/open rant/
Grrrr. I'm not growling at my scores, they get what they get. But why do some commenters, who are generally good hearted (I know, not all of them, but most are trying to help), put their comments in objective form? I made a choice in my candid image. Someone says it would be "better" if "these elements" (no, not real quotes) weren't there. Guess what? I want those elements, just as they are, in my photo. I don't want it "improved" in the way they suggest; if it were changed, it wouldn't be a "better" photo, it would be a different photo!
I probably did this some when I first arrived here, but since then I've tried to phrase my comments in terms of my opinions and likes/dislikes, often explicitly putting those words in a comment. You miss so much when you assume you see what the original photographer missed, especially in a challenge!
Grrrrr. If you don't like it, say so; but please don't ask me to make it what you think it should be!
/close rant/
I empathize with your frustration - sometimes it is down to choice of words. I can understand if someone doesn't like the image for such and such a reason, but to suggest to add or subtract major elements does have a whiff of telling you to take a picture as if it were taken by someone else. It's very likely no one means to be insulting with those types of suggestions, but it sure can feel that way when you're on the receiving end of them (and yes, I'm probably guilty of a few of those ill-phrased comments too).
I'm anxiously awaiting the posthumous list of ideas for backsides.
=the end of a day full of bad news.
=a bird hanging upside down.
=the empty glass of your third drink.
=the last day of your family's compromise vacation.
=the dream that wakes you up.
=Jessica Lopez pre-surgery.
Kashi and Purpleflutterby: I know of the "almost 6" syndrome - I have 5 scores of 5.9-5.999999 :)
Kashi: hope his surgery goes well!
As for scores vs. improving ... I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If you're trying to find a shot that will most impress the most people on DPC, then improving does mean higher DPC scores.
Once you get the technicals down, I think it's a matter of artistic choice. I don't think that shooting for a high score is "selling out" - it's just a choice you make.
And Jeffrey, this is the week to sell out. Beat the Ribbon Hogs!!! :)
We're basking in our two days of being in the lead, and I think that's going to have to be good enough. :) Sadly, I'm not contributing anything scorewise, but I have a feeling some folks will appreciate my artistic choice in Why. At least I hope so, because they sure aren't appreciating it in scoring at the moment!
Kashi and Purpleflutterby: I know of the "almost 6" syndrome - I have 5 scores of 5.9-5.999999 :)
Kashi: hope his surgery goes well!
As for scores vs. improving ... I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If you're trying to find a shot that will most impress the most people on DPC, then improving does mean higher DPC scores.
Scores do mean you've impressed DPC voters, and yes, that's a fine goal to have. But low scores don't necessarily mean it's a bad image, and they also do not really give you any help toward improving. They simply say, "We, a bunch of DPC voters, gave this image a low score." Raw scores can never tell you why, and can never do more than motivate you to figure out why. They can be a reality check, but little more than that. That's not learning, in my book, and it doesn't help with improvement. That would require constructive critiques.
And Jeffrey, this is the week to sell out. Beat the Ribbon Hogs!!! :)
I did my best selling out for this past week's challenge - not good enough to go hogwashing in the end, but good enough to have a lead for two whole days!
Agree with Rob on the scores thing. Every once in awhile I get a very good score on a shot I really, really like, but I figure that's just dumb luck more than anything else. My shot with the highest number of favs here scored in the mid-5s. One of my all time personal favorites scored much, much lower than that, and is actually a very decent photograph, I might add.
Gotta ask - Don, are you just having fun with the SC or do you truly think we should be able to burn the crap out of backgrounds, eliminating any and all detail and context?
Grrrrr. If you don't like it, say so; but please don't ask me to make it what you think it should be!
Some thoughts on this. I don't think commenters are asking you to make your shot something it isn't, but stating why they might like it better. That's a matter of personal taste/vision. I get comments like "did you try this" or "I'd like it better without...". Perfectly valid and I don't take offense at all. I may try it or I may not. Generally I'm happy with it the way it is, but accept that it doesn't work for everybody. While you may not want to hear "but I'd like it better if..." that may be just what someone else was trying to decide about a shot and it may give them a new way to see something they hadn't thought of.
So my advice - take a look at what they've suggested. If you don't agree, that's fine. Say thanks (check the box) and move on. Don't let it get to you - I'm sure it's not meant to criticize your choice, but to express a choice of their own. Hope this makes sense!
Grrrrr. If you don't like it, say so; but please don't ask me to make it what you think it should be!
Some thoughts on this. I don't think commenters are asking you to make your shot something it isn't, but stating why they might like it better. That's a matter of personal taste/vision. I get comments like "did you try this" or "I'd like it better without...". Perfectly valid and I don't take offense at all. I may try it or I may not. Generally I'm happy with it the way it is, but accept that it doesn't work for everybody. While you may not want to hear "but I'd like it better if..." that may be just what someone else was trying to decide about a shot and it may give them a new way to see something they hadn't thought of.
So my advice - take a look at what they've suggested. If you don't agree, that's fine. Say thanks (check the box) and move on. Don't let it get to you - I'm sure it's not meant to criticize your choice, but to express a choice of their own. Hope this makes sense!
Exactly what I do. "I might have liked it better" or "I might have tried" or "you might try (but it might not work)" type comments. What I'm getting this challenge is:
"This would work if ____, but you haven't done ____, so it's wrong."
Sure, I can read "I think" in front of that; I know that's their point of view. But what it doesn't show me is that they know this. They think they've found an objective flaw; "The photographer must not have seen that," they think. "Boy are they a bad photographer to have missed that. I better set them straight."
