Comment about Challenge 8 voting

[Nee (Renee Davis)]

Hedgehog, I completely agree! I haven't yet voted because I'm feeling very frustrated by the limits of only being able to choose the "top three" photos. There are SO many, equally good photos, that I'm really stuck on which way to go with my voting. I enjoy all types of pics, from the more traditional photos to the cutting edge stuff and even "manipulated" and "set-up" ones as well. If I think they are really good, I like 'em no matter how they are done!

I think we DO need to be able to give more points than just for the top three, but how can this be done easily? With so many photos to judge, there is no way we can we possibly keep track of our votes on a sliding scale (most impressed to ?) for the entire collection.

I like a number of different photos equally for different reasons, so if we are to be able to give points, it has to be on each photo's individual merits, perhaps on a scale from one to five. Then, the points could be tallied and given ranking according to all the votes given to the photos. (In which case, we might need to also number the pictures to make voting easier than using only titles!) For those we don't care for at all, we can simply not give any points, so we are not "forced" to vote for each and every picture, unless we choose to do so.

Or we could at least bump it up from only three to a nice rounded number such as our top 10. Or, at least allow us to list "ties", so we can award points to all the photos we feel are equally good for each of the top three placements. In any case, I hope whoever "wins" this challenge, will seriously consider revamping the voting structure in a way that will make it more constructive for eveyone, (not just those lucky few at the top) but at the same time, not make it any more complicated. Best of luck to whoever that may be! Nee (rdavis)

PS I wonder if there a way we can change our online challenge gallery format so that we can tally the votes using the system already set up by Slug, with some modifications perhaps. An inquiry might be in order, since our challenge gallery's purpose is a somewhat more unique one than most of the other pbase galleries.

I wrote in another thread a suggestion that has probably already
been discussed, or perhaps has been tried regarding voting.

Maybe I feel this way because I'm new, but I have read posts
alluding to this as well. I feel that more good can be done in
future votes by allowing the voter more breadth in voting. Say for
example - give people 20 or 30 points to distribute to images
however they please, with say a 3 or 5 point maximum that can be
given to any one image.

Here is where we differ a bit...I think it would be too hard to keep track of the votes we want to give the photos, but overall, the idea of giving more credit to more photos is a good one!

Then, at the end, don't just tally the top
three, but rather, make a list of all the photos that received
points, and give the point totals for each.

I think this accomplishes many positive things:

1) Being someone that has little experience and is really just
starting to learn, even having one person give a point to my photo
is very motivating. This will keep more people interested.

2) More statistics. This would help to illustrate the great breadth
of which people rate photos, directly with numbers. So, let's say
one photo is excellent technically, and another has a powerful
idea. With more points floating around, these images could rank
very closely in the final tally.

3) Elimination of "voting remorse". It seems that in earlier
challenges, the number of images was far less than it is now. So,
picking the top 3, plus honorable mention covered a far greater
percentage of the total images. However, now - after I put my votes
in, I actually feel badly because there were so many others that I
really wanted to express an interest for with points, but there
were not enough slots. From reading posts, I think many people feel
the same way.

I totally agree with your reasoning on the above points!

Finally, I don't think this is any more difficult for the organizer
to tally than in the present system.

=Comments?

=Hedgehog
--my online gallery- http://www.pbase.com/rdavis

 

[Andrew Coupe]

You've just reminded me of something I wanted to say in my previous post...

While I understand what you're saying about appreciating the things you've tried yourself (that's human nature) it seems to me it doesn't really matter how or where the effects in a picture are achieved - it's the end result that matters.

So, for me at least, whether the neat colours in a shot are achieved through clever camera work or Photoshoppery doesn't make any difference - they're both tools used to express somebody creativity and realise a vision, and that's what counts.

Pinback

Please don't get me wrong. I really respect your talents. My
frustration is with myself. I think what I was trying to say was
that when I can't do something myself due to lack of
skill/practice/luck, then I don't weigh it appropriately when
evaluating. For instance, I don't even know how to do an effective
layer in software, or to adjust the contrast on one part of the
image but not the other. See my limitations? So, while I love
the photographs and respect the work, there always seems to be
other more conventional (actually, that's probably the best word
I've used in this thread) photographs that I gravitate towards
because I connect with them better.

