| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2006 10:38:38 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by owen:
I have noticed quite a few images have less votes under 4 lately. I think that either some voters have seen the light from the numerous threads about voting, which I doubt, or there's a new improved Troll filter put into operation. |
The only trouble with the troll filter theory here is that both images DROPPED points at rollover. The water shot, in paricular, dropped 16 votes and nearly a full tenth of a point... I don't have the detials on the textures shot 'cuz I wasn't around at rollover, but I know it dropped a smidge.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 11:00:42 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by owen:
I have noticed quite a few images have less votes under 4 lately. I think that either some voters have seen the light from the numerous threads about voting, which I doubt, or there's a new improved Troll filter put into operation. |
The only trouble with the troll filter theory here is that both images DROPPED points at rollover. The water shot, in paricular, dropped 16 votes and nearly a full tenth of a point... I don't have the detials on the textures shot 'cuz I wasn't around at rollover, but I know it dropped a smidge.
R. |
Yeah I see your point even though some of that could occur due to voters not reaching the 20% quota. Unless the troll filtering happens earlier. I first noticed less of the minor scoring on Sir_Bazz's 
and since on many shots including my own and the averages seem to be higher generally. Like 6 X 7+ in the Texture III challenge. Sixth place in that challenge scored nothing under 5. |
|
|
|
04/14/2006 11:02:00 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
the eye candy argument is crap. A good image is good regardless. |
I disagree. The vast majority of images that place in the top ten are bright and colorful. Sure there are exceptions especially when challenges like Low Key force the alternative but those tend to be just pebbles in a sea of eye candy.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 11:27:22 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cutter:
the eye candy argument is crap. A good image is good regardless. |
I disagree. The vast majority of images that place in the top ten are bright and colorful. Sure there are exceptions especially when challenges like Low Key force the alternative but those tend to be just pebbles in a sea of eye candy. |
Last time I checked the living world, our eyes perceive and generally life is "bright and colorful". So perhaps these images are doing justice to reality, just like photography is supposed to do. Depressed colors, grunge, b/w and other artistic forms are actually hypo-realistic. Unless we all live in darkness, generally colors a plentiful.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2006 11:29:49 PM · #30 |
Well then I need to get those polarizer/velvia glasses you wear! :P
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 02:26:36 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Last time I checked the living world, our eyes perceive and generally life is "bright and colorful". So perhaps these images are doing justice to reality, just like photography is supposed to do. Depressed colors, grunge, b/w and other artistic forms are actually hypo-realistic. Unless we all live in darkness, generally colors a plentiful. |
In my opinion, in "modern life", for the majority of urbanized peoples, color is a precious commodity. I believe most people in urban areas lead pretty drab lives, visually, and they NEED visual stimulation in the way a body needs salt. I believe this is why so-called "eye candy" rules in DPC.
It's late, I don't know what I'm saying :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 07:44:33 AM · #32 |
I have always believed that, in general, DPC voters prefer the 'bright and shinys.' There are exceptions, some are due to challenge topic and some due to an amazing image rising to the top.
But I have learned something else this week during the voting for Candid. Not only do the voters prefer 'bright and shiny,' but collectively, they prefer unambiguous 'scenes' not open to interpretation. 'Bright and shinys' - images of things or places with no story - score well because they cannot be mis-interpreted. Anytime you give people a decision to make, the responses will vary according to life experience. 'Bright and shinys,' in their lack of need for interpretation, remove this need for a decision.
Another factor is time. If you submit an image that must be looked at for longer than 2 seconds to understand, or to come to a decision about, your score will be lower. You have 2 seconds to control the voter/viewer. The easiest way to do this is 'bright and shiny.' If you submit an image that has a story, the story must be instantly recognizable and universally accepted to score well.
So, to score well at DPC and/or avoid low scores, present an image that requires little interpretation of subject matter, and catches the eye of the viewer by use of eye-catching color and/or subject matter. Simplicity also greatly increases your score as you give the viewer less to have to think about.
I have submitted my share of bright and shinys - every once in a while I like a decent score to boost my ego. But I am working harder to take an image that ends up scoring well on my terms - telling a story that I think is important. I'm not E301 or JJBeguin (to quickly name 2) yet and maybe I'll never be. But I'd like to believe that someday I can tell a story as well as they. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 07:56:57 AM · #33 |
I am having a hard time understanding some to the positions taken by posters to this thread.
Some of you find it scary to be identified with "unobjectionable" pictures. Is your goal in photography to make pictures that people object to? Is that your measure of the quality of your photographic works -- the more people object to them the better photographes they are? Can't buy into that myself.
Unobjectionable pictures are eye candy? Don't most of us object to eye candy, or at least object to seeing what we perceive as eye candy being rewarded with high scores and ribbons.
I can understand a photographer not wanting to be typecast as a maker of ordinary, run-of-the-mill shots, the kind people get tired of seeing and call "cliche"; but is the alternative of choice to make something that people will object to? What ever happened to trying to make something that will appeal to people as a goal in our photographic endeavors? or trying to convey an accuate impression of the subject, whether it be cheerful and brightly colored or dark and untiddy?
