Has this turned into graphics.net? (plus views on ratings)

Stand by while I open a can of worms.

<p>

Granted, none of us could get a great looking picture on this site

without Photoshop. I tend to use it for cropping, levels and unsharp

mask only, maybe because I am a lousy "artist" who can only

photograph what is there and not create anything myself. More and

more images in photo.net seem more like images, composites. When does

a "product" stop being a photograph and start being an image like the

kind a graphics designer or artist would make, not the work of a

photographer?

<p>

I have nothing against these images (other than that I do not like

99% of them, but that may just be because I can't stop laughing most

of the times I find myself in a "modern art" museum), they are just

not photos in my opinion.

<p>

What do others think of this? When I come across one of these as a

critique request, it is hard to resist rating them low because they

are not a photo, however much I respect the skills of the graphics

artist that created them.

<p>

I got in trouble once for rating <a

href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1132439>this</a>

image as bad, but with a reason for doing so (see comments). This

resulted in a comment so nasty on one of <a

href=http://www.photo.net/photo/867601>my photos</a>

that a moderator deleted it before I could read it myself. It's a

shame, look in Anna's "Some shots" folder and you'll see she is a

much better photographer than I ever will be.

<p>

So for now I'll refrain from rating these "images" altogether, but

how about creating special categories for this kind of thing,

including having different "high rated" photos?

<p>

Another thing that could be a usefull addition to the rating system

would be a "technical" rating. I feel bad giving someone a 2/2 or

3/3 rating even though focus and exposure are spot on, or rating it

like that when they have a great composition and are highly original,

just not exposed, scanned or edited that well.

<p>

That brings me to another point, how valuable is "originality" when

99% of pictures people hang on their walls or are used in advertising

or press are incredibly unoriginal. What is original? A photograph of

a sign on a door has been done before, but what a about a picture of

a "private" sign on a door that using a shallow depth of field leads

to a out of focus doorknob, how often has that been done? I find

myself (and a see others do that) rate the same for A and O most of

the time. There is more to photography than fine art, to be seen by

more people and be more lucrative to anyone wanting to do this

professionaly. (No, I am perfectly happy making a living as a

programming geek)

<p>

Although I have no real ideas on how to fix it, I find the current

photo.net rating system highly un-inspiring for anyone who is not in

the "fine art" business. Yes, they are stunning, but would be useless

for everyday business like advertising, press, corporate brochures,

etc. There is nothing wrong with taking images that are great for

that purposes and technicaly perfect, yet they get average ratings.

<p>

Think back to the beginning, how did this website start? With

Philip's images. Most of which would never make it onto the first

page of high rated pictures, yet he has sold them for brochures,

magazine articles and books. Maybe there is something to that.

<p>

Now bring it on! ;-)

The policy on photo.net is that uploaded images should be photographs or "photo-based". We trust the person uploading the image to interpret these terms. Images that are clearly not "photo-based" should not be uploaded. The odd exception might be tolerated if uploaded by somebody who has uploaded a lot of other acceptable images in order to show the range of that person's visual imagination.

 

Since "management" can't police all the images that are uploaded (1200-1400 per day), we hope that members will ignore images that aren't photos, and not rate them, so that they go into oblivion on the site. We might delete an image that violates our policy if it comes to our attention.

It looks like you were fine in what you stated. Art is art and not everyone will like it. I know some people who are uncomfortable with those types of compositions even when done in the darkroom. The problem is artists don't always want to see that someone doesn't care for their "flavor" of work. That image is nice looking but doesn't do a whole lot for me either. We all fall prey and snap at people sometimes, its unfortunate that some people (maybe not her) make it a habit. I don't rate images any more, if I do anything I leave a comment. They are by far more valuable anyway.

Bas, you have exactly the same types of problems even with unmodified photos. A recent example: one of the "homeless people" photos, showing the lady passed out on some stairs. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would ever want to take that picture. And in reality, maybe 75% of the pictures on the site are ones that just don't appeal to me. I can go to the bookstore or library and find whole books of photos that have absolutely no appeal to me. However, I think it is a little unreasonable to go rating a bunch of photos as zero's just because they aren't the kind I like, so I usually just pass them by without comment or rating, and go on. Obviously, if we all liked the same things, we'd all make the same photos, but we don't.

