| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2002 08:08:07 PM · #26 |
| I REALLY do hope that I don't have to look at 50 some odd shots of naked women this week. I don't like it when I work on a photo, and when voting starts, I find that someone else came up with almost the same photo. I want to see something unique. I really do believe that I would have a tendency to vote a nude low this week unless it's done so well that it makes it stand out apart from the others. |
|
|
|
10/12/2002 08:56:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by spanky:
I agree with MarkRob, "cute" is very important. Puppies! I'll be voting high on puppies!
They will be cute lusty wrathful puppies, but puppies nonetheless...
|
|
|
|
10/12/2002 09:38:38 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by hokie:
If the folks who disparage cliche shots could duplicate those shots at will with technical skill I would agree with them that the photograph is a dime a dozen.
BUT.......
Based on my time here I have yet to see consistent high quality technical shots of cliches. This just shows that there is a lot of artistic merit to be given even to photographs we may take for granted due to their regular exposure in the media.
Let me see 50 playboy/maxim style shots done with the same skill I see in those magazines then I might believe that type of photo is so easy the it deserves a low score.
I sometimes think folks hide their still newly forming technical skills by avoiding shots people can easily compare to pro style shots in media.
As always..I will vote on all aspects of a photo and technical merit carries a heck of a lot more weight than a 1 or a 2
As always, Very well said Hokie!
|
|
|
|
10/12/2002 09:42:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I have modified it. 1-3 versus 8-10, still, if you get a 3 it's really a 1. I would vote a 1 and 10 if the administrators would allow it but they have this script that prevents people from blatantly voting other people 1's (i.e. to prevent cheating),so i think i'd have to spread my scores around a bit.
Originally posted by chakkobbo:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Anybody that takes a perfectly technical photo of a Playboy magazine will receive a 1-2 from me. The more metaphorical the better, the more obvious the better the score. The more it SHOCKS me, the better the score. And I'll agree with Gordon's rules: Visula impact first (if i had to sit there and think 3-4 minutes to figure out what the artist is saying, because it's a very well done metaphorical photograph, then it'll get a 10 for sure), technical second, meeting challenge last.
And since I have somewhat of a disturbing photograph submitted, though i'll probably converted to B&W before the deadline, it will probably end up with low scores. And no, it's not one of those sissy i-am-taking-a-nakkkkkkeeeedddd-photo-of-my-girlfriend-wife photos. Not that those don't make good photographs to hang around THEIR house, but for me, unless she looks like Heidi Klum, for the few seconds i sit there looking at it (as most people do with these entries), it'll do very little for me for lust and it's too obvious. And unless i see a bondage teddy bear or a teddybear with its throats cut and red ink flowing out of it, any photos with cute teddy bears that doesn't do much at all other than being cute, will get a 1-3 :)
Ku, you've dropped your 1 or 10 voting scheme then? Jakob
Well, now we know. I suggest that all forum entries asking why people give 1's, 2's, or 3's be forwarded to this response, as it probably sums up what most of the low voters do.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/12/2002 9:41:13 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/12/2002 9:42:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 02:44:54 PM · #30 |
50 naked women that looked like Heidi Klum is fine by me :)
50 naked women that looked like Rosie O'Donnell would be bit annoying....
50 naked guys in any shape would be offensive :)
I'd expect lots of 1,2,3 for my photo entry this week. I think several people might find it offensive and no naked women are on it :)
Originally posted by CLarson557:
I REALLY do hope that I don't have to look at 50 some odd shots of naked women this week. I don't like it when I work on a photo, and when voting starts, I find that someone else came up with almost the same photo. I want to see something unique. I really do believe that I would have a tendency to vote a nude low this week unless it's done so well that it makes it stand out apart from the others.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 02:50:06 PM · #31 |
This is my "revised scale", aka the Pagnini Subjective Scale
1 - I really hate your photo for any reason. It'd be more fun getting a root canal than looking at your photo.
2 - I really don't like your photo.
3 - I don't like your photo
4 - I don't like your photo, but i don't feel bad looking at it.
5 - same as 4
6 - same as 5
7 - I like your photo, but i'd rather be sleeping
8 - I like your photo, but the jerry springer show is more interesting
9 - I like your photo
10 - I like your photo a lot and if you're a hot chic, i want your number too :)
how's that? I am adapting my 1,10 scale to the 1-10 scale but still keeping the range equitable.
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I have modified it. 1-3 versus 8-10, still, if you get a 3 it's really a 1. I would vote a 1 and 10 if the administrators would allow it but they have this script that prevents people from blatantly voting other people 1's (i.e. to prevent cheating),so i think i'd have to spread my scores around a bit.
Originally posted by chakkobbo:
[i]Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Anybody that takes a perfectly technical photo of a Playboy magazine will receive a 1-2 from me. The more metaphorical the better, the more obvious the better the score. The more it SHOCKS me, the better the score. And I'll agree with Gordon's rules: Visula impact first (if i had to sit there and think 3-4 minutes to figure out what the artist is saying, because it's a very well done metaphorical photograph, then it'll get a 10 for sure), technical second, meeting challenge last.
