What is this site supposed to be about?

[annie b.]

I guess I am not sure what this site is for. I am new at the

photography thing. I have people tell me that I have a good eye but

I don't have the best camera, just a point and shoot Optio MX. I

can't compete with people who have expensive equipment. It gets

disheartning when the scores are low but no one tells you why.

Especially when people are telling you that have seen your pics in

person that they are good. I have had a few comments on my pics and

am very gratefull for the advise, but one can only do what they can

with what they have. Is there another site out there for budding

photographers without the negative point system? Thanks for letting

me vent... Annie

[anupam]

Photo.net is more than just a rating system - don't worry about the ratings. There will always be people who will rate superficially. Meanwhile, use the PN forums to learn more about technique and equipment. This is ne of the best forums on the net with some very knowledgeable people.

[steve_dawson1]

There is a major problem in that this site allows people to dish to dirt, yet imposes no particular criteria on how that should be done. It's not clear to me that the scoring system has any particular benefits or merit. Certainly it seems to cause a lot of argument. In particular, you have no way of knowing what credibility to accord to people who mark or comment on photos. Your photo may get marked by someone who has posted a body of work you admire - that's a start, though it doesn't necessarily mean they are able to offer a sensitive and useful critique of the work of others. Or your photo may get marked/commented by somebody about whom you know nothing at all. Good and bad marks are only of any value if you can trust the person who awarded them, and if they are awarded in accordance with some guidelines or criteria. For these reasons I don't post pictures and hardly ever comment on other people's work.

 

Additionally, you have to remember that people's online personas are often somewhat more strident than their face to face personalities. It's very easy to get carried away. Unhelpful, yes, but we probably need a few decades more of online interaction before people adopt normal courtesies and manners. It's a cliche, but the people who award very low marks for photos are telling you more about themselves and how comfortable they feel in the world, then they are about what they think about your picture.

 

But I don't agree with you about photo.net overall. Contributing to the forums generally, there are maybe a couple of dozen people who, as soon as you see their name, you know are going to offer good, accurate, insightful advice. You have to latch on to the people whose views you value and then there is good advice to be had.

 

And don't worry about that Optio, just say it's a Leica - that automatically gives you special dispensation to do anything!

 

Stick with photo.net, but use it so you get what you want out of it.

[arraga]

<p>Well, camera is just one variable of the final equation. For what it's worth, the <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/3622234>picture</a> I'm most proud of was taken with a 50-year old camera and a lens barely capable of 30 lp/mm.

 

<p>Remember that people have different sensibilities to different subjects, and the rating system here is nothing more than a sample of the general population. No qualifications of any kind are needed to rate a photo, which is a quite democratic system. But, as with all democracies, a haven of mediocrity.

 

<p>Take the photos YOU like; don?t go chasing rating points. Doing so is just pandering to the majority, and a surefire way of losing wour eye. You'll be second-guessing your choices all the time and losing confidence in yourself.

 

<p>I've seen the specs on your camera. Judging by the shopping list of features, they are more than enough. Usability is a different matter, and can only be judged by hands-on tinkering.

 

<p>What matters is your eye, and that is quite independent of the camera you use. Great and stupid photos have been taken with any camera you can name.

[pboden]

As an amateur myself, I often get excellent feedback on my images from friends, family, coworkers and others who see my photos. And indecently, those are the people who are most likely to purchase my prints. However, I can post some of the same images here on photo.net, and get average to below average ratings. This is what I've learned to expect given the audience of this site. The majority of people who visit this site and rate photos are photographers in some form or another themselves. They have a more discriminating eye, and will rate you based on aesthetics and the technical merits of your photograph. These are also photographers who have "seen it all", and tend to give you an originality score that reflects that. So, don't be too discouraged by the ratings you get here.

[a long time ago]

annie....I looked at your pictures,,there all nice shots(don't like cats much they make sneeze)....you seem to have a good eye for what can make very good pictures.. but as allready stated, many here are outstanding ptogs and have seen it all and are judging you not on a beginner with optio scale but "on the big boy's scale" (as should be). If you go back and look at some of the "pictures of the week" posted on this site you will be awed by most of them. And if you look at it as thousands of complete strangers are looking at your work and giving it 3,4 or so on the big boy's scale,,, that put's you well above alot of the people out there taking pictures (you could give my dad a $1500 camera,I did, and he still would not have seen the dog shot).....So don't run away...there is a ton to learn here from alot of great people and when you do run into one of the trolls spreading bad vibes from there dank little workstation just move on.......again.....nice pics...keep at it

[tholte]

