Reading mode: Light Dark

Show us your most Controversial Entry !

Go to last post
This situation of scores according to the interpretation of the challenges is becoming more of my displeasure.

I have seen good pictures penalized by a very narrow interpretation of what people think the image of a particular challenge should be.

I'm not saying it's my case, but I take the opportunity to ask your feedback about the strange (controversial?) votes of this entry:
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=539220
mirrorrorrim said:
I think in many cases, the result of an inverted bell curve (many low votes and also many high votes) is that the image is a strong one but doesn't fit exactly with the challenge theme. Some will vote high for the image, other will vote it low because they feel it compromised the challenge theme. This seems to apply to many of the examples and comments in this thread.
Click to expand...
 
I would have given this a 2.5 or so. I think it fits the challenge and is very creative with nice comp., but the photo itslf is not very good from a image quality standpoint. If the IQ was better I could see giving it a 4 or more.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
 
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=539220

Hello Paulo,

First of all, I agree with you that voters punishing entries because they think the photos don't follow the rules can be a problem - because the rules are often open to interpretation. I believe picture quality should be more important.

I thought your picture was a nice one - and well suited to the theme of 'Happiness is the simple things'. Your title is perfect - the suggestion that the flower is a gift to be given or received by someone.

I've no idea why you got three 'point five' scores out of 13 total votes. That doesn't seem right. The photo that came in 37th is very similar to yours, but got no 'point fives'.

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=538594&View=MyVotes&Rows=25

What I did notice, looking through the challenge is that most of the photos had people in them - 116 of 188 in fact. Of the entries that placed higher than your 57th spot, there were only 6 that did not have people in them - and one of those was of a silhouetted statue that could easily have been mistaken for two people embracing.

So maybe if your photo showed the hand holding the flower - but offering it to someone whose smiling face we could see, it would have done much better.

I voted 2.5 for this one, by the way.

. . . . . Steve
 
Always very welcomed your comments, Mike.

I agree 100% with you, I would vote the same. :)

What do you think about the extreme votes, both 0.5 and 5.0 don't seem fair to me.
Mike Ronesia said:
I would have given this a 2.5 or so. I think it fits the challenge and is very creative with nice comp., but the photo itslf is not very good from a image quality standpoint. If the IQ was better I could see giving it a 4 or more.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Steve for your time and deep analysis.

I agree completely with all your comments. I would just add that the picture similar to mine has a much better IQ and has also a 0.5.

It is very interesting what you realized about people in the photos. It is also interesting that the theme talk about happiness through simplicity and usually people are not the simplest thing on the planet.

Finally, I decided to start a new thread to discuss votes being also based on interpretations of the challenges's criteria, with which I disagree.
 
I thought it was someone else's photo, but it's yours.

I don't think flower macro and elements of human go together, unless they are done really really really well.

Secondly I think the flower is not well lit enough.

Finally, I don't think high iso shots generally do well in open challenges like those.
Esp against low iso well lighted studio shots.
Paulo Matos said:
This situation of scores according to the interpretation of the challenges is becoming more of my displeasure.

I have seen good pictures penalized by a very narrow interpretation of what people think the image of a particular challenge should be.

I'm not saying it's my case, but I take the opportunity to ask your feedback about the strange (controversial?) votes of this entry:
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=539220
mirrorrorrim said:
I think in many cases, the result of an inverted bell curve (many low votes and also many high votes) is that the image is a strong one but doesn't fit exactly with the challenge theme. Some will vote high for the image, other will vote it low because they feel it compromised the challenge theme. This seems to apply to many of the examples and comments in this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Paulo,

I already noticed your other thread, but thanks for pointing to it anyway.

Regarding people in pictures - if you look at 'famous' photographs, or books about the history of Photography, you'll see an awful lot of those pictures have people in them. I think it's human nature to be more interested in people than macro shots of bugs or water droplets, wildlife, or sunsets - no matter how sharp and colorful they might be.

. . . . Steve
 
ConanFuji said:
I thought it was someone else's photo, but it's yours.
Click to expand...
What was that suppose to mean? :S
Member said:
I don't think flower macro and elements of human go together, unless they are done really really really well.

Secondly I think the flower is not well lit enough.

Finally, I don't think high iso shots generally do well in open challenges like those.
Esp against low iso well lighted studio shots.
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing me out in the right direction.

I agree with you, the things you said are the ones I'm realizing after arriving at DPR.
So, any feedback is definitely most welcomed.
 