And since I have somewhat of a disturbing photograph submitted, though i'll probably converted to B&W before the deadline, it will probably end up with low scores. And no, it's not one of those sissy i-am-taking-a-nakkkkkkeeeedddd-photo-of-my-girlfriend-wife photos. Not that those don't make good photographs to hang around THEIR house, but for me, unless she looks like Heidi Klum, for the few seconds i sit there looking at it (as most people do with these entries), it'll do very little for me for lust and it's too obvious. And unless i see a bondage teddy bear or a teddybear with its throats cut and red ink flowing out of it, any photos with cute teddy bears that doesn't do much at all other than being cute, will get a 1-3 :)
Ku, you've dropped your 1 or 10 voting scheme then? Jakob
Well, now we know. I suggest that all forum entries asking why people give 1's, 2's, or 3's be forwarded to this response, as it probably sums up what most of the low voters do.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/13/2002 2:48:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 02:53:22 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by paganini:
50 naked guys in any shape would be offensive :)
Gee... think naked men would be every so much more representative of the SIN of LUST than naked women... |
|
|
|
10/13/2002 03:01:47 PM · #33 |
I think it's about arousing the VIEWER for a Lust entry :) so naked men would do nothing for me.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]50 naked guys in any shape would be offensive :)
Gee... think naked men would be every so much more representative of the SIN of LUST than naked women...[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 06:38:24 PM · #34 |
| I've been working really hard at getting a clear idea of just what these sins are and how they work. So busy getting to know my subject that I probably won't have time to get a photo taken, besides, it might be comprimising...A fun challenge, but distracting. |
|
|
|
10/13/2002 08:29:30 PM · #35 |
I will look at the photgraph and look for a gut reaction....Does this stike me as ______ (the deadly sin). I am looking forward to seeing the submissions.
Originally posted by Konador:
I was thinking, and wondering what people were going to vote like for the 7 deadly sins.
Will you vote highly photos that are obviously one of the sins?
Will you vote highly photos that are metaphorically one of the sins?
Will you vote highly photos that represent one of the sins, but don't actually show it being commited?
Just curious...
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 08:31:51 PM · #36 |
| The interesting thing about this challenge is the gut reaction it should convey to both the photographer and the audience....I am voting with my gut! |
|
|
|
10/13/2002 08:47:04 PM · #37 |
Paganini...Your scoring method is fine with me, I am not complaining, nor am I shooting it down. I would be interested though, if you would consider signing your 8s, 9s, and 10s with your name. I think with your method, that your 8s 9s and 10s are going to be very impressive to you. They are going to be the ones that really speak to you, and I think that in that situation, the person or people recieving those scores would highly appreciate knowing that you though SO highly of their shots. I know I would be honored to get an 8, 9, or 10 from you just because I know how tough your scoring is. Could you consider that this week? Even if you only say "8 paganini".
I guess I'm in the same boat as you this week. Not the most pleasing shot in the world to look at, and I think that some people will really hate it.
Anyway, I guess I was just curious to see if you might consider this, as I think people would really truely understand how much you liked their shot to see that you gave them the high score.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 09:32:23 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by paganini:
This is my "revised scale", aka the Pagnini Subjective Scale
Since the voting itself is anonymous, whatever scale you (or any voter) uses is irrelevant unless you enter your vote and name into the comment field. |
|
|
|
10/13/2002 09:36:57 PM · #39 |
This is going to be a low turn out contest. I am sure that many people (including me) had trouble finding a suitable image.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 09:44:15 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Jak:
This is going to be a low turn out contest. I am sure that many people (including me) had trouble finding a suitable image.
Right...I think this is the first challenge I'm ging to skip -- although I suppose I could wait another hour or so, point the camera at myself, and entitle it "Sloth." |
|
|
|
10/13/2002 10:11:07 PM · #41 |
I was wondering how many people were going to be using the name of the sin in their title. I think that we should be able to figure it out without someone having to tell us what it is.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 10:17:55 PM · #42 |
Paganini - you've been talking this way about your voting scale since I posted mine in my results analysis earlier in the week. I hope you didn't think that my use of the phrase "I like this" or "I didn't like this" meant anything along the lines of an arbitrary judgement with no attempt to be objective. All my votes are a compromise between what I think are the artistic and technical achievements of a photo. I simply call that "liking" or "disliking" the photos because... well... I do like photos and dislike them based on those considerations.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 11:10:34 PM · #43 |
No, my original scale has nothing to do with yours. I wanted to do 1 or 10, but admins told me if I did that then my votes will automatically gets rejected because it can't tell between my voting system versus somsone who is trying to vote down on everyone else but his own photo (i.e. malicious voting). So i had to spread the votes a bit in order to get an acceptable distribution, at least that's what I am assuming.
