mg

<p>By the way, since I'm French, I should clarify what you meant by "control point" ? I understood it as "vanishing point", and that's the way my last paragraph should be understood...</p>

<p>Hi, and thanks a lot for this complete and interesting reply.<br>

Firstly I'd like to say that these 4 pictures were taken this way simply because we could only have ONE small piece of this particular wall background - large enough to fit one person, not even two, much less 4 models. And so, from the start, it was very clear that we would later merge the 4 shots to make them one single picture. And so, the 4 pictures were taken exactly under the same soft and diffused sunlight lighting condition - which means lighting will be consistant throughout and perspectives and poses of the guys are ok too. No reshooting possible, and no reshooting nor 3D software needed for the light... BUT... the perspectives of the quare drawn on the floor should vary - meaning should not be the same for the guy at far left and the guy center right for example, etc. My only problem is to have the <strong>perspectives on the ground</strong> all correct.<br>

Now, let's answer your questions:<br>

<em><strong>1) Do you want the subjects arranged in a straight line, or along the perimeter of a circle? </strong> </em> <strong>2) Do you want them all facing the same direction, or angled to face directly toward the camera?</strong><br>

Sorry, I should have been clearer... They are supposed to be all lined up on a straight line, facing the camera or sometimes slightly turned one way or another, none of them looking in the camera. And... Each of them was photographed at equal distance to camera.<br>

<strong><br /> 3) How far were the subjects from the camera when you took the pictures?</strong><br>

4 or 5 meters - 12 to 16 ft... roughly.<strong> </strong> (Lens was 50mm for all four of them<strong> </strong> - human eye view.<strong>)<br /> </strong><br>

<strong>4) how far do you want them to appear in the composite?</strong><br>

Roughly the same size as they were shot - all of them -, which means: each of them should be about 3 quarters of the composite's height.<br>

<strong>5) Was this done with a full frame or cropped-frame camera? (determines angle of view of lens)</strong><br>

Angle of view was human eye view, 45°. Lens 50mm positioned horizontally at chest level - and camera didn't move at all between the takes of the 4 guys. As for "cropped frame" cameras, I guess you mean those that do panoramis or such ? This was taken on a full 2 x 3 ratio format of a "normal" DSLR.<br>

Trouble is: 4 images to start with means 4 points of view in the composite - eventhough they are all the same on each image. Which means 4 control points will be aligned on one horizontal line in the composite, and image should then appear as having a single control point of course - more or less. So, I guess , I now need to place the new control point for the composite on the same line as the 4 points I have to start with, and in the middle of the composite's width. Right ? And then draw my perspective lines from this new control point...?<br>

Thanks again. Looking forward for your next post ! :-)</p>

<p>Hi, all...<br>

1) I'm looking for somebody with a really strong mathehmatical understanding of perspective laws... If you are one of those experts, and willing to help, please be kind enough to give me your mail... or to answer in the present thread...<br>

2) Here's the headache I'm facing... I took some solo vertical pictures of 4 models in a single place, full length, standing and facing the camera. I used an 85mm lens to do so... On the ground, there was a square, drawn. I'm supposed to merge the 4 pictures to make one single picture where all 4 models will appear standing next to each other - with about 3 feet distance between them... My question is: what should happen to the square (4 square<strong>S</strong> , once multiplied) drawn around their feet, for this merged shot to appear with all perspectives correct on the squares...?<br>

Thanks a lot for your help !<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>Thanks. I downloaded a trial version, and it seems very complete, but quite complicated too...</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I generally dislike fake water reflections, because I feel they tend to look artificial, and so, I never really bothered to get a software or a plug-in to produce such effects; but today I'm facing a case where I need to retouch an existing water reflection for a client, and so I'd need any help I can get, to find the software or plug-in to do this quick - and preferably a free software would be best. Thanks for your help.</p>

Matt Laur's answer was the right one: "You just need to light the backdrop separately from the subject - a couple of stops hotter." Regards.

"No."

 

Now, it's your turn....:-)

 

The point of the present discussion - which was initiated during a conversation with Michael Chang, here at

photo.net - would be to try to see what we all can gain from thougtful, and sometimes even from HARSH criticism.

 

Basically, let's leave our egos in a bag for a moment, and try to be objective: who can honestly say he knows

better about his own work, than viewers would. Viewers and critiques need not be experts. They need to have a

heart, and to look inside for a moment, and then they'll ideally be blunt enough to let us know, in no uncertain

terms what they like, and mostly what they dislike, about our latest little crappy masterpiece...:-)

 

Agreed, disagreed ? How's criticism helping you to improve your photography ?

