| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2011 05:50:06 AM · #26 |
| Thanks for the HM and and a big thanks to the judges for the time it took to put this together. There were many interesting and unique photos. I really enjoy special challenges like this that cause us to spend additional time looking at and thinking about the works entered. |
|
|
|
04/21/2011 10:51:41 AM · #27 |
Woo-HOO!!! :-) Been out of town and just catching up. Thanks for the HM!
  |
|
|
|
04/21/2011 06:26:34 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Just so you know, Dan, your interpretation matches mine, I even made the same book connection. What I particularly liked was that the very act of measuring her also blinds her. The only thing I didn't get was why it was cropped so close. |
The idea of blinding her was important to me. I searched for a wider than usual measuring tape to strengthen that idea.
The close cropping was part of my conception of the series. I want the emphasis to be on the measuring, not on the woman. Measurements reduce a woman to numbers, and I wanted to suggest that measuring hides the real woman. I originally intended to show just from below her nose to above her eyebrows, but that seemed too severe to me.
Here are two others from the series. I am not satisfied with the shot with the micrometer and I may shoot it with closer cropping and without her hand holding the micrometer. I want to avoid the idea that she is measuring herself.
 
~~Dan
P.S. I'm visiting my sister in California now so I can't participate in this discussion as much as I'd like.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2011 08:18:28 PM · #29 |
I was a member of the "jury" in a former juried challenged.
In case you all don't know, it is really really hard to jury photos. My thanks to the jury for their diligent thoughtful examination of all the photos in the challenge. It is a thankless labor of love and the jury deserves our thanks. It is even harder to develop a consensus for the winners requiring a lot of discussion, argument, persuasion and an open mind. My thanks also for their perseverance and willingness to enter into the seemingly never ending debate that results in a single point of view regarding the ranking of the top photos.
I might agree with their selection. You might agree with their selection. Or maybe we wouldn't agree. But their challenge is to look beyond DPC popularity quotients and find photos that meet a higher standard. I respect their effort and aesthetic.
Thanks you-all members of the jury! |
|
|
|
04/21/2011 11:14:38 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I might agree with their selection. You might agree with their selection. Or maybe we wouldn't agree. But their challenge is to look beyond DPC popularity quotients and find photos that meet a higher standard. I respect their effort and aesthetic. |
No dispute at all with the majority of your post and I too find the work performed by the jurors truly laudable. I will however reserve the right to disagree with your assessment that the standards were higher.
Different, I would agree with, but higher is a matter for discussion. When we make reference to the term "standard" one would assume that what is being discussed relates to the norm accepted by society, and examples such as this one truly do not fit this parameter.
Just another point of view.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-04-21 23:17:38. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 01:33:26 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I might agree with their selection. You might agree with their selection. Or maybe we wouldn't agree. But their challenge is to look beyond DPC popularity quotients and find photos that meet a higher standard. I respect their effort and aesthetic. |
No dispute at all with the majority of your post and I too find the work performed by the jurors truly laudable. I will however reserve the right to disagree with your assessment that the standards were higher.
Different, I would agree with, but higher is a matter for discussion. When we make reference to the term "standard" one would assume that what is being discussed relates to the norm accepted by society, and examples such as this one truly do not fit this parameter.
Just another point of view.
Ray |
I'm probably going to ruffle some feathers here, but I have to admit the jury results were a bit of a let down for me. I thought they were too predictable (i.e. likely posthumous ribbon winners appended to the top ten finishers). It seemed that appeasement won the day over just getting it right. Maybe that was to be expected, but I was kind of hoping that a higher standard would be used across the board. Had it been it surely would have resulted in fewer selections limited to just the daring, innovative, emotive and truly thought provoking. If that meant just choosing one or two then so be it. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 09:20:20 AM · #32 |
| This is what makes this site so great, people go out of their way to do things like this and help each other out, it's a real pleasure to be part of this website. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 10:16:11 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm probably going to ruffle some feathers here, but I have to admit the jury results were a bit of a let down for me. I thought they were too predictable ... |
Maybe that's true, considering who the jury were. The alternative jury selections were similar, though. Also, I guess I don't understand this:
Originally posted by yanko:
I was kind of hoping that a higher standard would be used across the board. Had it been it surely would have resulted in fewer selections limited to just the daring, innovative, emotive and truly thought provoking... |
A higher standard would have resulted in nominations for the safe, cliched, deadpan, and "meh" images? |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 12:19:23 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm probably going to ruffle some feathers here, but I have to admit the jury results were a bit of a let down for me. I thought they were too predictable (i.e. likely posthumous ribbon winners appended to the top ten finishers). It seemed that appeasement won the day over just getting it right. Maybe that was to be expected, but I was kind of hoping that a higher standard would be used across the board. Had it been it surely would have resulted in fewer selections limited to just the daring, innovative, emotive and truly thought provoking. If that meant just choosing one or two then so be it. |
a jury's results are only going to be as good as the jury. We didn't appease anyone other than ourselves.
