River Blue

a ver que pero le ponen ahora

This is an acceptably pretty scene but it is lacking in interest. There is no detail in the dark areas of the rock or depth to the ground cover, which is lacking in sharpness. It is somewhat unbalanced with nothing remarkable at the bottom right corner and the trunk and leaves on the left are too little to contribute to the composition.

another first on the front page...hmmm

How does the rating system work? One vote per IP? If so Marriec probably wrote a little script that uses a dial up connection to vote. He's got to be a kid. An adult would be embarrassed by this silliness. Let's call his mom.

 

 

I remember the last two you posted, they were horrible but managed to score 7/7's and a spot on TRP. What ever the deal with all of that is, this is much better than the last...but still not first on TRP.

I suspect he / they are in a lab where there are lots of computers and they just go from one to next voting his / thier photos up...i saw my anonymous voting scores go way down right after I spoke out about this before and I personally think something should be done about it, but what can be done...nothing really...just a person who lacks ethics...they exist in all facets of society i suppose

Composition is very flat. There is no depth to the subject from this angle. The slight off-focus has been pointed out. Landscapes need to be pin-sharp. Perhaps some time spent studying the many good landscapes on this website would help.

I am more interested by the comments on this photograph than the photograph itself. It is interesting that those who have rated this directly have given a lower average than those that rated it anonymously. I am sure for the vast majority of people on this site it is the other way around.

 

I am not a great fan of anonymous ratings especially without comment. The site encourages anonymous ratings. There are no rules saying you have to look at picture for very long before rating it. If you look at this for a second or two, it looks fine. It is only when your study it you see the flaws in the photograph.

 

That said, I can't help but think most of the comments given here are made out of jealousy. Everyone criticising it hasn't been too polite or helpful.

I don't know how this image has reached the top. Focus problems, arguable lighting, typical crop... nothing stand out...

You are right and I admit it was a bit childish. I should have suggested the use of a tripod, opening up a stop, possibly a broader view. Walking around the scene; shooting from a lower, wider angle to put the water in better context may have improved it. It's pretty difficult to say when one has no idea what equipment was used.

 

Having said that, I wonder if Marriec is really here to get helpful advice. When this happens once, it may be the luck of the draw, but when it happens 3 or 4 times in a few weeks, it becomes contentious. When you catch someone stealing the goods, you don't offer to hold the loot bag for them. Now, I'd be sincerely interested to hear your critique of this image?

Well... I'm not sure if it's a matter of "jealousy" or not.. Certainly not jealous of the photography!

 

For me, it's a matter of taking it seriously or not. I take my photography VERY seriously, and I like to be rated fairly.. and sometimes things like this bother me a touch. But not much. I've learned not to put too much store in this rating system.. And that due to things like this, and many 3/3's on works of mine and others that I KNOW deserve better.

 

I know that if I posted up something like this, I'd be getting 1/1's to 3/3's.. perhaps a 4/4 thrown in by those that are trying to be kind.

 

If Marriec wants to manipulate this system, well, whatever.. I really can't see what kind of satisfaction one could possibly recieve from doing that, but oh well..

 

It's a snapshot.

 

At least he's not doing the same thing with skanky and tasteless nudes! That bothers me more than this; high ratings for shock value and tastelessness.. (the Howard Sterns of Photonet!! lol!!) This is just manipulating a system that has a few flaws.. And tho I'm NO prude, at least I'm not "offended" by it..

 

Well... not really.. ;o)

 

Who cares? Let's not take it too seriously.

 

And this note I want to add.. The first thing I do when I click on "trp" is to get out of "rate recent".. That part of the system IS a joke due to the "bots" and "mate raters". My suggestion to those that are horribly offended by stuff like this is to click on "avg" or "o" or "a" rather than rate recent. It's much more indicative of "trp".

The ratings on this site in general are meaningless, if not a joke. That Marriec can so easily get to the TRP several weeks running indicates how some can so easily game this system. No one can seriously have any further confidence in the rating system here. What a joke...

 

Oh, and I don't respect Marriec for this dishonesty. He will get no critque from me.

David McCracken, It's nice and all that you're empathizes with this character Marriec, but what you don't know is he is a mate rater. He has had at least 3 photos in the number 1 spot on the TRP in recent weeks. All of them were very poor. Photo1 Photo2I say that not as a matter of opinion, but rather technically speaking. Bad light, bad exposure, clumsy composition, blurry, etc....How do I know he's a mate rater? Jari Siren confirmed it. Marriec rated one of his photos a 7/7 and asked if they could be "friends" Jari did the honorable thing by refusing his attempt at mate rating deleted his photo. So David, I wouldn't be so quick to call people jealous.

 

Like David R., I refuse to offer a critique on any of Marriec's photos because it's quite obvious that he is not interested in good photography, just good ratings.

I can understand people not feeling a critique is deserved here but critiques are not just for the benefit of the poster, they are also helpful to the honest newbie who, on their first visit to photo.net see this as the top rated photo and believe it's a benchmark. Pointing out the reasons WHY we think it doesn't deserve its standing can be informative to them.

Unfortunately, Marriec doesn't list their camera equipment in the Details section, so it's not possible to say why the exposure is so off--at least a full stop too dark. The white water through the middle implies a simple center weighted metering system of some kind.

 

Marriec, for this kind of shot, you should definitely bracket the exposure to improve your chances of getting an acceptable exposure. Also given how dark this exposure is and the fuzziness in the exposure, a tripod was an absolute must!

 

I agree with Hanna Cowpe, it that it's instructive to point out the flaws in even highly rated work (however those ratings are achieved).

Why is this so overrated?

The digital beast has reared it's ugly head. It's true the water has a nice essence, but what ruins this shot is not the subjectmatter but the color levels and saturation, especially in the surrounding leaves and rocks which were pushed a bit too far [in Photoshop]. It looks soooo digital it is a distraction. This might be a good example for an argument comparing film to digital. I prefer to treat them as two different mediums -- much like that of comparing acrylic painting to oil painting. There is a difference. They both have strengths and weaknesses, and it's up to the person behind the camera to have the skill in bringing out the best in both.