Have PPG standars gotten lower? Myth CONFIRMED.

Member said:

In another thread ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1036&parent=35599735&thread=35599735&quote=1 ), I
wrote:

I am currently doing a, shall we say, scientific experiment to test a hypothesis about PPG.

Click to expand...

Well, the experiment has borne fruit. What was the hypothesis under test? That PPG's standards have gone downhill. What was the experimental test? Resubmitting five pictures that PPG had already rejected in '09 and '08!

Two of them were just accepted.

Out of my current batch of ten submissions, four got in, two were declined, and four are still being looked at (after like five weeks). I've never gotten in more than one at a time before. I'd say they're definitely going easier than ever on us. Which I suspect means that my other hypothesis is also true: that the selection committee is now pretty much rubber-stamping anything that gets past the voters.

Between this and the decline of interested voters, I think we can pretty much say it's dead now as a serious prestige gallery. If it ever did qualify as that.

Here is the gallery -- http://pentaxphotogallery.com/paulkienitz ...the previous rejects that are now accepted are "Surf and Steam" (the one that somebody once called "epic in scope") and "Black-Crowned Night Heron". The other two new ones are the Canyon de Chelly shots.

--

K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "Billy Bass", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"

To be honest it's still one of the better collections of photos on the web of a type serious amateurs might aspire to shoot, so it's good inspiration.

Its real problems lie elsewhere. The fussy and slow-to-load interface, and the too-small size of the photos. Obviously copyright owners don't want their shots made so big they can be copied, but this is silly. Anyway, whenever I look at it the slowness puts me off within about five images.

Oh, and t doesn't work properly with Safari either.

Paul

paulkienitz said:

paulkienitz said:

In another thread ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1036&parent=35599735&thread=35599735&quote=1 ), I
wrote:

I am currently doing a, shall we say, scientific experiment to test a hypothesis about PPG.

Click to expand...

Well, the experiment has borne fruit. What was the hypothesis under test? That PPG's standards have gone downhill. What was the experimental test? Resubmitting five pictures that PPG had already rejected in '09 and '08!

Two of them were just accepted.

Out of my current batch of ten submissions, four got in, two were declined, and four are still being looked at (after like five weeks). I've never gotten in more than one at a time before. I'd say they're definitely going easier than ever on us. Which I suspect means that my other hypothesis is also true: that the selection committee is now pretty much rubber-stamping anything that gets past the voters.

Between this and the decline of interested voters, I think we can pretty much say it's dead now as a serious prestige gallery. If it ever did qualify as that.

Here is the gallery -- http://pentaxphotogallery.com/paulkienitz ...the previous rejects that are now accepted are "Surf and Steam" (the one that somebody once called "epic in scope") and "Black-Crowned Night Heron". The other two new ones are the Canyon de Chelly shots.

--

K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "Billy Bass", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that a scientific experiment. Perhaps a test of the current situation, but not a scientific test. There are too many variables that may have changed between then and now. Certainly, it wasn't the exact same peer group that reviewed the photos. You have no way of knowing whether the photos got past the peer group the first time they were submitted and that the Pentax reviewers ever saw them. You also don't know if it was the same Pentax reviewer if it did get past the peer review.

Much of the review process is subjective. I just don't think you can draw any firm or fast conclusions from this test. Your conclusion may be correct, but the test is not scientific or, in any way conclusive. I'm just saying.
--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com (Updated 9/8/2008)
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid
My Blog: http://areidjr.blogspot.com/



WSSA Member #199PX

areidjr said:

I wouldn't call that a scientific experiment. Perhaps a test of the current situation, but not a scientific test. There are too many variables that may have changed between then and now. Certainly, it wasn't the exact same peer group that reviewed the photos. You have no way of knowing whether the photos got past the peer group the first time they were submitted and that the Pentax reviewers ever saw them. You also don't know if it was the same Pentax reviewer if it did get past the peer review.

Click to expand...

How are those variables relevant to the hypothesis? The hypothesis is that the standards of admission are now less stringent or less difficult. Consider the PPG as a black box that produces one bit of output per picture submitted. How they pick them isn't relevant to the test of the hypothesis.

paulkienitz said:

areidjr said:

I wouldn't call that a scientific experiment. Perhaps a test of the current situation, but not a scientific test. There are too many variables that may have changed between then and now. Certainly, it wasn't the exact same peer group that reviewed the photos. You have no way of knowing whether the photos got past the peer group the first time they were submitted and that the Pentax reviewers ever saw them. You also don't know if it was the same Pentax reviewer if it did get past the peer review.

