DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> DNMC
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 103, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/07/2006 04:39:13 PM · #26
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

... - OnChallenge = 10 ...

That gives me a headache just thinking about it. Now, not only do I have to figure out what to assign an image on technical merit I would have to determine what to give it on meeting the challenge? Either it does, or it doesn't. Subjectively of course in the mind of the voter, but still not much grey area.

So maybe, if you really like the image and it mostly meets the challenge - give it a 10? If you really don't like the image for whatever reason and it mostly meets the challenge - give it a 1?

Just trying to make a point...I know, it's complicated (like voting). ;^)

edit to make more readable...

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 16:40:12.
03/07/2006 04:39:19 PM · #27
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by blurbayou:

All it would do is penalize "out of the box" thinking. I'm all for less moving parts. Don't like it, vote low.

Not at all. Look at our challenge results, there's hundreds of examples of Ribbons awarded to photos that are way out of the box - and still on challenge.

What it would do is highlight glaring errors in voting that exist now. The classic example is the Singled-Out challenge where sheep made it into 56th place where the challenge required entrants to "Drop your fear of candids this week and single-out a person in a crowd as your source of composition"

How do the 53 photogs that came after that image feel having taken the time and trouble to go find a crowd of people, overcome their fear of candids to make their entry.

So the current system is grossly unfair, this proposal addresses that unfairness - how can it be bad?

Brett


I agree with you on that particular challenge. However, not all challenge descriptions are that focused. Like Bear Music pointed out, not everybody sees things the same. It'd be too easy to click a DNMC button and be done with it rather than take the time to try and figure out what the photographer was trying to say with his/her work.

I love it when a photographer takes a challenge, turns things inside out within "their" understanding of the description, and in turn challenges the voter to take their blinders off and look at things from a different angle. All I'm saying is if a "nuke button" existed I think "some" of the creativity I see might go by the wayside in favor of safer thinking.

To me a DNMC box is already in place in the form of a "1" vote.

Just my point of view.
03/07/2006 04:41:54 PM · #28
Originally posted by KiwiPix:


Actually, as one of the grossed-out voters, what I would have done under a two vote system, would be to have scored it
- Emotive/Technical = 1
- OnChallenge = 10
Vote = 5.5. (I actually gave it a 4 - so you'd be ahead)

You would then know for sure what the 60 '1s' were for. I suspect very few were DNMC but were, as glad2badad suggested, people offended by your butt:) Under the two-votes you'd know for sure. Again - how can that be bad?

Brett


Or, I may have gotten two 1's from a single voter. Because, once you offend someone, they are very unlikely to make any good judgement on a photo.

I feel a lot of voters would feel that under a two scale rating system, they now have 2 1's to give if a photo offends them for any reason. The technicals would thus be moot. AND, even if the offense were for an Actual DNMC (which a lot of people feel strongly about) they are going to double punish a photo,

03/07/2006 04:43:25 PM · #29
Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by yanko:

How about just a tick box for DNMC? Take the percentage of voters that clicked on it and deduct the decimal equalvalent to the final score?

For example:

- 46% clicked the DNMC box for a specific photo.
- The final score of said photo was 5.460
- Deduct 46% or .46 from the score 5.460
- Actual score is 5.000

What about that?

NO thanks!

Photo A) a rather good photo, some minor technical issues. The photographer has spent considerable effort, thought etc on the theme, and worked within the topic and rule restrictions.

Photo B) Excellent photo, nearly flawless. The photographer totally ignored the challenge that others worked so hard to follow. This one simply entered a "free study"

Which photo should place higher? "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly. "

Photo A needs to win, without a doubt.

There are plenty of "free for all" websites around.
Please respect the DPC system of challenges.


Ummm Photo A would do quite well under my suggestion. What's your point?
03/07/2006 04:45:38 PM · #30
Doesn't anyone realize that having a "DNMC" box to tick in place of a low vote would actually IMPROVE the rating of the photo?

Pretend that 100 people vote. 50 think the photo DNMC. They vote "DNMC" instead of a 1. The other 50 vote an average of 5. Sooooo... the photo ends up with an average vote of 5. Whereas, if the low score of 1 were used by those who think "DNMC", the average would be a 3. Pretty significant, isn't it! Of course, all these numbers are exaggerated for emphasis, but the principle is the same.

NOT giving a score on photos that DNMC would actually improve their placement.

Is THAT what we want? I sure as heckipoo hope not, because that's one of the distinguishing factors of DPC. If you want to be able to enter whatever you darn well please and still score high, please pack your junk and get the heck off of this website! :) IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CHALLENGE!!!!!!!!! That's why it's DPChallenge instead of DPGallery.
03/07/2006 04:46:03 PM · #31
I have a bit more technical and objective solution:

A series of checkboxes covering technicals and creative merits of the photos. The voter clicks off all the checkboxes that apply and then the system tabulates a vote based on what they checked.