Gordon,

 

"I grow weary of being misunderstood and ridiculed."

 

French saying: "ridicule doesn't kill". :-) Been there, done that, and survived - and whith a smile on my face most of the time. No worries, be happies ! :-))

 

Then, I will confirm that I have exactly the same experience with regards to asking a specific question in a critique request. Mes no differenece, except for the fact, that for example the kind people who do write comments (some of which were named in my original post), would most of the time give you a real answer to a real question. So it's still worth writing a bit more in your request, especially if you are in touch regularly with some open-minded folks who actually write real critiques.

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for adding the American Pro photographers' criteria of judging. I was glad to see 1. that they make perfect sense, 2. that they were actually very similar to the grading system I had written when I was still lecturing photography in an art college, which is a grading system I had already proposed to photo.net in a thread that must be about 4 to 6 years old...

 

If the site would be looking for a lower number of more meaningful numeric ratings - i.e. to avoid drive-by raters -, all it would need to do is to make it mandatory to rate in each of these categories when rating any image - which would, by the way, do as great a job as the checkboxes I originally proposed.

 

But I suppose it ain't going to happen, because I can see 2 difficulties: rating criteria at PN have been aesthetics and originality for so long now, that it would be impossible to have new criteria for new pictures and old criteria for the older shots - at least as long as all pictures are competing in the same playground. :-) Secondly, drive-by raters pay their due to the site too, and there are so many of them, that I doubt the site could decide to do anything that would annoy them too much.

 

There are at least 2 main types of users here: those craving for high ratings and enjoying the rating games, and those who would prefer a good critique to a good rating. Which is probably why Josh was thinking of separating ratings and critiquing. Good idea ! As an old-timer, I recall Brian Mottershead (the former editor of this site) explaining to me - in what I thought to be "no uncertain terms" -, that people looking for critiques were a minority here, and that this minority was fairly unimportant to photo.net, since the vast majority of paying users cared more fore ratings. I can certainly agree with him about the facts, but can a learning site still call itself a LEARNING place, if it has given up on satisfying people who like to discuss photography and share opinions ?

 

In no uncertain terms as well, I'll say that I feel really refreshing to read what Josh wrote in this thread ! At least I see some hope there for the future - just hoping the back burner isn't too full yet...:-)

It's fairly simple: "incido", in latin language, means "to arrive". Incident light is sqimply the light that ARRIVES on the subject. Then, your subject can be white, or several values of grey, or black. If it is white or almost white, or black, or almost black, the light that arrives on the subject will either be reflected MORE than average (in the case of a white or very bright subject) or will be reflected LESS than average (in the case of a black or very dark subject). So, your incident light reading is only supposed to be correct for a subject at an average grey, i.e. 18% grey, i.e. the grey of the kodak grey chart. So, setting on your camera your reading of incident light for a black subject will result in an under-exposed shot. Similarly, setting on your camera your reading of incident light for a white subject will result in an over-exposed shot. That's really all there is to know about all this. And another very important point is to learn how to use your lightmeter properly, i.e. how to hold it in the first place. You shouldn't point the white ball of your meter to any light source. Just point it towards your camera. If there is a light source near your camera, never mind, reading will then still be accurate, because what matters is the angle of the incident light to the subject and then the angle of the reflected light towards your camera.

Well, that's more than just a good start ! :-) By the way, I do not mind the idea of anonymous critiques, Stamoulis - provided it brings new people to express their opinions. Think about it carefully... Of course you'd probably like to know it, when very good photographers drop by and leave a comment, but they'd hopefully leave their name at the end of their critique - especially if you request that they do so. The point of anonymous critiques would rather be for the others, who lack the confidence or who wouldn't want to offend someone with their opinion. I can understand, that some people may feel "unqualified" to criticize a picture posted by what they see as a "better" photographer. But in the end, these people have an opinion, and most people would be interested in it. People who visit photo exhibitions are not all pro photographers - thanks God ! :-) Does it mean professionals should ignore what they think ?! Sometimes a pro gets lost in technicalities, whereas an amateur always knows well what he FEELS when he sees a picture. End of the day, I think the pro may make valid comments, but the amateur could have a smarter overall assessment of the picture's content or emotional value.

