Sleeping beauty - Ural Owl (Strix Uraliensis)

Thanks for viewing and comments

Thanks for viewing and comments.

Try chopping off the top 1/3 and bottom 1/4 of the photos- the interest is in the centre

Good shot. I agree that crop is needed to improve that image. Regards

Olavi, I do not agree about the cropping commend. It is a nice ICONIC picture of an owl. Good tones, meditative ambiancenice, imige rhyme between the feathers of the owl and wooden sticks or fence. Just a good picture.

 

I must say that I was a bit disapointed about your low rating, I think it was) 2/2. on the half a horse and open window, maybe you don`t like the aesthetics, but it is still original.

So be so kind to help me understand a rating you gave the picture.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=2735400

 

I cannot understand why, you need to rate photo, when people doesn't "Request for Critic"???...and of course...why you don't feel that you could be useful to put comment with all your low rating. Strange behavior. Very strange behavior..At least for me... You have one photo uploaded....that s a good behavior and brave, not like 80% of the Low raters...

why do you have a need to put a low rating and no comments, is that what makes you happy ?

k

maybe ,,,a kind of love story,,,,,,

Or not able to count above 3 ;)))

Mike,,do you know Prever's Poem,,,about the Kings LOUIS in France,,,they only counted up to XVIII (18)..then they stoped to count.....

thanks for your rating my photo and I just love yours well done!

I echo the comments of Fred and others because he rated my photo in the same way, i.e., rate it even though I did not submit for critique and rate it low w/o explaining. I was a bit annoyed but I have come to accept this thinking: (1) there is not much you can do to stop fly-by raters, (2) such a low rating is meaningful only if it is followed by an explanation, (3) the explanation is much more meaningful if you respect the work and opinion of that person. In other words, I donot lose sleep by ratings from him. It is much easier for him to play unsolicited and SILENT critics than to learn from others.

 

Well with kings it was enough (I suppose ;~)

yes,,,mike.... enough,.,... like fly raters,,,,,enough....

I agree with most of the others who have commented about your low ratings.

I don't mind so much that you're unimpressed with my photographs but question why, then, you went through pratically my whole portfolio. If you don't like my work then turn me off, it's just like a bad TV program or radio show. Regarding that analogy don't hang around if you're not impressed or if you do decide to hang around tell me WHY you don't care for the pictures I take. Constructive criticism is, in my opinion, what this site is all about and if people don't explain themselves the whole idea becomes pointless.

So, about my ratings - sorry to all of you but my ratings did reflect my present mood and my understanding of quality of PHOTONET pictures. And as much as I do remember my ratings did not different a lot from other?s ratings. They were pretty much a same as average.

Mike ? perhaps today I would give you a bit higher rates (horse?) ? especially for originality.

Jason - I hope you did notice that some of your pictures got higher some lower ratings. If you follow my ratings you will understand my thinking - my terms of rating. In some cases I did not like the light, in some cases the positioning of the object in your pictures. Perhaps your pictures came out too many at same time and I got board of them. Once again ? sorry!

To all of you - I do know rates higher than 3. Keep shooting, and hopefully I will be in better mood next time? :-)))

 

"Keep shooting and hopefully I will be in a better mood next time"? Hehehe, you overstate the significance of your rating. As I wrote, we learn by: (1) examples, (b) get criticism. Sorry but you are quite contentless if measured by these criteria.

 

Actually, I cannot help wondering if this is part of an insensitive university research on human behavior. You are at an Univ, aren't you? May be you first post a mediocre photo and then intentionally go and shoot down photos of others. And you want to shoot down unrated photos so that people can easily identify you. Then you can see if people will get angry and retaliate and rate your photos worse? Seems like a good plot and if true, very insensitive way to research. If not, I am dumbfounded but at least you do not go out and shoot around when bored or got nothing better to do.

 

 

"Keep shooting and hopefully I will be in a better mood next time"....interesting concept.... need to think about it.... that s right that the mood changes the look,....Need a beauty spleep to think about it...

In my opinion some of your criteria for rating photos seems innappropriate, not that I have any actual say in the matter when it comes to regulating this site..I don't. However, if some of your rates are based on your present mood or the fact that a folder has been put out in somewhat of a haste then I don't think you're using this site to it's full advantage. As mentioned by me and some others, photo.net is a place to learn. People who determine whether or not a photo is "good" by not considering the fundamentals of photography or the guidelines laid out by the administrators of this site are not helping themselves or anyone else, in my opinion. I try to explain my reasoning concerning my rates and at times may even say too much, but at least I give the photographer a different perspective on his/her picture using something they can hopefully understand, not just numbers. A quick "didn't like the lighting" or "am confused by the composition" or even "it's too busy" can lead the photographer into looking at the image in a different way, and with this knowledge (opinion) perhaps find a different method to help improve.

 

I appreciate your attempt at trying to explain yourself and hope that these words will help YOU learn as well. That's all I have to say.

I like this photo. Perhaps it could be "perked" up with some color correction and a bit of saturation. I agree with the comments on cropping, I think some of the top should be extracted. I'm not a fan of centering the subject but in this case it seems to work just fine, only because I think the poles in the background help with the balance, without them the owl would be too "alone"...unless, you were to zoom in before the crop was administered. Filling the frame with your subject MIGHT make it a better shot. Cheers.

Some of you were irritated of my words ?Keep shooting? I?ll be in a better mood?? Well, I can fully understand your anger but let me explain the meaning of this sentence and my understanding of PHOTONET ratings.

In my opinion the feeling or ?good mood? what you will get from looking certain picture is very important in assessment. The feeling what I do receive from the picture determines the grade in ?Aesthetic? category. Being depressed or happy in inside can change the final result quite a lot. Another thing what is important to me is to see the effort that photographer has put into the picture. Is there any effort has made or it is just a picture of reportage ? I was here, I saw an interesting object and took a snapshot. Some people are good in using computer and able to hide the effort, but most important is the final result and even the skills to use computer properly is assessable.

In many cases to get a ?good? photo (especially ?nature photo?) mean to be in a right time in the right place - to have a good object in good light conditions. It is harder if you shoot animals or moving objects but if you have static objects (plants, mushrooms etc) then the bad lightning is inadmissible.

When I was grading the pictures, then I was keeping in mind the scoring list. There is a clear picture of ?average photopoint picture? in my mind. Most of them are higher than ?average?. Sometimes also lower than ?my average?. Sorry for those, but this is a way how I do thinking/feeling at the moment. I might be wrong but please help me to understand the PHOTONET scoring, then.

My picture. Unfortunately it looks much worse on the screen than on a paper. Much of brightness, color and sharpness is vanished in mean process. Perhaps I should change my scanning equipment or raise my computer skills. This picture is unmodified and was presented with an idea to receive your guidelines for cropping. Thanks for your comments.

 

like all art, photography questions the intelligence, empathy and knowledge of the viewer. critic shows as much of the criticiser than the material he she criticises.