Paul

Regardless of whether or not it's digitally manipulated visually I find this image intriguing and satisfying. I don't really like the cropped B&W version posted. True, it's usually a good idea to minimize open space but sometimes good rule breaking works wonders. Maybe the shoulder could be cropped but otherwise I think the darkeness has the effect of drawing us to the man looking out of a window.

B&W shots are great but I get the feeling some people think black & white, a good photo makes. The color- especially the hat- floating out of the darkness is to me one of the best aspects of the shot.

 

 

Ian.

 

I meant the next person to call the pimp hat graphic a portrait. I do, however, appreciate your attitude in evaluating the picture I posted. I'm so sick of people asking me to explain what this or that was in my more abstract photos. People in this city want to see a f***ing resumé before buying any works! Now how is that for critical impotence?

Someone emailed me to give a few examples of my new way of calculating top-ranked photographers:

 

Formula:

 

(AVERAGE x 10) + number of photos with more than 10 ratings

 

Examples (with current rankings):

 

1. Quang-Tuan Luong 15.57

 

Revised Score 155.7 + 9 = 164.7

 

4. Peter Christoff 15.53

 

Revised Score 155.3 + 7 = 162.3

 

30. Tony Dummett 15.05

 

Revised Score 150.5 + 68 = 218.5

 

158. Vuk Vuksanovich 13.68

 

Revised Score 136.8 + 27 = 163.8

 

257. Robert Brown 13.07

 

Revised Score 130.7 + 12= 142.7

 

 

Just an idea--and in my opinion, if photo.net continues to have a top-rated photographer section, a much better method for calculating and ranking photographers on this site.

I will avoid commenting on such a delicate matter, other than to say that I believe there should be a seperate category altogether for digitally alterted (other than crop, contrast & levels adjustments you gotta do something to a scanned negative). To Will,

Quang-Tuan Luong Score: 15.57

Dick Balnicky Score: 15.55

Bart Aldrich Score: 15.54

Peter Christoph Score: 15.53

Daniel Bayer Score: 15.53

Steve Bingham Score: 15.46

Mila Esa Valeska Score: 15.45

Julie Nicholson Score: 15.41

Petter Smeby Score: 15.4

Peter Wallack Score: 15.38

Chris VenHaus Score: 15.37

Giorgio Pieroni Score: 15.36

Brian Mottershead Score: 15.32

Haluk OZOZLU (Turkiye) Score: 15.31

Theo Jacobs Score: 15.24

Jeff Alu Score: 15.23

Luciano Giombini Score: 15.23

Fabien CHARUAU Score: 15.2

João Caetano Dias Score: 15.19

Philip Harle Score: 15.17

Dan Heller Score: 15.17

Geraldine Allen Score: 15.16

Seven Stuartson Score: 15.14

Leping Zha Score: 15.12

Mark Plonsky Score: 15.12

Nejat E. Score: 15.09

Peter Meisterle Score: 15.09

Walter J. Flint Score: 15.08

Matthias Zimmermann Score: 15.05

Tony Dummett Score: 15.05

It's there you just gotta look. Try a link through the gallery.

Morwen, while your analogy has limited validity, since photographers are not symphonic composers. Most take thousands of images. If one contributes to this site over the years (and long-term contributions should be rewarded), then he/she should have quite a number of rated photos. Perhaps this scheme should be modified, capping points for photos at 50--which would be a fairly good-sized portfolio. Cheers.

Robert.

 

A few weeks ago. I tidied up my Photonet portfolio, keeping what I liked best from the year (in my "vuk2K1" folder), and it resulted in a partial plunge in the ratings, which I am glad for because I don't want to be part of the top-rated nonsense anymore. I will soon post a notice with all uploads asking for comments only and no scoring.

Geez! I was No. 20 the day before yesterday...now No. 30? Maybe my prints have started mysteriously fading... must have a look someday soon.

 

At least I hope this puts paid to the kibbitzers who've hypothesised that I'm on a take-no-prisoners ratings campaign.

