No perspective any more?

What do you think of this shot? I appreciate your comments and

ratings. Thank you for your attention.

I like the contrast between hard/soft, curve/line, feminine/male, soft/rigid

Julia,

I like the shot. The only thing I could suggest is to change the title. Doesn't quite fit.

Very conspicuous image! Interesting contrast in construction, material and color. I`ve noticed some banks would like to set up such a strange granite sculpture in front of their headquarters buildings. I wonder whether they really have some sense of art or something else. Anyway, we`re seeing a work of art here.

Very nice, perfect exposure with just enough detail in the foreground. Another 10/10. I am usually not quite as generous with my ratings, but I know what I like ;-)

Nice perspective, very appealing and provocative.

If this was the other way round, it would look like a tear drop, nice composure and lighting

Julia.

 

Let me add to the comments left by Tony and Bernhard on your other pictures by saying that we are all humbled by your skill as a photographer. Not that long ago, our #1 didn't even hit the 14 point mark and you are over 16 right now. Wow!

Great picture, excellent composition and lighting. A photographer with a talent similar to yours and with pictures of the same building can be found on www.flyyy.com by digiting "frankfurt" in the search. Best wishes, enrico

Vuk,

I just want let you know I can sleep well with rating 16, as well as with rating 0, since I dont live for ratings.

As I told Bernhard in another thread, despite increasing assaults on me these days, I still believe the majority of the viewers are honest and in earnest about their ratings and comments. Finally, photo.net is a forum for photographers not a stage for comedians.

"I still believe the majority of the viewers are honest and in earnest about their ratings and comments"--Julia Liu

Julia.

I agree with you and I don't believe you've interpreted my comment in quite the appropriate way. As for this not being a stage for comedians, have a look at some of those freeze-dried grashoppers super-glued to leaves. You'd figure with all those precautions, the brilliant top-25 photographer wouldn't need a flash. You see, Tony's got it all wrong. It's no longer desirable to be anywhere near the top of this list. Hence, my advice to you is to post many more of your shots. Stuff that you like.

The title of this photo quite succinctly sums up the recent ratings debacle.

Nice photo, a creative way to photograph a high-rise. My only criticism is that the collision between the sculpture and the building on the left side disturbs me. I would have liked the photo better if you left some space all around the building and the sculpture.

 

Thank you for your interest in my picture and pointing out this flaw as a result of the restricted room for shooting in that sculpture which annoyed myself a bit while examining it later.

Ian, Vul, Bernhard, Tony,

I have neither interest nor time to joint your drama which is changing to a scandal. Instead of attacking me constantly just because of my current "unfair" place in the top list, I suggest you to do something constructive/productive.

The following is a more advanced and reasonable rating system of another site I post to. The clue of this system is, the number of ratings for each photo and the number of the photos rated are taken in consideration for the final rating (the so-called Integral Rating). I already pointed such a system out to the admin of this site long ago, but got no response. So, please use your time to persuade the admin to adopt a better rating system according to the principle of the following system. When this happens, I'll drop in the top list deeper than Tony suggested, so that you will become (hopefully) more satisfied with your place and can leave me alone

.

 

*************************************************************

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp How the Integral Rating is calculated

The Integral Rating calculates marks and quantity of marks.

Formula:

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Rating=(average_mark+(average_mark-median)*ln(count_of_marks))*1000

where

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Rating - value of rating

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp average_mark - average value of all photo's marks, graded by registered members

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp count_of_marks - quantity of all photo's marks, graded by registered members

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp median - mid-value, in case of 10 points value system (1, 2, ... 10) can be set to 5.5

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp ln - hyperbolic logarithm

 

Thus the maximum value of rating approximates to infinity but is unlikely to exceed 15000, and minimum value may be negative but is unlikely to be less than zero.

Julia.

 

Perhaps I have still not made myself clear, so let me say it again: I am not questioning the fact that the ratings you have received are valid/genuine/clean. Please do not group me with anyone who believes in some sort of fraud/conspiracy/scandal on your part.

