| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2004 04:20:12 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by computerking:
I'm judging the "Neon" challenge. I'm finding myself voting many more 3's and 4's than I thought I would. i thinkI even voted one 1, though I might change it. In another post I used a vote framework made by colda to sum up my process when I vote. Here it is (Kudos to colda for the framework):
A. Does the pic meet the challenge description? (determines my starting point)
3 - not at all
5 - in a way, yes
B. Is it a technically good image?
-2 - no, bad quality
-1 - some issues with the image
0 - No issues, standard quality pic
+1 - good quality pic
+2 - technically perfect (IMO)
C. Creativity/originality (Note: after the first dozen at level 1, a pic topic moves down a notch periodically, depending on how many I'm forced to look at. Level 2 doesn't change, because those tend to be REALLY original)
-1 - Oh, God, Not another bug/flower/staircase/etc
0 - nothing new
1 - interesting interpretation
2 - very creative and original
D. Wow factor
0 - regular pic
+1 - Ohhhh, that's good
+2 - Oh wow, I love it!
E. Personal Touch (ie Does it speak to ME?)
-1 - Eww, something about it irks me
0 - Eh.
+1 - Cool. I feel your pain.
OK. For most of those low-scoring pics, This is what happens (I'll include a range for some criteria):
A. Does the pic meet the challenge description? (determines my starting point)
5 - in a way, yes
B. Is it a technically good image?
-2 - no, bad quality
-1 - some issues with the image
0 - No issues, standard quality pic
C. Creativity/originality (Note: after the first dozen at level 1, a pic topic moves down a notch periodically, depending on how many I'm forced to look at. Level 2 doesn't change, because those tend to be REALLY original)
-1 - Oh, God, Not another bug/flower/staircase/etc
0 - nothing new
D. Wow factor
0 - regular pic
E. Personal Touch (ie Does it speak to ME?)
0 - Eh.
See my problem? If I run into a pic that's just some plain old neon sign, that's out of focus and grainy, and has no appeal to me visually or emotionally, I'm voting betwen 5 and 2. Although a few neon sign pics have gotten higher, many of them fall in this range. Am I being too harsh? Is anyone else having this situation? |
A lot of your weight goes on B. Is it a technically good image? Can you describe a technicaly good image to me?
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 04:32:01 AM · #27 |
I can see why he would place so much emphasis on the technical aspect of images. I do the same, pretty much, so I can only speak for myself. But for me, a technically good image is:
Crisp and in focus
Without grain
Properly exposed
Effective color (if applicable) and contrast
These factors make all the difference in a poor and wow photo.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:39:35 AM · #28 |
What if the photo is meant to have grain? I would never take marks off for an image having grain without first thinking about why the artist may have used grain.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:43:18 AM · #29 |
Exactly Ben - or a high key image with nice high blowouts or a low key shot - or a shot with a very tiny if not at all DOF?
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:28:31 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by ScantyNebula:
But for me, a technically good image is:
Crisp and in focus
Without grain
Properly exposed
Effective color (if applicable) and contrast
These factors make all the difference in a poor and wow photo. |
How about this one?
 |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 08:46:43 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by ScantyNebula:
I can see why he would place so much emphasis on the technical aspect of images. I do the same, pretty much, so I can only speak for myself. But for me, a technically good image is:
Crisp and in focus
Without grain
Properly exposed
Effective color (if applicable) and contrast
These factors make all the difference in a poor and wow photo. |
what if the grain is intentional, are you gonna automaticly shoot the photo down? Have you never pushed tmax 3200?
Grain can be beautiful.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:00:28 AM · #32 |
I had a larger than normal number of images < 5 when all was said and done so I'd concur with what everyone has been saying.
It's interesting to observe a challenge themed in a way that leads to literal (and unimaginative) interpretation. In my eyes, these themes create an opportunity for a highly creative, but maybe not as technically proficient photographer to come out of the woodwork with something that breaks the monotony. At the very least it makes a few shots stand out more than they would in a more vague themed challenge.
Kudos to everyone who opted to take a picture without including a neon sign!
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:15:14 AM · #33 |
Too harsh - that depends. You can be blurry and grainy and it fits the idea/motif/style or image of the picture then why mark it down. It depends on what works for the picture.