How's that for a solution?
03/07/2006 04:49:41 PM · #32
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Beetle:

I hate gardening, so I'm not about to join a gardening club and then complain that they shouldn't make me pull out weeds and dig in the dirt.


and that is definitely an interesting analogy. <karmat files that one away for future use> ;)


Good analogy, but all I can think of is people who take a job where I work, and then complain about having to work !! :))

I was on the 2 vote bandwagon a while ago but quickly got shot down by folks saying, "It will simply never happen"
I thought one vote out of ten for Meeting the challenge and one vote out of ten for quality with an average of the 2 for a final score...
03/07/2006 04:50:53 PM · #33
1-10 easy I got 10 fingers and I can count on them
and looking at the challenge archives it seems to me that the
"Cream Rises"

So I say K.I.S.S.
03/07/2006 04:51:48 PM · #34
Originally posted by nards656:

heckipoo


ok thats funny...
03/07/2006 04:51:48 PM · #35
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

1-10 easy I got 10 fingers and I can count on them
and looking at the challenge archives it seems to me that the
"Cream Rises"

So I say K.I.S.S.


/applaud
03/07/2006 04:56:34 PM · #36
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I have a bit more technical and objective solution:

A series of checkboxes covering technicals and creative merits of the photos. The voter clicks off all the checkboxes that apply and then the system tabulates a vote based on what they checked.

How's that for a solution?


Uh, do you want to go through that on those 800-entrant challenges? Not me, buddy! I'm thinkin' RSD bigtime, and/or not voting a whole challenge.
03/07/2006 04:58:48 PM · #37
How about we just leave things the way they are now... I have never seen a DNMC win a ribbon after all...
03/07/2006 04:59:33 PM · #38
Originally posted by lynnesite:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I have a bit more technical and objective solution:

A series of checkboxes covering technicals and creative merits of the photos. The voter clicks off all the checkboxes that apply and then the system tabulates a vote based on what they checked.

How's that for a solution?


Uh, do you want to go through that on those 800-entrant challenges? Not me, buddy! I'm thinkin' RSD bigtime, and/or not voting a whole challenge.


I was being a bit sarcastic ;-) I'd hate to have to vote that way myself. I'd also hate to have to check two numbers for each entry. I like the K.I.S.S. method myself. I agree that the Creme Rises. Yes, a sheep may occasionally rise a bit in a challenge that specifies people, but has anyone stopped to think that that sheep photo might be "close enough" and just technically THAT good.
03/07/2006 05:01:30 PM · #39
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by yanko:

How about just a tick box for DNMC? Take the percentage of voters that clicked on it and deduct the decimal equalvalent to the final score?

For example:

- 46% clicked the DNMC box for a specific photo.
- The final score of said photo was 5.460
- Deduct 46% or .46 from the score 5.460
- Actual score is 5.000

What about that?

NO thanks!

Photo A) a rather good photo, some minor technical issues. The photographer has spent considerable effort, thought etc on the theme, and worked within the topic and rule restrictions.

Photo B) Excellent photo, nearly flawless. The photographer totally ignored the challenge that others worked so hard to follow. This one simply entered a "free study"

Which photo should place higher? "While voting, users are asked to keep in highest consideration the topic of the challenge and base their rating accordingly. "

Photo A needs to win, without a doubt.

There are plenty of "free for all" websites around.
Please respect the DPC system of challenges.


Ummm Photo A would do quite well under my suggestion. What's your point?


My point is that with your proposed system, photo B would end up ahead of A, or at least they'd be equal.

I'm sorry for using the sheep example again here, but in a candid PEOPLE challenge, NO sheep should do better than a PERSON.
03/07/2006 05:01:37 PM · #40
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by KiwiPix:

... - OnChallenge = 10 ...

That gives me a headache just thinking about it. Now, not only do I have to figure out what to assign an image on technical merit I would have to determine what to give it on meeting the challenge? Either it does, or it doesn't. Subjectively of course in the mind of the voter, but still not much grey area.

So maybe, if you really like the image and it mostly meets the challenge - give it a 10? If you really don't like the image for whatever reason and it mostly meets the challenge - give it a 1?


This is touching on another of my pet bugaboos; for me, basically, "meeting the challenge" is an on/off switch in my mind. If I see ANY relevance to the challenge, that's a "go" for me and I vote the merits of the photo. Period. If I can't see any challenge relevance, but I feel confused, I'll vote the image and then deduct a couple, leaving some benefit of the doubt. If I'm 100% convinced it simply is totally off-topic (a photograph of an insect in a wildlife challenge that specifically excludes insects, for example) then it's in the 4-or-lower dustbin for me.

I ALWAYS give the shooter the benefit of the doubt if I possibly can... I simply HATE the idea of voting based on MY perception of "this is MORE on-challenge than that one over there!" Howevere, I certainly WILL bump up images that meet the challenge in a particularly creative and intriguing way, even if I might otherwise have given them a somewhat lower score on technicals. A lot of scalvert's images show that sort of creativity, though they are usually so well-executed I don't need to bump them anyway.

Robt.
03/07/2006 05:03:00 PM · #41
Originally posted by nards656:

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CHALLENGE!!!!!!!!! That's why it's DPChallenge instead of DPGallery


Agree!