This has also just got me thinking of a new category to vote on -
Best Showing in Challenge. This would be the artist that you feel
consistently submitted the
best/attractive/provoking/whateveryouwannacallit photos. For
example, in the portrait challenge, cUrVe would have been a
no-brainer for me. Just as Fremiet or Nir may have been my
choice this time (they came to my mind but I didn't go back and
review them all again).

Oh, and also a "Newcomer" award, that would be for an artist that
is submitting a photo for the first time. Indicated by NC on the
post or something.

More rambling..... when will it ever end....

Jim

AVB and others,

Okay, that probably doesn't make sense. So, for example, I'm
pretty inept at post-processing and photo manipulation, but I love
to take landscapes, night shots, basically anything outdoors. When
evaluating a photo, do I respect a manipulated or composite photo
more/less becausue I haven't tried it (You Spin Me Round)? What
about a clarity of a nightshot that I have never been able to
achieve, but have tried and tried (Shay's Seattle shots)? Or
someone capturing a photo opportunity that just happens by (Walking
Alone Together).

Sadly, I think I need to broaden my perspective. I think I tend to
vote for and/or admire photos that I have tried or wished for
rather than those that I haven't tried. I suppose its somewhat
natural, but is it fair? Spin Me Round by cUrVe is a perfect
example. I really think its super cool (along with all of his
other stuff), but when it came down to it, I was pretty
conservative in my voting.

i just want everybody to know that on my "you spin me round,
round..." photo, the colors are in fact a naturally occuring
phenomenon whereby the lazer etched patterns in the vinyl act like
prisms reflecting the light as the record rotates at 45 revolutions
per minute. with a 25 second exposure the colors appear randomly
scattered throughout the surface of the record as each revolution
brings differently shaped patterns into position, sometimes
overlapping previously imaged shapes to create a kaleidoscope of
colors. in other words i had nothing to do with it except press the
button and stand back.
the photoshop manipulation involved slight levels and contrast
tweaking only.
just so you know in the future, not one of my photos is a composite
and none have color or effects added to them other than what you
get when you go crazy with the contrast level.
the funny thing is, i almost didn't enter this photo and i also
almost pulled it because it is one of the least manipulated photos
i have ever taken.
--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

--Pinback---------- http://www.pbase.com/pinback

 

[Andrew Coupe]

Shutter wrote:
[...]

Regarding a weekend vote, fine with me, but I have pretty good
access whenever.

I have an ADSL connection, so I assumed that it was pbase being slow, but maybe it isn't, if other folks aren't seeing the same tardiness.

--Pinback---------- http://www.pbase.com/pinback

 

[cUrVe]

hey jim

i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this misconception. it could have been anyone.

with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much. and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.

i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites, heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something really needs fixing.

Please don't get me wrong. I really respect your talents. My
frustration is with myself. I think what I was trying to say was
that when I can't do something myself due to lack of
skill/practice/luck, then I don't weigh it appropriately when
evaluating. For instance, I don't even know how to do an effective
layer in software, or to adjust the contrast on one part of the
image but not the other. See my limitations? So, while I love
the photographs and respect the work, there always seems to be
other more conventional (actually, that's probably the best word
I've used in this thread) photographs that I gravitate towards
because I connect with them better.

This has also just got me thinking of a new category to vote on -
Best Showing in Challenge. This would be the artist that you feel
consistently submitted the
best/attractive/provoking/whateveryouwannacallit photos. For
example, in the portrait challenge, cUrVe would have been a
no-brainer for me. Just as Fremiet or Nir may have been my
choice this time (they came to my mind but I didn't go back and
review them all again).

Oh, and also a "Newcomer" award, that would be for an artist that
is submitting a photo for the first time. Indicated by NC on the
post or something.

More rambling..... when will it ever end....

Jim

AVB and others,

Okay, that probably doesn't make sense. So, for example, I'm
pretty inept at post-processing and photo manipulation, but I love
to take landscapes, night shots, basically anything outdoors. When
evaluating a photo, do I respect a manipulated or composite photo
more/less becausue I haven't tried it (You Spin Me Round)? What
about a clarity of a nightshot that I have never been able to
achieve, but have tried and tried (Shay's Seattle shots)? Or
someone capturing a photo opportunity that just happens by (Walking
Alone Together).

