DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> What on earth do I make of this score distribution
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 98, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/18/2009 07:33:52 PM · #1
1, 1
2, 11
3, 29
4, 82
5, 174
6, 127
7, 57
8, 14
9, 4
10, 8

I mean seriously, how can you be getting 7, 8 , 9 , 10s and be getting 3s, 2s, and 1s, I have never seen such a heavy set of low votes with the curve skewed to the higher side like this. Sure a token few trolls that have some kind of issue but 10% voting below 3, this implys to me at least that the photo was horrible, but the 5 6 7 8 scores say its an average to above average photo.

Arrrggg this place can be soo annoying.
03/18/2009 07:41:09 PM · #2
Welcome to DPC.. the most frustrating challenge contest on the Internet. : )

03/18/2009 07:43:46 PM · #3
Being blunt here Jason I'm more likely to question the 8 votes of 10 than the lower votes. For me there is an issue with focus (on the right parts), overall white balance and with portraits its all about the eyes (for me) and these have no detail, I gave this a 5 and personally feel it finished where it should have done in the challenge.

And, for the lazy,
03/18/2009 07:46:07 PM · #4
Some people like dog pictures, some people don't. ;-)
03/18/2009 07:47:06 PM · #5
Is it that hard to realize that some will hate your photo, some will dislike, most will be indifferent, some will like and some will love. We are talking about people's opinions here and what floats one boat will sink another's. Ultimately, the only person you need to please with your photo is the person that looks back at you in the mirror, the rest is gravy.
03/18/2009 07:52:53 PM · #6
I find it interesting that you think you should have scored better, yet in the photographer comments section, you've defended all the comments that were given to you. In order to learn, you need to be open minded. That's not the impression I get from your comments. The best way to learn is to absorb, and then analyze which information to use.
03/18/2009 07:54:17 PM · #7
I would have to agree with the others... pretty much any shot that falls in the middle of the pack is going to have a distribution of votes similar to that.

Personally, I gave it a 4, mainly because overall it seems quite yellow-ish to me and didn't have a whole lot of "wow" to it.

I might also disagree with your notes on the image where you disputed comments that there is visible grain in the nose. I have a calibrated monitor, and your shot definitely has a degree of grain to it...
03/18/2009 07:54:28 PM · #8
Personally, I kind of like that score distribution. Not that I'm capable of having generally higher scores. It means, I think, that a photo kind of left the boundaries of "average". I'm hoping to someday have a score with more 1-2-3's and 7-8-9's than 4-5-6's. Not sure why.

Or in this case, some people just like dogs and some don't.
03/18/2009 07:59:48 PM · #9
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

Sure a token few trolls that have some kind of issue but 10% voting below 3,


*anal mode*

2.4% of voters gave a vote less than three not 10%

*/anal mode*
03/18/2009 08:27:56 PM · #10
Please don't take this wrong but you asked about score distribution and I am sharing with you my thoughts.

First off I do have a calibrated monitor, I scored the image a 4 mainly because of the the orange cast but also agree with the noise and DOF comments given during voting. I tend to score a little less harshly than some of the others so I am not surprised there were some lower scores but also agree with an earlier comment that noted they were more surprised by the number of 9's and 10's.

I find it a lot harder when I have an attachment to the subject to see how others will perceive the shot. Shots with dogs, cats, bugs, frogs, snakes, or naked women, will all effect voters in different ways, if you like dogs you might overlook quality of shot and score it based on the look at the cute puppy factor, but if you hate dogs it may have the opposite effect. In this case I believe some voted harshly on technicals and some voted liberally on the subject but Overall on DPC the highs and lows tend to shake out and images end up where they belong.
03/18/2009 08:28:46 PM · #11
Check some "Photographer Profiles" under the Community tab.
I found a number of them with "Avg Vote Cast" under 4. Most of the profiles I saw averaged 5 to 6. What votes are you handing out if your average is 3.7?
Maybe if their voting stats show on the profile page they would give more thought to their votes (or maybe not). There is plenty of room.
03/18/2009 08:40:09 PM · #12
Originally posted by wdamman:

What votes are you handing out if your average is 3.7?
Maybe if their voting stats show on the profile page they would give more thought to their votes (or maybe not). There is plenty of room.


