| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2004 01:45:03 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
IMO there should be a filter to get rid of 1`s and 2`s, I would only give this mark if I was offended by the picture!
Neil |
In one breath you say thyat there should be a filter to get rid of 1 and 2 votes in the next breath you say you would give that mark if you were offended by the shot...how do you know that the individual that gave this shot a 2 wasn't offended in some way...
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 02:10:22 AM · #102 |
OK...Going out to the soap box...(looking around to see if anyone noticed he didn't read the 2nd page of 50 posts in this thread...
I don't understand why there is so much emphasis put on technical perfection. If you take a perfectly exposed, beautifully focused photo of a (insert your least favorite subject here. It could be a bug/child/cat/dog/waterdrop shot/sunset/sunrise/gratuitous boob, well the boobs are all right. I'm gonna use a...) turd, it's still a photo of a turd. If I don't wanna see a turd, I'm gonna give it a low score! I shouldn't have to justify the fact that I don't wanna see a picture of a turd. Some people may really like to see pictures of turds and may decide to give the turd photos high scores. They shouldn't have to justify it either....
(Disclaimer: I do know a difference between Jackos bug and a turd... It's just an illustration!).
I can't believe I just typed the word turd eight times...
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 02:25:04 AM · #103 |
I'll say it again... Add the vote filter to remove "errant" votes. :)
Since we are talking about Jacko's shot (2 blues in one week, omg, you da man), you'll notice the normal voting curve on his shot starts at 4 (3 of them) and proceeds normally up to 10. The "2" vote he received is completely out of the norm and should have been REMOVED via a voting filter.
Whoever gave it a "2" is completely "out of line" according to the likes and dislikes of EVERYONE ELSE who voted on this entry (as seen in the voting bar graph).
Now the motive for the "2" is up for debate, but whatever the reason it should be automatically removed. Even though it doesn't have much effect, a filter to remove "garbage" votes like this encourages people to vote fairly (yes I believe these types of votes are conccious decisions to vote low, not "someone who just didn't like the picture").
Congrats Jacko on the great shot!!
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 04:59:05 AM · #104 |
Really cannot go with that argument Chris - there is an equally valid opinion that all of the 10's should likewise be removed, as that is equivalent to stating that the photo could not be improved upon ... and yet we have shots on the site that have scored higher, so by implication (and it is implied in your post very strongly), they are better photos. Which, logically, means that Jacko's shot could have been improved upon, so those votes are 'wrong'.
You argument is actually recursive - you are using your conclusions as a basis for your premises, which is fallacious. You're probably not the only one, I just haven't read the rest of the thread.
The fact is, we are not bound over to vote on technical merit alone. There could be a sound argument that Jacko's shot is pretty boring (an argument to which I would subscribe, as it happens), and relies completely and utterly on sheer magnification and sharpness for it's impact. Also that it is just another damn close-up of a bug's head.
It is not impossible that someone with a different take from yourself and the majority on this site on the purpose of photography hold the opinion that that shot is only worth a vote of 2 in all seriousness: who are you, or am I, or is anyone to denigrate that view out of hand?
E
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 05:14:17 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...That would imply that personal taste is the only real consideration and the other elements are trivial. |
There is nothing whatsoever in the rules or voter guidelines that suggests that that is not a valid and reasonable way to vote. |
Sure there is- "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly." The challenge topic, not personal taste, is the highest consideration. This is a direct contradiction of your assertion, and it's emphasized in bold on the voting page. |
Not at all. it certainly does not contradict my assertion. You should have included this little slice prior to that:
Users should rate each and every photograph in the challenge on a scale of 1 to 10 (with "1" being a "bad" photo and a "10" being a "good" photo)
There is also an assertion that you should (note should - not can, not are asked to) use a scale of 1 to 10. ) 'Bad' and 'good' isn't defined. It is deliberately left to the view of the voter - and that is a good thing in my opinion, and obviously not in those who organise these witch hunts.
