A girl falls from the side of a sheep during the County Fair in an event called "Mutton' Bustin" in Crete, Nebr.

Ah, but Charles, I have had a POW. But nevermind that. Again, state YOUR opinion instead of gleefully and simplistically attacking mine. I still stand by mine. What's yours other than attacking me? It's people like you that perpetuate my "hijacking". But I'm through now. Unless of course anyone else stoops just to attack me.

 

But please. Let's get back to the POW, which I have stated clearly that I like very much and gave an 8/5.

I wouldn't be here again if someone hadn't sent me the link.

 

My $.02 on the photo: It's fun and energetic. My only complaint is, either because I'm sick and tired, or the frame is horizontal, it looks like it's trying to be peaceful at the same time.

 

Great expression on the kids face, looks like she's about to eat dirt. Good job freezing the motion just right. It's not so perfectly still and I like that. The framing is also just right. Nothing lost, and nothing extra. As I was saying that I just noticed how nice the DOF is. You've got all the important bits in focus, and the background is gone as well as your having the child and animal as the lightest subjects.

 

 

 

 

As fas as everything else goes, I agree with Lucas. I do think that if someone rates a photo 1/1 or 10/10 it'd be common courtesy for them to say why it's so bad/good. Some people just dont' do that, and they don't answer their e-mails either. But even if they do, so be it. Life goes on. If someone says this is the best photo ever, they're entitled to their opinion. I certainly think it is not, but it is very good indeed. I don't know what I would say is the best photo ever. I don't think I'd say there is one.

 

Richard, a previous member of photo.net got banned for behaving much like you are, albeit for a much longer period of time. But you're walking on moderators' thin nerves here behaving like this. I suggest you let it go, they won't agree with you, and they shouldn't have to. We're all entitled to our own opinions but that doesn't include the right to tell someone they're ignorant or hotheaded and stupid (just examples, I don't feel like reading the tirades above for the purpose of picking out what insults were used) on a public forum.

I just stated my opinon and then was attacked and called silly, and I did not call anyone ignorant or stupid. Others are attacking and ranting at me. I was quite calm. Please read the threads if you are going to pass judgement and statements on them, not just take what someone else says about me.

I read it. I said what I said. accept it.

There we go again... Look, disagreement is wonderful, I think essential for this find of forum. But there is absolutely no need to get and take everything so personal. Could we please stop accusing each other of either being braindead or jealous & embittered?

 

In any case, an intelligent verbal comment means so much more than a numerical evaluation, which is inevitably rather glib.

 

My guess is that few if anyone at all could disagree with Mr Thistlewaite. The problem is of course that many people now seem to think leaving a "wow" or "perfect" is critique. If everyone would eloquantly state his of her case - perhaps even explaining why "mutton bustin'" should hang in MOMA? - I doubt distinguished members of this site like Tony Dummett and Richard Sintchak (could you not at least spell his name right - Charles "I have ZERO photos uploaded and only ONE comment" Vendeville?) would jump on any horse in that highly hypothethical situation.

 

Perhaps some are striving to attain standards we just can't reach. Perhaps we should let it be, as Lucas and Carl suggest. But I can see why "arrogant long-time" members at least try. And I share the impression that many visitors to this forum are relatively new and could be miss-informed. Why give up now that there seems to be room for a new direction? It may be time to really clearly define what we want here. Perhaps even, as many have suggested before, to have different forums for different kinds of photography. Where fine art can be critiqued as such. And fine examples of photojournalism as this POW be praised for what it is: a really good editorial photograph. Including the rationale for choosing this particular photo might help too. Some moderating as well, though I think it is actually happening already...

 

Anyway, I'm rambling. Joshua, your photo is excellent in it's sort. I can see this on the pages of many quality newspaper or magazine I know. This applies to quite a few images in your portfolio. The lighting is nice, the timing and expression very good. Composition-wise, perhaps including some more background might make it more interesting than centered as it is now. You mentioned that you cropped the photo. Could you show us what you left out?