Bas, you haven't opened a can of worms. You've stepped into a nest of vipers. Worms don't bite and spew venom when you criticize them. Worse, they're vipers preening gossamer wings.

 

Read my other recent posts on this issue. I have a headache and am too tired to rehash it again. Not that I don't sympathize with your observations.

Moderating the photo critique forum should actually be quite simple

now that the 24-hour page exists. Very few of the thousand plus

images get even a half dozen votes during that time period so if we

limit our attention to those in the top few pages, I think you can let

the others go since they will become essentially invisible when the

day is done.

 

Everyone remotely interested in this topic knows that the debate is

focused not on the rare photo of a drawing or a text that says 'rate

this photo', but on the 'photo based images' which many people find

objectionable given our inability to separate them from the camera

work which many of us feel should be the exclusive purpose of this

site. .

I agree that there are too many obvious photoshop montages offered for critique. My reaction is to give anything that is obviously a photoshop creation a score of no more than 4 or 5, even if it's the best GRAPHIC IMAGE I have ever seen. In my opinion this is a photography site and I rate images as photographs. If images are obviously graphic art, then they don't rate as high. Period.

 

I've nothing against the use of photoshop to optimize photographs. Some might say there's no difference between that and graphic art creations. I'd beg to differ.

 

I suppose someone could synthesize an image that looked like a photography even though it was a digital creation and composite. It might fool me. My system isn't perfect. However there aren't many graphic artists posting here who are that good!

 

As for art vs. stock images, well, stock images are supposed to be boring, otherwise they'd be art! This isn't a stock agency so I see no reason to rate run-of-the-mill stock type images highly. Nor, I think, does any stock image shooter. All that counts for them is what their stock agancy thinks of the images. Kittens playing with balls of wool may make good stock images but I don't think anyone (in cluding the photographer) would rate them highly on anything but a "saleability" scale.

 

Here we have a "higher" goal, the goal of creating artistic, original, innovative and perhaps provocative photographs. That's how we should be judging (if you accept the fact that we should be judging at all!).

Never understood why anyone would want to put their images up to be scored, or why anyone would want to score others images. Seems that many do though and enjoy the experience, so who am I to judge?

<i>

I got in trouble once for rating this image as bad, but with a reason for doing so (see comments). This resulted in a comment so nasty on one of my photos that a moderator deleted it before I could read it myself.

</i>

<p>

The <i>artiste</i> in question is a little bit of a whack job as far as I can tell. Last July or so, I also rated one of her images low (one which wasn't even a montage but, as far as I could tell, a complete digital fabrication) and got a really nasty email message from her. When I answered in kind she actually complained to Brian about my "harassing" her!

<p>

Be careful with your strategy or rating montages lower, Bob. I was told by Brian not to do it, which was one of the reasons I left the site for several months, and will certainly never renew my subscription fee.

Marc - Are you sure that's what Brian said (or meant)? As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to rate any image in any way, as long as the critique is at least somewhat constructive. I guess I wouldn't approve of comments like "Your images are just cr@p and you are an ^$&^&$", and leaving that type of comment is simply asking for (and causing) trouble, but I'd fully support anyone's right to leave an honest critique of an image they thought was truely awful. The (reasonably civil) exchange of ideas IS what this site is supposed to be all about. As long as you can take the heat that negative comments are likely to attract, there's no need to hold back. Email exchanges between forum participants are none of photo.net's business - unless they spill over to feuds in the forums.

 

That's just my personal view of course, but it's the view I'd push as photo.net policy if I was asked.

Bob -

 

My comment was probably more negative that Bas's, though it didn't involve the word "crap." It was along the lines of "what's this doing on photo.net -- it isn't even based on a photo!" accompanied by a bad rating (2/2) I think. It was bad even as digital art, as nearly all of Anna's stuff is.

 

And it wasn't like I was going through her folder rating them all like that -- just one image. It just came up in the ratings rotation and I was annoyed.

 

Brian's real crime was that he jumped all in my shit when Anna mailed him, without bothering to get my side of the story. I mean, I've only been here since 1996, so who am I? But he did make the comment that, since there was no photo.net policy against digital fabrications, at least at the time, I shouldn't have made the comment.