Julia,

 

I did not mean to attack you personally. If you go back to your 'steps' pic, you can see that I tried to give some constructive critique.

 

But there is no doubt for me, that the ratings a lot of pictures on the top of the list get are out of proportion. And there is no question either, that you deleted 2 of your pics just to re-upload them a few days later, and their ratings went through the roof and you ended up on top of the list. Whether this is your responsiblity or the responsibilty of the cheering crouds that rate your pictures, I don't know.

 

But as I care about photo.net I wanted to speak up about that. One of my comments can be read as pure sarcasm and that's partially intended as I can't decide for myself what would be best: Fixing the rating system or go on like this and let it go down the drain.

 

Actually I tend to follow Vuk's advice and ignore the top 100 altogether and look in the lower ranks for some undiscovered gems.

 

Oh, considering your advice to do something constructive: I did. I posted a question about the ratings and my suggestions how to fix the thing (pretty close to your suggestion) to the forum a little while ago, asking to put in in the permanent section to spark of a discussion. It ended up in the general forum, lived a little longer than 18 hours and was deleted with no response from the elves. To proof it I send you the whole thread by email.

 

See we're in the same boat.

Julia,

 

I've hardly joined in a conspiracy against you, I just noted that I found the title of this picture very appropriate.

Should I wonder when I meet a couple of jokers in a society of more than 90000 members? No, definitively not! It is simply amazing to see the difference in their (or their hosts') elegance and intelligence.

I don't tend to rate stuff, so I hope these comments prove useful.

 

Julia, I was wondering about the title, 'No perspective anymore?'

 

I noticed that you're referring us to the Bank HQ in the background of your picture, well I am curious of your motive here, are you juxtaposing the sculpture with the Bank in order to make a political comment about Art versus Commerce, or are you attacking the symbol of Economic Rationalism by holding up the comparison of the sculture, itself perhaps an irrational creation when juxtaposed with the Building behind?

 

This is really, really all I can draw here from your picture, if I'm hitting close with my interpretation then you need to be clearer with your critique. To tell it simply you should observe a more clear comparison between the 'Art' and the Building.

Big versus small. Perhaps then, the little man can be clearly represented as the Organic form, sitting in the shadow of the Big bank.

 

Aesthetically I think the fill flash, or reflection on the sculpture is distracting.

 

The texture of the object in the foreground is not sharp, perhaps because your using a slightly 'zoomed' lense to pick out the lines of the tall building. Personally I would go wider for longer, use a smaller aperture and draw in additional detail. Of course going wider will shrink your building and then you lose impact.

 

Such is life.

 

If you are going to compress foreground with Background using the attributes of the telephoto effect then I would encourage you to notice the work of Lee Friedlander, his urban Landscapes really do succeed.

 

 

I'm not sure if you are trying to tell a story or not. Under technical details you tell the viewer that "Note: the building is the head office of a leading bank."

 

A well-taken picture would tell a story all on its own. While I don't find it very artful, otherwise it is a good attempt at a nice architectural shot.

I can be a bit of a comedian with my photography, but your work is very good. I like your work with the digital camera.

Not sure why this is rated so highly...if there's something special about it, I'm missing it. Good exposure, however.

I think everyone in photo.net has seen the way you like to low-ball the images of others. You open a portfolio and low-rate a photo or two, but never give stronger ratings to the better images. Curious?

Having seen your portfolio, I can see why. You are jealous of images you can't even dream of producing.

Yes, it's obvious that there are many people here rating images too highly for what they are. There are also a few geeks like yourself going into people's files and torpedoing some of their best stuff with ratings like 2,3,4's.

Knock it off and get off Julia's back. YOU ARE the weakest link.....Goodbye!

 

Carmella is not a real person...her/his email address is fake...mail just bounces back undelivered.

Could be anybody playing games.