I haven't been here long, but i've found that if you take a picture and it some how incorporates war, poverty, 9/11, natural disaster, etc, you will automatically get a high(er) score on it, no matter what the quality of the picture is. Im sure this isn't an always everytime thing, but it seems to happen enough to make it a valid point.
So next week im going to go take pictures of a homeless puppy standing in a flooded basement of a flame singed house, while holding an american flag and wearing a "DO NOT FORGET 9/11" t-shirt, and im predicting a score of at least a 10.5.
So next week im going to go take pictures of a homeless puppy standing in a flooded basement of a flame singed house, while holding an american flag and wearing a "DO NOT FORGET 9/11" t-shirt, and im predicting a score of at least a 10.5.
I think it's more about the photo itself telling a story. If you look at a photo containing things like war, poverty, 9/11, natural disaster, etc..it usually touches people in some way resulting in higher scores given.
I haven't been here long, but i've found that if you take a picture and it some how incorporates war, poverty, 9/11, natural disaster, etc, you will automatically get a high(er) score on it, no matter what the quality of the picture is. Im sure this isn't an always everytime thing, but it seems to happen enough to make it a valid point.
Well, it's not like these are everyday occurrences in the life of most people. What else would you expect?
I remember a time when people were pretty sick of seeing american flags, they eventually started to get voted down and went away. The same with the wooden figures. My point being the only "voice" we have is our vote.
I don't like photos of the homeless, so I vote them down. I do like high contrast and moody shots, so I vote them up even if they aren't technically perfect. If enough people agree with me, the winning images start to look different - if the voters don't agree, then the winning images are whatever is to their taste at the time.
I haven't been here long, but i've found that if you take a picture and it some how incorporates war, poverty, 9/11, natural disaster, etc, you will automatically get a high(er) score on it, no matter what the quality of the picture is. Im sure this isn't an always everytime thing, but it seems to happen enough to make it a valid point.
So next week im going to go take pictures of a homeless puppy standing in a flooded basement of a flame singed house, while holding an american flag and wearing a "DO NOT FORGET 9/11" t-shirt, and im predicting a score of at least a 10.5.
exactly thinking this i did not enter photojournalism, i knew i can not submit all this and there was fire going on in US.
I don't like photos of the homeless, so I vote them down. I do like high contrast and moody shots, so I vote them up even if they aren't technically perfect. If enough people agree with me, the winning images start to look different - if the voters don't agree, then the winning images are whatever is to their taste at the time.
This isn't meant to be an attack, but take the top 3 from the PJ challenge, the first 2 really are amazing shots, but the 3rd place ribbon essentially is a snap shot to me. Yeah its wild looking, but its a snapshot. But since its a devestating current event, you'd be unamerican and evil to give it lower then a 5!
This isn't meant to be an attack, but take the top 3 from the PJ challenge, the first 2 really are amazing shots, but the 3rd place ribbon essentially is a snap shot to me. Yeah its wild looking, but its a snapshot. But since its a devestating current event, you'd be unamerican and evil to give it lower then a 5!
Well, it was a PJ challenge and PJ images tend to cover disasters and such, so it makes sense doesn't it?
As for it looking like a snap shot; this was a minimal editing challenge. Don't forget that.
Edit to add: The top 3 all look like snap shots to me. I wish I lived out that way as I might have had a chance at a ribbon for once! ;-)
This isn't meant to be an attack, but take the top 3 from the PJ challenge, the first 2 really are amazing shots, but the 3rd place ribbon essentially is a snap shot to me. Yeah its wild looking, but its a snapshot. But since its a devestating current event, you'd be unamerican and evil to give it lower then a 5!
PJ tends to be more oriented towards the 'snapshot' style of shooting anyway. I doubt the photographer would find a house to burn down just so he can get the lighting just right.
Eh? You telling me editors don't crop, boost saturation, sharpen, yada yada yada, their photographs before publishing?
Give me a break!
Did I say that ? But the 'basic' ruleset allows a whole lot more than pretty much any newspaper would put up with. Cropping yes. Slight tweaks, maybe. No yada yada yada.
But honestly, I wouldn't have submitted that picture in the first place.
But also, this isn't my point at all.
Your original point was about people voting highly on photos which depict natural disasters like the California wildfires, because it's their patriotic duty.
Well, in response to that, I'll say I gave the image in 3rd place a 6. Patriotism had nothing to do with it, I'm not even American. He was in the right place at the right time. But I didn't like the composition, I think he could have move the camera down a bit. So technicals *did* come into my decision, patriotism didn't.
but the 3rd place ribbon essentially is a snap shot to me. Yeah its wild looking, but its a snapshot.
I could see it being published in many newspapers or displayed on TV/ websites.
'Citizen' journalism is the current big thing in photojournalism. That means random snapshots of newsworthy events are the current new wave of photojournalism. Fits the challenge really well!
But honestly, I wouldn't have submitted that picture in the first place.
But also, this isn't my point at all.
Your original point was about people voting highly on photos which depict natural disasters like the California wildfires, because it's their patriotic duty.
Well, in response to that, I'll say I gave the image in 3rd place a 6. Patriotism had nothing to do with it, I'm not even American. He was in the right place at the right time. But I didn't like the composition, I think he could have move the camera down a bit. So technicals *did* come into my decision, patriotism didn't.
a 6 still seems high to me? I guess im more harsh ahha.
Eh? You telling me editors don't crop, boost saturation, sharpen, yada yada yada, their photographs before publishing?
Give me a break!
Did I say that ? But the 'basic' ruleset allows a whole lot more than pretty much any newspaper would put up with. Cropping yes. Slight tweaks, maybe. No yada yada yada.
Add to the above the fact that stories are often published on tight schedules and there is usually very little time to tweak a bunch of stuff before it needs to go out.