I am interested, though, in suggestions for a system that avoids even internal appeasement. One system that occurs to me is that every judge picks one single favorite image. The first place image is the one with the most picks, second place second most picks and so on... but every single judge pick gets an award... and that's it. So there will never be more ribbons than jury members.
But I like the large number of awards with discussion included. I think it's edutaining. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 12:20:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Louis:
A higher standard would have resulted in nominations for the safe, cliched, deadpan, and "meh" images? |
The irony of living in the age of digital dissemination is how rapidly one cliché can spawn a reaction that in turn rapidly becomes cliché. The over sharpened eye popping super saturated glitz attack spawns the vague blurry monotoned response.
It is as easy to pick out the probable Postumous winners from a field of submissions as it is to pick out the probable ribbon winners, such is the nature of a preferred aesthetic. Picking out images with real heart and a strong viewpoint can be a bit harder, and more personal.
There were images in the final picks of both juries that I was disappointed to see among the elect, but the choices did span a variety of styles, and for that I am thankful. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 03:16:52 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am interested, though, in suggestions for a system that avoids even internal appeasement. One system that occurs to me is that every judge picks one single favorite image. The first place image is the one with the most picks, second place second most picks and so on... but every single judge pick gets an award... and that's it. So there will never be more ribbons than jury members. |
You could have each judge rank their top three; 3 points for first, 2 for second, 1 for third. First place is the picture with the most points ... you could also do this with each judge picking two pictures, or five, or whatever seems practical and comfortable to the group.
Or you can have some number of nominations/per judge and use the DPC ten-point scoring system and compile the scores manually. Actually, I've previously proposed a way for each user to define a jury of their choice, whose results would be derived from the actual votes cast, but it never got to the coding stage ... |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 03:32:03 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I am interested, though, in suggestions for a system that avoids even internal appeasement. One system that occurs to me is that every judge picks one single favorite image. The first place image is the one with the most picks, second place second most picks and so on... but every single judge pick gets an award... and that's it. So there will never be more ribbons than jury members. |
You could have each judge rank their top three; 3 points for first, 2 for second, 1 for third. First place is the picture with the most points ... you could also do this with each judge picking two pictures, or five, or whatever seems practical and comfortable to the group.
Or you can have some number of nominations/per judge and use the DPC ten-point scoring system and compile the scores manually. Actually, I've previously proposed a way for each user to define a jury of their choice, whose results would be derived from the actual votes cast, but it never got to the coding stage ... |
systems like those actually promote "appeasement" since it's the highest average that prevails, photos that offend nobody. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 03:45:50 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It is as easy to pick out the probable Postumous winners from a field of submissions as it is to pick out the probable ribbon winners, such is the nature of a preferred aesthetic. Picking out images with real heart and a strong viewpoint can be a bit harder, and more personal. |
Do you see the Catch-22 here? If winners aren't predictable then they will be called arbitrary.
Neither DPC nor Posthumous ribbons are as easy to predict as you think. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 04:02:33 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
systems like those actually promote "appeasement" since it's the highest average that prevails, photos that offend nobody. |
Good point -- perhaps you could give the ribbons to those nominated but with the lowest score ....
ETA: Along the line of your original suggestion, you could have each juror nominate one photo, but don't try to rank them -- just give everyone the same "Jury Selection" badge.
PS: I'm curious as to how this group would score a challenge with the topic of "Eye Candy" ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2011-04-22 16:07:11. |
|
|
|
04/22/2011 04:36:25 PM · #40 |
.
Message edited by author 2011-04-23 15:12:44. |
|