Click to expand...

How are those variables relevant to the hypothesis? The hypothesis is that the standards of admission are now less stringent or less difficult. Consider the PPG as a black box that produces one bit of output per picture submitted. How they pick them isn't relevant to the test of the hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Of course it's relevant. Even within the same time frame these are not a constant. I've already submitted a rejected photo 2 weeks after it was rejected and it was subsequently accepted. This was in the Spring of 2008. So, did the standards change over a 2 week period. I think not. Other variables changed. Perhaps different peers were voting that day or week and it made it to the judges on the second pass. Or perhaps a different judge looked at it. I don't know and neither do you.

Again, your conclusion may be correct, but it wasn't a scientific test. It may just have been the luck of the draw as to who viewed the photos this time. And this test applies only to your photos, not the general population of submitted photo. I'm just saying.

--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com (Updated 9/8/2008)
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid
My Blog: http://areidjr.blogspot.com/



WSSA Member #199PX

I had a few accepted, frankly I don't remember when I had one declined last time. It still feels great to have one get in though, but I have to say that I am fairly sure most photos that I saw for voting are in the 'newly accepted' now which tells me the acceptance rate is very high, and even many for which I voted 'heck no' are also in the gallery now

I had also mentioned that PPG standards have gone down, but the last time I voted, there were many marvellous images as well and made me doubt it, especillay when the last sets of 'newly accepted' were full of stunning images. But, with the current set of acceptances I think the standards haven't just dropped but rather had a steep fall. There are still many stunning images, but the acceptance standards are fairly pathetic - pretty soon it will be similar to Flickr group comments ....I have absolutely none in the 'premier gallery' and I will be submitting the best of the best images to see whether it will get in there, but the standard PPG gallery has lost it's repute.

Your experiment also seem to suggest the same.
--

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=2323984&subSubSection=0&language=EN

K10D, K-7

Pentax: DA15/4, DA21/3.2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8, FA*28-70/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 100-300 F4

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

The PPG actually load pretty fast for me, even on a 5 yrs old PC.

As far as PPG goes, I saw a picture with self-made borders (against the rules) gets in... People should read the guidelines before they vote.
-- water mark / border on photo -> vote "down" no matter what.

and recently I have been voting on several same picture more than once (same pic with different title) -- so people are submitting same picture hoping one get lucky.

Lee

OK.

Now that you've proven to yourself that the standardsk, you think, have gone down, wiill you quite p*iss*ng and moaning about it.
--
On 9/11/2001, I learned everything about Islam I'll ever need to know.
http://www.edwoodsonphotography.com
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/edwoodson

areidjr said:

Of course it's relevant. Even within the same time frame these are not a constant. I've already submitted a rejected photo 2 weeks after it was rejected and it was subsequently accepted. This was in the Spring of 2008. So, did the standards change over a 2 week period. I think not. Other variables changed. Perhaps different peers were voting that day or week and it made it to the judges on the second pass. Or perhaps a different judge looked at it. I don't know and neither do you.

Click to expand...

That may be relevant to an artist, but it's not relevant to the hypothesis. The hypothesis only predicts that the PPG black box will produce a different pattern of bits from what it used to produce. Reasons for the difference don't enter the question. The experiment tests that hypothesis and the result shows an apparently substantial change. The sources of possible randomness are not relevant -- the only issue is whether the difference is large enough to be considered statistically significant. That's not proven in any absolute way by this outcome, but it does make the idea that it's just random coincidence an uphill argument.

Just wanted to say, PPG never appreciated truly artistic shots and was more a place for 'pretty' pictures. I like to take hypersturated 'pretty' pictures, so it was fun for me, but it has always been a tough playground for the 'artistic' photgraphers (for a better word).

So, I don't think an image being accepted or not-accepted into PPG was never a measuring scale of an artist's skill. So, I just wanted to post this second reply, so those who do have difficulties getting into PPG don't feel like I am dissing them...it never was a measure of all photographic skills.

