Elephants hiding behind black glasses - the so called "superior originality" of manipulated images

[mg]

"Perhaps the solution is to develop better Photoshop skills if your goal is to appear on the TRPs, that or shoot more appealing subjects." - Bob Atkins.

 

IF........

 

And what if my goal was not this one...? Hmmm...? Ever thought of that too ?

 

This is almost an ad hominem attack again, Bob. Put in such a way that it doesn't too clearly look as one. Why are you talking about MY intentions or who ever's intention here ? Was it the subject of this thread ? Can't you read the lines, instead of reading yourown glasses between the lines ?

[mg]

Of course I agree with you ! Yes, "Originality should have nothing to do with the technical means by which an image is created, imho - I think the finished product (and how it appeals to viewers) is what's most important".

 

But the fact is: originality is being mis-judged. The originality of a PS creation can notbe compared to the originality of a classical portrait. And right now, PS gets the forefront everywhere because everyone finds anything realistic to be the same - because it's the same as reality.

 

Now tell me, have you checked the link I posted ? What do you think ? How do you like the finished product ? How do you define originality ? What's original in an image like this - besides its position in the TRP ? :-)

[mattvardy]

With that image I see a few problems with the aesthetics... mainly in the flood lighting effects which aren't believable enough for me. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of thought put into the placement of the false lighting or the degree of its intensity. I mentioned effectiveness earlier and I would say the tool has not been used effectively or creatively in this case. The sea horse itself is well represented and I don't see anything wrong with the black background... overall the image depicts unique subject matter and circumstance (albeit unrealistic). I might give that image a 5 and 5. But that's just me ;-) I would agree that it is over rated and does not represent the best work this site has to offer.

[john falkenstine]

SOME categories of TRP reflect what people like best....others reflect photo.net's tolerance for a separate set of rules NOT set forth in writing...The manipulation of images and the ratings these images get in SOME categories is just fine with me. (And who cares about THAT opinion eh?) If folks like that stuff...its a good meter of REAL popular taste, not the elite microlayer that visits photo galleries to steal cheese and wine and to watch menwomen and womenmen of questionable sexual preferences argue with each other over the style of a picture / frame that they can't afford to buy anyway...My preference would be for some realistic categorization even if it would mean FEWER categories. While Marc's assumption that people will learn by seeing different examples is laudable, it is also idealistic. That is why most of the articles that P. Greenspun wrote are slowly fossilizing in the dusty basement rooms of photo.net. It is clear that most folks transient this site very quickly. The fact that they get little or no feedback on their images means little real learning is probably going on, unless more of us are willing to spend huge amounts of personal time filling out the critique boxes.

[h._p.]

This horse was flogged to death and sent to the knackers yard long ago, Bob. We're now into buying the tins of dog food it was made into and thrashing them. That's the dull metallic thudding you keep hearing.......

[johncrosley]

Photoshop has filters?

 

What is a flood filter, where do I find it, and how do I use it?

 

If I worried about the subjects of this thread, more than quickly reading it before bedtime, I wouldn't have any time or energy left to take photographs.

 

I have high respect for those who can manipulate images well; it's just that I cannot, and have little desire to. And I get enough viewers and comments, without resorting to manipulation (other than occasional sharpening and/or contrast/brightness adjustment).

 

But who am I to rain on someone else's parade? If Photoshopped images are popular, then they are popular, and why should I denigrate someone else's love, art and aesthete. Doe it somehow make mine 'better?'

 

I think not.

 

I'm happy to post my images, however poorly they sometimes may be received for not being 'manipulated', alongside the heavily manipulated ones, and take my chances. Sometimes I am surprised.

 

I think it's limiting to set one's sights on TRP on this site, when if one goes to a decent bookstore with a good representative selection of photo magazines, one will find a HUGE selection of photographs of quality that never would even make a rating on this site, which eminently are not only publishable but in many instances are collectable and salable.

 

I choose to look at the larger ocean, even if I swim in the aquarium.