Annie, if you want to improve your photography, here are a few things you can do: 1. never blame your camera for not getting good images, make the best with what you have. 2. develop an attitude that does not rely on somebody elses positive feedback. 3. Don't whine and cry about low ratings. You have recieved very high ratings actually for the quality of the images you currently have in your portfolio. 4. Read photo magazines and books, take continuing education classes, go to photo exhibits at local museums, galleries etc. Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Madison and Chicago are not that far away from you and they all have many venues for good photography. 5. Mastering photography is a life-long project, every little improvement is to be appreciated. 6. Unless you are a genius, don't expect to be a very good photographer for a long, long time. And that is only if you hang in there and keep blasting away. Most beginners quit after a few years because they realize how difficult good image making really is. 7. As for feedback, most of your images are pretty amateurish and most photographers that are good will not comment, mostly out of politeness and courtesy. If you really want the truth about what people think about your images, email them and ask, most will reply. 8. Last but not least - toughen up! I have seen some beginners here on PN improve and become excellent image makers because they were tough and stubborn, asked tons of questions and actually got off their butts and did some studying. So get going and quit complaining! It would be a bad move to find another site that catered to beginners only. You could be one of the best on that site and get lots of praise but you would be stuck in first gear for a long time. Good luck in whatever you do!

[mottershead]

I keep saying that the purpose of the rating system is not to provide feedback to people. I designed the ratng system. You would think that people would listen to me when I say what its purpose is. I think you can get some information from the averages and the distribution, provided there are enough ratings on the photo; but

if you think you can glean some useful information from an individual rating, I think you are probably wrong. This is why the repeated request for a comment to "explain" ratings completely misses the point.

 

Again, the purpose of the ratings is not feedback. The purpose is exactly what it looks like: to rank the photos so that the site can display the highest-ranked ones. That's it: I am happy if the display of highest-ranked photos is more interesting and appealing than a random selection would be. And if you don't think the top-rated photos are a useful way to start exploring the couple of million photos in the Gallery, nobody compels you to visit the TRP. Come up with your own strategy for browsing the Gallery.

 

People rating photos are helping the site decide which photos to display, not providing "feedback" to the photographers. If you want to give feedback, write a comment. If you want feedback, give perceptive comments to people who will reciprocate with the same. But the ratings are no more "feedback" than the votes in an election are "feedback". The politicians in the election might feel that the results, taken as a whole, are "feedback", but the purpose of the election is not feedback, it is to determine who gets the office. And voters don't get themselves to the polls in order to give the candidates "feedback"; they do it because they want a voice in who gets the office. How many times do I have to say all this?

[bens]

Brian, great summary, thanks for articulating it so clearly. I suppose your needing to repeat it shows new generations joining, and that is a good thing overall . . . long live pnet with all of its glorious flaws and opportunities.

 

Annie, if you want feedback, leave feedback. Its that simple. What goes around comes around eventually. There are plenty of decent people who will give you positive feedback, but you must initiate the dialogue, lots of it, with people whose work you respect and who share your interests.

[h._p.]

Ad infinitum, Brian, ad infinitum.

[johncrosley]

Hi Annie,

 

It is important to listen to Brian M., Above, and especially Tim Holte, as they both give you good advice.

 

One of the best advice, is from the member who told you not to blame your camera, ever. I feel I can take a Brownie camera and make good images, and my first good photo ever was taken with a fixed focus camera (though it was a little blurry because I couldn't focus it). I knew it was good, though, because I had caught the expression and 'the look' of my subject, a beautiful young woman, a girlfriend).

 

When I bought my first camera, a 35 mm film camera, I began producing wonderful images. It isn't something that everybody has to 'study' as Tim Holte suggests, sometimes it is inchoate and sometimes it isn't. But study can help. Brian and others have noted that rank amateurs have joined the site to become top photographers years later.

 

One of the top members here shoots with a 3 megapixel camera just like yours (Andre Blascewicz -- spelling?), and he gets high ratings, is a prolificic rater and highly respected member, and he has a style all his own.

 

You need to begin to learn to decide how to determine what is the 'subject' of each photograph and its 'story', if you will, and then concentrate on telling the 'story' of that photograph.

 

It may be that somehow you have overly big aspirations for your photographs and need to simplify your photographs -- refine them to make them simple. You might look at my presentation 'Photographers, Watch Your Background' which is a teaching lesson, gleaned from over 200 of my photographs, for how to compose various types of photographs, taken in more than one dimension -- there are other types of photographs.

 

I think it contains valuable lessons that may help you -- I hope you find it helpful. You'll find it helpful and a different organization of my photographs. I only have been taking photographs for a year and six months this go-around, but took them a long time ago (and knew the fundamentals well enough, and long have been a student of composition.)

 

And if you cannot follow Tim Holte's advice to visit museums, exhibitions, etc., just go to Borders, etc., bookstores or your local library and look at books like Elliott Errwitt's 'Snaps' and any other books on the photography shelves -- just go there and sit and sip coffee by the hour (they won't mind) and soak up the photographs -- and it'll cost you nothing, and you'll absorb more than this ingrown community has to offer.