However, I do agree with OP's sentiments, and now have removed all links to my PPG gallery in the various forums, as I truly feel it doesn't mean anything, anymore.

--
PPG REMOVED - It's not what it used to be.
K10D, K-7

Pentax: DA15/4, DA21/3.2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8, FA*28-70/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 100-300 F4

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

paulkienitz said:

areidjr said:

Of course it's relevant. Even within the same time frame these are not a constant. I've already submitted a rejected photo 2 weeks after it was rejected and it was subsequently accepted. This was in the Spring of 2008. So, did the standards change over a 2 week period. I think not. Other variables changed. Perhaps different peers were voting that day or week and it made it to the judges on the second pass. Or perhaps a different judge looked at it. I don't know and neither do you.

Click to expand...

That may be relevant to an artist, but it's not relevant to the hypothesis. The hypothesis only predicts that the PPG black box will produce a different pattern of bits from what it used to produce. Reasons for the difference don't enter the question. The experiment tests that hypothesis and the result shows an apparently substantial change. The sources of possible randomness are not relevant -- the only issue is whether the difference is large enough to be considered statistically significant. That's not proven in any absolute way by this outcome, but it does make the idea that it's just random coincidence an uphill argument.

Click to expand...

So you believe that a single test validates your hypothesis? I think not. your sample size is statistically insignificant. What you would need is the black box that rejected your photos and the current black box that accepted your photos in order to do a scientific test.

Take the original black box and tun your photos through repeatedly and see if there is a statistical bias toward rejecting your photos. Since we know that the system has built in variability, a single test is not adequate to understand the the behavior of the system. Repeat the tests with the current black box and see if there is a statistical bias toward accepting your photos.

Now you have something that you can use to draw a concluding. Without something more rigorous, you have proven nothing other that there may be some variability in the process. The fact that there is variability in the system is a given and that, in itself, makes your test invalid for anything other than trying to make conversation. it proves nothing.
--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com (Updated 9/8/2008)
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid
My Blog: http://areidjr.blogspot.com/



WSSA Member #199PX

For what its worth I have to agree with Al. There is just too much subjectivity in the process to allow repeatability. Re-submitting a rejected image and subsequently having it accepted may simply mean that a different set of voters have voted, or it may mean that a borderline image has slipped over the borderline.

I myself have harshly judged images which I later come to love; even personal standards change over time unless you are a trained judge.

You cannot have repeatability where different people are involved in judging at different times. There is way too much variability in for your exercise to ever be any kind of scientific test.

Besides, what does it really matter? If the standards have dropped, stop submitting. Try 1x.com. Their standards may be high enough for you.

Meanwhile, I (and others who are being accepted with the new lowered standards) will enjoy the nice boost we get from having our peers judge our images worthy even if they don't meet the high standards of some.

areidjr said:

paulkienitz said:

areidjr said:

Of course it's relevant. Even within the same time frame these are not a constant. I've already submitted a rejected photo 2 weeks after it was rejected and it was subsequently accepted. This was in the Spring of 2008. So, did the standards change over a 2 week period. I think not. Other variables changed. Perhaps different peers were voting that day or week and it made it to the judges on the second pass. Or perhaps a different judge looked at it. I don't know and neither do you.

Click to expand...

That may be relevant to an artist, but it's not relevant to the hypothesis. The hypothesis only predicts that the PPG black box will produce a different pattern of bits from what it used to produce. Reasons for the difference don't enter the question. The experiment tests that hypothesis and the result shows an apparently substantial change. The sources of possible randomness are not relevant -- the only issue is whether the difference is large enough to be considered statistically significant. That's not proven in any absolute way by this outcome, but it does make the idea that it's just random coincidence an uphill argument.

Click to expand...

So you believe that a single test validates your hypothesis? I think not. your sample size is statistically insignificant. What you would need is the black box that rejected your photos and the current black box that accepted your photos in order to do a scientific test.

Take the original black box and tun your photos through repeatedly and see if there is a statistical bias toward rejecting your photos. Since we know that the system has built in variability, a single test is not adequate to understand the the behavior of the system. Repeat the tests with the current black box and see if there is a statistical bias toward accepting your photos.