 

These people who aren't pros - and who will sometimes even be beginners - do not pretend to be "teachers" anyway, and so we don't really need their name. What we do need, imo, is their voice - be it anonymous. A voice that expresses an opinion, a like, a dislike, even though it may not be thoroughly explained. I thought a couple of checkboxes could help people to express themselves quickly. In fact, I bet it would work. But anything else, that would make them more comfortable commenting will be fine.

 

And promoting good critiques is a good idea too, obviously.

 

Finally, I'd like the site to propose a way to invite photographers to COMPARE pictures of the same kind...

For example, if I have 5 pictures in a series (or 5 versions of a single picture), and can't decide which one is better - which happens all the time -, it would be nice to be able to upload all 5 pictures at once in a place where people could pick their favorite. And similarly, I have often in the past suggested a THEME OF THE WEEK discussion, where we would be able to compare 20 landscapes posted by different photographers, or 20 portraits, etc. COMPARING is, in my view, the essence of good photography. We all compare pictures when we look through our viewfinder in the first place. And then again after the photo session, when we do a selection... So wouldn't it be great to be able to share thoughts on this as well, in some corner of the site...?

To tell you the truth, it's been years now, that I find the critiques weeker and weaker on this and on all other

photo sites. Photo.net is at this point the last place where I still upload images, but the only reason why I do

so is because there are some folks - like Jeff Grant, Doug Burgess, Michael Chang, Mike Dixon, and a perhaps

another handful of people - who still bother thinking carefully and who write something interesting about each

picture they comment - positive or negatives alike.

 

Unfortunately, very few pictures are perfect, and so I consider, that the only way to write useful comments about

any picture, is to say what you like AND WHAT YOU DON'T. I wish more people could do that, but that's not the

trend, nowadays. Most people call many pictures great - which might sometimes be sincere, and sometimes not. Some

people seem to have decided they'd only speak about the good things and leave the negatives aside. Some folks

probably haven't matured their eye well enough to be able to identify what they dislike in a picture that they

generally like, but I don't think that's the majority. So, at the end of the day, where are all the folks willing

to offer real comments and sincere opinions ? And what's been done to encourage these people to write a little more ?

 

I wish something could be done to encourage careful critiquing. Is there anything planned regarding this matter ?

 

Honestly, I hardly get any useful information from a bunch of ratings by folks who do not explain what they

think. Once in a while, I post a picture which gets a lot more ratings than most of my pictures do, and that's

perhaps the only useful information I can get from ratings. Almost every picture I post gets the whole rainbow of

ratings, from 3 to 7, and what the ratings are no longer matters: only the NUMBER of ratings and the number of

views may, at times, be of any use as an indication about people's interest... But comments are of course useful

- at least most of the time... And when I or anyone requests a CRITIQUE, I don't think it means "Thanks for your

ratings" !

 

For what it's worth, I used to write a lot more than I do now, and I'm still prepared to spend a little more time

on this site, but nowadays, I decided to give what I get - no more, no less. Didn't the site's silly rating

culture year after year exhaust most of the goodwilling folks who would have been prepared to offer constructive

criticism ? Isn't it time to do something about it ?

 

For example, I wish there could at least be a few checkboxes somewhere in the "rate recent" queue, for all serial

raters who can't spend time writing a comment. In order to rate a picture, you'd need to check at least two of

these checkboxes:

 

1. "Technically ok, but uninteresting".

2. "Not very good technically, but interesting".

3. "Technically ok, and interesting".

4. "Technically ok, and very interesting".

5. "Technically very good, but uninteresting".

6. "Under-exposed"

7. "Over-exposed"

8. "Blown highlights".

9. "Bad lighting"

10. "Bad composition"

11. "Lighting is not very good."

12. "Composition is not very good".

13. "Tones/colors/contrast are not very good."

Etc.

 

These are just a few suggestions, and the list would of course need to be thought out more carefully, but you get

my point: guide people so they'd at least - at the cost of very little time - say something useful to the

photographer.

 

More ideas to promote discussions and criticism on the site...? Any thoughts...? Thanks for your contribution.

Harsh light - barely diffused or not at all - hitting either oily make-up base ot silver make-up fondation will produce most of the effects you see on these pictures. Regards.

It seems to me, that's just direct mid-day to 3 or 4pm daylight, with harsh sun and nothing else involved, except perhaps a polarizing filter. For this kind of look, check on a guy called "Cheyco Leidmann", who's the first master of such images. At times he was working with 2 pola filters on the lens while adding kilos of light on the foreground, so he could pose for the foreground whereby the background would be under-exposed. But I think what you see here is a lot more "normal" in terms of foreground-background contrast, and there is no sign of a flash being triggered.