Or, they could have put a whole lot of thought into the votes that they have given and still felt unmoved by a majority of what they see here on DPC. You might question why they still come here and vote if most of what they see is crap in there opinion but they might see it as worth the while for the few diamonds they find among the rough.
03/18/2009 08:45:39 PM · #13

"I find it interesting that you think you should have scored better"

Where did you get the impression I thought it should have scored higher? My question was focused one the distribution not on the average, I think the average is just fine, its not a winner, but its certainly better than a 3 2 or 1.

"yet in the photographer comments section, you've defended all the comments that were given to you. In order to learn, you need to be open minded. That's not the impression I get from your comments."

I have responded to the comments, I have not dismissed them, I responded as I did because the comments do not make sense to me, if I take the camera into the room and shoot a white balance on a white card before I start shooting then I am very confused at the comments stating that the color is off. How would you suggest I adjust the color? Its a yellow/orange colored dog laying on a yellowish/honey colored oak floor, What color should you be seeing? Cause if I go lay on the floor in front of the dog, that's what it looks like. I'm not arguing or defending I'm responding with the information available to me. I want to get better but telling me my shot of a yellow dog has too much yellow in it DOES NOT HELP?

"For me there is an issue with focus (on the right parts), overall white balance and with portraits its all about the eyes (for me) and these have no detail,"

What is the issue with the focus, its on the Eyes 100%, would you have preferred the focal point be the tip of the nose? The shot was originally for the Bokeh challenge so the whole point was to focus on the eyes with a limited depth of field which as far as I can tell are in near perfect focus, What am I missing?

As to the lack of detail in the eyes to what are you referring? Golden retrievers have nearly black eyes with black/dkbrown pupils/iriss, the sclera of their eyes is only visible if the look to the side. I am confused as to how I can capture detail in an eye that has no real visible detail.



Here is an outtake from the same session with a wider view of the room/dog, is this photo too yellow, too orange? How would you adjust it?

"and didn't have a whole lot of "wow" to it. "

This comment is also very frustrating, I feel sometimes like this sight is not really about photography so much as OOOOH AHHHH factors, not all photos are "WOW" photos, some are "OH!" photos or AHHHHHHH photos, or even speechless photos, I thought the point was to tell a story or relay an emotion(not just wow). Its a picture of a lazy dog lying on the floor, How does one connect "wow" to that, on the other hand I thought it did a pretty decent job of capturing the essence of the lazy dog lying on the floor. I know this makes no sense but its really frustrating.


03/18/2009 08:49:03 PM · #14
Originally posted by wdamman:

Check some "Photographer Profiles" under the Community tab.
I found a number of them with "Avg Vote Cast" under 4. Most of the profiles I saw averaged 5 to 6. What votes are you handing out if your average is 3.7?
Maybe if their voting stats show on the profile page they would give more thought to their votes (or maybe not). There is plenty of room.


My average vote cast is like a 4.9, which means I vote on a fairly even distribution, where are you getting the 3.7 from?
03/18/2009 08:55:02 PM · #15
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

Originally posted by wdamman:

Check some "Photographer Profiles" under the Community tab.
I found a number of them with "Avg Vote Cast" under 4. Most of the profiles I saw averaged 5 to 6. What votes are you handing out if your average is 3.7?
Maybe if their voting stats show on the profile page they would give more thought to their votes (or maybe not). There is plenty of room.


My average vote cast is like a 4.9, which means I vote on a fairly even distribution, where are you getting the 3.7 from?


Not you but a number of other's. Go check!
03/18/2009 08:57:14 PM · #16
Originally posted by wdamman:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

Originally posted by wdamman:

Check some "Photographer Profiles" under the Community tab.
I found a number of them with "Avg Vote Cast" under 4. Most of the profiles I saw averaged 5 to 6. What votes are you handing out if your average is 3.7?
Maybe if their voting stats show on the profile page they would give more thought to their votes (or maybe not). There is plenty of room.