Sadly, I think I need to broaden my perspective. I think I tend to
vote for and/or admire photos that I have tried or wished for
rather than those that I haven't tried. I suppose its somewhat
natural, but is it fair? Spin Me Round by cUrVe is a perfect
example. I really think its super cool (along with all of his
other stuff), but when it came down to it, I was pretty
conservative in my voting.

i just want everybody to know that on my "you spin me round,
round..." photo, the colors are in fact a naturally occuring
phenomenon whereby the lazer etched patterns in the vinyl act like
prisms reflecting the light as the record rotates at 45 revolutions
per minute. with a 25 second exposure the colors appear randomly
scattered throughout the surface of the record as each revolution
brings differently shaped patterns into position, sometimes
overlapping previously imaged shapes to create a kaleidoscope of
colors. in other words i had nothing to do with it except press the
button and stand back.
the photoshop manipulation involved slight levels and contrast
tweaking only.
just so you know in the future, not one of my photos is a composite
and none have color or effects added to them other than what you
get when you go crazy with the contrast level.
the funny thing is, i almost didn't enter this photo and i also
almost pulled it because it is one of the least manipulated photos
i have ever taken.
--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

--cUrVe http://homepage.mac.com/curve

 

[Shutter.]

Pinback,

I agree with you 100%. That's why I'm confessing my sins. ;-) Hopefully, this is a cleansing of my palette.

Jim

While I understand what you're saying about appreciating the things
you've tried yourself (that's human nature) it seems to me it
doesn't really matter how or where the effects in a picture are
achieved - it's the end result that matters.

So, for me at least, whether the neat colours in a shot are
achieved through clever camera work or Photoshoppery doesn't make
any difference - they're both tools used to express somebody
creativity and realise a vision, and that's what counts.

Pinback

Please don't get me wrong. I really respect your talents. My
frustration is with myself. I think what I was trying to say was
that when I can't do something myself due to lack of
skill/practice/luck, then I don't weigh it appropriately when
evaluating. For instance, I don't even know how to do an effective
layer in software, or to adjust the contrast on one part of the
image but not the other. See my limitations? So, while I love
the photographs and respect the work, there always seems to be
other more conventional (actually, that's probably the best word
I've used in this thread) photographs that I gravitate towards
because I connect with them better.

This has also just got me thinking of a new category to vote on -
Best Showing in Challenge. This would be the artist that you feel
consistently submitted the
best/attractive/provoking/whateveryouwannacallit photos. For
example, in the portrait challenge, cUrVe would have been a
no-brainer for me. Just as Fremiet or Nir may have been my
choice this time (they came to my mind but I didn't go back and
review them all again).

Oh, and also a "Newcomer" award, that would be for an artist that
is submitting a photo for the first time. Indicated by NC on the
post or something.

More rambling..... when will it ever end....

Jim

AVB and others,

Okay, that probably doesn't make sense. So, for example, I'm
pretty inept at post-processing and photo manipulation, but I love
to take landscapes, night shots, basically anything outdoors. When
evaluating a photo, do I respect a manipulated or composite photo
more/less becausue I haven't tried it (You Spin Me Round)? What
about a clarity of a nightshot that I have never been able to
achieve, but have tried and tried (Shay's Seattle shots)? Or
someone capturing a photo opportunity that just happens by (Walking
Alone Together).

Sadly, I think I need to broaden my perspective. I think I tend to
vote for and/or admire photos that I have tried or wished for
rather than those that I haven't tried. I suppose its somewhat
natural, but is it fair? Spin Me Round by cUrVe is a perfect
example. I really think its super cool (along with all of his
other stuff), but when it came down to it, I was pretty
conservative in my voting.

i just want everybody to know that on my "you spin me round,
round..." photo, the colors are in fact a naturally occuring
phenomenon whereby the lazer etched patterns in the vinyl act like
prisms reflecting the light as the record rotates at 45 revolutions
per minute. with a 25 second exposure the colors appear randomly
scattered throughout the surface of the record as each revolution
brings differently shaped patterns into position, sometimes
overlapping previously imaged shapes to create a kaleidoscope of
colors. in other words i had nothing to do with it except press the
button and stand back.
the photoshop manipulation involved slight levels and contrast
tweaking only.
just so you know in the future, not one of my photos is a composite
and none have color or effects added to them other than what you
get when you go crazy with the contrast level.
the funny thing is, i almost didn't enter this photo and i also
almost pulled it because it is one of the least manipulated photos
i have ever taken.
--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

--
Pinback
----------
http://www.pbase.com/pinback

--Jim Fuglestad http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Shutter.]