I like what Ralph said - and the spirit of the picture too !

"will have someone to assist with the lighting on the day.

 

Is there anything obvious that I am missing out?"

 

Perhaps you are missing out that you should ideally command the lights, because you're apparently in charge of the whole project ? Perhaps you should tell us who handles the lights - an experienced photographer...? - and what the lights will be ! Because that could turn out to be a key issue. Besides that, have you done a meter reading in the place where the shoot will take place ? Or could you tell us how much window light walks in the rooms ? I have no idea what the house you'll shoot in looks like, as I am (only) French, but all this does (or could) matter.

 

"Do you have any ideas how I could keep the pictures simple and focused on the clothes, whilst retaining the feel of the location?"

 

Keeping sharp within your frame a couple of objects/ furniture near the model and getting a half blurry background is a safe way to go. More difficult but sometimes a lot more fun could be to keep some parts of the room sharp in the background, but then light will play a major role.

 

Help us to help you more: it's not easy with so little details - especially for those who haven't shot in an "Edwardian" house before...:-) Cheers.

Perhaps it's time to remind some of you that flashing straight in the baby's open eyes can cause damage to his eyes. All else matters a lot less.

14 x 20 what ? Feet...?

 

There is no ideal lens, only ideal lenses for a given situation and subject matter.

What you'd need to tell us, george, is : what kind of light(s) are you using, when shooting what you shoot ? Because with the way I shoot and based on my lighting equipment for example, your question would make no sense at all... It all depends what is your ratio between your flash power and ambient light where you shoot. For the rest, I think Tom Meyer has already answered perfectly to your question, and by the way, I didn't know the D70 offered such a synchro speed. At this point synchro speed doesn't matter for what I do, but it's good to know nevertheless...!

Josh wrote: "If any sort of "forced participation" is added, it will be for the area that you are trying to use. If you want to submit for ratings, you will have to rate X number of images for each image you wish to submit. You won't be required to do one thing when you are trying to get another."

 

It all sounds very reasonable to me, so far. This, and the rest.

 

I'm not a paying member, but it seems reasonable to me that paying members get the right to post more images and to request more critiques. OF COURSE it is reasonable.

 

And now if we are talking - as it seems here - about "forcing" people into critiquing more to get more critiques - or rating more to get more ratings -, that seems perfectly reasonable as well. Those who feel they would then be "forced" to do something, and who dislike that, are imo misunderstanding something. They are mostly misunderstanding that many people - include me in that bunch - have been critiquing a lot in the past, but were later discourage from spending time on the site sharing knowledge with others. What has discouraged me ? Here you go:

 

1) Too many retaliations games and too many people who actually want only praise about their little masterpieces.

2) Too much time and effort trying to write real constructive critiques and getting nothing but 7s or empty one-liners as a "reward". I don't care for "Great shot 7/7" comments: they mean nothing. Gerry S. (who posted above in this thread) has on number of occasions given me meaningful critiques. So did Michael Chang, Carl Root, Doug Burgess, Bob Hixon, and a few orthers. But nowadays, people like them are rare over here. So why post pictures,why invest time here if I hardly get anything out of posting pictures or comments ?

 

By "forcing" people to give so they can get, you will in fact remind those who should not have forgotten about it, that this is a "give-and-take" site. I'm all for it.

 

Then perhaps constructive critics who used to be more active will have a real motivation to return to the site, and this place could become a place to discuss matters toroughly again, as it used to be -, instead of remaining the empty shell it's been for years.

 

It's nice to see the management heading the right direction after years of nonsense. Imo, PNet must STAND FOR SOMETHING. In terms of critiques, it would be nice if the site could stand more and more for active critiquing and constructive criticism. If anything can be done to somehow revive the spirit of the old "critique circles", I think you'll be surprised how many good ghosts from the past will be walking back here. Just 20 or 50 real critics walking back and spending time here again, together with the appropriate management moves to stimulate discussions on the site, and photo.net could be in no time what it used to be before the turn of the millenium - or even better.

 

As a side-note, the newsletter was a good idea, the discussions on specific genres as well, all this is going the right way. Forcing people to write comments so they get comments is a great idea too. At least I'd know I'd be writing for interesting discussions next time ! Not sure how many people do that, but I always use the "follow-up on my previous comments" feature, in order to engage in interesting discussions each time I can.

 

Another interesting step would be for the management to make the "critiques-only" gallery more user-friendly - a thumbnailed gallery, please -, and to ensure that people would actually get real critiques in there !

