'promising' capture with clearly noticeable technical defects, compositional issues or incongruous aesthetics; a technically 'stunning' capture otherwise bare of 'feeling' or aesthetic 'sense'
5 > a 'good' photo by most standards; one that communicates capably without necessarily teaching or exhilarating us; an artistically interesting photo pointing an unusual view, perspective or matter, even if it suffers from distinct technical 'flaws'; a technically 'stunning' capture with limiting human or artistic 'range'
6 > a remarkable image, well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image imitative within a 'classic' fashion, but well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait etc.)
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium including enduring snapshots or candids of remarkable human interest
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically accomplished, with near-imperceptible flaws, if not entirely flawless; clearly 'innovative' photographs pointing a little known interest, direction or delight
9 > same as 8, technically without a fault, but a photo which commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > an enduring photo that challenges the order of gods and the world, one holding its own alongside any other.
On (Challenge) Topicality
Limiting potentially immeasurable choices to a defined subject or a chosen category of photography, really, should stimulate creativity, not hamper it. Topics, IMO, are or should be there for the benefit of the photographer, not for the untaxed glee of some voters swinging a bat.
I do not penalize entries for failing to meet the challenge. I may award a higher score to a unique interpretation or to a finesse I recognize, but I cannot, in good conscience, penalize something or someone for a fault that may lie within me and not with a picture.
I have seen and continue to see perfectly good photographs here penalized for exceeding the appreciative capacity of voters to recognize an entry for the poignant topicality it may demonstrate. If I consider the photo remarkable (artistically very interesting), I may just decide to award the highest mark possible in the faint hope to compensate for a predictably overall devaluation.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 02:59:47 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
From previous threads:
This evidence of artifacts etc.) |
Would you be so kind as to quickly clarify what you mean by artifacts? I am not familiar with photographic terminologies so not sure if there is something specific that I am missing. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 03:13:23 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kivgaen:
...Would you be so kind as to quickly clarify what you mean by artifacts?... |
Something that's not naturally part of an image, such as results from over-processing, i.e. haloes along edges due to over-sharpening, compression defects as a result of conversion to JPEG, excessive noise (especially colour noise) that is not intended or fitting the sense of an image, even over-blown highlights (the absence of detail in the brightest points or areas), bleeding and posterization of colour, that sort of thing... |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 03:15:42 PM · #17 |
| cats and toys get an automatic 1 |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 03:52:16 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DiamondPete:
cats and toys get an automatic 1 |
What if the challenge was Cats and Toys... :)
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 15:53:22. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 03:53:15 PM · #19 |
I don't give too many looooooooooow scores, but these shots never impress me:
"Honey, quick, bring me a beer!!"
"What's the rush?"
"Got another challenge deadline--need to Snap and Gulp"
[she comes running with the beer]
"Quick, set it right there under the table lamp!"
[sound of shutter]
"Whew, durn near missed that there deadline!"
[GULP GULP GULP]
"Don't you drink too many of those, now, else you'll be seeing them frogs in superman costumes riding bicycles again...."
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 15:55:22. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 04:17:44 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I don't give too many looooooooooow scores, but these shots never impress me:
"Honey, quick, bring me a beer!!"
"What's the rush?"
"Got another challenge deadline--need to Snap and Gulp"
[she comes running with the beer]
"Quick, set it right there under the table lamp!"
[sound of shutter]
"Whew, durn near missed that there deadline!"
[GULP GULP GULP]
"Don't you drink too many of those, now, else you'll be seeing them frogs in superman costumes riding bicycles again...." |
What's sad is that Beer is essential to my Free Study Comment Experiment comments, but after the holidays, I'm both flat broke and boozeless. It's a struggle. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 04:20:44 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
What's sad is that Beer is essential to my Free Study Comment Experiment comments, but after the holidays, I'm both flat broke and boozeless. It's a struggle. |
hmmm.. I have virtual beer on my iPhone. Probably not effective.
I am all in favor of your Comment and Gulp, Gulp and Comment technique, sir. :-)
It's those Snap & Gulp shots I despise :-)))
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 16:21:51. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 04:45:11 PM · #22 |
If it makes sense without a title I score it much higher. I'm fed up with photos that only work with an explanation of a title. I don't see why photos need titles anyway.
Right, New Year's Resolution: No titles, maybe. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 05:06:28 PM · #23 |
| I came upon a metaphor for DPC that illustrates my belief that 7's, 8's , 9's and 10's should not be as rare a score to give as they seem to be. The metaphor is to compare DPC entrants with Baseball. I do not think, that the majority of us here at DPC are Major League Players or even Minor League players. Although there are many super stars here that are Major Leaguers, I do not think that they are the norm. So the metaphor continues that a home run in a small league game (Pony League, College Baseball etc) is still a home run even though it was achieved on a smaller field and not against top notch pitching. It still scores as ONE RUN. Similarly, a 10 at DPC should be a deserving score for DPC knowing that we are not in the same league as Professional Photographic Artists at large. In other words entries should be scored on a lower scale than professionals just as a home run can be hit in any Baseball game- even little league. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 05:20:57 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
I came upon a metaphor for DPC that illustrates my belief that 7's, 8's , 9's and 10's should not be as rare a score to give as they seem to be. The metaphor is to compare DPC entrants with Baseball. I do not think, that the majority of us here at DPC are Major League Players or even Minor League players. Although there are many super stars here that are Major Leaguers, I do not think that they are the norm. So the metaphor continues that a home run in a small league game (Pony League, College Baseball etc) is still a home run even though it was achieved on a smaller field and not against top notch pitching. It still scores as ONE RUN. Similarly, a 10 at DPC should be a deserving score for DPC knowing that we are not in the same league as Professional Photographic Artists at large. In other words entries should be scored on a lower scale than professionals just as a home run can be hit in any Baseball game- even little league. |
Interesting, but not exactly accurate. A photograph itself can be a home run, but home runs in baseball aren't graded on a scale. If it clears a fence, it's a home run, but that fence is static. There isn't a body of people judging that home run and saying, "Well, there wasn't a lot of back-spin on the ball, and it kind of curved a little bit before the end, so that one is a 5.
I agree that as a mass we're probably judging too harshly too often, but unlike the baseball metaphor, we have a scale that we use, for better or worse, and it's disingenuous to simply just start scoring everything artificially higher because the majority of people aren't as good as a minority that is more talented. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 05:38:41 PM · #25 |
The entire scale gets compressed in voting because of the variety of opinions. If you look at the voting breakdowns, anything that comes in over a 5 generally has a fair amount of people liking it. I look at the final score averages this way:
Under a 5: My entry was lacking in a major way, or people didn't "get it". I'll probably get some critiques during the challenge.
5 to 5.5: I did a good shot, but there was nothing to distinguish it from the pack. I may get some minor critiques.
5.5 to 6: A very good one that appealed to most voters. I'm usually pleased to end up in this range.
6+: Nailed it! Now if i can just repeat it on every entry, I'll be set.
I know there are some people who feel their entry is doing poorly if it comes in under a 6, but for me the turning point is over 5 1/2. I think that after that point, the broad appeal factor matters as much as the quality of my entry. Over a 6 and it is mostly the broad appeal factor I am dealing with.
Message edited by author 2009-01-03 17:39:25. |
|