Paulo Matos said:
I agree 100% with you, I would vote the same. :)

What do you think about the extreme votes, both 0.5 and 5.0 don't seem fair to me.
Mike Ronesia said:
I would have given this a 2.5 or so. I think it fits the challenge and is very creative with nice comp., but the photo itslf is not very good from a image quality standpoint. If the IQ was better I could see giving it a 4 or more.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As for the .5's I don't think it was because they didn't understand the rules as they are very simple and easy to understand with different examples. I think the host did a good job there though language does come into play on all of these. It might have been people that care only about IQ and gave it no points for comp and creativity.

As for the 5, if I was voting and voting on thumbnails I'd see giving it a 5 myself because I love the concept and different approach.

I think most of the voters were in the right ball park. I'd encourage you to re-do it with a faster lens so you can get the flower nice and sharp while retaining the backgroud blur at base ISO. It would look splended in a large print and make a wonderful gift for that someone special.

--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
 
Paulo Matos said:
I agree with you, the things you said are the ones I'm realizing after arriving at DPR.
So, any feedback is definitely most welcomed.
Click to expand...
I agree and like to think I've improved over the last couple of years because of this site and mostly by entering challenges. I have a long way to go but am enjoying the ride and enjoying pushing myself to do better. DPR is a great tool if you use it properly.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
 
Mike Ronesia said:
As for the .5's I don't think it was because they didn't understand the rules as they are very simple and easy to understand with different examples. I think the host did a good job there though language does come into play on all of these. It might have been people that care only about IQ and gave it no points for comp and creativity.
Click to expand...
My opinion differs, as I saw a high number of pictures which had many 0.5 without deserving it. I think many disagreed with the meaning of happiness trough simplicity.
Mike Ronesia said:
I think most of the voters were in the right ball park. I'd encourage you to re-do it with a faster lens so you can get the flower nice and sharp while retaining the backgroud blur at base ISO. It would look splended in a large print and make a wonderful gift for that someone special.
Click to expand...
Thank you! What do you mean by base ISO?
 
Paulo Matos said:
Thank you! What do you mean by base ISO?
Click to expand...
The challenge shows the shot was taking at 1600 ISO which most people use for low light situations. The IQ on most cameras gets worse as the ISO increases. Most cameras base ISO (lowest) is between 100 and 200. If you have enough light it will provide you with the best IQ in most instances. Your shutter speed was very high as well so if the shot were taken at ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/125 instead of 1600 and 1/2000 it would have most likely improved IQ. Add a shorter focal length faster f-stop like 50mm and f2.8 and you would be seeing a totally different picture. If you already understand all this then my apologies. If I'm wrong about this then I'm even more sorry for giving bad advice.

Maybe just sandbagers I guess on the .5's. I'm sure there are people that will give everyone a .5 to help theirs. It seems that the larger the number of entrants the more this seems to happen.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
 
Mike Ronesia said:
The challenge shows the shot was taking at 1600 ISO which most people use for low light situations. The IQ on most cameras gets worse as the ISO increases. Most cameras base ISO (lowest) is between 100 and 200. If you have enough light it will provide you with the best IQ in most instances. Your shutter speed was very high as well so if the shot were taken at ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/125 instead of 1600 and 1/2000 it would have most likely improved IQ. Add a shorter focal length faster f-stop like 50mm and f2.8 and you would be seeing a totally different picture. If you already understand all this then my apologies. If I'm wrong about this then I'm even more sorry for giving bad advice.
Click to expand...
I understand, but it is important to confirm information, thank you. :)
Mike Ronesia said:
Maybe just sandbagers I guess on the .5's. I'm sure there are people that will give everyone a .5 to help theirs. It seems that the larger the number of entrants the more this seems to happen.
Click to expand...
If it was sandbagging I would expect the host to do something and less difference between the number of 0.5 in each picture, I guess. But, as the voting system was (is?) working improperly, who knows.
 
I will tell you very, very tedious to look at every photo, make notes on who voted and then move on the the next and then try to combine and analyze all that info. I wouldn't expect any host to do that. In a challenge that size it would take hours.

Bottom line is it could be either, both, a combo of the two or something totally different all together.

--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.
 
Mike Ronesia said:
I will tell you very, very tedious to look at every photo, make notes on who voted and then move on the the next and then try to combine and analyze all that info. I wouldn't expect any host to do that. In a challenge that size it would take hours.
Click to expand...
That should be definitely corrected/simplified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top