| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2009 05:48:00 AM · #1 |
It seems that many voters in the "It's All About Position" challenge completely missed the boat on a few entries.
One in particular by  cutter was so well done that most of the commenters and I am sure most voters completely blew it.
I guess this is one of those times that reminds us as voters that we need to stop and look at photo and figure out why it meets challenge and not directly assume you know why it doesn't meet challenge.
Thankfully, I picked it up on a second go through of the entries and adjusted my score accordingly, but it sure seems that many did not see it. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 05:56:09 AM · #2 |
you're right - i had to take more than a second look to see that the entire face is positioned there.
but you cannot completely blame the voters. the hand position made it appeared as though the model is holding the pink glasses, and the hair-do and shoulders aligned too well. it is all about the presentation. being too perfect spoiled this one, i guess |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 06:03:01 AM · #3 |
Most of the people who commented on it actually did see it. But many obviously did not. 13 1's 11 2's and 23 3's yet still managed to score in the top 20. Voters obviously very harsh in that challenge.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2009 06:09:10 AM · #4 |
I'm happy to admit that I did miss it for the very reason you state.
But on my second and more detailed pass through I did see it and both made a comment to that affect and adjusted my vote significantly upwards to an 8 |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 06:40:11 AM · #5 |
| I guess the reason I started the thread was to remind viewers and voters that the '2 second' stop on a photo is generally not enough to capture an appropriate understanding of the goal of the photo. I just thought this was an excellent example of many people missing it because they weren't looking.... |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 06:52:35 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
I guess the reason I started the thread was to remind viewers and voters that the '2 second' stop on a photo is generally not enough to capture an appropriate understanding of the goal of the photo. I just thought this was an excellent example of many people missing it because they weren't looking.... |
This is one of the reasons I like to vote early and then keep revisiting the pics throughout the week |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 08:11:45 AM · #7 |
| It is quite frightening and makes me sad that this wonderfully subtle effect was missed by so many voters. Personally, I find it more useful to allocate my voting time on maybe 20-40% of the entries and learn something from them, than voting 100% of them and completely miss their point. It would be quite sad if only bluntly obvious photos are capable of winning! |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 08:43:32 AM · #8 |
| I am guilty of being a speed voter on that, and I feel bad about it. I try not to do that, but when voting so many entries we get in the 3-5 second habit. I need to go back to spending more time on the entries and only doing 20-25%. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 09:56:53 AM · #9 |
Might it also be possible, in this particular case, that the voter saw it correctly but didn't feel that a picture of a face held in front of the real face qualifies as "seemingly unrelated objects"? I think too well done is a good phrase to describe what happened. That is, the illusion is so well done that it actually doesn't meet the challenge anymore.
Edit: I just read through all the comments on that image. Several people talked about the "magazine". It's highly possible that it's a magazine, but there's no evidence that it is. Again, to me, it just looks like a photo of that model in a slightly different position held up in front of her face for the next shot (which wouldn't meet the challenge in my book).
Message edited by author 2009-07-29 10:04:34. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 11:51:55 AM · #10 |
My take is "If I can't see it, I can't judge it". Sorry to say but I could not tell that the "face" was a different object on the computer I used for voting. The white background helped to hide the picture of the face.
Sorry, at least a little bit.
Tim |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 01:31:32 PM · #11 |
| it took me a sec to realize..its because it blends way too well....But that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 01:46:28 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Might it also be possible, in this particular case, that the voter saw it correctly but didn't feel that a picture of a face held in front of the real face qualifies as "seemingly unrelated objects"? I think too well done is a good phrase to describe what happened. That is, the illusion is so well done that it actually doesn't meet the challenge anymore.
Edit: I just read through all the comments on that image. Several people talked about the "magazine". It's highly possible that it's a magazine, but there's no evidence that it is. Again, to me, it just looks like a photo of that model in a slightly different position held up in front of her face for the next shot (which wouldn't meet the challenge in my book). |
Exactly...a picture of a girls face, over a girls face...not exactly unrelated. The super white background isn't helping matters either.
Message edited by author 2009-07-29 18:08:48. |
|
|
|
07/29/2009 05:03:33 PM · #13 |
| Well if you look at the picture that inspired the challenge a picture of a girls face was in front of a girls face, therefore this image for sure met the challenge. I agree this image was too well done. It would have scored incredibly better had it been a tad more obvious or if voters had been a tad more observant. I'm glad this photographer can take some relief in knowing his score was a result of bad eyes rather than a personal fault. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 10:23:28 AM · #14 |
I didn't vote in this one, but it seems that a lot of people did a lot of unneccessary editing (tone mapping, lucis arts, topaz, etc.)
The top 3 in the challenge all have some funky editing done that doesn't add anything to the image, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
08/03/2009 11:48:28 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Might it also be possible, in this particular case, that the voter saw it correctly but didn't feel that a picture of a face held in front of the real face qualifies as "seemingly unrelated objects"? I think too well done is a good phrase to describe what happened. That is, the illusion is so well done that it actually doesn't meet the challenge anymore.
Edit: I just read through all the comments on that image. Several people talked about the "magazine". It's highly possible that it's a magazine, but there's no evidence that it is. Again, to me, it just looks like a photo of that model in a slightly different position held up in front of her face for the next shot (which wouldn't meet the challenge in my book). |
Exactly...a picture of a girls face, over a girls face...not exactly unrelated. The super white background isn't helping matters either. |
I'll third this position. (pun intended).
Now, granted, I'm sure a lot of people simply didn't see it, but IMO, it's up to the photographer to get a point across to an audience that is going to be more inclined to spend less time looking. There are simply some aspects of DPC that aren't going to go away, and one of those are people spending minimal time looking at an image while voting in a challenge. Your, um, CHALLENGE, is to get your idea across in a manner that will either a) cause people to stop and look, or b) get your point across even if they don't.
So yah, it's too bad, but thems the breaks, you know? |
|
|
|
08/16/2009 04:46:34 PM · #16 |
Old thread I know, but since this happened to me in a similar way and I still don't have to feel too guilty about it, I thought I'd rather add another reply instead of creating a new thread and tell you about it.
Circle III challenge and I gave this picture a low vote.
Now here's the point: I did also COMMENT on WHY I voted that way. That gave the photographer the chance to let me know about my error and I rethought and changed my vote. I simply didn't see the circle in the picture the first time (the bird! the bird!).
Please comment, it helps to understand!
A bad vote for a low depth of field picture saying "blurry background, 2" won't hurt as much, you'll admit.
Rob |
|
|
|
08/16/2009 05:09:20 PM · #17 |
I gave it a 6 as I saw several circular elements in it including the rings around the grubs.
One of the circles however meant that I felt I couldn't go any higher and that was the plate.
I found it very distracting and it also broke the magic of what could have been an outstanding shot as it said staged to me.
Just my opinion of course |
|
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: 04/23/2024 10:20:10 PM EDT.