 

John (Crosley)

[Landrum Kelly]

Marc, I am still rolling around on the floor. Clearly PN is several different aesthetic universes superimposed on one another. Thank you for making my day.

 

--Lannie

[gib]

I am waiting for the photo of an elephant wearing dark glasses to make the top page.

[vivek iyer]

It is my belief that the whole rating system, TRp, whatever other system and all that stuff is to keep a segment of the participants very occupied and out of the harm of some other segments of participants.

 

IMO, it seems to do that job.

 

A new forum to let the folks air their grievances about the rating system may be worth a consideration, Brian?

 

I have NEVER seen a single positive post here by ANYONE with who received high ratings through the past/current systems.

 

I wonder why that is so!

[Landrum Kelly]

Interesting that PN itself has now become the prime object of satire: talk about reflexivity!

 

It has always been necessary to read between the lines, but now even that will be nearly impossible, since one will never know if the best photographers and critics are posting their best or their worst.

 

Posting to PN might indeed become a form of fine art in itself. Satire is always in season.

 

As for the PoW these days, I can't wait to go there just so that I can have a few belly laughs. I hope that that doesn't sound terribly elitist, since I know full well that I a truly mediocre photographer. I say that I go there for the humor because it is impossible to go there for much else anymore.

 

Marc, I guarantee that, if you print Babe on Bike (manipulated) and mount it on velvet, it will sell. It would be interesting to see if it made the TRPs, just for fun.

 

--Lannie

[lee park]

Lannie - looks like time for the resurrection of Alexander Chubb...

[mg]

:-) Long story, Lannie, but the babe's PS version was already on the TRP, at the very top of it. I just couldn't believe it - although it didn't stay long of course...:-) The title was cute too: "Orange juice romance - degenerated teenager poster art". :-))

 

After a dozen ratings or so, people realized that it was a humorous image, and an image I liked well enough as such - but really nothing more ! :-)

 

But here's more fun: this babe's PSed version was posted during the start of the worst mate-rating days, and Lex Jenkins made a very funny post under the babe, and had a great serie of similar images - except that his pictures were targetting directlymate-raters. :-))

 

The result of all this was that Lex's pictures were deleted by the management, and this babe on bike as well ! This was the only time ever, that I had a picture censored by the management.

 

But the best of it, was the fabulous email reply I received from Brian about this incident. I had complained about the deletion, because there were some really funny posts on the babe's page - especially once people started to criticize the esthetics of it.

 

Brian told me that he had deleted the picture because he assumed I had, just the same as Lex, meant this as a satyre of the wild PS users that were mate-rating back then (3/4 years ago). :-)

 

Fair enough. But I think it's funny to realize now, 3-4 years down the road, that what seemed to Brian to be a joke on my part is actually nowadays getting top-rated day in day out - especially if it is even much more silly, meant seriously, and technically flawed to death. :-))

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think photo.net is any more a real selection of what ordinary people like than galleries or photo magazines. The thing is that photo.net is populated mostly by computer geeks who spend their time online instead of in the real world. This biases the selections greatly. Also, the tiny web-size images don't really show the quality of a photograph if it is e.g. a landscape image, you can get a vastly different impression from a gallery-size print or even magazine or book reproduction. You have to look at different venues to see different kinds of photography. Photo.net shows great diversity but it could be much better, with careful organization which the people who run it don't care to do.

[ilkka_nissila]

And about my comment speculating why the management doesn't want to select the images according to this criteria, I was trying to show the irrationality of their approach. I don't actually believe that photo.net would be less popular if we had a choice of what kind of images we see.

 

Perhaps the solution is to start building other photo sites which give the user some choices of what kind of images to see. Most photography web sites have a clumsy user interface which is why I think photo.net is popular - the user interface is first class. And anyway, the forums at photo.net work pretty well and that's why I hang around, I really can't put myself to look at the top-rated images, probably have only looked them a couple of times this year. There's only so much of the stuff I can take. However, it is nice to view individual photographers' galleries.