The scale is 1 to 10. Meeting the challenge is part of the process and should certainly be considered. Don't vote pictures of flying pigs high in the botany challenge. Then if it meets the challenge, and you still think its bad - give it a 1 - for whatever you personally think 'bad' means.
it does not say, for example, that if you think it meets the challenge, thou shalt not vote lower than a 5. It is left to your discretion to still vote 1 bad, 10 good, without boosting totally of topic images.
Or put it another way - if you think the section you quoted is the most important part of voting - I assume you ordered all of the entries from the highest magnification to lowest and scored them that way ? After all, that takes the challenge as the highest consideration and anything else would be trolling - considering lighting, image quality, originality - all trolls, following your logic. |
I wanted to post but Gordon keeps summing up EXACTLY what I think so I'm just going to "DITTO" him.
Kavey-the-lazy-but-wanting-to-weigh-in
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 05:37:48 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet you still imply that what I'm doing is trolling. |
Again, you misunderstand me. First, I never said that you were a troller, yet you are identifying with it. |
Actually you said:
"consider how counter productive it is to troll"
whilst debating with Gordon about his method of voting. That certainly implies that you DO think the way he votes is trolling.
I think any voter who is consistent about how they vote is neither a troll nor should be encouraged to vote differently. One can give weight to the challenge theme PLUS technical achievment OR one can give weight to the challenge theme plus emotional impact. Both are important and only by encouraging both does any photographer really get a rounded opinion on their image.
I might not enter often but when I do I want to know how my image works NOT just in terms of meeting the challenge (though that is an element of it) but in BOTH technical terms AND in emotional impact. Does it communicate? Does it MOVE the viewer? Does it give them pleasure to look at it? I don't want to know only that my lighting was fine, exposure was fine, blah blah blah.
So much for just dittoing but so far Gordon hasn't written anything that hasn't had me sitting here nodding in agreement.
(Don't let that go to your head though, Gordon;-)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 08:05:41 AM · #107 |
My way of voting is based on how I view the challenges. For me a challenge should do what the name implies: it should challenge you. For me the challenge is to be creative and come up with a different and hopefully unique view on the challenge description. (Of course that rarely happens, but I digress ;-) )
When I vote, the photographers that thought outside the box will get the higher ratings. I didn't vote on the macro shots, but the winner wouldn't have gotten high marks from me, because it isn't very creative or original, even though it's technically advanced. I thought the popping cork was more creative. A more creative use of macro that I would have liked, would be shot where I think I'm seeing one thing when it's actually a macro shot of another thing.
I never find it difficult to shoot something for a challenge. I find it brainwrecking to think of and then shoot something which gives a suprising take on the challenge subject. That's why I don't enter a lot of challenges yet. I hope to get better at the creative thing and I will continue to rate images by that criterium. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:17:14 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by G4Ds:
How else could an image get a 1? |
By not meeting the challenge AND being a bad photo, just as the winners are good photos that do meet the challenge. It boggles my mind that this concept should cause any confusion at all. It's the only semi-objective aspect of voting we have. A photo that doesn't meet the challenge in any way shouldn't get a 10, and a photo that clearly does meet the challenge shouldn't get a 1, regardless of whether or not you happen to like it. At the very least...
bad photo, doesn't meet challenge = <5
good photo, meets the challenge = >5
Everything else falls in between, and that is the part where your own opinions and tastes come into play. There is no reason why you can't use the whole 1-10 scale, but WHY you vote the way you do should be based on something other than personal taste alone. If everyone voted purely on whether or not they liked the photos (which Gordon is defending as valid), then the challenges would become meaningless and the scoring arbitrary, with little hope of learning from your results. Can you imagine the results of a "brown" challenge if the majority of voters voted this way and decided they just didn't care for brown pictures? Maybe the winner would be a daffodill against a blue sky, with excellent brown compositions placing near the bottom. Scary stuff.