 

Keep up the good work! And take care you all, Jeroen

To label Richard Sintchak a highminded ranter is laying it on a bit thick, Lucas. He is the least ratings-minded person in this discussion. His criticism of over-the-top ratings laments the lack of critical standards behind the ratings, not the ratings themselves.

The ubiquitous "10s" all over the place for mid-level photographs come from most people's lack of understanding of what constitutes a really good photograph. The judges lack depth in their critical perceptions. These people give the picture a "10", not because it's the best picture that ever was, but simply because they can't figure it out. It's indistinguishable from magic to them, so they rate accordingly. For example, anyone who didn't realise how absurdly easy it is to insert clouds into any photograph with Photoshop would think one particular member's pictures were works of pure genius.

The Photo.Net millionaires (those who reach into their pockets and always pull out a "10") can either continue to wallow in their ignorance or go and learn a bit about what really good pictures look like, not by stopping here, but by visiting their local libraries and the large institutional galleries where there are, respectively, books and exhibits by the real masters of this art. Nothing like a couple of hours at a LIFE or Magnum exhibition to make you feel small, sheepish and utterly untalented.

Peter Christoph, there is simply no dividend in denying the ignorant a robust and critical education simply in order not to hurt their feelings. If this is a learning site, then your "make no waves" approach will maintain the level of that learning to about kindergarten finger-painting standard. The attitude that everyone and everything they produce should be praised as a matter of policy doesn't do the group or the individual any good past the age of about 4 years old, where potty training ends and "real life" begins. It promotes incompetence and, worse, it perpetuates self-delusion.

As far as I can see, my critique of this picture was only a problem to you because I didn't heap 10/10 fulsome praise upon it, which, to you, is not "positive reinforcement" enough. What an absurd position! When the current raters run out of ratings currency (when they can't give more than a 10) they then resort to adding more and more exclamation marks to the end of their comments. This gushiness is what Richard's original post lamented. In concurring with him, I also registered an objection to this, but in so doing didn't single out the POW picture for what you termed "denigration" (except in the minds of those who see any lack of enthusiasm as tantamount to condemnation). I said it above and I 'll say it again: I think this picture is not too bad at all, perfectly suited to its purpose. I didn't even complain about its "right" to be POW. It's as good a choice as any and, in conjunction with the rest of the portfolio, serves to tell us something about how successful professionals, even on a local newspaper, must produce consistent high quality work in order to keep their jobs and continue being paid for doing what they love.

Richard has pointed out your technical error in listing "hits" as equivalent to "serious viewings", but I'd like to suggest that this mistake you made is also evidence of a misguided attitude you have to art criticism. Are you really suggesting that because the picture has achieved the approval of "the masses" that it must be good? Are you still clinging to the old ratings-based notion that a high score actually means anything? Those days are past; those days where anyone with five or six pictures to show and a sugar-daddy to "nurture" them through the Valley of Death could take their turn at being King for a day.

You know, I almost miss Tris Schuler. At least he had some spirit and backbone to him. The vacuum that he and some of the other loudmouths (who were equally passionate about their art) created by their absence has been filled by, not the spirited (but better-behaved) argument we might have expected, but feelgood fairy floss coupled to debunked educational theories that, in glorifying the lowest common denominator, do us all a disservice.

. . . . because I wanted to hear people's various viewpoints. I'm closer now, if only a little, to knowing what the answer is. This photo does its job and does it well. Being a pro, the photographer makes it look easy. Is it easier now than it was twenty years ago? No doubt. Twenty years from today, will there need to be a photographer at all? Who can say? Probably you'll buy a newspaper once a year. Each morning the content will morph for the day. In place of still pictures there will be super-high definition moving footage shot from who-knows-where by who-knows-who using who-knows-what - probably by a robot of some sort or a barely-paid, unskilled worker. If for some reason a still image is wanted, it can be sliced out of the whole and tweaked in every which way until its verissimilitude makes you weep - if you didn't see such things all the time. Meanwhile, there will be people, like some on this site, who relish silver halide, color dyes, and who knows? even "lo-res" digital images, who have an eye, and who go out of their way in the effort to make images that truly are extraordinary - such as some of the photos in Joshua's folders.