Also with NEON an original photo can be crystal clear, but after adjusting levels (shadow,midtones,highlight, contrast and saturation) the effect 'appears' out of focus and grainy, but is not. I got some amazing clean crisp (boring) photos that after some basic editing looked amazing.In camera b&w and sepia setting gave some nifty results also. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:21:18 AM · #34 |
| Yes, you are being harsh in the fact that you are punishing people for having the same idea as someone else, just because someones image randomly appears after another of the same vein, then that is no reason to lower the mark. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:33:13 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by dartompkins:
I thought it was just me. If I see one more beer sign I think I will gag. The challenge was neon, not neon sign. I voted mostly 5 and under. I found very few outstanding photos and almost all of those were not neon signs. |
Well I think a lot of us would have liked to be more artsy with our neon, but I find, and as it's been mentioned on other threads, many vote for what is generally appealing rather than something arty. I was torn - I had quite a few that fit the bill and agonized over whether to send the sign as is, the sign showing it is indeed a sign, or one of my more creative efforts. I opted for the 2nd, with a bit of creativeness thrown in.
I don't have a problem with judging the signs - it's what they DID with the signs and the originality of the sign taken, that affects my scoring of the neon signs. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:36:07 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Konador:
What if the photo is meant to have grain? I would never take marks off for an image having grain without first thinking about why the artist may have used grain. |
Yes, I quite agree.
And one can be technically brillant and be as emotionally flat and boring as watching paint dry. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:40:14 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by ScantyNebula:
I can see why he would place so much emphasis on the technical aspect of images. I do the same, pretty much, so I can only speak for myself. But for me, a technically good image is:
Crisp and in focus
Without grain
Properly exposed
Effective color (if applicable) and contrast
These factors make all the difference in a poor and wow photo. |
Some of the most famous, stirring arresting photos every taken have none of the above qualities. Technical rules are guidelines. You learn and use them, then you start thinking outside the box. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:59:48 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by lyta:
Well I think a lot of us would have liked to be more artsy with our neon, but I find, and as it's been mentioned on other threads, many vote for what is generally appealing rather than something arty. I was torn - I had quite a few that fit the bill and agonized over whether to send the sign as is, the sign showing it is indeed a sign, or one of my more creative efforts. I opted for the 2nd, with a bit of creativeness thrown in.
I don't have a problem with judging the signs - it's what they DID with the signs and the originality of the sign taken, that affects my scoring of the neon signs. |
I agree. I originally was going to submit an "artsy" neon photo but changed my mind last minute based on what the voters seem to like. I too used a neon sign but I included part of the building as well. There was nothing in the challenge description that said it could not be a sign. It just said specifically not an Open sign. Also it was not easy taking a decent picture of a neon sign. I am giving credit to those who managed to get a great shot (IMO) |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 10:37:08 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
A lot of your weight goes on B. Is it a technically good image? Can you describe a technicaly good image to me? |
Originally posted by ScantyNebula:
I can see why he would place so much emphasis on the technical aspect of images. I do the same, pretty much, so I can only speak for myself. But for me, a technically good image is:
Crisp and in focus
Without grain
Properly exposed
Effective color (if applicable) and contrast
These factors make all the difference in a poor and wow photo.
|
Originally posted by Konador:
What if the photo is meant to have grain? I would never take marks off for an image having grain without first thinking about why the artist may have used grain. |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Yes, you are being harsh in the fact that you are punishing people for having the same idea as someone else, just because someones image randomly appears after another of the same vein, then that is no reason to lower the mark. |
Boy, a lot happens while you sleep... Let me begin from the Beginning, as they say...
Technically good to me means that I can tell when the shallow DOF/deep DOF/grain/soft focus/blur is intentional (Or at least when it helps the shot, even if it doesn't LOOK intentional), whether the rule of 3's works out (Not necessarily with the focus being dead center, btw), whether the shot is well-composed and its elements are positioned well (If that was something the photographer could control), and whether an obviously set-up shot looks artificial (I've seen some shots that looked great, even though they had to have been staged).
Now, I can only determine some of that with my untrained eye, so sometimes I may err on one side or the other (I AM human, you know:).