 

Morwen's right and wrong about quantity. Beethoven would be at the bottom of the ratings list whilst that upstart Handel would be a Big Number One. On the other hand, three pictures is a bit easy to score high with (until the gnomes and trolls cut you down to size)... there should be some credit for volume, but only of good work.

 

Vuk! Help! How you you statistically evaluate for consistency? (the prints weren't faked, by the way)

 

 

Robert, whilst I might drink a cabernet or merlot, I find I can't quite enjoy it. I never even read a book on it you see, and I don't know how it was fermented (Vuk understands). Try the Hardy's Chardonnay Semillon 2000 - there's a book on it in amazon & the wine itself only cost £5 in tescos supermarket.

 

re Jim & Roberts new stats proposals: are these based on some algebric equation of all uploaded posts? If so, I suggest you make the sum of all posts divisible by the degree of the sun when the moon is rising - at half it's average cycle at the time it was measured - relative to the north pole for geographic locations north of the equator of course. Otherwise why don't we just pick our top five rated uploads, work out those stats - and all be at the top? Oh sorry that's already happening.....

People want to know where Peter is and what is Paul looking at.

 

Perhaps there is no Peter. Maybe Peter is really Paul and Peter-Paul is looking at Mary which leaves him with the song "If I Had a Hammer" stuck in his head.

 

Paul's nose? Nope -- just a bunch of red pixels like Rudolph's.

 

The first real photographic fraud was my man DaVinci who used photons (now pixels) in his fake camera (Camera Obscura) to create a traceable image on the wall. Look how far we've come!

 

I also think the Grand Masters weren't. At least totally. They had students do the coloring and some did the whole painting which was just signed by the master. My favorite painter uses the same technique as Peter-Paul -- he was John Singer Corporal.

 

It's a good thing there is a place like this to bash the person in the Top Spot, huh? I'm entertained by you folks who probably don't even know the rules of photography, but make some excellent images in spite of that. What is the range in stops of film? Paper? Positives?

 

At least some of you are using your brain, others are just using your mouth (really your finger tips. Here's a finger tip for you)

 

The point of our medium is to make a visual statement and hopefully evoke an emotion. If you've done that, you are successful. Remember that photo editors view an image for only a few seconds to decide if it stays or goes. Peter's image stayed. Congratulations to him.

 

Paul-Peter (Where's Mary???)

So THAT'S why Leonardo used to write backwards!

 

If you'd been around for long enough, Paul, you'd realise that when the discussion gets down to "how to calculate the ratings" the picture's lost the plot.

 

Your short time here doesn't give you the proper historical perspective on just who has been in what spot, and when, and for how long... and why they mightn't give a damn anymore what spot they're in.

 

Thank you for clearing up your nose.

Vuk! Help! How you you statistically evaluate for consistency?

The standard deviation of scores is one way, but someone with consistent low grades would be rewarded too. There is also a problem of "ceiling effects" where pictures/portfolios (depending on which variance you are measuring) at either extreme will have artificial lower variability because of the scale--a statistical artifact, so to speak.

Trying to turn ratings here into something meaningful is really hopeless. Yet, they do represent a fair reflection of the community's opinion and you can't really factor out that so many have such poor taste: as I write, the pimp hat has averages over 8 on both dimensions.

Speaking of standard deviation, some of the most interesting pictures here are ones that recieve a lot of extreme scores at both ends of the scale simultaneously.

Paul.

 

Are you drunk, ignorant, belligerent or illiterate?

Paul are you saying you are actually Peter? Hats off and hello if you are! A neat little game. Good point about Da Vinci. I thought he really was a genius, oversaw the students work and trained them personally to do it. He was a painter, inventor, scientist, biologist etc etc how could he have time to tend to all small details & practicalities? I really hope he didn't have his students do those beautiful drawings. I will have to look into this. Food for thought indeed (sincerely).

 

Sorry if this party got out of control but we were all invited and then the host didn't show. At least not that we were aware.

 

If this shroud of mystery over the subject/artist/pseudonym is all part of the art then I get it. But then it's a choice of lowly artist or commercial success right?