I think we need to agree about what this PoW forum is and isn't, about what constitutes acceptable behavior - not everywhere, just here - and what doesn't. It seems obvious, to me, anyway, that this forum is about the image and the issues it directly raises. Personal back and forth - you said, I said; I am not, are too - properly belong somewhere else, such as email. This, of course, only if you care about maintaining some sort of civil discourse. Likewise, pronouncements from on high / down low (choose one) about the sorry state of this site and what a pathetic future it faces. I too am dismayed by over-praise of an image - which I define as simple complimentary words spoken without any effort to say something thoughtful. Such praise feels good but is ephemeral. In the end it does a picture injustice. But I think it's possible, indeed preferable, to be generous while being critical. And certainly possible to have spirited, even passionate debate, while maintaining the dignity of the site, if not your own - simply by staying on topic, and exercising a modicum of self-censorship.

There are as many understandings of a dual 1-10 rating scheme as there are site members. Some people see one or two sets of one-through-ten stretched out through the cosmos, and measure every image against that. Others are more situational, based on genre, or photographer, or folder, or what they had for lunch that day. Some don't rate at all. Like it or not, that's the way it is. And I doubt it will change. Consequently, what has to matter most is not maintaining the presumed validity of what even in concept is barely valid - rating images as if they were overly groomed contestants in a dog show; I think what has to matter is the quality of discussion that goes on, and the way we comport ourselves in the face of images good, great, you-must-be-kidding and I'm-not-sure.

Yes, I saw that "distinguished member" thingy too. Jeroen's words, not mine, I'm afraid. The only label I have next to my name is the one that says I paid my twenty-five bucks, Charles.

 

Talking about the subscription fee, I think it should be a compulsory prerequisite for participation in the POW discussion. The site's short of cash but long on unpaid, recently enrolled subscribers with no pictures uploaded and plenty to say. Compared to other sites, it's the easiest to navigate around, debate in and (yes) learn a bit about photography: from ND filters to the history of Daguerrotypes. How many would stay around if they had to pay for the privelege?

 

I hated what happened a couple of weeks ago on the Night Of The Long Knives, but I 've looked around and photo.net's still the best by far: an addictive drug that's well worth the cost of a couple of bottles of a superb Australian shiraz (or a crisp unwooded chardonnay).

This is the first time I've commented on a POW, although I've been reading the strings for months. I was disturbed at times in the past by some of the negativity--not because of the criticism itself, but because it was fairly easy to see in advance who was going to say what. It did indeed seem that some posters were interested far more in hearing themselves proclaim how the POW was indicative of the fall of western civilazation than in ever just accepting and examining each photo on its own terms.

 

Having said that, I'll add that the recent overly glowing reviews of each POW don't mean much to me either. This is particularly true because there is no universally recognized "standard" for the ratings. It is for this reason that I have only ever rated a few photos on the site--if I see something interesting that catches my eye, I'll comment on it, but not necessarily rate it. I don't expect that the rating I give will mean what anyone else, including the photographer, thinks it means. If that makes any sense. :^)

 

The one comment here that gave me pause was from Mr. Dummett--that in your opinion, anyone who happened to give this photo a "10" rating doesn't know anything about photography. Perhaps that is indeed your opinion, but it still seems like an unnecessary insult to me. Personally, I don't see this as a "10" photo (although it is a very good image on its own terms), but if I did feel that way I don't imagine I would need you telling me what an idiot I am. Otherwise, I understand much of your point and agree with some of it.