My average vote cast is like a 4.9, which means I vote on a fairly even distribution, where are you getting the 3.7 from?


Not you but a number of other's. Go check!


Oh sorry I thought you meant me.
03/18/2009 08:57:51 PM · #17
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

This comment is also very frustrating, I feel sometimes like this sight is not really about photography so much as OOOOH AHHHH factors, not all photos are "WOW" photos, some are "OH!" photos or AHHHHHHH photos, or even speechless photos...


Very true... not all photos are wow photos. If you submit a shot that isn't a wow photo, you simply can't have an expectation that it is going to score as well as a shot that does have that extra zing. Not sure what your point is in arguing with my statement.

Yes, your shot and your outtake has a yellowish cast, even given the fact that it's a golden retriever against a predominantly yellowish floor. Whether you used a white balance card or not, there is a yellow cast to the overall shot, beyond what one would normally expect from the subject.

There's really not a whole lot of point in arguing these facts because I don't believe you're really here to get constructive criticism in the first place, based on your comments.
03/18/2009 09:03:28 PM · #18
It looks like you received a number of good comments on this photo. Many pointing out what you feel (and I feel) are the strengths of this shot. Some great compliments too. The overall average is not too bad. Not sure what the excitement is about. 1-2-3's will almost always be there.
03/18/2009 09:07:46 PM · #19
Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

This comment is also very frustrating, I feel sometimes like this sight is not really about photography so much as OOOOH AHHHH factors, not all photos are "WOW" photos, some are "OH!" photos or AHHHHHHH photos, or even speechless photos...


Very true... not all photos are wow photos. If you submit a shot that isn't a wow photo, you simply can't have an expectation that it is going to score as well as a shot that does have that extra zing. Not sure what your point is in arguing with my statement.

Yes, your shot and your outtake has a yellowish cast, even given the fact that it's a golden retriever against a predominantly yellowish floor. Whether you used a white balance card or not, there is a yellow cast to the overall shot, beyond what one would normally expect from the subject.

There's really not a whole lot of point in arguing these facts because I don't believe you're really here to get constructive criticism in the first place, based on your comments.


Quite the contrary, I am trying to make sense of the comments, I had praise about the color cast of the shot and others that complained about it, I had a host of very negitive scores that imply a very subpar image which I didn't think it was, I thought it was a par image and the central score distribution seemed to bear that out.

How would you suggest I remove this yellow cast of which you speak? I do not see what you are seeing, I do not know how to detect it and I do not know how to compensate for it yet you speak very confidently of its presence. Others said it was too orange, I don't know what to do with a comment like that. So please help me to under stand what you and others are seeing and what to do about it.

as to the wow factor I am not arguing the point, its just that it seems that for many it is only about the wow factor, as i said before i didnt expect a higher or lower score, this was an emotive shot not a wow shot, but you seemed to imply that the image had a problem of not having any wow to it? is that something to do with the way I shot it(ie is there some way to give it wow that is beyond my knowledge or was it just that it was not a wow subject)

I know I come off as if I am arguing, but I'm not, I am seeking to understand the message and for me at least that is an active approach not a passive one.

Message edited by author 2009-03-18 21:10:55.
03/18/2009 09:10:43 PM · #20
In regards to your distribution, it looks pretty normal to me. Essentially it is a pyramid with 5's getting the most votes, then less votes as you move up or down the voting scale. With the exception of the "10" votes, it is a balanced distribution.

In regards to your response to my comment, I'm not sure what to say because I don't want to start an argument, and I still get the impression that you've already made up your mind.

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

but telling me my shot of a yellow dog has too much yellow in it DOES NOT HELP?