 

And keep in mind that this community is ingrown and that thumbnail views are what are rated and that those images rated best must appeal first in thumbnail or the photographer must have an outstanding reputation to entice others to click on the thumbnail. So, if you, say, have good, but very dark (black or murky) work overall, but extremely good), it won't show well on monitors and though it may be excellent, it won't rate well, no matter what generally. That's a skewing because of the thumbnail and computer ratings system -- there are other format idiosyncracies.

 

Also, go to Getty Images, Magnum Agency, Corbin photo agency -- use Google to find them) and look at their images from their featured photographer and see what they think is their best work -- it's markedly different than the single photo stuff that scores high here. I use it as a reality check for the ratings here. I have three folders in the top 1,000 here on which almost all the photos have never had a critique request. You don't have to request critique, either. If you request critique on one good folder, viewers will view your other folders too, and out of kindness they won't rate all but your best work (that's how I do it ;-) I put my more interesing stuff in two folders for rating and make other folders of stuff that interests me and don't request ratings and people 'find' them when they click on my name and view my 'rated' folders (and they rate only the photos that appeal to them, and give them usually only 5s through 7s. when they do rate, which is seldom.

 

When I first joined, I didn't request critique for my first 25 photos (I didn't know how) yet my first photo has over 30,000 views, and it's my highest rated ever.)

 

Request critique is not for everyone, but e-mailing others for critique and asking for help is considered good form and if you ask generous members for help, and read photo books for help on composition and photo fundamentals, (but take them with a grain of salt, not believing that every photo should be divided into the 'rule of thirds' for instance, you'll develop quickly and may end up an oustanding photographer.)

 

Some people on this site are very generous, and there are many, many teaching tools.

 

You took the first step, and the learning path has been pointed out to you and it is only for you to continue to follow that path.

 

Maybe some day you'll have the Featured Portfolio -- who knows?

 

Last advice: No matter what, remember to shoot for what pleases you, not some concept of what will please some abstract notion of 'art', but do listen to your critics. In the aggregate, there is an enormous amount of good knowledge among the experienced and better members here on Photo.net and members, such as, say, Tim Holte, above, are among the very best of photographers.

 

(By the way, my Presentation is a work in progress, and there still are errors in it which I ask you to overlook. I hope to re-arrange it into a book maybe -- Photo.net software doesn't allow me to re-arrange it meaningfully, so it's presented willy-nilly. There also are spelling and other errors which I'm working on as time permits)

 

My Very Best Wishes,

 

John Crosley

[bdpics]

Hi Annie,

 

For folks who view themselves more as beginners/advanced beginners, I'd reccommend Pbase.com There is no rating system there, and folks tend to be a bit more laid-back about their work and not so wrapped up in the ratings game.

 

There are a lot of good photographers there, and not nearly as many over-inflated egos. That being said, the quality of work as a whole is not as good as Pnet's. Unfortunately it seems that with an increase in photographic skill there is often a corresponding increase in the size of ego and the desire to make photography a contest....... Many thanks to those who on Pnet who realize that that is not what photography is all about!

[blakley]

Annie,

<p>

Don't worry about your camera too much. Your eye is much more important. If you want an environment here where you don't have to feel at a disadvantage, check out the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=2122">Alternative Cameras Forum</a> - all you need is a shoebox, a needle, a piece of duct tape, and some film.

<p>

To get an idea how nice a picture you can take with your shoebox, take a look <a href="http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2005/index.php?gc=y">over here</a>.

[peter_daalder]

Annie, I found the following in my email archives:<p>

<i>X-From_: new_accounts@photo.net Mon Aug 26 12:32:16 2002<br>

To:<br>

From: new_accounts@photo.net<br>

Subject: Welcome to www.photo.net<br>

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:33:32 GMT<br>

<p>

Here's how you can log in at http://www.photo.net:<br>

Click on the "Sign in" link at the top of the photo.net home page and use the following email and password.<br>

<p>

Email:<br>

Password: <br>

<p>

To change your password, use the "Change my Password" link in the upper right hand corner of your workspace after you log in.<br>

<p>

For a list of frequently asked questions and answers about using photo.net, go to http://www.photo.net/frequent-questions<p></i>

If my memory serves correctly, I'm not sure that the very first thing that I did, was to go and read the photo.net FAQ - I probably didn't and went ahead with the task of uploading photos and looking at the Gallery in general. <br>Photo.net has never been an 'easy environment' for newcomers. The reason that I included my 'welcome to photo.net' email, is to ask if that looks the same to the message you received at the start of February this year. <br>I often wonder if it would be a good idea to provide a couple of additional links to, say, the <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards/"> Photo.net ratings System </a>and the <a href="http://www.photo.net/terms-of-use">Terms and Conditions of Use.</a>I know these links are at the bottom of every page, but perhaps it should be pointed out that all three need to be studied in detail, along with a strong recommendation to browse/search the Feedback Forum for many issues that are dealt with, ad infinitum.<br>Better still, a slightly modified version of Brian's last two paragraphs could be included it in the 'welcome to photo.net' email that we all get, after signing up.<br>As in my own case, I know that it is impossible to force anyone to read all of the above, but a more serious attempt ought to be made, when welcoming a new member.<p>

At the very least, it might save Brian from having to repeat all of this, over and over.