But as Sgt. Pinback said, it really doesn't matter, its the final result that matters.

I know someone who thinks that digital photography at all is for amateurs, if not copouts. When all is said and done, would someone pay more for a bad film shot over a beautiful shot that has been processed? No way. The only thing that people will recognize is the final result.

Take January Thaw, for instance, this is one photo that I was really pretty happy with straight out of the camera, but in its original version, I noticed some nice reflections of the blue sky in the icycle, but you couldn't really see it at a smaller size. So, I adjusted the wb and the saturation to make it a better photo. Pure? Do I care? Well, I'd rather have it be straight from the camera, but even more I'd rather have a result that I can put on my wall.

You see, but this kind of processing is okay because I knew how to do it. hehe... ;-) That's my point.

Jim

Please don't get me wrong. I really respect your talents. My
frustration is with myself. I think what I was trying to say was
that when I can't do something myself due to lack of
skill/practice/luck, then I don't weigh it appropriately when
evaluating. For instance, I don't even know how to do an effective
layer in software, or to adjust the contrast on one part of the
image but not the other. See my limitations? So, while I love
the photographs and respect the work, there always seems to be
other more conventional (actually, that's probably the best word
I've used in this thread) photographs that I gravitate towards
because I connect with them better.

This has also just got me thinking of a new category to vote on -
Best Showing in Challenge. This would be the artist that you feel
consistently submitted the
best/attractive/provoking/whateveryouwannacallit photos. For
example, in the portrait challenge, cUrVe would have been a
no-brainer for me. Just as Fremiet or Nir may have been my
choice this time (they came to my mind but I didn't go back and
review them all again).

Oh, and also a "Newcomer" award, that would be for an artist that
is submitting a photo for the first time. Indicated by NC on the
post or something.

More rambling..... when will it ever end....

Jim

AVB and others,

Okay, that probably doesn't make sense. So, for example, I'm
pretty inept at post-processing and photo manipulation, but I love
to take landscapes, night shots, basically anything outdoors. When
evaluating a photo, do I respect a manipulated or composite photo
more/less becausue I haven't tried it (You Spin Me Round)? What
about a clarity of a nightshot that I have never been able to
achieve, but have tried and tried (Shay's Seattle shots)? Or
someone capturing a photo opportunity that just happens by (Walking
Alone Together).

Sadly, I think I need to broaden my perspective. I think I tend to
vote for and/or admire photos that I have tried or wished for
rather than those that I haven't tried. I suppose its somewhat
natural, but is it fair? Spin Me Round by cUrVe is a perfect
example. I really think its super cool (along with all of his
other stuff), but when it came down to it, I was pretty
conservative in my voting.

i just want everybody to know that on my "you spin me round,
round..." photo, the colors are in fact a naturally occuring
phenomenon whereby the lazer etched patterns in the vinyl act like
prisms reflecting the light as the record rotates at 45 revolutions
per minute. with a 25 second exposure the colors appear randomly
scattered throughout the surface of the record as each revolution
brings differently shaped patterns into position, sometimes
overlapping previously imaged shapes to create a kaleidoscope of
colors. in other words i had nothing to do with it except press the
button and stand back.
the photoshop manipulation involved slight levels and contrast
tweaking only.
just so you know in the future, not one of my photos is a composite
and none have color or effects added to them other than what you
get when you go crazy with the contrast level.
the funny thing is, i almost didn't enter this photo and i also
almost pulled it because it is one of the least manipulated photos
i have ever taken.
--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

--Jim Fuglestad http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Dee Golden]

Wow, how did I miss this thread?

I find it interesting to see if I can predict which people will vote for which photos. For example several people haven't ever (I could be wrong and I'm not going back to all the challenges) voted for my photos. On the other hand, some of those people, I've noted, I've never voted for. I just find it very intersting.

I like coming upon a photo op, being in the right place at the right time and just shooting! Being able to capture a good photo on the spur of the moment is my thing. I'm not good or patient about going back to a spot and waiting for the perfect lighting, etc. I'm trying to overcome that.

I also tend to rush past black and white photos. I like color. If you had a great black and white version of a photo and the same photo in color, the color version would get my attention and the vote. One exception to that was in the contrasts challenge -- the "knot" sculpture in front of a tall building just grabbed my attention. I still don't know where that is located! Doesn't mean I won't use the technique, but the photo has to be extra extra special to catch my eye. Crarchitecture's (spelling?) actually caught my attention.