 

I know that the management "can't please everybody all the time", but please note that management doesn't have to do so either ! :-) Just go ahead with these measures, and the site will be alive again in no time, and those doing the rat race will still have it, but those looking for torough discussions may finally get what they came for as well, and very few would still complain 2 months down the road.

 

Photo.net should imo stand for the belief that this community is meant to SHARE KNOWLEDGE, and should do exactly what it takes to make that happen - and nothing else. (Of course, I'm only saying here what I personally believe, but at least, I've made it very clear, haven't I...? :-)

I agree with everything you wrote, Ali, except this: "While I find the question valid I also think this comparison is rather incorrect since the two photos come from two very different dates, with different site admins, different policies, etc." Or rather, you are of course right that the comparison isn't valid, but that's precisely part of the conclusions that could be drawn from the above. Meaning: the present system is comparing the rating averages of pictures posted under very different circumstances - which can't be compared, precisely. :-)

 

As for the question of this picture's originality, of course each person is entitled to its own opinion, but I believe you'll find many more pictures of birds with open mouth than with open mouth holding a fish whose mouth is open. I may be wrong, I'm by no means a bird shooter and know nothing about birds, but what I wrote is what seemed obvious to me. And honestly, I'd be curious to know the outcome if the photographer tries to sell both pictures to a bird photography magazine or such. I'd bet that the POW would sell, and not the other one. I also believe both pictures are good, but not equally good - that's just me, of course. Best regards.

Something funny I just noticed...:-)

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3961490

Uploaded in 2005. An amazing picture, greatly original and quite perfect to my eye – POW recipient, 259 ratings,

Aesthetics: 6.82/7 Originality: 6.81/7

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7698418

Uploaded in 2008. Same bird, a bit too bright, empty mouth – and therefore obviously less original, as I see it.

Framed with lots of wasted space and smaller bird. 25 ratings, Aesthetics: 6.80/7 Originality: 6.64/7

 

What’s the difference between these 2 pictures ? Almost no difference in terms of ratings average, but loads of

difference in the NUMBER of ratings. It would be interesting to trace how many of the first photo’s ratings were

recorded BEFORE it became POW ?

 

Draw your own conclusions, and let us know what they are.

 

As for me, this goesa long way to show that the number of ratings is the only thing that truly shows the amazing

difference of quality between both pictures. Besides that, how meaningful are originality ratings, really…? :-)

 

For what it's worth, I said nothing about the above, showed both pictures to my two 9 years old twins, and simply

asked:

 

Which one do you prefer ? It took them less than a second to answer - and guess what the answer was...? :-)

Okay, thanks ! I understand now. I didn't know the limit since I had never reached it, and this time indeed this was the 5th pix in a week. Sorry for this silly question then. Best regards.

I just uploaded this image: http://www.photo.net/photo/7675318

 

Under the "admin" tab, there is no "request critique" sub-menu. Is that a bug ? Or has anything changed since I

posted my last critique request a couple of days back ? Thanks.

Oh, and of course, need I say that I agree with this idea by Lex J. too:

 

"I have a proposal. Totally unofficial, just a notion borrowed from another non-photography-oriented critique site.

How would folks here feel about having to earn credits before they can view critiques?

IOW, you can receive critiques. Anyone who is eligible to participate can write critiques.

But before the photographer can even read the critiques, he/she must accumulate credits. Those credits are accumulated by critiquing other photographs. For each critique you write, you earn credits. Then you can spend them to see your own critiques."

This seems to be a good discussion. Too bad I don't have the time to read even half of it today, so please pardon me if I am missing in my post part of the valid things that have been said in this thread; I'd just like to share my old-timer's experience here, and comment on 2 posts I've read towards the beginning of this thread.

 

The two posts:

 

Gordon Bowbrick: "Another photo site uses the idea of credits earned from giving critiques, being needed to earn the right to put images into the forum to ask for critique. The critiques themselves have to be of a minimum length to avoid "great shot" counting as a critique. They also give extra credit for the first 3 critiques in order to try and garner critiques for less popular or conventional genre or images. On paper it all sounds good and in execution it seems to work fairly well although it is not without problems. Trying to design a system that will encourage people to participate and at the same time prevent the people who are only interested in taking from the system from from clogging up the forum is not an easy task, but it is nonetheless overdue."

