Quality of photographs.

I have been a member here only for a year and I have no pretentions about the

quality of my work, I do feel recently that queues in the critic forum contain quite a

significant number of photos of 'snapshot' quality. Can some form of a basic level

screening be introduced so that before being accepted, a photo passes at least a

certain level of quality criteria?

This is not something that has occurred only recently.<br> Photos of 'snapshot' quality have been uploaded for as long as I have been involved with photo.net, in fact, going back to 2002, some of those snapshots would have been mine!<p>If you check out the <a href="http://www.photo.net/info/about-us"> About Us </a> page, you will find that this site welcomes all photographers - especially those who are beginners and are keen to learn from photo.net to improve their photography.<p>

Even as a subscriber (with an unlimited quota), I have always been in favor of some kind of daily upload limit. <br>As it stands now, the sheer flood of daily uploads <i>will</i> make it harder for individual posters to receive some meaningful critique/feedback on their work. However, there are still plenty of opportunities, for everyone, to learn about photography here.<p>I don't think any screening will be done by those who already spend most of their time to keep this site running.<p>Also, if you look via the longer term Gallery filters, you will not find many images that are of 'snapshot' quality.

I'm not sure how such a screening system could be implemented. There is a recognized and respected genre that, for lack of a better term I've called "snapshot aesthetic" that has for many years defied and bemused critics. Some folks recognize it as an art form, others revile it as drivel.

 

I see photos from rank beginners here who occasionally mange to transcend their own limitations and, if only by accident, produce wonderful images. Personally, I don't want to see some arbitrary and impossible-to-define screening process between me and serendipity.

 

It's like radio and TV. Don't like what you see? Turn the big dial or push the button with the arrow on it.

Charging a fee to post per image might act as this "basic level of screening".

One person's snapshot is another's work of art. I don't think thats the purpose of the forum. I thought it was to teach. Charging a fee, you've got to be kidding. If you don't like the images, don't look at them. I screen myself by not fixing my scanner.

It's a learning site. "A Community of Photographers"

 

You want to exclude those you don't think fit with your perception of correct. You want to post an offensive question but not attract an offensive response.

 

Good luck!

So you want a juried critique forum?

From this day forward PN should allow only good photos and absolutely no snapshots. Anyone found in violation of this new policy should be punished by not being able to log on to PN for at least thirty days.

Today, ban snapshots. Tomorrow, ban snappy retorts. Then I'll be banned for life.

Just when I was thinking of <a href="http://stuntsoftware.com/Snapshot/"> moving to a Mac.</a>

<p>I am no expert on the matter, but there is something both welcomed and loathsome to

be found in the screening of art. That is, we all feel that art critics will judge in our favor--

lend support to our tastes. Unfortunately, that's the problem: someone will be left out, and

the loser will never be happy with the outcome. Think of it this way: you cannot critique

what you cannot see, the artist cannot defend what cannot be displayed, and you (neither

critic nor artist) cannot improve in such a situation.</p><p>I become absorbed in most

pictures. I, for one, would want to see everything offered. I can see why another would

want to filter the pictures submitted, but it seems to be an awful bother only to disturb

another part of the photo.net community (namely me).</p><p>Cheers.</p>

The ratings system IS the filter. No need to make it more complicated than that.

would solve all the problems. Noone would post pictures or waste their time visiting PN. That will free up your servers also.

I can't even begin to imagine how the OP's suggestion could be implemented in a real world. However, the various ways of looking at "highly rated" photographs on the site do constitute something like what they used to call a "juried salon" back in the 1930s.

 

I do most of my browsing by a selective process. I look at the galleries of the Picture of the Whatever selectees, I look at the galleries of people whose comments are interesting or who post No Words pictures I find of interest. As a result, I'm usually looking at some really fine photos that I can learn from.

wow

Yes we see some photo's here that may not be to our "quality" or our taste, but

perhaps people want to learn and become better. It's not magnum it's photo.net lol

we're not all amazing legendary photographers. Yes there are some here but many of

us aren't!

I have been on the site for a few years, and I have noticed that many of the photographers who shot snapshots years ago, are now shooting very good photographs. I think the site has the ability and the desire to help photographers to get better. Some people take advantage of this and are very serious about learning the craft of photography, and some just want a place to put their snapshots, so friends and family can see them. The second group also can lean from posting here,as well as the first group. Besides if only what is considered "good" photographs are allowed, who's to decide what is and what's not good.

Wow, I hope someday I can be good enough to please you Apurva.........then I'll be a somebody!

Photo.net will never be a "cool kids only" club. Anyone who is interested in photography is welcome here.

 

I'm sure there are some sites on the internet somewhere that limit their membership to just pre-screened people. And I'm sure those sites serve a purpose. But that's not what we are trying to be with photo.net.

I would not want to see any sort of screening criteria, but I do wish there was some way to convince more people to take a stab at critiquing photos. I've read that the more you critique, the more attention it brings to your own portfolio. I agree with this to a point, but I've been doing a little experiment the past few weeks to see if there is some measureable correlation. I spend several hours yesterday providing what I consider to be 49 substantive critiques...in response I got one in return and 16 visitors to my portfolio...very disappointing.

I'm sure we all remember the time that Skynet became self aware at 2:14 a.m. August 29th, 1997.

 

Just look at how that turned out.

 

And something else, maybe Josh doesn't even want to be governor of California.

 

Has anyone thought about that?

 

JL

 

JL

"Wow, I hope someday I can be good enough to please you Apurva.........then I'll be a somebody!"

 

That is not true Tim. I agree I HAVE learnt a lot on this site in last one year and my approach, my seeing, and the quantum of time I put behind photography has increased tremendously in this year.

 

However it is equally true thet PN now has nearly 700,000 members, the site loads slow, the servers are busy and a large amount of quality work- I am nor talking about my work- goes absolutely un noticed.

 

And then one reads about topics in Forums like "Face Detection technique" and "Best Honeymoon Camera" and one wonders if PN is not becoming another Flickr.

J Kilgo: Your investment in making critiques won't pay off in 24, or even 48 hours. Believe it of not, some people actually don't visit here every day. Many people aren't even aware that they can set up their critique request to send them an e-mail when a new critique lands...and they'll never know unless they directly visit the images in their portfolio to follow up, or notice in their profile area that they can see which of their images has most recently been commented upon. A lot of folks won't notice your critiques for a much longer time than you might think.

And also, a coiple of months back someone uploaded a picture showing his own genitals. It was no 'Fine Art Nude' by any stretch of imagination. The picture was withdrawn soon thankfully. I am sure the site admin would have intervened!

Couple that is. A typo. Need to join a typing community site too it seems! :-)