 

The irony, of course, is that Anna's thin-skinned approach works. If I were to be honest, all her godawful, tasteless "cheap surrealist" (Ellis's term) crap would be sporting pretty low ratings, courtesy of me, even without taking into account that it's not photography. But I've more or less quit rating, and wouldn't go near her folder with a ten-foot pole.

Mr.Mark Ciccariello your comments have been already deleted by PN,many months ago from another forum because were insulting.I see that you have not changed a bit I would like to remind you that on my whole work posted on Photo net NOT EVERYTHIING is digital art.My folder "Some shots" has about 200 photos posted. I invite you also to read carefully what Brian Mottershead wrote above.Think he is the ONLY to be entitled to decide what one must post or not on Photo net.Anna

Anna,

 

I completely agree Brian's the only one who can decide. Fortunately, his opinion now seems to be the same as mine. Let's read it together, shall we: "Images that are clearly not "photo-based" should not be uploaded."

 

So I guess you have some deletions to make.

The policy that uploads should be photos or photo-based has been the policy for quite a while. I used to say that photo.net would leave it to the submitter to interpret what was a "photo" or "photo-based", as I found I couldn't make clear definitions of these that would command consensus and satisfy my desire (as someone with a degree in Philosophy) for rigor.

 

However, this was taking trust in image submitters too far. As Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, "I know it when I see it". We don't have a definition of "photo or photo-based", but the moderators can recognize an image that has no photographic content at all. And there have certainly been people who have abused the latitude we have given them and interpreted our policy as "anything goes here on jpeg.net"

 

So my new formula is: the submitter gets to decide whether an image is a photo or photo-based, and everybody else (except for the Gallery moderators) has to accept that the submitters are exercising good faith.

 

What we don't want is for self-appointed photo police to rate images low and write harsh criticisms because they think an image "doesn't belong on photo.net". That isn't their decision. If they don't think an image belongs on photo.net, they shouldn't rate it. Let if fall into obscurity. If they feel strongly, bring it to the attention of abuse@photo.net. But if you rate or critique an image, you should take the image on its own terms. Photo composites created in Photoshop should be rated as such, and only if the rater feels qualified to evaluate such images. Likewise with other images that are not "straight" photographs. (Actually, this is true of any genre or style of images on photo.net.) This means the habit of systematically rating photo-composites (etc) lower because they are not "photographs" is not really fair and in extreme cases will be considered an abuse.

 

Thus, somebody who went around slamming every "non-photo" would be out of bounds, while somebody saying that he found a Photoshop production facile or kitschy would not be, as long as he was not finding every photo-based Photoshop exercise facile and kitschy, since that is neither true nor fair.

 

Mark, I can't remember at all the incident you are citing (other than there was one), but if I reproached you it was because I thought at the time that you weren't adhering to the above. It also may have been that you caught some of my irritation with the anti-Photoshop wave that took place a few months ago, when there were a number of people who seemed to be trying to impose their own views of what "belongs" on photo.net by systematically rating low anything not conforming to their notions, while harassing the submitters in critiques and emails. (Also I probably didn't have the full exchange of emails in your exchange with A.P.)

I can see a real potential problem here.

 

It's a bit like a dog show that suddenly decides to let cats compete. There's going to be friction. You can't really tell some of the judges "well, if you don't like cats, just ignore them them". This would especially apply if cats started winning the dog show.

 

I don't much like photo composites. Maybe some are OK, but most, to my eyes, are cliched and overdone. Rather like a Porche painted fluorescent orange. Since I typically don't find them appealing I'd tend to rate them low on an aesthetics scale. Does that mean I shouldn't rate them? They're offered as photographs to be rated and commented on.

 

Brian writes "This means the habit of systematically rating photo-composites (etc) lower because they are not "photographs" is not really fair" - but what if I rate them low because I don't like them? What's the difference? In practice none. I don't like them, so why am I giving them low ratings - because I don't like them or because they are something I don't like?

 

As I said, this could develop into a real problem. The only way to deal with it is to separate the cats and the dogs. Separate sections for photographs and digital composites. A photograph could be defined as an image based on a single exposure and intended to be (more or less) a literal depiction of what was in front of the camera. A digital composite is an image based on elelements of two or more photographs or on a single photograph if manipulated to such an extent that it no longer represents what the camera saw. Obviously there is the possibility of slight overlap but in general it should be pretty clear which category images fall into.

