For the Birds?

[knobby6]

Birds should get high ratings because it is the most challenging. You have very little control over lighting and background. The bird is where he is and does not pose for the camera. Try shooting a brown mottled bird flying in a marsh.. :]

[mr. sullen]

First categorizing is tedious and not always accurate so I am just doing the top 300 out of 3000 photos from two categories to get a more accurate idea of what is rated highest and what is rated most.<br><br>Top 300(10%) of two Categories<br><br>

 

Highest Amount of Ratings (All,All Time, # of Ratings)<br>

Nudes 87%<br>

Birds, Landscapes, Portraits 8%<br>

Others 5%<br><br>

 

Rated Highest (All, All Time, All Ratings (average))<br>

Birds 22%<br>

Landscape 19%<br>

Nature 14%<br>

Digital Alterations 9%<br>

Portrait 6%<br>

Insects 6%<br>

Still Life 5%<br>

Documentary 3%<br>

Nude 3%<br>

Many other Categories around 3% or less each total 13%

[mr. sullen]

If you want the most ratings shoot nudes. That being said most of those are executed with a great understanding of light which makes them just as important or interesting than just a naked woman or man.<br><br>

 

If you want the highest rated photos shoot birds, landscapes and Nature. All of which are executed with excellence and difficult to achieve. I believe that most of those ratings show an appreciation for the fact of how hard it is to do or in Landscapes how beautiful, usually the colors, are.

[rachelfoster]

The thing is...it's not about my ratings. It's about clicking on photos that I can learn from......you know?

[mr. sullen]

I didn't mean "you" as in you, I just meant in general. I should have made that more clear. I apologize. Shay

[mr. sullen]

Maybe you should switch the criteria to #of comments, of course "Clifford on the Road" by Lawrence Spinak is a personal favorite of mine but seriously I think there is a lot one can learn from reading good, serious in depth discussions. And also POW's and read the discussions. You said earlier that the title of Top Photos is misleading. I must ask, are you saying the photos are not good? Or are not deserving of their place? Well let me know so we can discuss more if you like. Shay

[rachelfoster]

Oh, Shay, no need for apologies. If I take something amiss, I'll address it directly, trust me!

 

As to whether they are good, no I don't dispute that. All of those photos are good. But are they "top?" That begs the question of what "top" photos are, exactly. I would like a category of photos that not only take my breath away, but are creative, thought-provoking, and from which I can learn something in terms of composition, framing, and execution.

 

You see, I'm very selfish. I want to learn. So, my wish "top photos" is something that carries a heavy burden.

 

Anyway, my original point was that 60% of the "top" photos were birds. Now, I'll be the first to admit those are darned difficult shots to get, and I even said they were very good. But are they so much better than all the other categories they are worthy of 60%? Perhaps so. But....it's a rather limited sample, either way.

[mr. sullen]

I don't think the 60% is a fair assessment. I looked at the top 300 or 10% of the section "Highest Amount of Ratings (All, All Time, All Ratings (average))" as I wrote above, and it is more like 22% birds.

[mr. sullen]

"Rated Highest" section not "Highest Amount of Ratings" section

 

I don't think the 60% is a fair assessment. I looked at the top 300 or 10% of the section "Rated Highest section (All, All Time, All Ratings (average))" as I wrote above, and it is more like 22% birds.

[rachelfoster]

Only on the day I looked, Shay...that's all I was referring to.

 

Nonetheless, your points are well taken.

[mr. sullen]

It seems we are having one of those lost in translation moments or maybe the thread is simply dead. I'm not quite sure that my points are well taken with you. I am saying that there are only 22% bird type shots that are in the "Rated Highest" section. I came to this conclusion by looking at the top 300 photos, or ten percent, of the section. Only looking at the top ten does not give a fair assessment, no matter what day you look at it, it should remain about the same. You have only looked at the top ten which is only 0.333 percent and hardly fair to assume what you had originally stated the "Birds, "Boobs," Bugs." It is true that birds seem to be the most highly rated at 22% but landscapes are not that far behind. To get a perfect sample on would need to assess all 3,000 photos. I am not willing to do that. But I am sure I am close giving a 10% value. I must challenge you on a couple of things. You say "So, my wish "top photos" is something that carries a heavy burden" and I say does it not? You in the same post say "those are darned difficult shots to get" so is that not a burden? Again I want to say that you said "I'd like to see the top photos" so I ask how are those not top photos? You say "I would like a category of photos that not only take my breath away, but are creative, thought-provoking, and from which I can learn something in terms of composition, framing, and execution." So now I think we are at the crux of your original post. The answer is no category could ever exist except the one you create. It's called "photos rated highest by this member."

[rachelfoster]

No, Shay, your point really IS well taken. I looked at a truncated sample. You are right.