If this were truly a popularity contest, then there wouldn't be any voting guidelines. We'd just pick the shots we like the best and the challenge aspect would disappear. |
It is great if you choose to vote this way. I personally follow the same kind of voting pattern. But to say that "Joe" can't give a 1 just because it met the challenge is not fair. Let people vote how they want to. If they simply don't like the image, then they have a right to vote however they want. That is all I am trying to say.
I guess I just came to the conclusion awhile ago on this site that you cannot change someone else's voting pattern just because you don't agree with it. After all it is not like we are doing this for money or anything like that. It is supposed to be fun. I still have fun even if I get 1's and 2's. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:19:28 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
I'll say it again... Add the vote filter to remove "errant" votes. :)
Since we are talking about Jacko's shot (2 blues in one week, omg, you da man), you'll notice the normal voting curve on his shot starts at 4 (3 of them) and proceeds normally up to 10. The "2" vote he received is completely out of the norm and should have been REMOVED via a voting filter.
Whoever gave it a "2" is completely "out of line" according to the likes and dislikes of EVERYONE ELSE who voted on this entry (as seen in the voting bar graph).
Now the motive for the "2" is up for debate, but whatever the reason it should be automatically removed. Even though it doesn't have much effect, a filter to remove "garbage" votes like this encourages people to vote fairly (yes I believe these types of votes are conccious decisions to vote low, not "someone who just didn't like the picture").
Congrats Jacko on the great shot!! |
If we added a filter, what would be the point of having a 1-10 scale? It might as well be a 4-10 scale, or to be fair a 4-6 scale. Then the scores would be even closer and we would be mad at the people that gave us 4's. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:20:43 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think Daniel is just stating the obvious. How can anyone really justify a 1 or 2 on a technically sound image that very obviously meets the challenge just by saying it's not to their taste? That would imply that personal taste is the only real consideration and the other elements are trivial. |
I have given lots of 1's. In fact I enjoy giving 1's sometimes if I think the picture is really bad. However I am not a troll.
Who is to say if a photo is technically correct? What defines technically correct? Something you have read in a book no doubt. People whom vote on 'technical correctness' tend to misunderstand most of the creative process like DOF or letting the highlights get burnt out and thus vote it down just because they think it's not 'technically correct'.
If you want explanations for people who give 1's then here are some from the macro challenge.
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:31:46 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one. |
While in general, I don't disagree with this, how would you view
An American House by John Spencer ?
I've been seeing this image every day for a few weeks now. At first I didn't think much of it at all. It is growing on me. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:36:20 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one. |
While in general, I don't disagree with this, how would you view
An American House by John Spencer ?
I've been seeing this image every day for a few weeks now. At first I didn't think much of it at all. It is growing on me. |
I find that lately I have stated to like blurry images. Most of the ones I like are blurred because of motion. But this image you have here by John Spencer is probably one of the first ones I like that is blurry for some other reason. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:37:44 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one. |
We're talking about ribbon winners here. Show me a blue ribbon photo that is so out of focus that you would give it a 1. The ribbon winning images are invariably technically acceptable by any sane person's definition, and they tend to meet the challenge in an unmistakable way. While I don't dispute anyone's right to vote whatever number they want, can you really justify a 1 if YOU AGREE that the image meets the challenge AND it's technically OK? We're supposed to give the highest consideration to meeting the challenge, so my only argument here is that personal taste ALONE cannot justify a 1. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:43:18 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one. |
While in general, I don't disagree with this, how would you view
An American House by John Spencer ?
I've been seeing this image every day for a few weeks now. At first I didn't think much of it at all. It is growing on me. |
I did mean in cases where it's apparent that it's been poorly focuses for no other reason then carelessness / blindness.
For images that I feel were blurred on purpose that is a completely different matter, although on the whole these are quite rare when it comes to the whole image being OOF.
You picture link: If it were in a challenge I think I would interpret as being blurred by design. If it was just the house on it's own I wouldn't really like it, and would probably think it's just a bad photograph perhaps (not sure).