Everyone votes subjectively. My point was that it's better to have a yes or no system than a numerical system where everyone votes differently -- someone like me would vote very low for anything they don' tlike, and yet others would only vote as low as 3-4 for things they don't like but not lower. Thus, the average vote that was calculated doesn't mean much. It has been argued before so i guess i'll stick with the 1-10 system using my own modified system :)
Originally posted by lisae:
Paganini - you've been talking this way about your voting scale since I posted mine in my results analysis earlier in the week. I hope you didn't think that my use of the phrase "I like this" or "I didn't like this" meant anything along the lines of an arbitrary judgement with no attempt to be objective. All my votes are a compromise between what I think are the artistic and technical achievements of a photo. I simply call that "liking" or "disliking" the photos because... well... I do like photos and dislike them based on those considerations.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 11:12:03 PM · #44 |
I always do leave a note when something impresses me, good or bad. :)
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Paganini...Your scoring method is fine with me, I am not complaining, nor am I shooting it down. I would be interested though, if you would consider signing your 8s, 9s, and 10s with your name. I think with your method, that your 8s 9s and 10s are going to be very impressive to you. They are going to be the ones that really speak to you, and I think that in that situation, the person or people recieving those scores would highly appreciate knowing that you though SO highly of their shots. I know I would be honored to get an 8, 9, or 10 from you just because I know how tough your scoring is. Could you consider that this week? Even if you only say "8 paganini".
I guess I'm in the same boat as you this week. Not the most pleasing shot in the world to look at, and I think that some people will really hate it.
Anyway, I guess I was just curious to see if you might consider this, as I think people would really truely understand how much you liked their shot to see that you gave them the high score.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 11:17:23 PM · #45 |
looks like only 140 entries so far has been submitted and one hour to go! God this has to be the lowest turn out i have seen since i have been on here.
Well, we'll see about the voting. My guess is the normal cute and cuddling photographers aren't submitting to this challenge. I had to take the artistic approach and create one myself in my kitchen :) (err, my "studio?") and is my first studio submission other than the violin which is also one of those spur of the moment things, both are taken with crappy on-camera flash. After I got this Bogen 3021 tripod, my next item to acquire isa good Canon flash but i need to make sure i want to stay with the Canon line of products first..... not sure yet.
Anyway, the cute and cuddling photographers will vote on the dark theme of SINS even though they haven't submitted anything. Assuming every image is pretty dark, are we expecting lower than normal average scores now?
|
|
|
|
10/13/2002 11:33:35 PM · #46 |
Ouch, paganini, no I won't be submitting this week. I guess then that gets me into the cute and cuddly photog group :(
I did try to get into a catholic church this week but, oddly, it was closed during the week. And I was too slothy to try again over the weekend.
Then I got the idea of doing a Mandae, i.e. a naked man voluptuously covered with whipped cream and topped off with almond shavings and a maraschino cherry with some raspberry sauce dribbling down his lovely loins. But, oddly too, all my male friends claimed to be very busy and about to go out of town and gave me a negative on my pleas for helping me on a little "photography project". I wonder why that was ...
(Actually I just made this up but it would have been fun to do a Mandae).
Since then I have been slothing towards non-submission. So, what does that make me? A cute and cuddly cliché-er or a slothy slut? (hoooh, try to say that 5 times real fast, a real tongue twister) |
|
|
|
10/14/2002 12:29:02 AM · #47 |
Sorry Journey, I don't think yoiuu're the cute and cuddling type, no offense, it's a compliment :)
Ah well. At least we have some disturbing images in this week's challenge.
Originally posted by Journey:
Ouch, paganini, no I won't be submitting this week. I guess then that gets me into the cute and cuddly photog group :(
I did try to get into a catholic church this week but, oddly, it was closed during the week. And I was too slothy to try again over the weekend.
Then I got the idea of doing a Mandae, i.e. a naked man voluptuously covered with whipped cream and topped off with almond shavings and a maraschino cherry with some raspberry sauce dribbling down his lovely loins. But, oddly too, all my male friends claimed to be very busy and about to go out of town and gave me a negative on my pleas for helping me on a little "photography project". I wonder why that was ...
(Actually I just made this up but it would have been fun to do a Mandae).
Since then I have been slothing towards non-submission. So, what does that make me? A cute and cuddly cliché-er or a slothy slut? (hoooh, try to say that 5 times real fast, a real tongue twister)
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 08:14:57 AM · #48 |
exactly, dude.
people are always knocking the cliches, yet very few people around here seem to display the SKILLZ necessary to produce cliche shots of high enough quality to make it into a stock catalog or a magazine.
Originally posted by hokie:
If the folks who disparage cliche shots could duplicate those shots at will with technical skill I would agree with them that the photograph is a dime a dozen.
BUT.......
Based on my time here I have yet to see consistent high quality technical shots of cliches. This just shows that there is a lot of artistic merit to be given even to photographs we may take for granted due to their regular exposure in the media.
Let me see 50 playboy/maxim style shots done with the same skill I see in those magazines then I might believe that type of photo is so easy the it deserves a low score.
I sometimes think folks hide their still newly forming technical skills by avoiding shots people can easily compare to pro style shots in media.
As always..I will vote on all aspects of a photo and technical merit carries a heck of a lot more weight than a 1 or a 2
|
|
