| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2004 01:17:19 AM · #1 |
what about, when there are a lot of pics to vote for, ie the
rust challenge, make the pics smaller, i think they are far too
big anyway, a waste of time viewing them.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:20:30 AM · #2 |
So, it takes less time to look at a smaller picture? Not sure I get the logic...
Edit: Duh, never mind, I think I get it now. Download time? From a cable snob. :)
Message edited by author 2004-05-06 01:21:39. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:25:18 AM · #3 |
| Well - for those of use who have "very experienced" eyes... the old farts.. bigger is better. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:34:16 AM · #4 |
I don't necessarily agree, altough I am of the dialup crew, 28k, painful. The problem I see with this is how would they be downsized? Before entries are submitted, they don't know how many are going to be. And after submission downsizing probably decreases quaility.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:42:30 AM · #5 |
I think smaller would be terrible, as the small size requirement already takes away so much detail from photos as is.... I think that's a big part of why my Rust entry's doing so badly. People are having a hard time seeing the rust because of the small resolution (I guess? Nobody is leaving comments; maybe they just hate the photo - hehe).
I'm a DSL snob, but I voted on the massive Textures II challenge with dialup (I was traveling) and I think it's worth it, for the sake of fairness. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 02:01:28 AM · #6 |
I think to really see the photo, the size of 640px is small enough. I like seeing the photos that large... really lets me look at each piece! I am sorry for those of you who have slower modems. DSL and Cable is getting cheaper each year, hopefully that will help in time :)
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 02:07:04 AM · #7 |
| The easiest way would be to decrease the percentage from 20% to say 10%. We don't need to touch images, we only a number in a script. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 02:17:49 AM · #8 |
Personally, I like that we have to vote on 20% of the images. It makes me happy that my photo may get voted on with those odds. I also think we should have mandatory 5% commenting per person too, but that's just me :)
Arie
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 02:58:19 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I also think we should have mandatory 5% commenting per person too, but that's just me :)
Arie |
I agree with that in theory ..... but I think the reality is people would just leave pointless comments just to meet the 5%.
I think I'd rather have them voluntary and thus with more worth.
As for picture size .... I would really hate to see it slip below 640.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 03:23:10 AM · #10 |
| To decrease the number of entries one could change the weekly challenge into two 4 days challenges. One from Sunday to Wednesday and the second from Wednesday to Saturday. That leaves the weekend intact for most of us to do some photography. This ought to reduce the number of entries to vote on. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 08:03:32 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I also think we should have mandatory 5% commenting per person too, but that's just me :)
Arie |
I agree with that in theory ..... but I think the reality is people would just leave pointless comments just to meet the 5%.
|
Yeah, we been there, done that. And I think Drew and Langdon might be selling t-shirts. :)
--Clara
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 08:46:54 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by mocabela:
I think smaller would be terrible, as the small size requirement already takes away so much detail from photos as is....
Nobody is leaving comments; maybe they just hate the photo - hehe).
|
agreed - smaller is terrible, and more comments are indeed needed.
have cable and its great! |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 10:38:34 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by goodman:
what about, when there are a lot of pics to vote for, ie the
rust challenge, make the pics smaller, i think they are far too
big anyway, a waste of time viewing them. |
Bigger is definitely better. Get with the times and get DSL or cable, for goodness sake! I rated a couple of submissions pretty low because I just couldn't see the detail. You don't have to vote on every picture. For this challenge, I scanned through the pages of thumbnails a few times before voting, then a periodically scanned them while I voted (instead of just voting on the next photo that popped up. I tried to look for pictures that stood out as either really good or really bad. I figure, the really bad ones could use a suggestion
more than the ranking, which they aren't going to get anyway. I let enough random ones pop up so that I think I gave enough people a decent shake at getting voted and commented on. Here are my voting stats:
You have rated 92 of 444 images (21%) in this challenge.
You have commented on 75 images (17%) in this challenge.
I'll probably peruse through a few more today. I didn't know until yesterday that you can vote, and comment later. Of course, I think it's better to comment while your initial reaction is fresh in mind.
I was DQd by the way because I didn't know about setting the #@**$$! time/date stamp until after I took all the Rusted shots (I wasn't going to go out and do it again, dammit!).
Disqualified Entry and the Un-edited Original. Any comments or critiques sincerely welcomed. This was ranking steadily low at 3.8-ish until was removed.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 12:03:59 PM · #14 |
If a challange has 100 pics and everyone votes you get 100 votes
If there are 400 and everyone votes on only 100, you get 100 votes.
After 100 the score changes only very minimally.
so why not carefully vote on only 100 instead of race through 400? |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 12:08:32 PM · #15 |
With regard to the low number of comments, perhaps a check list of common image faults would aid in determining why people do not like a particular image.