However I appreciate the skill / visualization / creativity that has gone into creating the textured backdrop & frame. Nice old stained effect with plenty of weathering. Down the right hand side is that burnt & melted film effect which always attracts me.
The house, whilst being a decent bold iconic image, I feel is secondary to the rest of the piece. I am guessing that the photographer / artist didn't mean it that way and that's just my personal take on it.
All in all, I would view this and see areas of expertise and creativity and thus presume the person meant to have the image out of focus.
Conversely, seeing a photo out of focus, that even if it was in focus would be pretty dire tends to make me think they didn't mean it to be that out of focus.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 09:44:08 AM · #115 |
BTW, the more I look at it, the more it comes accross as kind of creepy and dark.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:05:14 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one. |
We're talking about ribbon winners here. Show me a blue ribbon photo that is so out of focus that you would give it a 1. The ribbon winning images are invariably technically acceptable by any sane person's definition, and they tend to meet the challenge in an unmistakable way. While I don't dispute anyone's right to vote whatever number they want, can you really justify a 1 if YOU AGREE that the image meets the challenge AND it's technically OK? We're supposed to give the highest consideration to meeting the challenge, so my only argument here is that personal taste ALONE cannot justify a 1. |
We are talking about ribbon winners the topic I started was "how can someone give....) Were not saying people can't give a 1 or 2...but why give a 1 or 2 for a great photo and the only response I have seen is (people may not like it...people can vote as they want to)I agree people can vote as they want to,But i still have not seen a reasonable answer to why that photo got a 2..lol.The reason no one can give a reasonable answer is because there is not one.It shouldn't have recieved a 2.I really think to fix this problem...and it is a problem because it has been brought up so many times (is to not show how people voted.that way you don't see a 1 or 2 on a Great Photo and say...who in the world thinks that photo stinks...lol.
TooCool
turd, it's still a photo of a turd. If I don't wanna see a turd, I'm gonna give it a low score!
were not talking turd..lol were talking a professional on topic photo.
I just wanted to know why someone would give a 2 on that photo.If it's because they didn't like it..then fine...I can't justify that reason.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:17:25 AM · #117 |
I think it's impossible to answer the question ... only the person that gave it a 2 can. But here are some possibilities.
1. Thought he/she can place higher if he/she gives other people low scores. But when he/she got to Jackos great shot he/she couldn't bear to give it a one .. since it is technically excellent.
2. Maybe they got attacked by a swarm of killer dragonflies and are forever terrified of them. This was their chance for revenge.
We'll never know.
Cheers,
Mike
As a aside .. yes I think the voting is bad sometimes .. but people will vote however they want. I wish this wasn't the case ... it's frustrating and discouraging ... but even after getting 10 1's and 23 2's on a picture of a remote in everyday objects .. I pick myself up .. brush off the dirt and try to take a better picture (it certainly would help to get some direction with comments)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:25:16 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
BTW, the more I look at it, the more it comes accross as kind of creepy and dark. |
Yup, I get a Stephen King vibe from it over time. Starts feeling like the dark house hiding just under the surface of every suburban home or something. Play school gone bad.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:27:27 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by MatrixReloaded:
But i still have not seen a reasonable answer to why that photo got a 2..lol. |
Because it is an almost direct copy of the image that won Macro II ?
why is a complete lack of anything original not a valid reason for a low score ? I didn't actually vote on this image and as I've said before I'm technically impressed by it. But there are plenty of valid reasons to give it a low score. Seeing the point of view of others might actually improve your photography..lol
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:29:53 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Sometimes I will give a 1 just for a picture being so out of focus. A little softness is OK but in every challenge there are a few images that look like they have been focused by Stevie Wonder and to me there is no excuse for not having a fairly crisp image and that equates a big fat one. |
We're talking about ribbon winners here. Show me a blue ribbon photo that is so out of focus that you would give it a 1. The ribbon winning images are invariably technically acceptable by any sane person's definition, and they tend to meet the challenge in an unmistakable way. While I don't dispute anyone's right to vote whatever number they want, can you really justify a 1 if YOU AGREE that the image meets the challenge AND it's technically OK? We're supposed to give the highest consideration to meeting the challenge, so my only argument here is that personal taste ALONE cannot justify a 1. |
Ok, this picture springs to mind.