 

So, about the photo. (I realize this is a bit lengthy, but as I said, this was the first POW comment I've ever made--and possibly the last for some time--so I shan't begrudge myself a bit of space.) I'm commenting here because this individual's profession is also my own (Although you won't find evidence of it in my folders--everything I've uploaded to this point falls into the "hobby" category for me. Perhaps I'll change that at some point.) From a "peer" perspective, I'll say that this is an excellent "PJ" sort of shot. I daresay that even if a dozen professional photojournalists were at this event, it is unlikely that any of them would have returned from this assignment with a better image--and that's how I would "test" this image, in the context of whether the photographer could have gotten anything much better from this event. I'm sure that the photographer would freely admit that this photo was a combination of both skill and luck--nearly all photos like this are. If it were my photo, it wouldn't be one that I would consider my own personal "best," and in fact it's not even my favorite of the images in this folder--but it would certainly be worthy of being in nearly anyone's portfolio (and certainly in mine!). So, nicely done.

 

Again, sorry for the length if you bothered to read this far--if not, I don't suppose an apology will matter.

For stirring up even more controversy I owe you some clarification. Sorry for posting this here publicly, I'll try and keep it short.

 

Charles, because of my poor phrasing I think you misunderstood my intention. The only point I wanted to make was that we need some more civility and respect. If I needed to tell someone here to be embarrassed, I'd make damn sure that I knew who I was dealing with to the point of spelling his name right. Not because for some reason my adversary is more important than I am, but because he has more to lose, his reputation. Where as I am relatively new, just like you are, and have nothing to lose. Being all reasonable people we need to be careful with each other. Well, I'll stop now. Doug Thacker wrote it all above - and a lot better than I could.

 

Perhaps because of the late hour or my sour mood yesterday, I attacked you directly in a way that was rather cheap and uncalled for. Moreover it was directly contrary to the argument I was trying to make. For that I apologize.

 

As for distinction and the silly 'I support this site financially' icon, that was not what I based my judgment on. I am not a native speaker and reading back 'distinguished' seems a bit strong. I can only hope that many new people to this forum will share thoughts, advise and photos to the degree some ancient greying members have.

 

Best regards, Jeroen

It's not the over-the-top ratings that are doing a disservice to us here it's the over-the-top criticism and ridicule of those who may not have the same lofty standards for art critique. When a member attempts to tongue lash everyone into the neat categories of :

 

A. Those who want to learn and expand

or

B. Those who want to have cheap, self-inflicted orgasms

It's obvious where the real disservice to the POW forum lies.

 

To have a member run on for paragraph after paragraph telling others how much they don't understand what they're looking at or what they're rating is a bit much by any standards. Condescending jabs and implying that people are not up to 'understanding' do little further any real discussion/critique of the image at hand.

 

Your assertion that so many here are lacking depth of judgement in their critical perception, can't 'figure it out' or rate only because it appears as magic to them is hardly going to cause anyone to rethink their position or be receptive to suggestions that might raise the standards of the POW forum to levels that you feel are acceptable.

 

What do you suggest these people do to save themselves from themselves? Where exactly should we start? Just what are the standards for critque that we should all be abiding by?

 

Berating and belittling people probably isn't the best place start. Your constant reference to people 'wetting their pants' and 'potty training' hardly serve to move this forum towards the goal of more enlightened critiques that you seek - to me it seems this kind of insinuation is pushing it in just the opposite direction.

 

I am sure that we can all learn lots on how to critique judiciously from the 'older' more 'experienced' members. 'Grey beards' as many would have it. But that "learning" doesn't mean that everyone here should have to endure all the demeaning ruckus, innuendo and slights - Grey beards or not.

 

I thought the image was a good one when considered against the background of it's intended use. I didn't bother to rate it as I have yet to see anyone agree on what the heck the numbers are supposed to mean! The instructions for ratings on PN are subjective at best so I don't bother - especially not when it seems so many are trying to derive hard fast universally applicable rules from them.

 

What exactly are the 'critique' guidelines that you suggest we follow? How do you suggest we arrive at the level of discourse that satisfies the requirements for intellectual integrity and prudent critique here on the POW forum?

 

 

Much of the debate in this thread about the rating system comes from the fact that there is no real guidance or agreement on the meaning of the ratings, and the only document on the subject is confusing. Everyone decides for himself what the ratings should mean.

One thing on which people can honestly disagree is what universe of photographs is being rated.

