Top rated photographs

I just rejoined photo.net after being away for a while, and I am saddened at

how the NUDE section of photo.net has taken over. I had a friend that wanted to

see my site so I gave him the address. He was completely offended and couldn't

believe that I would give him the address of a site that has so many nude and

vulgar shots. I can't simply let people have the address of this site anymore

because of the extremely high amount of photographs that are nude, and many

times vulgar nudes. I went to the top photo sites, and 18 out of the top twenty

shots were nudes. They weren't even that great, or creative just plain ole jane

with her shirt off. How sad it is that the regulars on the site have resorted

to shooting and posting this type of photograph to get high ratings. Pretty

soon I won't be able to use the site, because my children are sometimes in the

room with me when I log on. Come on guys.... we don't have to be exhibitionist

photographers to get people's attention. Shame on you photo.net for allowing

those types of photographers to be mainstreamed with people who actually have

to work hard to get people to notice their shots.

Wait till this post gets deleted by the moderators!

<p>One this date at 14:10 EDT, images #1, #4, and #6 in the default TRP actually have me laughing out loud. Those represent the best work of Pnet for

the past three days. The website has changed a lot over the past year. It is no

longer acceptable to shoot a clean well exposed shot. You most have a gimmick,

prefererably with boobs or lesbian action scenes.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4956621">

http://www.photo.net/photo/4956621</a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4947523">

http://www.photo.net/photo/4947523</a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4943439">

http://www.photo.net/photo/4943439</a> </p>

Nudes work, I love nudes, people like nudes, people like people. Makes sense that PN will allow nudes. There's a rationale and a limit to it that isn't really worth worrying about, especially when there is no public control of a privately run site.

 

Of course, 'quality' of the nude etc is open to debate, but perhaps that's another thread.

Ok, so the first photo is quite nice red garb et al, the second has some elements of something lacey, and the third is just big and in your face. Perhaps there really are billions of photos out there that have been just waiting for critique! Yikes...

The problem becomes magnified since the gallery is the most visible part of PN. The implicit statement it makes, the only thing many newcomers or visitors will ever see, does not speak well for the management and long-standing members of this site. <BR><BR>

 

The gain in the nude feedback loop needs to be turned down. The control system has become unstable. <BR><BR><i>when <b>s</b> approaches a pole, the denominator of the transfer function approaches zero, and the value of the transfer function approaches infinity. An output value of infinity should raise an alarm bell for people who are familiar with BIBO stability.</i>

I wouldn't blame the site for the nudes on the TRP because it's rates that determine what photos get posted on the TRP. I do however think something needs to be done to offset the amount of nudes that get posted on the TRP just for the simple fact that it only takes a nice pair of breasts to get high rates. It's hilarious that a poorly executed photo of a nice pair of breasts yields such high rates. Maybe have a disclaimer stating "You are rating the Aesthetics and Originality of the photo not the breasts"

It should be obvious that a system that breeds nudes in such large number also produces other images that are equally offensive to those whose tastes have evolved beyond cute subjects, high saturation, and gimmick filters.

 

Within the last 24 hours, several people, myself included, have wondered if the emphasis on peer learning on the other forums will also apply to the largest and most popular forum on this site: the photo critique forum. You could make a case that this should have first priority, not last.

Go to Gallery: Top Photos. <BR>

Select a period of Month and <BR>

Sort by Number of Views.<BR><BR>

Management is not responsible for the bad taste of the members but to be truthful this site provides a forum for the purveyors and the consumers of bad taste on the Internet.<BR>

As citizens in the Internet don't we have a responsibility to improve that community.

A Google Image alike "SafeSearch" Feature might smooth ruffled feathers.

Well Im really glad that so many feel the same way. Im not against nudes, they do have a place in art, and Im not against showing the body as it naturally exists, but rating a photograph a six or seven just because it has a nude person in them is way far under the scope of this site, or at least I thought so when I joined. We all know what good photography is, and I am equally upset about having to have a gimmick or a photo that is basically drawn in photo shop. I thought this photography site was about photography, REAL photography, and how to make our shots better.... I guess it's just disappointment, and the fact that the site is putting itself in an area that I can't be in, and that makes me sad.

i love nudes. i really do and i've posted several myself. However, er, I don't know how to put this delicately so I won't bother. What is going on, with all these nudes at the top of the TRP, is manipulation. Someone is playing a game. They log in with multiple accounts and give any old worthless tat 4 or 5 7/7's. About a week from now someone else who posts in the nude section will post here saying 'Hey, half of my rates have disappeared,' and that nice man from abuse@ will then explain what I've just explained. I've been around just under a year and have seen this happen time and time again. If I can spot it why can't those who are better qualified than I am? btw-Jennifer, i clicked on your name and checked out your page. Those farm pictures are a bit phallically, don't you think?