Now I really can't say what I would have scored it on that day, but this would be low like a 2 or 3. Not because it's soft in areas, that I understand as part of the image and effect (probably the part I like most)
To me I really do not like it at all. For a start I dislike selective desaturation very much. It's the first thing people do as soon as they get into photoshop and think they are cool. When I first started in graphic design i too thought it was cool, and I was even cooler for using it.
10 years later and I hate it.
Apart from that I don't like the angle. I love angled photographs, but not for this image. I don't like the way one person is in full frame and the other two are out of frame.
Having looked at it more since i started typing, I actually don't like the motion blur much. It's much more effective when it's used on the dress alone, and the face / upper body remains pretty sharp.
The way it's faded out in the edges really doesn't bode well with me, kind of like something you would see on a cheap tacky plate that your order from News of The World (trashy UK paper for those that don't know.
I also am not keen on the fact that they are all facing away from the camera and you can't see the expressions on their faces.
I may be exaggerating my point here a little, but this is basically a photo (more like digital art) that I simply do not like aesthetically.
Being more like a drawing to me than a photo, it makes it even easier to dislike purely becasue I am easier to please with photographs than I am with digital art (or just art for that matter)
I can appreciate the skill and time that has gone into it, and I know for a fact Julia Bailey knows how to use a camera. She has produced many outstanding images in her time here so it's not a question of skill or technique. Just that on this occasion she made something that simply does not get me going.
I could say the same about 60% of my own images.
*I hope if your reading this Julia that you take no offense*
Now I shut up before I become very unpopular :D
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:37:48 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now I shut up before I become very unpopular :D |
...become...? ;)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:55:27 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now I shut up before I become very unpopular :D |
...become...? ;) |
...become...? even more so ;)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:07:12 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now I really can't say what I would have scored it on that day, but this would be low like a 2 or 3. |
In other words, you are completely ignoring the directive to give highest consideration to the challenge theme. The challenge was Threes. I don't think there's any way to dispute this photo meeting the challenge, but in your little world a photo like this with three obvious subjects could get a very low score because you don't like it. By that logic, an excellent photo with two subjects could score very high in the Threes challenge just because you do like it. Why bother having a challenge at all? [shaking head in disbelief] |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:10:47 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now I really can't say what I would have scored it on that day, but this would be low like a 2 or 3. |
In other words, you are completely ignoring the directive to give highest consideration to the challenge theme. The challenge was Threes. I don't think there's any way to dispute this photo meeting the challenge, but in your little world a photo like this with three obvious subjects could get a very low score because you don't like it. By that logic, an excellent photo with two subjects could score very high in the Threes challenge just because you do like it. Why bother having a challenge at all? [shaking head in disbelief] |
He never said the 2 or 3 would be because he didn't think the shot met the challenge. He didn't at all imply that an excellent photo with 2 subjects could score highly. I don't even see where you got that from.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:11:22 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now I really can't say what I would have scored it on that day, but this would be low like a 2 or 3. |
In other words, you are completely ignoring the directive to give highest consideration to the challenge theme. The challenge was Threes. I don't think there's any way to dispute this photo meeting the challenge, but in your little world a photo like this with three obvious subjects could get a very low score because you don't like it. By that logic, an excellent photo with two subjects could score very high in the Threes challenge just because you do like it. Why bother having a challenge at all? [shaking head in disbelief] |
See this is why people do not like givign negative comments, and why I stopped. People seem to get very angry if someone doesn't agree with you...
Anyway. Show me a link to the rules where it says I should give it x ammount of points if it meats the challenge and I will appologise and change the way I vote.
I am not being sarcastic, I don't belive I have read the rules / voting criteria stuff for some time.
|
|