Tony, the horse was dead days ago, put down the club! I dont think you realize the irony of your own analogy. You are relying on Photo Shop to prove that there was Photo Shop manipulation. You obviously think that this is not determinable with our naked eyes so then your point is pure PROCESS and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the final visual perception of the image.

 

What the heck is so wrong with the rating system?!? We are all individual human beings with the right to give people whatever rating we want. It is called Democracy! Yes, anybody can be a troll if they want.

 

The hypothetical attempts to tweak the system sounds a lot like Bolshevism to me. A perfect world with a perfect rating system is an unattainable ideology (unless you are a treky). Many people like Tris have campaigned for stiffer rules and regulation and while I agree that some are necessary, I believe that increased civility is a better solution. Cant we all just get along?

 

 

For the purist to ponder and weep. Every image here is a digital image, like it or not each and every one has the dreaded pixels (because they are jpeg's). Oh well.

Maybe the judging should be of the "pass/fail" variety or maybe scaled like they do for every student at Harvard.

 

The question we need to ask ourselves about ANY image we view, here or in our daily contact with magazines, newspapers, photo books, or at the local art museum is "Do I like this image?" If we do, we do -- or not. Some of the folks here are up to their necks in a quagmire of ?? Photography is like a sporting event -- sometimes you make a great play or photograph, but most of the time we don't. Sometimes we have a happy accident which is called 'serendipity' and if we are a secure person, we can tell others the truth about these happy accidents. I sometimes get on film what I saw in my minds eye, but not often, and I'm elated when that happens. When it happens for you, then I share in your good fortune and wish you well. Life is short and misery is optional.

 

Good luck to all.

 

 

 

Was I slurring my pixels again? Prease fagive me!

 

Captain Pixel -- King of the Universe (both of em)

Now, I know from the short time i have been around you are all capable of much better than this. I read all the digital, non-digital, photoshop comments the day before and definately enjoyed having viewed this photo and its comments BEFORE it became POW!

 

If people are kissing each others backsides in the comments section--they are probably doing it for a reason--they must be enjoying it! The photographer didn't ask for this much attention so leave the poor guy alone--he probably wishes he never got POW after all this. Upon my inital viewing i said to myself "nice graphic" and moved on. From reading the above it seems like many of you should do the same. And after tonight hearing all about Rober Mondavi and just how classy everyone is I was dissapointed. Also sad to note that every one has way too much time to waste with their calculator--unless you took Phils advice and wrote a "simple relational database" /spreadsheet combo to do those ratings calculations for you--who cares about the ratings--will they make you better?--NO! Only YOU can do that! Get out and take some more pictures--look at some more old paintings or maybe even some new ones--read some books--travel--try looking at the world through a different lens (NOT a camera lens! ) Those are the things that improve my photography.

 

And yes i freely admit I use photo.net far more than i contribute to it. Thanks to all--Ellis Veneer, Scott Eaton, Art Haykin, and Dan Smith specifically for their comments and everyone else for the wealth of info in the archives!

 

And yes put me in the protest club of not uploading any images!--I tried to help out by uploading some sample scans for some folks in the medium format digest but gave up after the page locked again on my third attempt! Sorry!

Has this discussion lost the plot or have I lost the plot of this discussion???

I think that a lot of us (including myself) love the simplicity and purity of the traditional photography ("all those constraints" as Tony put it). That's is why there are constant protests or disaprovals of digital manipulation going far beyond usual film based technology. Furthermore we do not want to make the matter to be much more complicated by introduction of complex digital processing. (I deal with digits, sofware etc. in my work every day and resist in doing the same while taking pictures - too much sitting in front of the computer). Additionaly some of the members don't inform ohnestly about used manipulation as if excellent effect they show us was produced solely by regular old technology which is not fair if you treat the PhotoNet as a learning community. You can alter the photo image using darkroom technics and so on, but it isn't equally easy like in the computer and not used such often.