I never really think of trying to make it come out so that peoiple would find it "objectionable" when I photograph something. Why should I?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 08:15:23 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
... The darks are too dark and details are lost. |
I have to disagree, in Manny's portrait the deepest shadows are black it is true, but the detail is not lost -- the texture of the cloth in her shawl is clearly visible.
David
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 08:36:35 AM · #35 |
Guys (Gender Neutral)
Thanks for this thread. I was depressed about my latest offerings to DPC as they did not score well. I am not expecting them to score well as I am still learning (and will be for some time to come!). Robt you have unintentionally made my day. If you, whom I consider to be a good photographer, can get as many 'below 3s' as you did in 'Moods' then there is some hope for me. If I can achieve an over 50th position with my new DSLR I will be over the moon.
I am not sure about trolls and the voting system but I know when I vote the photos that are at the extreme ends of my voting scale get a comment from me as to why. I don't think I have ever given a 1 and only very few 10s. As to the way I vote I suppose it is a combination of 'eye candy' and technical merit. At the moment with my limited technical knowledge I lean towards eye candy. I must say that an image gets a higher vote from me if it fundamentally meets the challenge and then whether it is an attractive photo. Of course if it is a technically flawed image and even I can identify the flaw then it gets marked down.
For what its worth from a newish person I give you my two cents worth.
Cheers |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 08:39:35 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Some of you find it scary to be identified with "unobjectionable" pictures. Is your goal in photography to make pictures that people object to? Is that your measure of the quality of your photographic works -- the more people object to them the better photographes they are? Can't buy into that myself. |
This may be reading a bit too much into the word "unobjectionable". It wasn't my intention to suggest that deliberately making "objectionable" images is a virtue in itself. the unobjectionable image scores well because nobody can find fault with it, if you will. It may not provoke strong positive responses, but it balances this with no negative responses as well.
Compare these two recent blue ribbons, e301's and mine:
 7.354, 41 5-or-less, peak at 7, 80 9's and 10's
 7.488, 17 5-or-less, peak at 6, 57 9's and 10's
I think e301's is a much "better" picture than mine, frankly. But the voters found quite a bit more to "object" to in that shot than they did in mine. I'm happy with my image, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it has anything like the depth and sophistication of the other.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 08:53:37 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But these are the only two shots I've ever submitted where the low range of the voting chart is essentially unpopulated; check it out. Have I mastered the art of offending nobody and pleasing everybody... |
It is an amazing feat to score so few 4- votes, and to do so twice in succession is even moreso, kind of like back-to-back grand slams. Only time will tell, though, if you have "mastered" the technique. I'm rootin' for ya. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 03:55:09 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This may be reading a bit too much into the word "unobjectionable". It wasn't my intention to suggest that deliberately making "objectionable" images is a virtue in itself. the unobjectionable image scores well because nobody can find fault with it, if you will. It may not provoke strong positive responses, but it balances this with no negative responses as well.
Compare these two recent blue ribbons, .... |
I think you have grasped at least part of the point I was trying to make - that unobjectionable is not a very good term for the concept we are trying to describe here. I like dahkota's "bright and shinys" a little better. The concept, and our discussions about it pro and con, have been going on for some time. Remember the quote I carried around in my sig for over a year about how dpc voters perfer the flawless over the genuine? The concept is difficult to put into words, but I think that like you, many of us sense it when our photography starts leaning strongly in the direction of what pleases dpc voters. Most of us resist it, while some embrace it whole-heartedly. I think it is very good for a developing photographer to branch out away from dpc once they have acquired a level of fundamental competance from the site.
What is eye candy? In my definition there is more to eye candy than just being unobjectionable, and being bright and shiny; although those two notions are certainly included. Along with them in my defition there is an element of intent. Did the photographer intend to produce something that would wow the voters? I also feel that most of what I would term eye candy is what we would call a studio set-up shot as opposed to one we found. There is a certain amount of value judgement at play when we use the term eye candy, and a wide spectrum of opinion about that value. I use the term as mildly derogatory. Other viewpoints are just as valid.
As for the two shots you used as examples, both are very good but neither is at it's best as presented. Yours appeals to me more than Ed's but I find it's saturation approaching the point of objection; the other goes far in the opposite direction. IMHO, yours could use a little less color and e301's would be more appealing if it had just a little more color in the bg so that it could not be so easily confused with a sel desat shot.
I am often curiously surprised when people post about a lack of low votes on challenge entries. That seems to happen to my entries more often than to those of most other dpc'ers. Am I a candy merchant?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 04:12:37 PM · #39 |
Yep. DPC voters prefer insipid to creative or artistic. If you can manage the insipid subject with a colorful and unique presentation you may or may not score well, but there are limits even to insipid, ie. no children or pets! Naked ladies and bugs seem to be perennial favorites, though not precisely in the 'insipid' category!
But don't take my word for this, my average score is only about 5.3! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 10:38:51 AM EDT.