 

I would predict that we will see this problem get worse with time, not better.

First of all photography is a part of real live. This means that it evolves like all other things in live. The time that a photo must be a pure representation of reality is fading away. Now that digital processing brings the possibility of post-exposure processing in the reach of many. Is this still photography ? These questions were also raised when camera build-in light metres became available and when the autofocus appeared on the market. And still some stuffed conservatives ignored pictures taken with automatic aperture and exposure time settings as being photo's. Although I agree that the digital post exposure possibilities are a much bigger step in photographic evolution than the things I mentioned before, I consider it as a logical step.

 

This digital post-processing can bring out a lot more artistic efforts than ever before. And the worst thing someone can do is telling an artist that the fruit of his/her efforts is not good or not even art at all. You might like it or not, a real artist permits other people not liking his/her art and must be open for discussion.

 

Originality is indeed a problem. How original is another sterile studio portrait, the x-milionst child photo, another flower, the next still life, ..... I fear with this intention in mind, we have to say that everything on earth is allready photographed to death. This is in my opinion another break-trough introduced by digital post processing. The real original minds do float on the surface ! Some of these processed photo's are really an appreciated alternation for the, imho, perfect although sterile and inspirationless studio photo's.

Then please define the difference between a photograph and a graphic art image. Or isn't there one? Or are both equally welcome? What about paintings? After all they're graphic art. What about photographs of paintings, or pencil sketches or photographs of pencil sketches? Does anything you can get into a JPEG file count as a photograph now. Should this be jpeg.net? Who's the best JPEGer? JPEG of the week?

 

I'm not saying there's not a place for these things here. Just that it's not the same place as the place for photographs.

 

Let's see, I'll take an Eagle in flight, a Sunset from Hawaii, a trafic sign from NYC, a shot of my navel and an image of a homeless person and blend them into an image. Them I'll distort it with Goo, invert it and call it a photograph.

 

Lot's of things float on the surface, but some of those things you might not want to step in.

Bob,

 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am participating on photo.net and that means that I agree with the rules and guidelins ! Therefor I completely agree with Brian Mottershead�s comment made more above in this thread (March 05, 2003; 12:37 P.M. Eastern) that everything posted on photo.net should be photographs or photo-based. I hope this clarifies that I am not in favour of a �JPEG.net�.

 

I agree also with your vision that the �composites� are offered as photo�s and that critique on such work should be similar as on a pure photograph. However it remains my opinion that the digital post-processing presents another step in the evolution of photography. It makes things possible that in the past were only available to painters, graphical artist and professional photographers only. I consider the use of these digital post-exposure techniques as an aspect that could influence the aestetics and the originality of a photo. In that sense it influences my ratings as well. Wehter I rate photo�s that I don�t like is another question and depends only on the possibility that I could give some advice to improve the image.

 

My reaction is not against good photography ! But when I spend some time on photosites, I see a lot of �studio-work� where all originality is gone. Nudes without any constructive aspect in the nudity (like You said �Lot's of things float on the surface, but some of those things you might not want to step in), portraits taken by portrait-�automats�, still lifes thirteen in a dozen,.....makes me doubt, the same way some other people start asking questions when they see composites or tapestries.

 

So, depending on my there don�t ought to develop a problem. If photo.net separates the cat from the dogs, I choose for pure photography (although I have some composites and �digital alterations� in my portfolio). I appologize if I would have been offensive in my language, it is never be my purpose to do so.

Yeah, I can't really be bothered putting up photos for critique anymore. With only two steps between "Average" and "Greatest f***ing shot ever", all my photos will be above average at best. In all honesty, the ratings they get are high enough, just not enough of them in a short space of time to end up on "the first page", which is probably because people just skip over them and decide not to rate them. I have a tendency of checking who gives me what ratings and my highest ones come from the best photographers (who take the kind of images I do) and that is good enough for me.

<p>

So the sentiment here is quite the same as mine though no real solution.