[peter_daalder]

Another way of approaching this place could be illustrated by modifying a famous <a href="http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html">poem.</a>Not sure if the slight modification works, but it did evoke thoughts about "taking the bull by the horns." Use this site to gain knowledge and improve your photography, don't worry about the numbers.<br>If this too far off the topic; moderator, please remove...<p>

 

It was six men of Indostan<br>

To learning much inclined,<br>

Who went to see photo.net<br>

(Though all of them were blind)<br>

That each by observation<br>

Might satisfy his mind<br><p>

The First approached photo.net,<br>

And happening to fall<br>

Against its broad and sturdy side,<br>

At once began to bawl:<br>

?God bless me! but photo.net<br>

Is very like a wall!?<br><p>

The Second, feeling of the tusk,<br>

Cried, ?Ho! what have we here<br>

So very round and smooth and sharp?<br>

To me ?tis mighty clear<br>

This wonder of photo.net<br>

Is very like a spear!?<br><p>

The Third approached the website,<br>

And happening to take<br>

The squirming trunk within his hands,<br>

Thus boldly up and spake:<br>

?I see,? quoth he, ?photo.net<br>

Is very like a snake!?<br><p>

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,<br>

And felt about the knee.<br>

?What most this wondrous site is like<br>

Is mighty plain,? quoth he;<br>

? ?Tis clear enough photo.net<br>

Is very like a tree!?<br><p>

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,<br>

Said: ?E?en the blindest man<br>

Can tell what this resembles most;<br>

Deny the fact who can<br>

This marvel of a website<br>

Is very like a fan!?<br><p>

The Sixth no sooner had begun<br>

About the beast to grope,<br>

Than, seizing on the swinging tail<br>

That fell within his scope,<br>

?I see,? quoth he, ?photo.net<br>

Is very like a rope!?<br><p>

And so these men of Indostan<br>

Disputed loud and long,<br>

Each in his own opinion<br>

Exceeding stiff and strong,<br>

Though each was partly in the right,<br>

And all were in the wrong!<br><p>

Moral:<p>

So oft in theologic wars,<br>

The disputants, I ween, <br>

Rail on in utter ignorance<br>

Of what each other mean,<br>

And prate about a website,<br>

Not one of them has seen!<br>

[neild]

I think you guys scared the poor girl off!

<p>

BTW Peter Boden, you made an interesting typo in your comment: <i>"And </i>indecently<i>, those are the people who are most likely to purchase my prints."</i> I'm hoping that was a typo anyway!

[peter_daalder]

<i>"I think you guys scared the poor girl off!"</i><p>

Nah! With all due respect to Annie, with 12 portfolio images and 12 Gallery comments in 6 months, she is virtually invisible at PN. <br>If it wasn't for her 2 feedback forum postings, I would not have known about this member.<p>Speaking of which, I must go and have a look at what you've been up to lately, Neil.

[stephen hazelton]

One of the keys to enjoying photo.net is to not take it too seriously. People get all bent out of shape if they don't get the ratings they want. But relax, read, post pictures, have fun. If somebody doesn't like your pictures, that's their problem.

 

I, too, have friends who rave over some of my pictures. But then I see other pictures that they rave over, and realize their standards aren't that high. And of course, they don't spend any time reading photography magazines or websites, either.

 

I think the ratings system IS good for one thing. It tells most of us, "Don't quit your day job", and that's usually good advice. If I listened to my friends, I'd be expecting to make some big bucks off my photography, but you explore what's out there, and what other people are doing, and it gets you back to reality a bit.

[peter_daalder]

Thanks for adding your thoughts, Stephen.<a href="http://www.profotos.com/galleries/membergalleries/pros/index.cfm?area=portraiture"> A reality check?</a>

[neild]

Not so much lately Peter...

[john falkenstine]

Annie, don't worry all that much about the camera. My latest set of images was taken with a three dollar Olympus point and shoot that I found at a sidewalk sale. Others are taken with a broken Olympus XA that only works intermittently. The enjoyment is the first important part.

[jhenry]

Indeed Annie don't worry ...<p> am also using even worse camera than yours... disposable one <br><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=435782">here is a folder dedicated to those;</a> <br>Ok!... I don't get high ratings but still good responses for those pano!!!<p> and Peter what a great poet!... Tasmania too recels few jewels!