Bonnard breakfast (2)

THE CREEPS WHO GIVE VERY LOW RATINGS AT THE INSTANT THE PHOTOGRAPH IS

SUBMITTED ARE THE MODERATORS OF THIS FORUM: Josh Root & Bob Atkins. EVEN WORSE,

THEY HAVE CORRUPTED MY INFORMATION BY ASSERTING THAT I GIVE SUCH LOW RATINGS,

WHICH I NEVER DO. THIS IS NOT ONLY IMMORAL BUT LIBELLOUS. Last year I wrote to the

moderators asking for a correction, but none is forthcoming yet. I have deleted and

resubmitted this picture because it was allocated a 3/3 rating before anyone viewed it.

Unfortunatelly you're right! And you're not the only one who complains about this matter. Some really creepy pictures are getting high rates while true pictures are pushed down due to these guys or maybe more others low rates.

Long discussion. Excellent photo. 7/7 anonymous rate.

Your experimentation with the Bonnard approach is extremely interesting. Your work proves that it does work in photography as well. The calm, vibrant domestic composition transcends the moment. The posture of the body is natural and beautifully lit. The colours are in harmony. The picture on the wall adds a further dimension, as a window on the outside world. Bravo.

I'll just echo what Silvana said!

 

BTW, what evidence do you have concerning who submits 3/3s? As far as I can tell it's more to do with the way pictures just come up in the rating queue and get mindless 3/3s or 4/4s from people who don't even look at them properly.

Thank you for your positive critique. As others have reported, the stupid 3/3 ratings are awarded before the picture is displayed. The moderators do not respond to my messages complaining about the table showing that I give low ratings which I never do. Whatever the cause of the spurious ratings, the moderators need to sort out the issue. They could easily do so by using only named (rather than anonymous) ratings for Best Pictures. Good luck with the PhD - takes me back to Imperial in 1964! John

I really like the composition, the perspective effect, the general tones and, of course theoriginality of the content !

7/7

I don't know why, it reminds me of Tatti.

 

Pierre

This is the first I've heard that it's those two guys that are leaving the 3/3's. How can you be so sure that it's them?

 

On a similar topic, do you have any theories on why there seem to be less than half as many photos in the "top photos" gallery as there were two years ago? It also seems like fewer and fewer people are viewing and commenting on photos. Is interest dwindling?

 

About the photo, uh, well, I'm not a huge fan of looking at nude men, but to each his own. It's not like I've never been naked myself. And I do, however, like the casualness of the scene. I like the composition of the kitchen. There doesn't appear to be anything in the shot that shouldn't be there. The hot spot (from sunlight) on the cabinet door and the orangey/peachy skin tone on the man's left shoulder are the kinds of things I have to work hard to avoid with my Nikon D300, so I tend to notice these things right away. In this case they would be very hard to avoid with the reflection of the orange paint on the walls. Nevertheless, most people are probably not as picky (trying to avoid using the word "anal") as I tend to be.

Thank you John for your comment on my picture. I used HDR (5 photos) to pretty well eliminate hotspots. But I am happy to include them if they contribute to the effectiveness of the total picture. In this case my aim was to create a picture that was full of light and colour in the style of Bonnard. The nudity also echoes Bonnard's genre paintings. Actually I started with the figure clothed, but it was less effective, and less true to Bonnard; so i did not submit it to Photonet. However all viewers have their own tastes, which I respect. What I carry home from this site is not the comments based on taste, but the constructive criticism of the photograph as a photograph. Your comments are helpful. Thank you.

[i have decided to drop the issue of the spurious ratings added to upgraded photos before they are exposed for criticism and rating by ordinary members. The moderators have not replied to my e-mails or to the note attached to this picture. So I guess my conjecture was right: they presumably are complicit in this bad practice. But let's leave it at that.]