I tend to like bright and bold or very quiet and serene. Being nearsighted, I prefer close up to the action. I had posted some suggestions for people having problems picking a subject, and one of them was pool, and catching the action of the balls being hit. In my mind, the balls would be charging directly at me (Bella Attack of the pool balls!) or I'd be peeking over the shoulder of the shooter. So one person shot them from the other end of the table. I found it interesting seeing the trail of the balls in motion. Another shot them just as they were hit, and I found this one more interesting visually. I've never tried this shot, so have no idea what is involved (getting the camera smashed by the pool balls) in capturiing the shot I saw in my mind's eye.

I also mentioned blowing bubbles, in my mind's eye the face of a child on the left, the wand in the middle and a huge bubble, gleaming in colorful reflections on the right. In the background, of course would be more floating bubbles. An alternative would be bubbles being blown up and a big smile on the bubble blower's face as they gently blew away. It was interesting to me when I saw a "middle" shot of a child blowing bubbless downward. So my preference is for "close up" shots.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we all imagine things differently. Also I've noticed that I can't always orchestrate the shot I have in my mind's eye or imagination.

For Bella Attack, I would have preferred a closer crop emphasizing the racing dog and splashing water. I didn't need the stuff to the side. I wanted to see Bella, up front, close and personal. However, no one else suggested this.

Shifting gears from compositon to photoshop. Photoshop absolutely saved Camera Shy. I hope the result looked natural or posssible. I was upset because the photo is ultra soft just on the verge of out of focus, and because the darned Hawk moved. However, I didn't delete the photo, I did decide to "fix" it because I thought it ironic that that golden eye was peering at the top of the frame. I loved the wings, and only wish there had been more detail on the feet or rather more separation.

My personal list of "things to improve" would probably be to think more about options and to work harder on the technical end of things. I was a little short of time and some photos I put in just for fun and a kind of you don't see this all the time. Exhibition - who's the boss and the big drip. They fixed the drip the next day. I liked the way the drip was blowing in the breeze and the way the light hit things just right. I liked it, others apparently just yawned and weren't very impressed. Viva la difference!

I did think of a lava lamp, but I don't have one. My picture would not have been nearly as dramatic as cUrVes' however. His vision is unique and I always look forward to what he'll come up with next. I was in Crissy Field (before the challenge 8 topic was announced) when a bunch of dog owners were exercising their dogs, and I took a bunch of photos trying to stop the action and to predict it. An exercise in futility! The dog would run at a different pace, or change direction. I'd have to take a full memory stick of running dog shots to get the one I wanted.

I love taking shots in the car at night with a slow shutter speed, so I could appreciate the two that were entered. They are easy to take, but again it's luck! I also like doing camera motion or painting with lights, purposely making the camera unfocused and getting nice soft mushy abstracts. I like to incorporate them into my design work as backgrounds.

So this isn't really about voting but about photo preferences. I'll often vote for a photo I wish I had taken. If someone captures something I've been trying to work on, then it will likely get my attention and my vote. Too late commute did that exactly. Better executed than any I've taken. But also photographed from standing still looking at, rather than me moving and shooting at the same time. Getting the timing right on that -- sigh, I can't even think of how many photos I would have had to have taken to get the framing right, the shutter right, etc.

Giving feedback is difficult for me. Not only do I not want to discourage the person, but my comments are public! Backed up forever in cyberspace LOL -- I have great respect and admiration for posters here who have the knack for creative criticism.

I find it interesting that the voting is "all over the place" in this challenge. In a way it's nice that so many photographers are getting votes!

Too, I "think" the challenge is to "think" up ideas that fit. So my hat's off to the many people who carefully set up their photos and executed them well.

Sorry for the ramblin"

Dee

 

[avanbeek]

For a rhetorical comment I'm impressed with discussion in this thread ;-)

I actually have enjoyed hearing how people decide on what makes a good picture as much as looking at the images themselves. It makes me realize that I'm no more crazy in my subjectivity than anyone else.

One thing that seems to be lacking from our Challenges (not that they aren't great but why not improve it), is why people don't like pictures or how they could be better. Getting compliments is great but I tend to learn much more from mistakes than anything else. Two people (Graeme and Dee) have mentioned that they would have preferred to see "Bella Attack" cropped to center and I appreciate their opinions.