I take all suggestions and helpful criticisms; I actually do want to learn here. What I'm grring about is people who think they've spotted some objective flaw in a shot, and treat it as such. Those comments I'd rather not have. I know how to put together an image that doesn't have those elements in it, arranged in that way, and that's the assumption people should be making (not assuming I missed it or didn't know how to do it any "better"). Where they offer an alternative, that's very much appreciated. Whether they like the image or not is a personal choice I won't argue with; where they think they've found objective flaw, that I will.
"This would work if ____, but you haven't done ____, so it's wrong."
Sure, I can read "I think" in front of that; I know that's their point of view. But what it doesn't show me is that they know this. They think they've found an objective flaw; "The photographer must not have seen that," they think. "Boy are they a bad photographer to have missed that. I better set them straight."
This kind of reminds me of "Did you score less than 6.0? I'll give you a critique!" Therefore, I must be an expert because I've learned how to please the DPC voters.
When I give a comment where I find something that doesn't agree with me, I TRY to say that this is just my opinion because I'm certainly not an expert.
I still haven't learned how to please the masses. Thanks to Team Spleen though, I am trying to learn to not care.
"This would work if ____, but you haven't done ____, so it's wrong."
Sure, I can read "I think" in front of that; I know that's their point of view. But what it doesn't show me is that they know this. They think they've found an objective flaw; "The photographer must not have seen that," they think. "Boy are they a bad photographer to have missed that. I better set them straight."
This kind of reminds me of "Did you score less than 6.0? I'll give you a critique!" Therefore, I must be an expert because I've learned how to please the DPC voters.
When stdavidson gives these out, I've found his comments to be very useful and constructive. It could be that these commenters figure if you got over a 6, you have plenty of comments already.
This kind of reminds me of "Did you score less than 6.0? I'll give you a critique!" Therefore, I must be an expert because I've learned how to please the DPC voters.
Bob, that's someone who's responding to the NUMEROUS threads and requests from people who don't score highly asking for feedback on why not. It's not someone arrogantly declaring themselves the expert on what makes a good photo.
That's also someone who's doing their best to try to help people who want it. If YOU don't care about DPC scores, then don't post in those threads asking for comments. But don't ascribe bad intentions to the people who offer their time to help people who do care, and who do want to score better.
Originally posted by rheverly:
Scores do mean you've impressed DPC voters, and yes, that's a fine goal to have. But low scores don't necessarily mean it's a bad image, and they also do not really give you any help toward improving. They simply say, "We, a bunch of DPC voters, gave this image a low score." Raw scores can never tell you why, and can never do more than motivate you to figure out why.
I agree with all of that!
However, keep in mind that artistically breaking general guidelines can make your photo look like you just picked up a camera, depending on how you do it. So just take comments lacking "I think" in front as someone who's taking the time to try to help someone it appears doesn't know what they're doing.
If you want comments, then give the people leaving them a little slack. They're taking time out of their lives to make the comment, so if they don't remember the softening language, why do you care? Just look for the nuggets and ignore the tone.
No matter what you do, someone complains about it. And then people wonder why they don't get comments.
I agree, when StDavidson or DrAchoo (I think doc did it first) offer comments for mid-range scoring images, it's for the people in the middle who often don't get comments. It can be incredibly helpful, as it was the one time I used it. I always assumed it was offered because these were the shots that had the fewest spontaneous/in-challenge comments. I've considered doing this myself, and my average is below 5.5; not an expert thing, more of a help offered thing to those casting about for a reason.
Good points have been made on the subject of my rant; it was primarily frustration at the phrasing of the particular comment, which to me still reads fairly harshly that I just didn't know what I was doing (as if there was no way anyone in their right mind could choose what I chose; of course, I'm not saying I'm in my right mind, but still). If commenters want to be appreciated so as to justify their time in commenting, they should think a bit more about their comments and how they are phrased before leaving them. Do I want comments? I guess so. Do I want comments that give me the feeling the person leaving them doesn't think I have a clue? Um, no thanks.
What's somewhat funny about this to me is that this shot is getting some of the most directly negative comments during voting of any challenge I've entered; yet, right now it looks possible (though far from definite) to be on my profile page at the end of the challenge (it's at 5.73 and my number 5 is 5.71).
DPC sure can be a strange place sometimes!
Best,
Rob
P.S. Please do take my rant for what it was; a rant. Let's not let it get too drawn out when we could talk about philosophy or what we're going to be shooting next!
P.S. Please do take my rant for what it was; a rant. Let's not let it get too drawn out when we could talk about philosophy or what we're going to be shooting next!
Don't mention PHILOSOPHY!!! hehehehehehehehehe and I agree.... I take ALL comments with a grain of salt (and some not at all!) and a few I even try and apply to an image to see if it is what I want!!
*stomping off to find brick wall to bang head against*
I know scores don't really count, but - *bang bang* it's sooo annoying when a pic (PWL) starts out so well and then sinks so drastically *bang bang BANG*...well at least Candid is where I anticipated it would be.
Grr...
btw Jeffrey I think it was just me and purple whining about almost 6ish scores, don't think Kashi was. Wrong Canadian! (Yeah, I know, we all look alike :-))
Jeffrey I think it was just me and purple whining about almost 6ish scores, don't think Kashi was.
Oops, sorry, Kashi. :)
On the subject of scores dropping or climbing, I strongly suggest that you not look at scores until 24 hours have passed.
It's too tempting to think "YAHOO! A 7.0 after 3 votes" or "I've got a 7!" You don't have any score until rollover. Similarly, don't worry if the first night's scores are low.
The sample size is just too low, and single votes change things too much, to be worth considering.
Once 24 hours have gone by, I find most scores stay within 0.3 or so most of the time.
