Disappearing POTW

I checked admin panel - the status of the photo what was chosen IS private.

 

It seems, some people don't want to subject their works to the kind of critical teardown that the POTWs go through. For them, one idea could be to allow people to opt out of being considered for POTW. This would avoid all the confusion each week, both for them and you. Also, can we let people to designate a subset of their works to be considered for POTW, instead of their entire body of work (they can designate the entire body if they want)? That way, if certain works are more personal to them, they can exclude them from being considered for critical discussion.

I agree on opt-out button. Really hasn't been an issue up until the most recent two picks. When a photo is chosen we do ask they keep it public, but seems the last two we've found its not the case. Powerball ticket anyone?

It seems, some people don't want to subject their works to the kind of critical teardown that the POTWs go through. For them, one idea could be to allow people to opt out of being considered for POTW. This would avoid all the confusion each week, both for them and you. Also, can we let people to designate a subset of their works to be considered for POTW, instead of their entire body of work (they can designate the entire body if they want)? That way, if certain works are more personal to them, they can exclude them from being considered for critical discussion.

 

Supriyo, I'm well aware that an image selected for POTW is one that will prompt discussion. I find the phrase "critical teardown" somewhat pejorative, at least in connotation. If one of my photographs were selected, I would welcome constructive criticism, whether positive or otherwise. Recently I found the following critique posted to a photograph I posted for critique: "gloomy dreary." Feedback like this has no value, in my opinion.

 

By the way, I like your idea about opting out of the POTW.

Michael, I might well find a reaction like "gloomy, dreary" to one of my photos very valuable. Those are two honest, descriptive terms of what the viewer saw in a photo. If I felt it was a gloomy, dreary photo I'd come away thinking I'd expressed the gloom well. If I felt it wasn't a gloomy, dreary photo, I'd carefully scrutinize it to try to adopt that viewer's point of view and see if I could get where he was coming from or what he might have been seeing, even if I ultimately disagreed. I hope my photos are seen from different points of view and it can help to know what those are.

Michael, actually I was referring to the term in a more jocular way than it came out to be. On a hindsight, different people have different thresholds for taking criticisms. To some, critical analysis of minute features or details of their work may construe as teardown or deconstruction. To others, such minute details or inconsistencies are critical as they can make or break a work.

 

I personally don't mind my work to be deconstructed, but I do understand that some people may mind. Right now, there is no way for them to opt out and no way for us the commenters to know how different artists will take different levels of criticisms. Thats why I suggested the option to opt out.

 

The comment "gloomy dreary" tells how the viewer feels about the work upon seeing it for the first time. I think, such knee jerk reactions have value too (I think any honest comment has value). I understand you were probably looking for a little more time investment from the viewer, a little detailed comment, but sometimes thats all we get here at PN. When my three year old daughter saw this, she looked at it and said "your hand, scary", and then ran away. I felt, it had a lot of value. She has not seen much of the world and doesn't know the feeling of fear very well. So, her reaction is a very unbiased primal one.

I understand you were probably looking for a little more time investment from the viewer, a little detailed comment

The thing is, Supriyo, the simple "gloomy dreary" gives Michael the opportunity to take up the challenge and adopt a variety of perspectives to see if he can find dreary gloomy without having it specified for him. He might, in fact, find a whole different or a few different dreary gloomy ways to see his own photo that might not occur to him if it is spelled out for him by the critic. Sometimes what seems less than one would want can actually be an opportunity.

 

Michael, what would you think about posting a link to the photo in question? Might be fun for a bunch of us to see if we see any potential dreariness or gloom in it!

Michael, what would you think about posting a link to the photo in question? Might be fun for a bunch of us to see if we see any potential dreariness or gloom in it!

 

Second that!

BTW, I know which photo Michael was referring to, but I will leave it to him to post it here (not hard to find if you look at the recent photos in his portfolio).

I somewhat understand Michael's sentiment now, because the gloomy and/or scary can be one of the obvious possible reactions to the photo (besides nostalgia, melancholy, loneliness). I feel, he was thinking, since these are so obvious, what's next, anything more?

Since the POW has again failed to update, I'm wondering if the original one that was set to 'private' is stuck in first place in the queue. Glenn, if this week's also shows 'private' can you see if it looks like how Supriyo described that first picture before it was moved 'private?

 

 

It was a digital art, about a winged superman flying around saturn, with rays of light shining from heaven (crude recollection).

Since the POW has again failed to update, I'm wondering if the original one that was set to 'private' is stuck in first place in the queue. Glenn, if this week's also shows 'private' can you see if it looks like how Supriyo described that first picture before it was moved 'private?

 

Glenn needs to wake up, brush his teeth, get his morning coffee, and then checks updates on PN. Thats what I do.

The elves are on the beach in Cuba.

The elves are on the beach in Cuba.

 

Taking photos I suppose. Cuba will make some excellent images.

It seems, Glenn woke up, brushed his teeth and left for work. Still no POTW. :D

I can faithfully report that, at least for the moment and until further notice, there is a new POTW. It has a familiar look and feel, reminding me of last week's only this week's uses cool, watery blues rather than warm, apocalyptic yellows. Edited June 7, 2017 by Norma Desmond

Remove the gimmicky app and you're left with a ladder, a pool and a swimmer, yawn.

Well, it was there this week and I think the photo owner got mad because we weren't nice (aka we told the truth about his picture). As of this minute, it's now gone.

Since this has happened too many times, I suggest the admins get the consent of the photographer before putting up the photo as POTW. Also, once the consent is obtained and the photo displayed, the photographer should no longer be allowed to make the photo private for the remainder of the week.

I missed out because I forgot to look. Odd that so many recent potw selections has gone awol. I've followed the forum and commented myself, whenever I've not been banned for not being nice and I do not recall this happening until recently.

Actually, Glenn, that's not the case. As Supriyo said above, the photo is public but is in the wrong position among the thumbnails on the POTW page.

Fred,

You'll probably be getting a job offer any day now to help debug the system.