Perhaps what we need as a part of the Challenge is the agreement that we all critique eachother's work without worry about insulting eachother. This would help everyone a great deal as long as we are all willing to take it. It would also prompt people to explain what they were getting at with their images.

Just a thought,
AVB

This is a rhetorical comment:

After reading through all of the votes so far I am left with one
important impression:
What makes a good photo is very subjective and one should not
expect everyone to like what you do.

It's amazing to me how I can see an image and be so impressed by it
yet there are others who don't even vote for it. We are all so
affected by who we are when we look at images that our tastes vary
dramatically. We can all usually agree on what makes a good
technical image but what we like is usually a different matter.

It is this one fact that make photography so tirelessly interesting
and fun for me.

Regards,
AVB

 

[Homer40784]

I know this is the 707 Talk Forum and gallery ;> ) but some photos just cannot be taken right outa the camera and posted.
Sometimes it is because of the camera not the photographer.

The D770 for instance is an older (2 yrs) Sony pro camera.
Obsessd with max detail, the designers made this camera's out put pretty "flat".

So If you use this camera, you HAVE to go to PS or somesuch on 90% of the shots (In to the auto body shop!). You generally have to boost Brite, contrast and saturation (But not too much....save that detail!).

Especially if you have evolved to the "vivid" level that most people seem to like.

With the CD1000 it is almost impossible to get the subject framed properly without cropping since the EVF is not very accurate.
And on many of the Cybershots, I would expect a little toning down helps.

So, to me, I could care less.

As long as the shot grabs me (and it could be vivid or very pastel, dependng on mood and subject) it gets my vote.

It's just that when "comparing" cameras (Not the purpose of the challenge) I dislike a PS artist showing his work as potentially "representative" of the camera.

In the challenge, I just don't care. I only care about the impact of the photo on me. If it affects me (Awe, wonderment, happy, sad, etc)
It gets my vote.

And there is never a problem finding something to vote for!
And I have always liked your imaginative stuff.

Homer

hey jim
i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this
misconception. it could have been anyone.
with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much.
and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of
acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have
successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and
are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.
i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems
because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they
could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites,
heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me
because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can
do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography
is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an
auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something
really needs fixing.

 

[David Pichevin]

hey jim
i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this
misconception. it could have been anyone.
with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much.
and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of
acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have
successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and
are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.
i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems
because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they
could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites,
heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me
because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can
do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography
is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an
auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something
really needs fixing.

I feel that way too. Although I'm not that much of a photographer or grphic artist, I now try my best with the camera, but then use Photoshop-like tools (if needed) as they belong to the array of tools that make digital photography, the same way ass the film photographer has his lab, his colored filters etc...

I think that some people unconsciously decide in their minds what a "real" photo should look like, and what can only have been done through processing.

When I did that Nosferatu photo for challenge 6, I had pretty good comments and that was really cool, but I had the feeling that my photo was just viewed as an original photoshop composite picture. I had actually spent a lot of time with lamps, the geometry of my staircase etc... to try to get the photo right and the only thing that was done in software was only to give it the B&W grainy look and a crop.

It makes you feel like yelling "THIS NOT A COMPOSITE" in order to have people not dismiss it right away as it is for them not photography but something else.

David.--My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

 

[Shutter.]

Absolutely! The key, however, is to at least be respectful, which generally is not a problem at all in STF.

Personally, I'm disappointed when a shot doesn't get any comments, because then I just assume that its a bad shot and noone wants to offend me. For instance, I actually pulled one motion shot towards the end because it wasn't receiving any feedback, so I thought I'd try something else. I would never pull a shot that has any feedback, but I figured "who'd notice"?

Sometimes a shot may be very good technically, and really meet what the challenge is going for, but be rather, umm, boring. That was probably the case with the submission that I pulled. But then, I didn't get any comments on the other two either :-( I would have loved any comments, positive or otherwise as long as they were constructive. I also understand with 150 entries, and a very slow method for posting comments, that people prefer to comment on only those that excite them.

I'm guilty of this, but not because I'm afraid to comment, but only because I don't want to look like the "bad guy".

I'm glad I came after the hoopla about the 707, and right in time to enjoy the challenges when they began to catch fire.

BTW: Anyone else notice how many people posted submissions in that first challenge but haven't been seen since?