 

Bob, if you read Marc's suggestion you'll realize that giving other people the choice of separate galleries does not prevent you from seeing all the images mixed. It's again a trivial matter of implementation. What the photo.net management seems to be trying to do is kill the interest of those people who are interested in seeing subtle photography.

[40mm]

Photo.net seems to be the ideal venue to implement a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_filtering">collaborative filtering</a> mechanism.

[cappoldt]

My latest resolve is to keep in mind the venue. The site is mostly populated by folks in learning mode, myself included. What that majority views a photograph worthy of a "7" is going to be much, much different from the photo editors at Arizona Highways, National Geographic, Playboy, or an advertising house. Those opinions, in turn, are going to differ highly from the owners of galleries in Chelsea, SoHo, and other cities with large artist populations.

 

Magazine photo editors want to sell issues. Gallery owners want to sell to their own client base. Photo.net Gallery participants want constructive feedback and to hear praise. Huge differences.

 

Remember the differnt sort option for the TRP. Look at "Average." That's participated in by much the same 'ol gang, and their opinions are very influential in the ratings here, as there's a lot of merit placed on it. Point is - look at whom you're ASKING to rate the photographs.

 

Agreed that the pity of it is that low TRP visibility often translates to low remarks and critiques...though in reflection, high TRP visibility also then too often just translates to admirers who click the image to flatter it with kudos.

 

 

Marc, when you write that you think there needs to be separate Galleries (one a TRP contest and one an actualy merit-based systematic approach on the photography aspect), I'd concur - but the logistics of that, from a "who's qualified?" standpoint, are huge.

[ilkka_nissila]

Excellent idea. And in order to generate revenue to pay for the implementation of such a system, it could be made subscribers only. This would reduce the amount of information that needs to be collected and motivate people to subscribe.

[ilkka_nissila]

My previous post was in reference to the collaborative filtering system.

[arraga]

I completely agree with Marc and Ikka, as to the giving people a chance to differentiate manipulated versus unmanipulated images. Some people above think that's only a maneuver for some to have another go to the TRP. As it's quite unlikely for me to even get there (I cherish my 1's too much), I do look of it as a chance to be presented straight photography without having to waddle thru oddles of ps filters.

 

The data is there (the manipulated/unmanipulated box you check when you upload an image), and the choice presented to the user could be as simple as another checkbox in the rate recent/trp/gallery views. Of course, you'd depend on the honesty of the uploader; I like to think we're grownups.

 

Just make the default as what the site has now, a mix of unmanipulated/manipulated images, and let the users filter them according to their preferences. A normal user will see no difference; a straight photo maven can check the box, and disregard what he sees as images and not photos.

[bobatkins]

I believe Brian may give the definitive answer on this, but if you wonder why no TRPs by category and/or manipulation state (and you don't accept that practically it's not a good idea) then my suspicion is that it would be very "expensive" in terms of resources, i.e. it would be computationally intensive to do multiple database searches for TRP rankings based on category.

 

I don't think the current system has the capacity to do such multiple searches and simultaneously provide rapid access to users doing the stuff that users normally do.

 

Again, only Brian really knows what the capacity of the servers is and how much there is in reserve. It's clearly coping quite well at the moment now that the extensive "interesting people" lists and their abusers have been removed, but extensive database operations on a database as large as the photo.net gallery suck up resources pretty fast.

[ned1]

I'll go back to an earlier post. Is it time for a "film" (i.e. not digital) critique forum?

[vivek iyer]

Wouldn't Daguerrotypes be better?

 

While we are at it, ban all the unnatural looking images from films like Velvia.

 

Only images on something like Kodak EPN should be considered.

[ned1]

Actually, Deguerrotypes would be pretty cool.

[chubbs]

<table width="4

00" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="10">

<tr>

<td><p align="center"> <img src="%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.photo.net/photo/3083163%22%3E%3C/a%3E" width="200" height="300" border="0"><br>

What Alter Ego Thinks </p></td>

</tr>

</table>

[chubbs]

poop. photonet is not working.<div></div>