Now, UNCLEBRO, I'd like to refer to my chart, and point out that I don't "punish people for having the same idea as someone else", I deduct a point or two when the idea, through the submission of a dozen, or two dozen, (or a gross) pictures in the same vein are posted, rendering that idea no longer original. If your example has to do with the picture I THINK it does, I made a comment about the surprising nature of me seeing two pictures with exactly the same name back-to-back. Just to note, I did not mark down either of those pictures because of it, I just mentioned the coincidence.
I don't vote to punish people. I adapted colda's formula to help me make decisions on what to vote, in the absence of a more structured voting process than "1=bad, 10=good". Colda's formula incorporated Technical prowess, instant eye appeal, and originality, and I even added a scale to benefit pictures that strike an Emotional chord, as well.
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 10:38:42. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 10:53:58 AM · #40 |
All of these systems are very nice guidelines. For example, when i first go through the images, I do it in one sweep and place them in place holders. I use 4,5 and 6. Then I return several times to make the proper allocations and leave comments.
However, eventually you instinctively begin to know the value of the picture before as it relates to all the information. I never allow my emotions to spear the effort. Yes emotional appeal is very important but subjected to either the narrowness or wide breath of our personal experience. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 11:01:07 AM · #41 |
| I just wanted to throw in(without editing my post again) that I know the scale goes from -1 to 12. No, I don't think 1-10 is too limiting and that they should convert to my scale, it just wound up that way. But I think there are more ways to gain points than to lose them using the system, and that starting at 3 for pictures that I can't determine meet the challenge is more than fair. In Neon, for example, I only found one image that I couldn't justify as meeting it, btw. I'm pretty easy in that regard. And I still mentioned in comments that I couldn't justify it, and I'm perfectly willing to eat my hat if/when the connection's explained once the voting's over. And, all in all, it only deducts 2 points from my vote. I think that's pretty fair. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 11:06:15 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Rooster:
[quote=melismatica] |
I'm aware I can be blunt with my criticism by not always remembering to temper them with something positive. However, if you could read the comment computerking left on my Neon entry, you would know why I feel aggravated at his rather long-winded explanation of his voting process. I can't offer the comment without revealing my entry, but believe me, it is a totally pointless and sarcastic remark in the form of a question that doesn't comment on the image in any way that could possibly be considered useful. I'm sorry if I have rubbed you the wrong way in the past but it is never from the intention of being sarcastic or hurtful. Not everyone has a smooth, friendly style but even an abrasive critic that is offering real commentary and not just smart-ass remarks can be considered useful. |
I'll try this without being too brutal or brutal at all. Someone wrote that when commenting on a shot, nitpicking on a subjects minor imperfections does not really critique. I agree with this. On my ad challenge shot, you commented on the pimples on my model. Well, besdie the model being m y brother, it said very little about the shot & it's technical aspects. Whatever, I took your comment in stride & hoped that you intended well. On my feet challenge shot, you suggested that it "should' be taken at teh beach or something. Herein lies my problem. Beyond you, there seems to be a great lack of respect for the artist producing the shot. Terms like "should" are really oppressive and deny the artist their creativity. To say, " I would have..." or " if this was mine I w..." is one thing, but to use absolute terms like 'should', well, IMHO, it is disrespectful to my art & my fotog is art, at least to me. But I digress...
You seem really angry to me, like everyone here that does not agree with you or criticizes you, are just idiots who are below you. I know that written words can often be misinterpreted and passive-aggressive but I feel that I am not alone in this thought.
I think, at least for me, a bit of tact and consideration for others art & what they may be saying thru their shot, as a consideration for you & others, may help to soften & make comments more valueable & something that the fotog can work off of.
I hope you do not feel as if I am attacking you bc that is not what I am trying to do. Just wanted to share my reactions & thoughts with you. I hope you take it in the spirit that it was intended.
peace
Message edited by author 2004-08-19 23:07:10.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 11:53:56 PM · #43 |
| Hey guys, what's going on in this thread? :) |
|
|
|
08/20/2004 01:04:27 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Hey guys, what's going on in this thread? :) |
You got me...;-D Me and computerking already kissed and made up. |
|
|
|
08/20/2004 01:15:35 AM · #45 |
You guys are taking me too seriously ;) .. I think its quite obvious when a photo is meant to be grainy .. or meant to be high key. You can tell the ones that are just poor quality and the grain/exposure is not complimenting the picture. The example of the bride and groom .. that is a brilliant picture - and the high key is supposed to be there. It what makes it brilliant. Just thought I'd clear myself up there.