Richard Sintchak has made it clear that his rating universe is "all photographs in the history of photography" and when he says that probably no photograph on photo.net warrants a 10 when considered in this universe, I almost agree with him, although I think there are a few photos here that are close.

Others (including me most of the time) consider the universe to be "photos on photo.net", in which case some of them by definition warrant 10's.

Others might consider the universe to be "all photos of a particular subject type": for example, this photo might be rated relative to other rodeo pictures, or even "girls falling off a rodeo sheep pictures". Still others apparently consider the universe to be "photos that hypothetically might have been taken of this specific event/subject", giving the actual photo a 10 if they can't see any way in which it "might" have been improved.

So, here are my ratings of this picture, relative to various possible universes.

Universe	Rating
All Photos Ever Taken of Girls in Yellow Shirts Falling off Rodeo Sheep	10
Photos Probably Taken at this Event	10
All Rodeo Photos Ever Taken	8
All Professional Photojournalist Photos Ever Taken	8
All Sports Photos Ever Taken with High FPS Cameras	8
All Photo.net Photos	8
All Photos Ever Taken by Anyone in any Format in the entire History of the Human Race	7

Without agreement or instruction from the administrators of the site on the meaning of the ratings, it is pointless to argue about it. The only thing on which we should agree is that people shouldn't rate pictures without thinking through how they will interpet the scales and trying to be consistent in applying them.

...and pictures of Sheep. Well they take me back to my youth in South Wales;

a good wine, good company, Wellingtons...mint sauce...this POW brings it all flooding back.

 

 

-- Brian Mottershead

Your first row description should properly read:

 

Determined Girls in Yellow Shirts Falling off Indifferent Looking Rodeo Sheep Photos.

 

-- Chris Battey

 

Priceless... ;-)

 

Someone made a statement that we should judge photos on photonet relative to ALL THE PHOTOS IN THE UNIVERSE, but since not all the photos in the universe are posted here, nor are any of the Ansel Adams and such featured here either, then we cannot possibly rate or contrast photos posted here to ALL PHOTOS IN THE UNIVERSE, nor were we asked to do that. A 10/10 on photonet means compared to all the pictures on photonet this is a 10/10. If one wishes to rate the photos of the great masters there are most likely other sites for that.

 

Finally, I think that each person should continue to rate photos according to their own taste. It is not necessary to try to overthink the ratings system when it is as simple as "I like this photo, or I don't,"-- not "How would Jim or Sally or Peter or Tony like this photo. " As long as we are judging art, the rating process will continue to be a subjective one. No two people are ever going to rate all photos the same.

Lucas,

I didn't say anything against the POW picture. Rather, I said I thought it was fine. I didn't say it was "awesome!", but plenty of others have put that contention. I doubt whether Joshua Wolfe cares a fig for what I think about his picture anyway.

As to where to get the goods on great photography, I suggested libraries and large museums and/or fine art galleries (not your local commercial or municipal one). Most of the stuff on this site, including my own, doesn't cut it out there in the real world. That's why we should all take a break away occasionally and look into the history of the art. Chris Battey (who's as knowledgeable about the history of photography as anyone I know) would be a good companion on these field trips. As to how to maturely criticise a work of creativity (or no creativity, as the case may be), do you really need someone to hold your hand?

By the way, the allusion to potty training was made as a reference to Peter Christoph's self-imposed "nurturing" mission around this site. One of the main things I remember about potty training was that it was essential for Dad to constantly be in attendance and to supply continuous praise. We all grow past needing both the training and the praise (or we should do). My proposition is that this step is as essential in real life as it is in the more mundane environment of the bathroom.

Doug Thacker, Richard Sintchak, Jeroen Wesdorp made perfectly reasonable posts that were torn into by you and Peter as inadmissable arguments (their content was not addressed), but with special vehemence by you, what with all the bold type and the !!!!exclamation marks!!!. My own posts came after all of theirs, and in support of them, what they actually said or suggested (or just asked in Doug's case) and their right to say what they said in a straightforward manner.

As to the "constant berating" you accuse me of, this is my third post. At last count you were up to number 8. Who's berating who?