Something like this:
I gave your photo a low score because:
a) over or under exposed
b) oversharpened
c) too much or too little contrast
d) this photo sucks
e) you are lousy photographer
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 12:58:55 PM · #16 |
| Personally, I like the large pixel sizes. If downloading is a problem, reducing k size may be appropriate (maybe down to 100 kb)? - but I still like to look at something with a larger width and height (540 to 640 pixels is ideal for my eyes - and to really evaluate a shot). |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:07:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
With regard to the low number of comments, perhaps a check list of common image faults would aid in determining why people do not like a particular image.
Something like this:
I gave your photo a low score because:
a) over or under exposed
b) oversharpened
c) too much or too little contrast
d) this photo sucks
e) you are lousy photographer |
Well, Gordo, try leaning 'e' as a comment on some pics and see what happens. I said something similar a few challenges back and got the wrath of the SC on me! I am a bit more gentle now LOL. As to Comment 'd', well those comments are common. Not helpful, but common.
Perhaps besides teh technical comments...
1) Boring.
2) unimaginitve
3) uninteresting composition
4) uninspired
5) lacks a story
Or one i'd like to leave a lot..."Technically meets challenge. Technically acceptable (lighting, focus, etc). However, why would I or anyone else want to look at this picture? Look at the past winners - most are beautiful pics that one might want to hang on a wall. This is not something I want to see again or show to friends."
Can you give me a PC wording for that? I don't need 200 PMs scalling me a stinker or worse. The 50 i get now are enough - LOL
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:19:10 PM · #18 |
Right on, bestagents! As I have often said, sometimes the result is not worth the effort. A technically excellent photo may very well be unappealing.
If no one likes the photo it must be the fault of the photographer! Sincere comments are the best ones and should always be rendered when the score is below 4, even if the comment is about the subject rather than the quality of the image.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:20:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Right on, bestagents! As I have often said, sometimes the result is not worth the effort. A technically excellent photo may very well be unappealing.
If no one likes the photo it must be the fault of the photographer! Sincere comments are the best ones and should always be rendered when the score is below 4, even if the comment is about the subject rather than the quality of the image. |
Sooo, I can cincerely (safely) say - " this is an ugly pic that i will score low. It is all your fault, you lousy photographer you." LOL
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:27:28 PM · #20 |
Can't guarantee you won't get PM'ed to death! But the photog needs to know when their choice of subject is the cause of a low score, just like any other parameter of the pic.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:29:51 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Get with the times and get DSL or cable, for goodness sake! |
Believe it or not, DSL/Cable or any other high speed option is not available everywhere yet.
Personally, I like the size as it is. |
|
|
|
05/06/2004 01:32:47 PM · #22 |
We're straying from goodmans thread point about image size, an idea that I can't support. For those with dial-ups, I can only suggest writing fewer comments with the time that you have, and just make what comments that you can give thougtful.
With regard to the low number of comments: I perceive that what people want here is critiques. The site only asks for comments. Only when the right to enter a challenge is earned by a members past critiquing history will the number and quality of the critiques improve. I support a system that rewards helpful critiques written with credits that I can then spend to enter a challenge.
Message edited by author 2004-05-06 13:39:35. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:10:38 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by simbamba:
To decrease the number of entries one could change the weekly challenge into two 4 days challenges. One from Sunday to Wednesday and the second from Wednesday to Saturday. That leaves the weekend intact for most of us to do some photography. This ought to reduce the number of entries to vote on. |
The way they are staggered now is great for those who cross vote in members and non-members challenges. There was another thread about how someone had tones of votes and comments on their member shot until the non-member voting started and tehn they stopped rolling in. If we cut the non-member into two, then we risk just diluting hte commenting for all challenges, especailly since we'd then have an extra challenge per week to vote on...
Although I like the idea of more challenges... :) |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 04:49:17 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by melismatica:
Get with the times and get DSL or cable, for goodness sake! |
Believe it or not, DSL/Cable or any other high speed option is not available everywhere yet.
|
Uhh, yep it is...
via satellite
Message edited by author 2004-05-07 04:49:57.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 06:15:12 PM · #25 |
bestagents,
With many years in customer service, I have learned how to give positive feedback when I want to. If you are looking for words. You might try "The quality is great, the lighting / contrast / color are very pleasing; however, the subject does not personally capture my interest. I am sorry. I wish you the best. You are a very good photographer"
That way, just because you find it boring, it doesn't mean that YOU believe everyone else will also. It shows that you appreciate their technical skills, but you aren't engaged in the photo.
Just my thoughts... |
|
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: 04/25/2024 05:41:10 AM EDT.