 

And then, the following reply by Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins, Jul 12, 2008; 08:34 p.m. :

 

"Keep in mind I'm tossing this idea around as a photo.net member, not as a moderator or in any official capacity. I don't have any more clout than anyone else in this. But I know that admin are very interested in improving the critique function. It's not being ignored, simply given a lower priority in the interest of keeping the entire site up and running as smoothly as possible.

I anticipate that while such a model for critiques could be interesting for some members, it won't be a perfect solution. I've noticed some modifications to the model on the site where I've seen this implemented, and am not enthusiastic about some of the changes. A bit too much social networking with a hint of the polarizing "friend/enemy/frenemy" dynamic going on."

 

My view is that Gordon Bowbrick's suggestions are still a good starting point, and that there are ways to design the system to avoid the drawbacks that Lex anticipates rightly.

 

SOLUTION...?

 

1st rule: What about this: to earn the right to receive critiques, you'd have to critique pictures SUBMITTED BY DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHERS. So if I critique 100 pictures posted by Lex, I earn no credits anymore after, say, the third one. I can still critique his works of course, but then I'll have to earn my credits elsewhere.

 

2nd rule: Each member must receive at least 1 critique for each set of 4 constructive critiques submitted to the site. Not really easy to implement, but possible. I have some ideas as to how this could be implemented if you are interested.

 

3rd rule would be: If you earn yourself a certain (high) number of credits, you can spend your credits asking for critiques by the member of your choice. Then this member can refuse, but will earn lots of credits for himself if he accepts. (And you won't be allowed to ask critiques from the same person again after that.)

 

4th rule: Give to a few hundreds of people who have a real track record of constructive critiquing the ability to rate critiques - and do NOT give the same ability to ALL members. And then convert constructive critiques (i.e. critiques that have been rated constructive) into points or credits. (I know, this part doesn't sound very democratic, but democracies are democratic, whereas life isn't.) That way, each and every member will have a new goal on the site, which will be to write better critiques.

 

5th suggestion: Why not have a few pages each day dedicated to the best critiques of the day ? And perhaps "number of comments could after all this become the defaut page in the TRP ?

 

Now, a little bit of history: I've been a member for years here, but have not contributed a single cent to the site. That probably doesn't make me the best contributor, but here is what I experienced here, and why years have gradually driven me off the site. Once upon a time, there were real discussions going on virtually on every page at photo.net. Then some people arrived with the clear goal - well described by Lex above - to appear as the "best photographer in the world" or such. Just this "title" itself should be ridiculous enough to discourage most reasonable people, but hell no, the rat race started, and never ended till this very day. Over the years many constructive comments of the past disappeared as some good folks were discouraged to participate on the site, and more and more "wow ! 7/7" comments appeared everywhere - with no useful content at all. The site was suddenly overtaken by people who rated hundreds of pictures a day, every day, and all with 7s. If anyone dared to say that a picture submitted by these folks was ok, but not all that great, then retaliation ratings, aggressive emails and so on became the norm. Fact is that in this kind of war, many people had no interest in becoming warriors. I tried to be for a while, and then found the wisdom to give it all up, because there was no hope of winning anyway, and because PN is a lot smaller and a lot less important than the World out there with its very real living creatures. :-)

 

I just checked: after writing over a million words of (definately constructive) critiques on photo.net over the years, what I've earned is...... the right to post 599 images on my photo.net page !

 

Well, that's really great, but for each picture I post nowadays, I get at best 500 views (and in average about 200), about 9 ratings per post as an average, and perhaps 2 to 5 comments - and sometimes none.

 

Basically, I see no reason to post work here, except to get Doug Burgess's opinion - which I can get from an email exchange. Hardly anyone else comments on my stuff in a constructive manner - i.e with pros and cons - for about 3 to 4 years now. I can't tell you why. All I can tell you is that my pictures used to get at least 20000 views, and now they get about 100 times less views. Maybe the viewcount was changed, but if that's the case, does it really account for ALL the difference ? Or is the system running in such a way that my pictures don't get seen ? Or is it perhaps because constructive critics are no longer around ? Or......? I really don't know. It's not a very serious problem anyway, but of course I spend less time participating here for about 3 years or so. Why would I continue writing another million words of critiques if I can't get 100 words in return ? Why would I try critiquing a lot again ? Anyway, for some personal reasons, I have far less time to spend on this or any site now, than I had 6 years ago.

 

But given a good reason to hope for some good discussions again, I'd definately be more attracted to make at least a bit of time.

 

All that said, I must say that the design of the site has greatly improved in the past few months. Let's hope the same will happen for the level of critiquing.