Where are the truly "top" photos on photo.net?

Having paid close attention to the top rated photos on the

default "rate recent sum" pages, it is clear to me that the field is

dominated by birds, bugs and beasts. Not that there is anything

wrong with those particular subjects, but I personally find the

photos mediocre and uninteresting. Nature photography enthusiasts,

on the other hand, seem to feel that a picture of a pretty animal is,

by definition, a pretty picture. Not to come down too hard on this

one group of enthusiasts, let me add that I find many of the non-

nature photos on the trp pages to be likewise uninspiring.

 

Understand that I am not complaining that my own photos do not show

up on the trp pages. I merely want to know if anyone else has

figured out where the really "best" work can be found under the

current photo.net categorization system.

Maintain an list of interesting people, and see whom they rate and comment on. Collaborative filtering at its most primitive :)

Well, it's the age-old problem, and why we have wars about ratings. What's "best" for you is "mediocre" for me, and "unbelievably awful" for someone else. So there are different views on the TRP page. Just take your pick from the drop-down menu. Many of what I would call the best photos no longer appear anywhere because they've been posted too long, so you have to find them by looking at photographers who have commented on others, or looking at other photos from photographers who impress you. There is no "best," and therein lies the dilemma.

Hi Bob. Narturally, the best are in found in my own folder :0) But seriously, I think a search of the Gallery using <b>ALL TIME and AESTHETICS</b> produces what many people considered to be the best. The results from this view filter is being diluted daily, but I still think it will produce some good leads. <p>

I also like to use <b>ALL TIME combined with COMMENTS</b>. Not all highly commented photographs are the best, but at least they invoked a lot of discussion, or at least reaction, from the community. <p>

Along with these two filtering methods I feel the above suggestion, to visit photographers that you admire and look at their <b>FAVORITES</b> page, are about the only way to find the real TRP anymore. Regards.

While I don't appreciate Ballet myself, I respect it as an art form that I haven't observed enough to appreciate the intricacies that make it exciting. On the other hand, I don't particularly enjoy viewing portraits, but after forcing myself to spend some time doing so, I began to appreciate certain styles that stood out.

 

Having spent considerable time learning what little I know about Nature photography, I can say that there is much more to it than appears at the surface. A statement I'm sure applies to almost any form of photography.

 

Sure there's "Nature for the sake of Nature" which is more documentary than visionary, but don't discount the whole genre. If you aren't interested in it, then look at something else. But don't discount it just because it doesn't appeal to your current aesthetic.

C.G., I don't dislike nature photography, and occasionally I come across some fine examples of it on this site. But much of what is posted here and makes it onto the trp pages can be commended only for being sharp and well exposed. It takes more than this to make a photo truly noteworthy. One can think of nature photos as portraits of animals. As with portraits of humans, really good ones are uncommon.

I'm afraid that even the longer term views have been corrupted by rampant mate rating. As Walter has suggested, find a photographer whose work you admire and view the "<b>photos rated highest by this member"</b>. The downside is that this only works if you choose photographers who rate images.

Here's an example of a truly original and striking animal portrait.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2291250

 

Rob

Perhaps, but some might say that what's probably truly original is the time and talent it took in PS to produce it. Did you ever try to focus (or auto-focus)on something that was flying straight at you? No doubt an impressive piece of work, however.

Barry, regardless of how the photo was created, it is quite extraordinary. I was using it as an example of what nature photographers can aspire to, as opposed the sort of bland animal shots that grace the trp pages.

apparently <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3372399">this</a> is the most original picture of all time on photo.net.

<p>i'm speechless.

Robert: You're joking, right?

John, joking about what? Have I been unclear in my posts? I sincerely want to know where

I can find the "best" photos posted on photo.net, because they are certainly not to be

found on the "rate recent sum" pages. It is not that I dislike nature pictures, but rather

that the nature photography enthusiasts who rate them are a tad too enthusiastic, in my

opinion.

The best photos on photo.net are not to be found in the 1-day and 3-day views. Several hundred photos per day are submitted for critique and it is hard to see why half of them were submitted since you would think that even the photographers can see that they are no better than average. Of the other half, only a few on any given day are really exceptional. It is a very good day when there are more than a dozen that I would consider excellent, although there are generally another couple of dozen that are nice.

 

You have to look at the longer views to find the excellent work, and unfortunately, the excellent photos get buried a bit even in those views by photos that were over-rated due to rating inflation and mate-rating. Lately, another problem has been the excessive enthusiasm that many people have for certain genres. We have a problem like this at present with birds, both feathered and unclothed. Those photos have steady fans that drive them into the Top Rated Photos, even though many others are not very interested in them. Frankly, I'm completely fed up with bird photos at present, even though I recognize the skill that is involved in capturing them. I am just not that interested in birds.

 

You should think of the TRP only as a starting point. Once you find someone whose work you admire, you can then look at the photos that he rated highly or commented upon. You can also trace backwards from those who commented favorably or highly rated a photo that you admire to see what else that person might have found.

Maybe <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=736075">this photographer</a>? He does not mate rate or anything just present a very strong portfolio.<p>

 

What do you think?

Althought this subject has been beaten to death, and considering the newly revised and improved Photo.Net site this subject remains one that Photo.Net has not answered with appropriate changes in the software. There is my complaint and now my suggestion. -- As a user of the system I am interested in a means to find really talented photographers by category(s) (Nature, People, Digitally Altered, etc.). I am not interested in a solution that finds a single great picture, I'm looking for a means to pick by the photographers "total body of work"; This is important. I would like to see criteria like greater then x number of pictures of ratings greater than y/y. Or even ratings that includes x pictures over y/y ratings spanning across at least z months.

 

These should be easy metrics for the site programer to capture and make available for seaching. This would be most helpful in finding great sites to learn from, instead of the ratings game red-herrings.

 

I hope this helps. As of today it is difficult to gather good photographers to follow.

Scott, look at Photographers Sum. That is the total of all ratings that photographer has received across all photo. So one popular photo is probably not going to have that much weight. Unfortunately, it tends (like Number of Ratings) to be dominated by nudes, which get a lot of ratings.

If in photo net the majority of people like birds nothing can be done about it. They cannot be forced to change their views, the rest of us we can wait for the others to get bored of birds. The feathered kind, because I doubt they will ever get bored of the nude birds .... but eitherway. The only solution would be to divide photo net in photo.net.bird and photo.net.street and photo.net.nude.bird etc. but I do not think that it is a nice solution........

Brian, Thanks for the response. I guess all we need now is a way to slice the "sum" results by category to elemenate unwanted categories such as nudes, etc.