Thanks AVB,

Jim

I actually have enjoyed hearing how people decide on what makes a
good picture as much as looking at the images themselves. It makes
me realize that I'm no more crazy in my subjectivity than anyone
else.

One thing that seems to be lacking from our Challenges (not that
they aren't great but why not improve it), is why people don't like
pictures or how they could be better. Getting compliments is great
but I tend to learn much more from mistakes than anything else. Two
people (Graeme and Dee) have mentioned that they would have
preferred to see "Bella Attack" cropped to center and I appreciate
their opinions.

Perhaps what we need as a part of the Challenge is the agreement
that we all critique eachother's work without worry about insulting
eachother. This would help everyone a great deal as long as we are
all willing to take it. It would also prompt people to explain what
they were getting at with their images.

Just a thought,
AVB

This is a rhetorical comment:

After reading through all of the votes so far I am left with one
important impression:
What makes a good photo is very subjective and one should not
expect everyone to like what you do.

It's amazing to me how I can see an image and be so impressed by it
yet there are others who don't even vote for it. We are all so
affected by who we are when we look at images that our tastes vary
dramatically. We can all usually agree on what makes a good
technical image but what we like is usually a different matter.

It is this one fact that make photography so tirelessly interesting
and fun for me.

Regards,
AVB

--Jim Fuglestad http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[cUrVe]

with the record album shot i was expecting people to doubt it was straight out of the camera so i shot a 15 sec. movie of what the camera was seeing but i had it set on HQ so it's a 5.2MB quicktime movie that's slow to load and not everyone has quicktime loaded on their computers. i had it up on my site for awhile but took it off a couple of days ago. i might put it up back.
from now on i think i just might use the disclaimers, "this is not a composite".

or "minimal photoshop adjustments made" or maybe "no pixels were altered while in post production".

hey jim
i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this
misconception. it could have been anyone.
with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much.
and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of
acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have
successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and
are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.
i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems
because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they
could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites,
heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me
because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can
do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography
is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an
auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something
really needs fixing.

I feel that way too. Although I'm not that much of a photographer
or grphic artist, I now try my best with the camera, but then use
Photoshop-like tools (if needed) as they belong to the array of
tools that make digital photography, the same way ass the film
photographer has his lab, his colored filters etc...

I think that some people unconsciously decide in their minds what a
"real" photo should look like, and what can only have been done
through processing.

When I did that Nosferatu photo for challenge 6, I had pretty good
comments and that was really cool, but I had the feeling that my
photo was just viewed as an original photoshop composite picture. I
had actually spent a lot of time with lamps, the geometry of my
staircase etc... to try to get the photo right and the only thing
that was done in software was only to give it the B&W grainy look
and a crop.

It makes you feel like yelling "THIS NOT A COMPOSITE" in order to
have people not dismiss it right away as it is for them not
photography but something else.

David.
--
My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

--cUrVe http://homepage.mac.com/curve

 

[Shutter.]

I keep getting dragged into this, it seems.

You shouldn't need a disclaimer. This is a digital photography forum, and I think it should be assumed that images are being post-processed to some degree or other. And as someone said (sgt. Pinback?), the end result should be all that matters.

My comments were only to reflect my limitations in evaluation, and my need/desire to get passed my bias'. If we start labeling, it would become a 'we' vs. 'they' mentality. May as well add another category.

Please oh please oh please don't start making any disclaimers. That would ruin a little bit of it for me. Its not your problem, its mine.

Jim

hey jim
i ended up shooting you only because you were the messenger of this
misconception. it could have been anyone.
with me it's not about the votes. i love doing this stuff too much.
and anyways my photos will always remain on the outer limits of
acceptance as opposed to say, zipperz, whose photos have
successfully bridged the gap between innovation and popularity and
are thusly, universally praised. and deservedly so.
i guess the point i'm trying to make with all this is that it seems
because my photos are not conventional looking, people assume they
could not have been produced in the camera and must be composites,
heavily manipulated and not true photographs. this bothers me
because i make every effort possible when taking the shot so i can
do the least possible after taking the shot. as far as photography
is concerned, Photoshop (or any other imaging software) is like an
auto body shop. you only go there for a touch-up or if something
really needs fixing.

I feel that way too. Although I'm not that much of a photographer
or grphic artist, I now try my best with the camera, but then use
Photoshop-like tools (if needed) as they belong to the array of
tools that make digital photography, the same way ass the film
photographer has his lab, his colored filters etc...