I was merely trying to point out that people left honest comments on your photo, and that is probably why you got some of the lower votes (based on the comments about colour balance, noise, focus, etc). You don't have to agree with their comments, but for example, if at least 7 of the 61 comments are telling you that it is too warm overall, they might just be right.

In answer to your question, you can always change the colour balance in Photoshop if you so choose.

I know it can be frustrating getting low votes, but as long as their are 1, 2 and 3 buttons, people will use them. Everybody gets them.

Best of luck with your future photos.

03/18/2009 09:16:00 PM · #21
Jason, first - I think you'll find that except for the very top and bottom places, most entries will have a bell curve in the score breakdown. I see this all the time.

Now I gave this shot a 6, but I confess it was more from being a golden retriever lover than on the strength of your shot. It was too monochromatic for my taste, and felt more lighting would have helped.
03/18/2009 09:17:22 PM · #22
Originally posted by jeger:


In regards to your response to my comment, I'm not sure what to say because I don't want to start an argument, and I still get the impression that you've already made up your mind.

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

but telling me my shot of a yellow dog has too much yellow in it DOES NOT HELP?


I was merely trying to point out that people left honest comments on your photo, and that is probably why you got some of the lower votes (based on the comments about colour balance, noise, focus, etc). You don't have to agree with their comments, but for example, if at least 7 of the 61 comments are telling you that it is too warm overall, they might just be right.

In answer to your question, you can always change the colour balance in Photoshop if you so choose.


I am trying to understand the comment that you and others made, How does one determine that this image is "Too warm" or has too much of a particular color, even more so how does one adjust when people are telling you that is is too much of two different colors? I know very well how to adjust color in photoshop and in this case I did not do so, i left the color alone, the exposure was boosted as the image was somewhat dark which is where some of the graininess came from(I know what and why with that) But the color issue has me frustrated and all I seem to get from people is that its not right. Help me understand what you are looking at or seeing that is leaving this impression on you so that I can look for it and compensate for it in the future as I really like to use natural light and warm colors.
03/18/2009 09:23:55 PM · #23
Colour balance is not an easy thing to see until you've had some practice.

I guess I take for granted that I took photography in University/College, and we had to make our own colour prints. At first you would guess what the colour balance would be, then once you saw the print you would look at the highlights and shadows to see if there was too much of one colour.

To this day, I can't go into a bar without noticing how different the colour balance is for most of the televisions.

If you don't mind, I can edit the colour balance of your photo so you can compare the before and after.
03/18/2009 09:31:48 PM · #24
Originally posted by jeger:

Colour balance is not an easy thing to see until you've had some practice.

I guess I take for granted that I took photography in University/College, and we had to make our own colour prints. At first you would guess what the colour balance would be, then once you saw the print you would look at the highlights and shadows to see if there was too much of one colour.

To this day, I can't go into a bar without noticing how different the colour balance is for most of the televisions.

If you don't mind, I can edit the colour balance of your photo so you can compare the before and after.


By all means balance away, I want to understand what people are seeing. I do a lot of evaluation by comparison, I look closely at the image and at the item I photograph until they seem to jive to my eye between the real item and the onscreen image.

I also just got a new display, a Dell S2209W to replace an older Dell 2000FP, This photo was processed on the 2000FP, on the 2209 it seems more washed out even though both displays were calibrated using a Huey Calibrator.

Is the monitor part of the problem(the new or the old)?

Also this was shot using an antique Minolta Rokkor f1.2 lens which I know produces a warmer tone than modern glass does.

Message edited by author 2009-03-18 21:34:42.
03/18/2009 09:35:07 PM · #25
Okay.

Here is my quick edit.

1 - I converted the profile to sRGB. You should make sure your colour profile is sRGB because otherwise when you save for web, the colours will not be displayed the same.

2 - Noise Ninja to remove some of the noise.

3 - Adjustment Layer for Colour Balance ( -25 Cyan, +30 Blue)

I purposely left it a little warmer because I know that was the look you were going for.



What do you think? Can you see the difference? Do you think it's an improvement?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:39:45 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 06:39:45 AM EDT.