Handholding excepted - It'd probably be more constructive and less side-tracking of the post if instead of so much complaining how low the standard of critique is here on POW - if perhaps you gave some constructive pointers instead (and not just references to potty training) POW might become a place more up to your level of crique.

 

Calling a statement silly is hardly 'vehemence'. Err - at least last I checked.

 

The statement I called 'silly' is a round-a-bout reprimand that Josh should be 'embarrassed' because so many people gave him 10/10's. Ha ha - and that's still as silly as it ever was.

 

As for my posts regarding Richard Sintchaks comments - well... it's all above to be seen - speaks for itself fairly well really.

 

Doug Thackers post - ????

Re-read my response to it - I'm not sure what you felt you had to defend about it - I actually agreed in part with him. Jeroen Wesdorps post - I didn't respond to it. So not sure what you mean there.

 

As for 8 posts - I meant Sintchaks posts not yours - err... Did you feel berated because I posted a shot of two sheep?!

 

At any rate - thanks for the tips on how to achieve or go about attaining a level of mature and sophisticated critique that so many of us on POW seem to lack according to you. Shucks - by then I might even have a grey beard.

;-)

My beard is what is politely termed "pepper and salt", not the full grey issue, yet. We need passion like yours back here on site. Why don't you put your $25 down and join formally? And a few others, too. Last I heard photo.net's in financial trouble because too few ante up. It's only $25 and well worth it, I think.

 

(The invitation to join wasn't intended as a slight, but as a serious suggestion, by the way).

Yes, agreed. And a good suggestion at that. I think if the $25 was mandatory to be able to participate in the critiques etc. that it would benefit everyone here on POW. The most irksome thing about the latter part of this POW thread is that I don't totally disagree with Sintchak or yourself - I also think that making this one big feel-good-factor won't serve any purpose either - even more so in the light of 10 or 20 years down the road if someone has to sift through all the superlatives to get to the critiques... but as for my part in careening the latter end of the POW off track It's the manner in which pointing something like that out is put across I guess.

 

 

 

 

Glad to see POW back to its old self again...

 

I'm aware of Philip's spanking, Keith. However, POW has been nauseatingly dull for the last few weeks.

 

Anyway, the discussion is still about the photo; some people think it is a 10/10, whereas others think it is an 8/5! Ratings, eh - don't ya just luv 'em?

 

This week's POW is rather awkward because there isn't really much wrong with it (apart from not being particularly original), hence all the gushing comments. Once the gushers have been and gone, the debate becomes centred on various people's rating criteria.

 

This is what happens when the Elves choose a photo that no-one can seriously fault. All Tony, Brian etc. can do is suggest (quite rightly) that it isn't worthy of a 10. What else is there to say apart from 'great/good light', 'great/good movement', 'great/good expression', 'blah blah blah'? How could this photo be changed? How could it be made better? The 'problem' with this photograph is that there is NOTHING in it that can form the basis of a discussion. Heck, even the FENCE re-inforces the composition! All we can talk about is ratings (again).

 

In future, the most important criteria for POW must be some kind of photographic controversy. There isn't any here.

 

Hang on, there is - the girl's left arm & leg aren't distinct enough from the sheep's head.

I don't rate photographs, but if I were to give a particular photo a 10, then yes, it means I think it is one of the best I have ever seen. The ratings are not a pyramid. More than one photo can get a 1, a 5, or a 10. Furthermore, anyone who thinks the best photographs ever have already been taken, long ago, by some of those god-like names we have to hear all the time, then that person has very low expectations for his or her own accomplishments.

 

Hadn't ever thought of that. The best photographs ever are in fact, waiting to be taken. What a concept Scott! With that in mind, I'm going after my camera right now!

 

Peter Christoph

Love it. Always have, since I first saw it months ago. I wondered what happened to it, because first it was there, and then it wasn't.

 

I'm glad to see that it's still here on photo.net somewhere.

excellent action shot!!!

I like your style; not only this picture but your photojournalistic style. Real and refreshing!