<p>

<i>Bob: "Here we have a "higher" goal, the goal of creating artistic, original, innovative and perhaps provocative photographs"</i> Should we? Although the photograph of the week is chosen very well 51 out of 52 times, 99.9% of images here certainly are not in that category and 99.999% of people who come here to learn to take better pictures will never be. I would expect a site simply called "photo.net" to be more of a place to encourage photography in general. Although many of Philip's beginners articles may not be as accessible as the geek in him likes to think, they seem to be aimed at making people better photographers, not award winning ones. There is nothing wrong with helping and encouraging people to be good "stock" photographers. I am not implying that we don't have enough stock photos already and everybody should be doing it for a living but making people come home after a trip with something of stock quality to show to their friends (which at some point will, unfortunately, be you and I as well) may not be such a bad thing. And who knows, it may make some of those people feel good enough about themselves to try and making a living out of it. Rating those images as "average" is not encouraging.

<p>

Ofcourse, Joe Below Average is doing most of the rating and we'll never be able to change his habbits. So I doubt nothing much is going to change in that sense. Right now it's like amIHotOrNot.com, where people rate others they would love to take home on a friday night or even end up married to if they met them in a bar as a 1 simply because they don't look like George Clooney or J-Lo, just as they rate perfectly good pictures here they wish they could take as below average just because it isn't an over saturated montage, shows (or hints of) a naked woman or simply would not be found in an art galery.

<p>

Before this website scares away any more good photographers, maybe there should be less of an emphasis on AmIHotOrNot, ehrm, I mean the ratings system, and more on content to help people be better ("average") photographers. There are enough talented people here that could set aside some time to update content, and keep it up to date, so there is more to come to here than just looking at, and showing your own, photos. As an example, the film recomendations page is just pathetic, something like a "film database", with tests of films, sorted by type, brand, recomeded use and such. I know it is an effort, but with this site's geek origins it should be possible to get people to create things like that. The title on the homepage still says "photo.net home page and Recent Digital Camera Reviews", while the content on digital cameras is non-existant compared to <a href=http://dpreview.net">dpreview.net</a>.<p>

As you know, Bob, I am willing to put my money where mounth is, I have already done so. And I can do more, including technical work to make it happen. Also, with photo.net being as big as it is, it should not be a problem to get equipment for reviews from manufacturers, instead of waiting for someone who is willing to write about it to buy something new, even though it may have been on the market for a year already! I can't imagine anyone here who would not love to go out with a new lens for a day and do a write up of it, even if you have to then send it back to the manufacturer afterwards.

<p>

As you can see, despite my criticism, I like photo.net. As the old photo.net/wtr/ helped me get a carreer as a geek, photo.net has also helped me take better pictures. Let's make it what it is supposed to be!

You make the case that many of us have made regarding the

difference between a photograph and a montage. I get the

impression that you may not have participated in this debate as

often as some of us because you say this could become a

problem.

 

This is a problem now and has been for some time. It boils over

frequently, but just because it subsides doesn't mean the issue

has been resolved. It just goes underground.

 

People downrate genres they don't like every day. I wish we

would take steps to correct this. The reason Anna gets so upset

is because the critiques she gets ar far more vitriolic than your

typical genre downrating comment.

 

On the other hand, the very nature of digital alterations makes

them immune from from one important branch of critique -

camera work. So it's a catch-22. Some uploaders of digital

images have found it possible to discuss the image and put it's

digitial content in context. The most popular montage shooter

simply doesn't accept any criticism on any level.

 

. . . and that, Brian, is why the images are now mostly ignored,

but how you can conclude that this leave-them-alone policy

allows them to 'sink into oblivion' is beyond me. The two issues

of 'what is good photography' and mate rating are inspearable

on this site. Digital alterations are more overrated on this site

than any other genre. . . everything from kitshy montages to

selective desaturations.

I think the whole idea of ratings is a bad one. By all means, allow

critiques to be posted, but require a minimum word count. Then people

would have to give reasons for what they say.

 

Like Keith Laban, I would never upload for critiquing. Why would I

value the opinion on art of someone I didn't know personally? How ever

would I know their value system and their background, so how could I

"calibrate" their comment to help it improve my art? Still, people do

it, perhaps out of vanity or because they live in the middle of

nowhere and have no-one around.

 

As for what is or is not acceptable, that is surely up to whoever is

paying the server costs to decide. If anyone were to ask me, I would

say manipulation of any kind is OK, so long as it is declared. In

truth, my own interest in "fine arts" exceeds my interest in

photography; I'm just not a dab hand with the brushes.

 

As for the suggestion someone made that digital has changed things so

photo.net ought to change whatever its policy was, that's plain

silly. Hand colouring has been around for a century or more, and is

often see in photographic books. The preponderance of digital

manipulations here over traditional fine art techniques is of concern

too, I think, but perhaps reflects that ladies seem to be in the

minority here. As much as I disliked Anna's swan, it just follows on

from what was being done in the 1970s and the tools she used to

achieve her ends are irrelevant.

 

(And, there it is. Those of us young in the 1980s despised the

bib-fronted and bearded bong-puffing generation just before us, and

our opinions on anything that reminds us of them are not to be taken

seriously.)

 

Finally, the suggestion was made that some credit be given for correct

focus and exposure. Maybe in a separate beginners' section, but most

people would bin a shot that had nothing else to recommend it.

 

By the way, Bas, I took a nearly identical shot to your "private" door

a couple of years ago. The "private" sign was on a gatepost, and the

door was a bit back, but otherwise... even the camera was the same. My

excuse was that I was walking off a big Christmas lunch with some

non-photographers. It got sorted into those not-quite-rights I keep

for future scanning and use in montages, if I ever get into that.

Someone else might have liked it, but I didn't, it was mine, so that

was that.

"The reason Anna gets so upset is because the critiques she gets ar far more vitriolic than your typical genre downrating comment."

 

Oh, come on! Some of these folks get defensive about the slightest hint at anything less than unabashed praise. And I don't just mean Anna - she's not alone in overreacting to anything approaching less than enthusiastic raves. That's the very reason why the commentary tends to become confrontational. They are incapable of graciously accepting any meaningful critique, however gently implied or explicitly stated, that's intended to help them improve.

 

Frankly, I think these folks enjoy the game, and not just the high ratings game but the occasional barbs from outsiders. It reinforces the sense of community within the cliques when they come to each other's rescue.

 

Why spoil the fun when they seem to revel in the hubub?

Too much trust indeed. Having been through a multitude of these discussions and debates, I assume that my feelings are well known, but just in case, claims that "all of my photos are camera based, EVERY PIXEL" seem ludicrous to me. I have lobbied in the past and will continue to lobby for at least a seperate section if not an outright banning of these types of images that in no way resemble a photograph. I volunteer for the position of monitoring it as well.

-- Lex ("anti-hero") Jenkins is right.

 

What starts out simply as a comment about WHY an image is disliked explodes into a hateful exchange because the recipient's response is either dripping with sarcasm (frosted over with smiley faces) or downright antagonistic. What follows is an escalation of anger. I regret to have been caught up in this activity in the recent past because I felt my right to comment and critique honestly was challenged. Soon enough, I found myself in a vigilante frame of mind, but that's not so much because I was genuinely unaffected by the work as the fact that my opinions were trashed and mocked. I find it hard to swallow that I should back off from offering an opinion because the recipient might get mad, not to mention retaliate with their phoney aliases, friends and, (what does Jeremy call them,) irrelevant comments. On the other hand, I'm not going to be a baby and write emails to Abuse everytime someone cries about my opinion or writing skills.

 

Most of these "negative" comments are clearly misdiagnosed, anyway. They are constructive suggestions that have been flavored bitterly by the recipient's own tongue due to a mindset that doesn't want anyone's opinion on how to improve.

Digital manipulations are allowed on this site. If you think that

they shouldn't be, this is the place to say so, not on someone's

upload, as so often happens. I think manipulations should be placed

in a separate category, if not banned, but the problem is that so many

people who are unaware of Brian's policy find it counterintuative and

assume that they can play the policeman.

 

The difficulty in commenting on manipulations in any meaningful way,

and the negative response even when the content of the image, rather

than the genre, is addressed is the more important point. Many of us

consider petulant behavior in a photo critique forum to be abusive.

In any case, when rating and commenting in any way other than with

superlatives is discouraged, then it skews the data and gives the

photographer an unfair advantage in the competition for visibility.

 

Bob, if you think we should just go ahead and rate as we see fit, then

you must be unaware of the rating consequences on your images that

will result. That, too, is abusive, but can not be easily proved, so

it continues. . .