So group of traditionalists would rather visualise the image, judge how it'll be recorded on film, hesistate about composition while looking into viewfinder etc. (sometimes it take a while) and then shoot. It realy doesn't matter if it is a film camera or digital one. They want to photograph, not deal with computer afterwards.

Newdigital photographers would rather shoot what they see and then process it in the computer.

They feel more creative without limits of old technology. It's like plug or unpluged music the choice is your. Digital technology is very useful,but one should see beyond that, since it's only a tool. Tool for outside world not to photograph objects found in the virtual reality,

as it can turn out to be such while using to much digital manipulation. Beautiful pitures of virtual reality, are you about that? I'm not against digital photos but we live in a real world not virtual one. Excellent example of difference between real and virtual world is POW "Abbie going to the beach" - Week of May 07, 2001 by Jed Goode,

and Kyle Martens comment to the frustrated "newgidital" member:

" ...to all those people who feel lost outside the commercial world and sit at home on their computers all day. For all the rest of us who do not live our lives vicariously through a TV but actually go to a real beach once and a while, this picture evokes warm memories of a great day at the beach."

I should inform ohnestly that "Abbie going to the beach" was actually manipulated digitaly. Ha, ha...

My final question: what is wrong with "Paul" by Peter Christoph ? Can't find a flaw or reason to put 169 comments.

 

I was wondering about a few things. Especially about Tony's comment about the adding the black space being 'bad' because it allows to alter the composition in an almost arbitrary way. Doesn't cropping do this as well? And is this not just accepted because knifes have been around longer than photography itself, while digital images and PS that allow this "inverse cropping" have not?

Further, on people who argue that this is not very original because other portraits with this kind of lighting have been made: can originality not also be in the execution instead of concept? Shakespeare wrote almost all of his plays on existing plots, for example.

 

Allard

You guys! I just want to say that it is possible that Peter is away for the holidays or something and may not have access to his computer.... Or, that he is totally discouraged by this and has put his camera away for ever. I have had two communications from the man. Very sincere and very sweet. He expressed gratitude at my feedback on his image and felt it meant something coming from a "professional". (even though the only thing professional means is that you get paid and that doesn't translate necessarily to "great or good"). My take on him from his notes (pardon me Peter for speaking for you) is that he normally stays on the sidelines as he is not a professional and prefers to watch the sometimes heated but entertaining comments. He did comment on Mike Spinak's POW because he "totally admired the image" -- also he said he felt safe because he was saying something "nice". He plans to stay a hobbiest in photography so as not to take the fun out of it. Totally a likeable, down to earth hobbiest who has posted an image that some people think is outstanding and others think is not worthy. Do any of you ever stop and think of people's feelings? Isn't there a way to get a technical point out there that doesn't critisize the photographer or blatantly rip the image apart with disrespect and disdain? Were you all not beginners at one time or another filled with the excitement of a new technique or idea? Were you encouraged or were you put down. Some of you: How about....finding the positive and then give the photographer some constructive ideas for future experiments/improvements? It is getting to a point that I don't find this to be entertaining anymore.

Mary.

 

You're being way too nice and sensible. Remember that commercial in which John McEnroe tries to teach Pete Sampras how to slam his racket to the ground and yell at the umpires? Maybe you and I need a little session like that ;-)

Vuk,

 

In this connection we are not underdeveloped on this site, you know. Maybe you can also tell me who taught Carmela to say YOU ARE LIKE A DOG WITH A BONE! in Julias thread since she firmly refused you such a little session a month ago and you obviously advocate similar manner to deal with others?

Maybe you don't know I'm not always so sweet.... I certainly don't need a session! ;-) I usually bite when it is appropriate....or when I've been bitten and guess what -- I draw blood! Watch out for the nice ones -- Anyway, the point is that people do not ask for their images to be chosen, nor do they ask to be number 1. There are amateurs here that we know are truly horrified and intimidated by what goes on here and I think we should be more responsible. So there!

Love the pic Christoph! Very nice clean lines and yet very subtle. I feel the hat really made the pic enjoyable for me. Congratulations.