And it's D Photography Challenge and not D Editing Challenge.
oops, off topic. Couldn't help myself.
03/07/2006 05:05:47 PM · #42
Bear has made the clinching argument for me.
We all know that the interpretation of DNMC is so subjective that by adding a specific value as to how well it meets the voters interpretation of the challenge can only be another source of aggrevation.

I just don't see how the voter can possibly know whether the photographer 'ignored' the challenge or is just 'out of the box'. Its an impossible call and cannot be valued on a scale of 1 to 10 or a yes/no checkbox.

There are lots and lots of images which I can't see the connection with the challenge until the voting is over and I read the photogs notes. Any subjective assessment is gonig to run the risk of hanging the innocent.

I say no to changing the voting, no to a DNMC check box.
03/07/2006 05:16:58 PM · #43
Originally posted by Falc:

Bear has made the clinching argument for me.
We all know that the interpretation of DNMC is so subjective that by adding a specific value as to how well it meets the voters interpretation of the challenge can only be another source of aggrevation.

I just don't see how the voter can possibly know whether the photographer 'ignored' the challenge or is just 'out of the box'. Its an impossible call and cannot be valued on a scale of 1 to 10 or a yes/no checkbox.

There are lots and lots of images which I can't see the connection with the challenge until the voting is over and I read the photogs notes. Any subjective assessment is gonig to run the risk of hanging the innocent.

I say no to changing the voting, no to a DNMC check box.


I vehemently agree.
03/07/2006 05:19:06 PM · #44
Originally posted by Beetle:

... but NO culture, NO race, NO religion etc is incapable of telling the difference between sheep and people.

Please see Psalm 23.
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

For the first time, we'd be able to 'see' how people are thinking about our images.

I thought that's what the comment area was for.
Originally posted by joebok:

The multiple category idea is not indended to keep out trolls or control voters - it's a possible way to give more meaningful feedback to photographers.

Does it really take that long to type eight characters (including a space)?

DNMC IMO


is about as specific as you can get ...

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 17:25:57.
03/07/2006 05:22:07 PM · #45
Originally posted by GeneralE:

[quote=Beetle]... but NO culture, NO race, NO religion etc is incapable of telling the difference between sheep and people.

Please see Psalm 23.

Hahaha brilliant!!

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 17:22:37.
03/07/2006 05:22:34 PM · #46
Thanx, Zeus and Falc, maybe we can help keep this insanity from taking hold :-)

And, general, that's EXACTLY the way I interpreted the "sheep" image; the maker was equating people to sheep, either in the religious "Lord is my shepherd" sense or in the "herd mentality" sense. It was out-of-the-box and didn't do especially well, but I understood his "take" on meeting the challenge.

R.
03/07/2006 05:29:16 PM · #47
Originally posted by Falc:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Beetle:

... but NO culture, NO race, NO religion etc is incapable of telling the difference between sheep and people.

Please see Psalm 23.


Hahaha brilliant!!

And lucky, to remember (guess) which one it was!
03/07/2006 05:33:49 PM · #48
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Thanx, Zeus and Falc, maybe we can help keep this insanity from taking hold :-)

And, general, that's EXACTLY the way I interpreted the "sheep" image; the maker was equating people to sheep, either in the religious "Lord is my shepherd" sense or in the "herd mentality" sense. It was out-of-the-box and didn't do especially well, but I understood his "take" on meeting the challenge.

R.

So you give no value to the fact that we were challenged to overcome our fear of candids?

I thought that was such an important part of that challenge, and no doubt caused plenty of sweaty palms... at least for those of us who took the plunge to photograph PEOPLE, instead of taking the easy way out.

Shannon and others prove again and again that is possible to be "out of the box" at the same time as "on topic".
03/07/2006 05:46:18 PM · #49
[quote]So you give no value to the fact that we were challenged to overcome our fear of candids?

I thought that was such an important part of that challenge, and no doubt caused plenty of sweaty palms... at least for those of us who took the plunge to photograph PEOPLE, instead of taking the easy way out.

Shannon and others prove again and again that is possible to be "out of the box" at the same time as "on topic". [/quote]

Sure I give some credit to those, but I don't presume to know whether the photog intentionally ignored the theme or was just way out of the box. How do you know what he intended?

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 17:47:01.
03/07/2006 05:49:37 PM · #50
Originally posted by Beetle:

So you give no value to the fact that we were challenged to overcome our fear of candids?

Not necessarily "no value" but perhaps not enough of a problem to award an otherwise fine photo a 1 like some people do. Why not offer a bonus for creative/metaphorical thinking which mitigates that possible challenge technicality?

Some people are likely as afraid of a coterie of livestock as a downtown lunchtime crowd.

Besides, a strict interpretation of the challenge as you propose would require true agoraphobes to spend an unconscionable amount on therapy, which they could otherwise use to buy a 1000mm lens and shoot candids from the next county ... : )
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 09:46:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 09:46:33 PM EST.