Uncategorized

Maybe I'm wrong but is the "Uncategorized" choice missing in the

photo critique ... seems to be in mine, I for one can't really think

of a catagory for some of the shots I would like to post for

critique ... was there a reason for this?

We no longer have Uncategorized. We'd like people to pick a category. If it is really impossible to pick a category for your photo, let us know.

Thanks for the answer ... but I see a need for something in between what the classic "street" shot is and or "fine art" ect: ... give you an example ... look up the work of say William Eggleston, it's more of a stream of concience style "freeform" if you will, like Jazz is to music.

No artist wants his sublime works categorized, of course. Great works defy categorization, after all, and who wants to admit that his work fits into some category along with other more pedestrian works? Nevertheless, either "Fine Art" or "Street and Documentary" are better than "Uncategorized".

Brian,

I would like to see 'uncategorized' back.

 

I recently posted a shot of a youthful elk at play -- all very fuzzy and 'impressionist' looking and the choice was between 'nature' and 'travel' as it was at Yellowstone. If nature it would be judged against supersharp nature photographs and if travel, it should probably have some landmark. I settled for travel, but felt that really it should have been uncategorized or should have been in an 'animal' category of which there is none.

 

In that case, uncategorized would have been proper, I think. With the vast amount of photographs submitted on an enormous range of subjects -- literally a whole world's worth of subjects -- it's a little presumptuous to think that all those submitted photos can be squeezed into the available categories. (With all due respect.)

 

And this is not just a matter of artistic 'hubris', but for the sake of accuracy.

 

For your consideration.

 

John (Crosley)

John, a picture of an elk should be categorized as Nature. Not all "Nature" photos have to be super-sharp.

I would like to see an "other" category added. Kind of like the old uncategorized, but not as a default, so that pics can only go in there if it is specifically chosen by the user.

Can you describe an image that couldn't be properly posted in any of the existing categories?

OK I'll try ... I can only use myself as a example ... sometimes I will shot a roll of film using say one street or one or two block area the shots may encompass several themes within that series of shots ... one I have is a hallway of a school ... what is it? ... a "street shot" not according to the classic definition. Is it "fine art" I wouldn't call it that ... No it's JAZZ it's improv ... it's not like shooting a flower or a landscape.

And again ... I'm going to put Brian on the spot here ... Your Portfolio folder is a perfect example ... very nice shots BTW.

"<em> one I have is a hallway of a school </em>"

<p>

Would certainly be OK in documentary, maybe in architecture, maybe even in street. Could even be in fine art if it's that type of shot or in News/Journalism, depending on the context.

<p>

It would certainly be easier to find similar shots there than in "Other".

<p>

There doesn't need to be one exclusive category where any given image obviously fits and fits no where else. As long as it's not a huge stretch to place in the one of the available categories, that's good enough.

We agree to disagree ... OK so it's all Art and "fine art" at that ... jeez not my stuff it's??? ... well it's NOT fine art ... call it "photo junk", I don't care ... where was the problem when it was "Uncategorized" is it the ... gee this a 4.85 O and a 5.50 A ... is it the TRP aspect? ... it's all about ratings then? ... gotta put it somewhere ... or can anyone think outside the box?

Well, Brian, I suppose fuzzy elk may be 'nature, but in my 'Early B&W folder, just posted, is a photo of 'oil booms' forming a pattern on the Puget Sound (taken from a street/road) in Seattle. I was forced to choose a category and chose 'fine art' but felt uncomfortable doing so, as it seemed just . . . wrong . . . and 'out of place' . . . just as . . . 'nature' . . . 'documentary' (there was no 'subject' to 'document' as there was no 'story' . . . just idle oil containment booms lying on the water) or any other category seemed inappropriate. I looked over the categories and was dumfounded. 'Fine Art' which I chose felt like a foolish catchall for that particular photo.

 

Any guidance?

 

John (Crosley)

Landscape photography is missing.

 

I know you guys like to lump it in with 'nature' but I would really like to see it as a seperate entity.

I have to agree about removing the uncategorized. It seemed everyone dumped everything into this category. Hence, it got a lot of traffic. I have to agree with Brian, make a choice and put it into a category that exists. If you really think a new category needs to be added, then get specific and let PN know.

OK ... this is specific in the "ART" world you have fine art you also have pop art ... Andy Warhol ... he thought outside the box and in the 60s someone coined the term "pop art" ... soup cans, it wasn't abstract it had a reality look to it but wasn't presumed to be "fine art" again William Eggleston his picture of a tricycle in front of suburban houses because the houses are in the background is it architecture ?

There are several subject-related categories, and a few objective-related categories. The subject-related categories are pretty generic and the objective-related categories even more so.

 

But if you have a subject that doesn't fit in one of the categories, let us know about it. As for not wanting to put a photo into its obvious category because you feel that your photo doesn't fulfill the standards most raters will have for that category, either you aren't giving the raters enough credit, or you are correct, in which case the ratings that your photo will get through the category queue will be lower.

Brian, Bob and Jayme ... thank you by so strongly defending your position you have made my point better than I ever could ... and as a note about "ratings" if I could shut them OFF and allow only word critiques that would be fine.

 

enuf ...

Kenny- supposedly you can. It's called "submit for critique only" When submitting for critique, check the little box and supposedly you will receive critique only, no numerical ratings. Does it work? I haven't done it yet, but a few friends find that occassionally a rating slips through. So what..... who cares?

William Eggleston's picture of the trike is a picture of a Vehicle. A Warhol-style picture of soup can would be Still-Life/Studio.

Trevor, in the Critique Forum, there is already a Landscape category.