Now you have something that you can use to draw a concluding. Without something more rigorous, you have proven nothing other that there may be some variability in the process. The fact that there is variability in the system is a given and that, in itself, makes your test invalid for anything other than trying to make conversation. it proves nothing.
--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com (Updated 9/8/2008)
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid
My Blog: http://areidjr.blogspot.com/



WSSA Member #199PX

Click to expand...

--
http://photography.ramkarran.com
https://badlightgoodlight.wordpress.com/

pcarfan said:

However, I do agree with OP's sentiments, and now have removed all links to my PPG gallery in the various forums, as I truly feel it doesn't mean anything, anymore.

Click to expand...

Isn't that pure snobbery? Surely if your PPG gallery was worth looking at then, it's worth looking at now....?

(Personally I have submitted anything but only because the whole site functions so slowly on my Mac (Safari browser) as to be unusable.)
--
tim
http://www.pbase.com/timotheus

paulkienitz said:

The hypothesis only predicts that the PPG black box will produce a different pattern of bits from what it used to produce.

Click to expand...

By your logic and the proof you offer that the standards have lessened; removing all your photos from the gallery and then resubmitting them should result in all the photos being accepted into the gallery again. Would you care to try the experiment?

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/

Tim & Russel,

Excellent points, puts things in perspective for me and something to think about.

P.S: Oh! snobbery wasn't my intention

--
K10D, K-7

Pentax: DA15/4, DA21/3.2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8, FA*28-70/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 100-300 F4

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

From what I know about the judging, the first stage is where the submitters, like you and me, vote. If it gets past that stage, then the second stage is where the Pentax people from Pentax Photo Gallery actually vote.

So, previously, maybe it was the judging by the first stage of judging, the submitters who vote, that declined your images previously, but now, the submitters are more tolerant and let it past that first stage and they have been able to get to the second stage where the actual Pentax Photo Gallery judges have the final say and they have allowed them in.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

Here I thought I was just getting better, having had 6 of my last 7 accepted, but now you have shown me that standards have just dropped suddenly

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=9715991&language=EN

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=9788518&language=EN

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=9878741&language=EN

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=9871085&language=EN

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=9815728&language=EN

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=9840221&language=EN
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=7472316&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Russell Evans said:

By your logic and the proof you offer that the standards have lessened; removing all your photos from the gallery and then resubmitting them should result in all the photos being accepted into the gallery again. Would you care to try the experiment?

Click to expand...

Ya know, that might actually be worth trying. Of course, it would take weeks and weeks... particularly since I wouldn't want to put them all in at the same time.

If say five or six out of seven get back in again, that to me would imply that there's enough consistency for a change to be meaningful.

paulkienitz said:

Between this and the decline of interested voters, I think we can pretty much say it's dead now as a serious prestige gallery. If it ever did qualify as that.

Click to expand...

I don't think it ever has been a "serious prestige gallery". That title is reserved for 1x.com.

You have compared 2 samples - one taken when you submitted them for the first time and one taken when you submitted them again.

Your experiment proves that at the time of your second sample, the PPG standard is lower for the pictures you have submitted than in your first sample. Any or all of the following might still be true:

1. If somebody does exactly the opposite and resubmits pictures that have been accepted before (let's say with another account), they'll get rejected.

2. The standard might be fluctuating all the time. It's lower at this moment, higher in the next. Without many samples spread over a long period of time I cannot see how your experiment proves the myth.

3. The standard for the photos you have submitted might have lowered, but for other types of pictures, might got higher. A quality of a picture is not a 1-dimensional thing - that is, it's impossible to line up all the pictures and say anything more to the right is better than anything more to the left. There are many technical qualities under consideration - so even if you have multiple samples spread over time, you can at most say their weighing criteria has changed.

paulkienitz said:

areidjr said:

I wouldn't call that a scientific experiment. Perhaps a test of the current situation, but not a scientific test. There are too many variables that may have changed between then and now. Certainly, it wasn't the exact same peer group that reviewed the photos. You have no way of knowing whether the photos got past the peer group the first time they were submitted and that the Pentax reviewers ever saw them. You also don't know if it was the same Pentax reviewer if it did get past the peer review.

Click to expand...

How are those variables relevant to the hypothesis? The hypothesis is that the standards of admission are now less stringent or less difficult. Consider the PPG as a black box that produces one bit of output per picture submitted. How they pick them isn't relevant to the test of the hypothesis.

Click to expand...