J
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by ScantyNebula:
I can see why he would place so much emphasis on the technical aspect of images. I do the same, pretty much, so I can only speak for myself. But for me, a technically good image is:
Crisp and in focus
Without grain
Properly exposed
Effective color (if applicable) and contrast
These factors make all the difference in a poor and wow photo. |
what if the grain is intentional, are you gonna automaticly shoot the photo down? Have you never pushed tmax 3200?
Grain can be beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
08/20/2004 01:31:35 AM · #46 |
OK... *DEEP BREATH* Let us all consider 1 thing here, that is, We are ALL artists that have an opinion all be it a constructive one or a NON-Constructive one (in somebody's opinion) it is still a free for all to comment and post and submit etc etc etc so therefore if someone's comment offends someone else, as it will enevitabely do to someone somewhere, let us not react with the same thoughtless malice that we deemed the comment was to begin with but, on the other hand, let us rejoice at the fact that we can create, we can think, we can see, we have a talent, an interest, an opinion, a hobby, a life, a car, a home, a family, and hopefully most of all we retain our SENSE OF HUMOUR.
goodnight- love each other soon there will be none.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2004 01:45:10 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Hey guys, what's going on in this thread? :) |
You got me...;-D Me and computerking already kissed and made up. |
Yeah, nothing going on except the Age on my profile changing tto 33...:) |
|
|
|
08/20/2004 03:18:38 AM · #48 |
I concur!
Excellent observation. I welcome all comments good and critical, take what I can from them and move on.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
As far as scoring for this challenge, it will be low. We (that includes me) didn't exactly shine on this assignment. A few good shots...but thats it. IMHO. |
|
|
|
08/20/2004 04:19:35 AM · #49 |
One thing that I'd like to say, I realise that there are a few similar threads on the whole voting/neon/etc issues but I'm saying it here (maybe I should start a new thread....nah)
I was a little upset with the 'no open signs' message left on my pic, now we (my wife and I) live in a little village in Switzerland, when I saw and read the 'Neon' challenge I shuddered, when it comes to neon lights we are certainly not Vegas. I thought about going for the bright colours approach and a couple of other abstract ideas, but I do like to use this platform as a kind of practice to mimic a 'work' environment, so it's important to me to try to meet the challenge with something that is both literal and creative (I know, I know - lot to learn, etc). We spent a couple of nights driving many kilometers to try to find some examples of neon, then with the little that we discovered the next task was to try to make an interesting shot.
We knew when we entered the challenge that there was little chance of a high finish, I'm currently on c4.6 and my wife on c5.1 (always .5 behind - bah). I certainly don't want people to be nice to me just because of the background behind taking the pic, but - something that I have learned from this to give a bit more credit to those that have clearly made an effort to meet the challenge WHATEVER there interpretation of the guidelines is. If I cannot see any link to the subject then I'll say so, but I'm certainly going to have a much more open mind as to what does meet the challenge, just becuase it's a different interpretation to mine does not mean it's wrong.
We have to remember that this is a learning community, it's very clear looking at many portfolios that people can come on here, at an 'average' level and in a relativly short space of time learn enough to take some seriously good pics (even to the point of making money out of their hobby). I think that much more respect and positive encouragement needs to be adopted, I would love 50 comments on my pic with good ideas on how I can improve (I'm sure that 99% of people feel the same).
It takes effort to make a good shot, it takes effort to make constructive comments, it takes effort to try to see things from someone else's perspective, but it's so very easy to simply dismiss things that don't 'qualify'.
Anyway, I'd better get on with making some comments :)
|
|
|
|
08/20/2004 09:46:23 AM · #50 |
Hi Colda,
Very good post. Great way of looking at things.
My satisfaction, very often, is found while I'm out taking photos and when reviewing those photos later.
The higher scores are nice, don't get me wrong, but when I view the photos from a shoot I'm reminded of many things...pleasant conversations with people I've met, beautiful scenery, shared company...the list goes on and on.
As for learning on this site, you are correct about "effort" being required. We all need to try harder to make more comments and critiques. My goal initially was to make as many comments as I received. I'm behind, gotta go... |
|