Jennifer, I too am now reluctant to give my gallery address to friends and relatives, at least without warning them that they will encounter material on this site that may offend them; or indeed that if they try and open the site at their work place it could be blocked. I think I will start a display gallery elsewhere and just use Photo.net for rating and critique of my own and others work.

It seems to me that we are addressing multable issues here. How many nudes there are, the quality of these photos, where does one draw the line and the photo is pornography, and how much was this photo manipulated in photoshop. The photoshop issue is for another forum and quite frankly has been hashed over extensively. The quality issue should not be an issue sense the purpose of PN is to create better photographers. How many nudes there are is difficult but not impossible to control maybe by having a seperate grading critique section, I'll have to think about this one awhile. And the, "where does one draw the line" issue, well this one has been gone over alot also. I think it will have to come down to someone at photoNet being responsable to make that line no matter how abstract and adhere to it. Its not going to be easy, but sooner or later will have to be addressed. That first photo to me is creative and artistic, the one with the boobs is not. Its shows no creativity, no purpose other then to stimulate, and on top of that is not well executed which we should point out to the photographer as this is our purpose. Does it belong here? Well, not in my opinion, but that is that not yet created line to decide.

 

 

Berryl

I think that this issue has always existed. It's just in the past, Brian often filtered nudes out of the TRP because of sponsers. Now that the filter is no longer emplimented, we see just how many people rate with their hormones.

Jennifer, I'm a bit perplexed by your comments. You post <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3158796">this image</a> but you're offended by <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4956621">This?</a>

Hi Jennifer,

 

Just a suggestion.

 

Try sending a link of the images rated highest 'by you' to your friends.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I4b3&tag=

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=4960039

 

Hot off the press. Anyone care to critique the rates?

What's your point Carl?

The picture of the nude fat man on my site isn't really a man, it's a wax statue at a museum in Washington DC, and the trick in that shot was that I wasn't allowed to use a tripod, and the lighting was extremely low to keep photographers from getting a good shot of it.

Those of us on this thread clearly need to do some more rating. I hadn't gone through the automated ratings in ages, and just did five minutes on it out a sense of duty after looking at the TRPs. I saw a lot of mediocre nudes in the process.

 

But, I will say, I'm not sure the anonymous rating is the best method; among other things it really doesn't encourage substantive critique. I come to like the idea of restricting rating to some category of "trusted" raters more and more every day.

Jennifer, FWIW I thought your original post was as fair and reasonable statement of the issue as I have seen in this forum. The one point I haven't seen discussed in this thread is that your three images of a naked, old, obese guy represents a tiny percentage of your overall portfolio suggesting perhaps, that you aren't obsessed with nudity but can also deal with it. There is a pleasant level of diversity in your portfolio. I haven't kept score (unusual for me) but when I go to a portfolio of a photographer who has a nude image that I've rated high, I most often discover that all or majority of the portfolio images are nudes. I realize we live in an age of specialization but I've found the photographers that appeal to me most on this site are those whose portfolios are categorically diverse. So here is an off the wall suggestion - how about establishing a rule that says no more than 25% of a poster's portfolio can be in any single category. Let the slaughter of the lambs commence!

 

Also, Kent, I did not understand one word of your above post but I was ROFL by the time I finished reading it.

I used to do rating sessions for the site. . . except the site doesn't really care if i think an image deserves to be in thirtieth percentile or the fiftieth.

 

There's another point I haven't thought of in a while. The only ratings that really matter - 6/6 and above - put the image on your favorites pages. They're two different things. Just because I think something is a good example of a genre and deserves site wide visibility does not mean it's one of my favorites.

I think the site does care what I put in the 30th percentile if what I put there is otherwise being given senseless sixes. But, you are right, Carl, the ratings north of 6 are what count most, and you can spend a long time in the automated rating process without seeing any of those.