I think that some people unconsciously decide in their minds what a
"real" photo should look like, and what can only have been done
through processing.

When I did that Nosferatu photo for challenge 6, I had pretty good
comments and that was really cool, but I had the feeling that my
photo was just viewed as an original photoshop composite picture. I
had actually spent a lot of time with lamps, the geometry of my
staircase etc... to try to get the photo right and the only thing
that was done in software was only to give it the B&W grainy look
and a crop.

It makes you feel like yelling "THIS NOT A COMPOSITE" in order to
have people not dismiss it right away as it is for them not
photography but something else.

David.
--
My photo galleries: http://www.pbase.com/davidp

--
cUrVe
http://homepage.mac.com/curve

--Jim Fuglestad http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Hedgehog72988]

I'm learning more from this thread than the comments posted on PBASE. What a great thread.

=Hedgehog

 

[Hedgehog72988]

Hi People,

Thanks for this discussion.

Regarding the idea of giving points to more photos, hear me out. I don't thing it's really too hard, for the voter or the host.

Voter:
-------

Let's say you get 20 points to distribute. In Challenge 8, you had a total of 4+3+2+3*1 = 12 points. So, 12 and 20 are not very different. But you would now be given the freedom of how to distribute the points. Perhaps you have great "voter's remorse" because you left out 5 of your favorites after you voted. Now, you can cover them.

Think of it another way. We are really already doing this with "Honorable Mention". Some people obviously go through the trouble of listing several in this category - so, simply put points to them.

For those that don't want to do this, they don't have to - just pick 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and divide your points in three. Simple. However, this system gives others who want to distribute the points the freedom to do so.

That's a win-win situation. People can choose either way to their liking.

Host:
------

For anyone with a spreadsheet program, this form of voting should be equivalent to any other. As the images come in, list them as rows. As the votes come in, list the voters in columns. Sum the rows and colums. If someone used too many votes, decide on a simple way to eliminate the extra points.

In this way, it would be easy to sort the list, then post the entire list right after the voting is over. That list could have 30% or more of the total number of images listed, with at least some points.

Anyway, it's just an idea. I don't want to make a pest out of myself.

=Hedgehog

 

[Dee Golden]

That is SO funny you wrote that, I had exactly the same thought.

Dee

BTW: Anyone else notice how many people posted submissions in that
first challenge but haven't been seen since?

 

[Shutter.]

Dee,

Maybe I scared them away ;-)

Jim

Dee

BTW: Anyone else notice how many people posted submissions in that
first challenge but haven't been seen since?

--Jim Fuglestad http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries

 

[Dee Golden]

I agree! I tried to make comments, but it is very time consuming as most of the time I'm waiting for my browser window to update and I wind up making lots of mistakes. Yes, I do type fast

Some photos I just can't come up with any constructive things to say other than, why don't you try this again, which is "cold" as the kids used to say. So, I don't say anything!

My "big drip" didn't receive any comments at all. My ego is strong enough for this photo that I don't care. But one wonders, why didn't anyone comment at all? Even, 'this is a stupid photo why did you enter it" would give me an inkling .

Also, I'm on a dial up connection and there's just not enough time to respond, particularly since this was a "short" challenge time of only one week.

At one point 3 photos were tied for second place! It may have been the subject and the diverse ways people photographed it, never mind the different styles of the photographers.

If it were "stop the action" voting would be easier
If it were "show the motion" votiing would be easier

but we had both kinds and others in between!

Well, I'm not winning, so I won't have to worry, but it may be time to take up the offer of one person who offered to set up a server for the challenges. I'm sure some other software people would know how to set up a voting system right with the images. I know I've seen one somewhere.

I love these challenges so don't want to make it too much work or so difficult for the Winner that no one wants to take it on.

Dee

 

[Dee Golden]

Hedgehog

OK I kind of get what you are thinkiing of. I hate speadsheets, and it wouldn't be easy for me to figure out how to do it. But an experienced spread-sheeter would be able to do it.

Dee

 

[Dee Golden]

Now I'm curious, I'm going to have to go to the first 2 challenges and see who entered LOL

Dee

Maybe I scared them away ;-)

Jim

Dee

BTW: Anyone else notice how many people posted submissions in that
first challenge but haven't been seen since?

--
Jim Fuglestad
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries