"Guideline Manifesto"

After several years on photo.net, and sparked by an amassment of identical

complaints and problems over the past couple of days, I thought it

would be

fair enough if I sat down and list what I feel would be necessary to make

this site truly useful for people who are seriously interested in

photography from an artistic point of view. Since I could sum my critique

up as a lack of guidelines, I call it "<i>The Guideline Manifesto</i>". I

apologize for its length and its apodictic tone. There are a great many

points, and i tried to be concise in describing each of them. I'll be

happy to elaborate if so desired, but am more interested in hearing

what other like-minded people think.

 

<ol>

<li><b>Gamma</b><blockquote>

Acknowledge that the perceptual model underlying JPEG compression

tacitly

assumes a display gamma of 2.2 and thus promote it to official

photo.net standard. Require that photos posted to photo.net be

edited to

that gamma. Deprecate Apple's 1.4 "system" gamma as what it is--a

historical oddity that should not be allowed to confuse the unwary any

longer. Warn posters that no matter what they edit their photographs

to, they will be rated based on a 2.2 gamma.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

Display Calibration</b><blockquote>

Request that noone talk about anything related to tonality or color of a

photograph unless their display passes some basic standard of

calibration

as illustrated on a special page on photo.net. Uphold that at a

minimum a

table of 24-32 equidistant shades of gray must be clearly separatable on

the display. Promote a standard color temperature of 5500-6500 K.

Remind

members of the obvious effects the viewing environment has on the

perceived image. <u>Explicitly disqualify LCD screens as an improper

display technology.</u>

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

ICC Profiles</b><blockquote>

 

Encourage embedding of ICC profiles in files that support it.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

Image Sizes</b><blockquote>

 

Classify image dimensions. I.e., instead of "small", "medium", and

"large", allow members to upload their work in predefined size bins of

sqrt(2) proportion, e.g. 510px, 720px, 1020px, 1440px, and maybe 2040px

only. E.g. a 900px scan would have to be uploaded in the 1020px

category

and lower sizes auto-generated unless the uploader prefers to override

this mechanism by uploading hand-coded versions of the smaller sizes.

Obvious advantage here would be that members would be able to opt for a

specific maximum size, dependent on their display. Thus, a large

display

would be able to always present images in their original (largest) size.

Never upsample, of course.

 

</Blockquote></li>

<Li><B>Recompression</B><Blockquote>

 

That is just foul. A site that's all about photographs, <u>must not

ever</u> recompress member's carefully crafted images <i>by default</i>.

A system whereby images that exceed a posted bytes-per-megapixel

threshold

are rejected for additional compression by the uploader or, if the

uploader insists that his image "needs" that much detail, may be

re-uploaded for editorial review, is ok, of course.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

Image Display</b><blockquote>

 

Educate members how to configure an external viewer for their

browser and

suggest some applications. Browsers often don't render images properly

and are famously incapable of fitting large images in available space,

zoom in, flip, rotate, and so forth. In addition, it is hard to read

comments on a photograph when the image scrolls off the page, so an

external viewer should be, if not a must, so at least the officially

endorsed way of viewing images.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

Comments Communication</b><blockquote>

 

Communicating with other commenters on a photograph is horrendously

cumbersome. Instead of having to surf to a commented-on image every few

days in order to check for follow-up opinions and thus wasting precious

bandwidth, it would be desireable to check for newly arrived comments on

photographs one participated in with a lean database query. The "email

alert" mechanism is way too clunky for that task.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

Do away with that silly "Must-Comment-for-Extreme-Ratings"

requirement</b><blockquote>

 

Best, do away with ratings at all, but short of that, please <u>stop</u>

soliciting hordes of meaningless "this is so--like--WOW, dude!"

comments by requiring

raters to comment for extreme ratings. It simply drowns serious photo

critiques in the noise of idle chatter.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>

DO's and DON'Ts</b><blockquote>

 

Maintain a page of common "DO's" and "DONT's". Example: DO prepare your

image as good as you can before requesting critique. DON'T upsample

images before posting, and so forth. Think of it as Photo.Net

Etiquette.

</blockquote></li>

<li><b>Get rid of the bulk of Phil's old photographs</b><blockquote>

 

Ok, that's really just a cosmetic one, but how long do we still have to

look at the dog on the main page? Is the shot that good? How about

many

other of his pictures? I am not talking about pictures that are part

of some essay, but the ones that are sprinkled all over photo.net's

"functionality" pages? How about sprinkling changing POWs across

these spots

instead? I understand Phil founded this site, but would he really mind?

How long do you have to show flag?

</blockquote></li>

</ol>

 

Comments?

George ("the dog") stays. It's symbolic.

 

Your other points are well taken, well meaning but probably impractical. Remember that the average user of this site doesn't know what gamma is, and probably doesn't want to know. As for ICC profiles, even people who should know what they are don't, and even people who do know what they are don't use them.

 

You can lead a horse to a page of netiquette suggestions, but you can't force it to read or follow them.

 

In a perfect world, your suggestions make sense. In this world they would probably cause the average user to either run screaming from the site, totally ignore them or bombard us with so many questions that the site would grind to a halt and nobody would get any work done.

"You can lead a horse to a page of netiquette suggestions, but

you can't force it to read or follow them. "

 

You're assuming the horse isn't thirsty, so you're making it

difficult to find the water in the first place. What would be the

downside of putting together a list of upload guidelines (along

with the rating guidelines, while we're at it) and putting it in a pull

down menu. How would this generate more administration

email?

"Apodictic?"

 

You trying to score big in Scrabble or Boggle?

I don't think so, because he could have used the alternative spelling "apodeictic" for a higher score.

> You trying to score big in Scrabble or Boggle?

 

? I don't know about you, but I went to school.

<blockquote><i>Remember that the average user of this site doesn't know what gamma is, and probably doesn't want to know.</i></blockquote>

 

Then the average user really has no business with photography and should go to the "Learn" section first to learn about that kind of stuff. Really. How low can you go in your standards? I am also sure that anyone who does not yet know about these things will be grateful for enlightenment and have a sense of achievement once (s)he actually learns to see the difference it makes. As Carl said, i think you underestimate the average photo.net user.

<p>

Etiquette worked in the early days of the internet and still does in many dedicated communities. The photo.net guidelines should simply be linked off the frontpage, together with the FAQ. So, every surfer will know exactly what this community is about (if it is about what i think it is about).

<p>

In any case, meaningful photo critique will continue to be impossible if above points are not implemented in one form or another.

Sure you can put up a page of netiquette suggestions. They even have them for USENET newsgroups...and they're probably about as effective as asking newbies to do a search before asking what "aperature" means.

 

Does no harm, not a lot of work, probably something to add to a "to do" list. Just don't exect any obvious improvement.

 

As for users who "should" know gamma, that's true, but this isn't a college course and nobody gets to fail. You can be as dumb as a box of hammers and still take pictures. This is an equal opportunity site.

Tobias, I'm sure I could learn a few things regarding the issues

you've listed, yet my ignorance doesn't keep me from uploading

images that some people think are worth a look.

 

I think the problem is that our expectations are too low. We only

have ourselves to blame for not being very clear what we want

and why. I know that if you make the rating guidelines a required

click through that some people will ignore it it from day one, but

ask yourself, wouldn't the vast majority welcome guidelines that

would help them interact in a way that was a benefit to the site

and to themselves? If you're going to upload images, why would

you not want to do it right. I know that sizing, for example, gets

ignored sometimes, but it isn't nearly as obvious a requirement

as it needs to be. Keep hitting them over the head until it's too

much trouble to ignore it.

 

We just did that with the new banner that asks people to

subscribe. I have no problem with this constant reminder even

though I've paid up. Now let's tell people in a clear unavoidable

way how we want them to deal with uploaded images.

Oh, dear...verbose *and* pompous. This should be entertaining.

Tobias do I understand that on the one hand you will not

consider posting to the site because the system might

recompress your image and spoil its perfection? How can you

on the other hand post such wordy comment on images that you

believe to be poor representations of the originals! If the site is

good enough for you to not only pan photos (diarrhea by the way

is spelt diarrhoea in case you need the word again in any future

posts) but also to "correct" them, surely it is good enough for you

to post to. I loved the one where you analysed the photo, which

looked as if a penguin might have something on its mind, and if

it (the photo) had been properly composed "you wouldn't have

noticed". How did this come to mind? What do penguins think

about after a hard days fishing and no food? Is it bad?

George stays PERIOD. He means alot to some of us as he takes us old farts back to the good old days when Phil had a dream....

[i don't really see what your comment has to do with this thread, but to satisfy your curiosity, here you go:]

 

 

<blockquote><i>do I understand that on the one hand you will not consider posting [...] because the system might recompress your image [...]?</i></blockquote>

 

It appears so. I also didn't have to post them on photo.net since i used to have my own server up.

 

 

<blockquote><i>How can you on the other hand [...] comment on images that you believe to be poor representations of the originals!</i></blockquote>

 

By not commenting on issues that might be due to recompression.

 

 

<blockquote><i>If the site is good enough for you to not only pan photos </i></blockquote>

 

I do like to look at some of what people shoot when i have time.

 

 

<blockquote><i>but also to "correct" them,</i></blockquote>

 

A sketch is often better than words or illustrates a point i make.

 

 

<blockquote><i>surely it is good enough for you to post to.</i></blockquote>

 

Don't follow your logic here.

 

 

<blockquote><i>diarrhea by the way is spelt diarrhoea</i></blockquote>

 

I wish! Or even better, <b>diarrhœa</b> as the Romans did and as it ought to be. But nowadays, Eminem and Ozzy... Decline of culture... Bah. It's going to be spelled <b>squirts</b> before you know it!

 

 

<blockquote><i>I loved the one where you analysed the photo, which looked [...] what do penguins think [... ] is it bad?</i></blockquote>

 

You lost me there. I made only one comment on penguins and for that shot i suggested a different title based on an interpretation, not analysis. I can't find any of the other things you mention in that comment, however.

Tobias.

The point was if the site is good enough for others and for you to

make so much comment in some cases mini-rants and strong

views e.g. calling photos technical diarrhea(sic). POST your

images. A community is not something you stand on the edge of

and shout directions at. If you had a server then you have images

"web ready" to post. In case you still don't get it:

IMHO it is preferable to have comments etc from others who

have put up their photos. This is of course only my preference

not a diktat.

The relevance to the thread is that you suggest all the changes

but in "several years" you have never had the guts to post your

own images. One can only assume you don't want critiques of

your own work.

See, (keeping in line with this thread) if we had rating standards, and such a standard were among them, then your point would be well taken. Without such a guideline, it's just not a point, i'm afraid. I much more sense that you and some other photo.netters here simply can't take it that other people don't see why each of your babies is the most beautiful in the world and that's why you want to see mine. That's nothing less than childish. If you exhibit your work, you have to stomach the fact that people might criticize it. If not, don't put it up for critique. As always, you are free to take or reject the critique.

 

Regarding the "diarrhea" image: yes, i used those terms and probably would do so again: those were the only applicable terms that came to mind. It's a shame the author has pulled the image since, so others won't be able to verify that assessment. I forgot who posted it, so can't even check whether the commentary was helpful.

I thought you wouldn't get it and you didn't. This (imho) is a

community of photographers, you are not an equal here indeed I

reckon you may possibly believe you better than other people on

the basis of the arrogant tone of your comment(s). You are the

person unwilling to have your work critiqued, not me.

Get a life....... get a camera.

Where should I start Tobias? I have only been on this site for a

week and already your arrogance cancels any comments you

might make about an image. Critique is done within a

community of artists, beginners or advanced, and a level of

respect is needed for a comment to be taken to heart. When an

artist posts an image, they are looking for feedback, good or

bad, and both are to improve their skills and eye...not to be

ransacked by a would be art director/ photo editor, and then

violated by re-working it without permission or interest by the

photographer.

 

I agree with some of the suggestions, but many people are just

interested in a comment about the image's composition,

subject, etc., not the resolution or compression...however, i am

confident there are some that are interested on that level and

they are welcome to spend the extra time to follow all of your

requirements. If you want to require it, start your own site and

see how many want to read your banter and arrogant remarks.

 

I respect your ideas and your eye, you are right sometimes with

some of your comments, but learn some damn manners and

respect for other artists and realize you are on a pedistol as high

as the chair in front of the computer. Pros make mistakes,

beginners just make more and need a community to help, not

humiliate.

 

You said you were educated...obvioiusly you slept in for the class

on etiquette and behavior. May i suggest you digress and take a

photo 1 class at a community college to learn how to properly

critique.

Arrogant? Or did you mean 'frank'? I am asking because I don't see where I have ever attempted to leverage off any kind of presumed personal authority. My approach to rating is really quite simple:

 

<ol>

<li>Does it catch my eye instantly? Normally, but not necessarily, that means I like it.</li>

<li>Would I 'hang it on my wall' and why? This is what really matters.</li>

<li>Would my answer to the previous question add something to the existing discussion? If yes, I normally post.</li>

</ol>

 

Obviously, unless I consider the photograph flawless there will always be observed flaws. Sometimes, the flaws will be so monstruous as to call for strong language. However, in my and the opinion of many others, that is what constructive critique is about, not stroking someone's ego.

<p>

The mistake some people--and, I sense, you as well--make is to confuse critique of a photograph with critique of the person who took it. Once down that route, they now want to retaliate. Not only is such a fixation on one's ego silly, it also throws away a perfectly good chance to look at one's picture from a different angle. Your loss, however.

<p>

Whether or not and how "many people" thought things ought to be is the topic of this thread. You are attacking here on the presumption that your standard is somehow right. Regarding standards, though, the bottom line so far has been that noone cares. Other than what is explicitly stated or what can otherwise be inferred, there are no standards on photo.net, I am afraid. Thus, there is nothing to, e.g., back up your notion of what constitutes a "violation". On the contrary, the fact that one is given the opportunity to post a picture together with a comment implies endorsement by the site, doesn't it?

Toby, Toby, Toby.

 

You've proven to me yet again that there is in fact a difference between being educated and smart. I sense that you are very young. When you get older, I think you'll understand what I'm talking about. One quick piece of free advice: when you tell people you've written a "manifesto" they tune out. Mainfestos are the provence of The Unabomber and Karl Marx and other wackos.

 

I have a master's degree and I don't know what "apodictic" means. I'm okay with that. I don't know what "ICC profiles" are, either, but I know how to take a good picture. Please post one of yours, so I know that you know how to take one as well.

 

One thing I agree with you on: Phil's pictures are generally mediocre. But you know what? As I said to you in another post, you've got to be a good guest. Phil built the site and lets us play for free. Therefore we have to induldge rather than insult him. Maybe you'll get some manners when you get older, also.

Is anyone else feeling a bit frightened by this thread?

It's just photo.net banter, otherwise known as an example of "Fear and Loathing on the Internet" (with apoligies to Hunter S. Thompson). Don't let it worry you. The cages are locked and I have the key.

Laura, yes I think this discussion has degenerated, but what the hell... I might as well leap in with both feet.<br>

<br>

Tobias,<br>

I agree with the above comments. I recently graduated from an Ivy League school and never heard "apodictic" used by my peers nor my professors. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a word worth knowing, but one can perhaps understand surprise at seeing it used in your manifesto. I too am disturbed that so many words are falling into disuse. A cursory read of an older book makes this contraction of vocabulary glaringly obvious. I'm all in favor of preserving the purity of English and have been criticized for it in the past. Next time someone is suprised at your vocabulary, perhaps you should take it as a compliment and give yourself a little pat on the back rather than attacking his education.<br>

<br>

Coming across like a pompous ass won't win you many friends, but if you choose to, you should at least do it well. Your use of <i>i.e.</i> and <i>e.g.</i> was spot-on, but "sat" and "list" in ¶1 looks like a change of tense to me. In point 5, "member's" should be "members'" and why is there a comma after "photographs"? "As good as you can"!?!? Don't we know that "good" is Not an adverb? And "Noone" is not a word. I would expect this to be <b>apodictic</b> to you, sir. (Did I get the usage right?)<br>

<br>

That being said, I agree with a number of your points (and disagree with a few others), but I think that you'd get a better consensus if you were to have a bit more tact. The same certainly holds true of critiques. It would be in the spirit of the site for you to post your images too to help us gain some knowledge of your artistic perspective. Short of that, however, it may be worth noting that "no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care." Trite, perhaps, but nonetheless true. People on this site are at all points on the learning curve, and yes, some work out there is quite bad. But try to understand what made that person want to post his image and then give constructive criticism hopefully tempered with encouragement to foster that artist's drive to take better photographs. Climbing down off my soapbox...<br>

<br>

Perhaps we should get rid of comments for a 7 since it does seem to elicit mostly "ohh"s and "ahh"s, but I think it is certainly a helpful requirement for very low ratings. In a Community one should be willing to help his peers improve if he deems it worth his time to rate the image in the first place. Ideally this would go for 7 marks as well, to let the photographer know what he's doing so superbly, but most of the photographers who garner 7s are so high up the learning curve that critiques have reached a point of diminishing returns.<br>

<br>

Regarding color temperature, after reading your post I tried adjusting my monitor from its 9300K setting down to your recommended setting. Of course it initially looked much too warm, but I did manage to keep it at 7500K. What's the reasoning behind your recommendation? Just to get the monitor to standard daylight balance? And though I don't use them, what's wrong with LCDs? Btw, I hear that if you can adjust your monitor to 0K it will do really interesting things...<br>

<br>

Bob, do I get a cage now too?

By the way, Tobias...<br>

While I couldn't resist giving you a good ribbing, I must give credit where credit is due (to follow my own advice!). Though the comments of yours referred to by others above and some of your other past remarks were perhaps unfortunate, I will say that your most recent comments seem very helpful. I generally try to give meaningful comments as you do, but you have admittedly more knowledge to contribute and do so by giving longer comments. (Why then would you want to eliminate mandatory comments for low ratings?) Anyway, I found one of your postings about LCD screens and agree whole-heartedly, though you may want to repeat that here for others. I am still curious about the benefits of a 6000K monitor setting.<br>

-Brian

Hello Bob and Tobias:

 

The fact that the cages are locked IS reassuring. But who did you

say has the key?

 

A few of the suggestions in this manifesto sound diametrically

opposed to what I would consider the spirit of Photo.Net (i.e.

"Explicitly disqualify LCD screens as an improper display

technology.") But, since when do tempered opinions provoke

debate?

 

Perhaps I've missed it (a distinct possibility), but I've never

encountered a comprehensive Photo.Net FAQ.

 

A well organized 20-30 page document that explains in detail the

basic guidelines, procedures and nomenclature for uploading,

critiquing and portfolio management would have manifold

advantages. Not the least of which would be considerable

savings in time and energy for Forum moderators.

 

Yes, Photo.Net covers nearly every level of photographic

expertise (or lack thereof) imaginable. But a well-ordered, well-

organized FAQ should be able to address a sprectrum of topics

from "How do I make a JPG for uploading?" to the finer points of

display gamma and ICC profiles.

 

Forums play a vital role, especially for exploring advanced topics

and, apparently, for venting one's frustrations. But a good FAQ

provides a common benchmark and an easily accessed

reference tool.

 

BTW, Tobias, I been using a custom gamma of 1.8 on my Mac

monitors -- one 20" studio display, one iMac and two LCD

iBooks. I'll try nudging this up to 2.0 or 2.2. But abandon the

LCDs? Never! I thought the whole point of critiquing was to

make emphatic declarations from the comfort of my overstuffed

Chesterfield.