sammm

Most of the answers above focus on resolution, which isn't the sole measure of quality. Unfortunately, you will never get a shot like this week's POW with a digital camera - you'll need a $20 plastic one off ebay for that. On the other hand, digital shots can have some charm of their own, regardless of resolution.

I think the site does care what I put in the 30th percentile if what I put there is otherwise being given senseless sixes. But, you are right, Carl, the ratings north of 6 are what count most, and you can spend a long time in the automated rating process without seeing any of those.

Those of us on this thread clearly need to do some more rating. I hadn't gone through the automated ratings in ages, and just did five minutes on it out a sense of duty after looking at the TRPs. I saw a lot of mediocre nudes in the process.

 

But, I will say, I'm not sure the anonymous rating is the best method; among other things it really doesn't encourage substantive critique. I come to like the idea of restricting rating to some category of "trusted" raters more and more every day.

I generally like the idea, but I think there are a number of good critics out there with relatively few photos, and some people with good photos who make lousy critics, so I have some doubts about that element.

 

Another way of rating that might be less prone to abuse: put two photos up on the screen when rating: the raters job is to choose the preferred (and, perhaps, to say one thing about the photo the rater preferred and give one way to improve the one the rater didn't prefer). Points could be given for each comparison (10 to the preferred photo), with increasing points as photos are compared to more highly rated photos.

 

Because this is a direct comparision, there won't be a difference between high raters and low raters that skews ratings. Because someone's going to have to explain why that poorly lit nude is better than those artsy blue flowers, I'd think we'd get a truer comparison.

On Classic Cameras, I'd skip the 1970 date and define it based on the characteristics of the cameras involved. I'd have a "Mechanical Film Cameras" forum (and, at some point, everyone with no longer supported electronic film cameras should have their own Classic Camera forum, though that one won't last since the cameras are made for a 10 year life, not the kind of tanks we got in mechanical cameras).

John's exactly right - when the elephants fight, the blades of grass suffer.

 

And in this case, it's both civil and criminal liability that are involved.

 

I think Jock understands this, and suspect he has learned it the very very hard way. He was both clear and polite in his departing email.

Marc sent on a note to me, so let me chime in - I'm not an admin, just another poster like others, but am a lawyer and do have some knowledge of the issues. None of this is legal advice (yes, the standard disclaimer), because if it were I'd have to be even more conservative and cautious than I'll be (occupational hazard).

 

I think Brian is right to do his best to apply the rules as they are set up, and as everyone agrees to follow when they sign up, but I would point out a couple issues in this area: one is that Jock is someone who actually thrives on controversary, and most of the law enforcement types who push the idea that work like Jock's could be porn are themselves people who thrive on controversary, so the day Jock shows up and starts posting is probably exactly the day the rules were written to protect against. I suspect he'd love a good forum to fight the good fight. But whatever forum does that will take on risk and expense.

 

Jock has made a point, and the image he has left is a wonderful metaphor that we should all view as driving home that point. It's a point that I don't view as being just about photo.net and its management, but most accutely focused at the broader internet society we live in. As long as those law enforcement officials have the backing of significant constituencies, web sites like photo.net are going to need to be sensitive to the risks of prosecution by every jurisdiction the internet reaches - whether Iran, Ireland, or Alabama. And since those prosecutors have criminal as well as civil power, the risk is not just monetary.

 

That having been said, I wish Jock would leave a link to his home site from here, so those interested in his work could find it more easily. It does appear some of it is exhibited at the Koch Gallery online, and not that difficult to find.

I have no complaint about the rules or the general approach of editing the POW. I also respect Mary's discretion and know someone has to do this job.

 

In the particular case, I disagree with the edits, and here is why: the photographer chose to present the photo with a "title" made up of the awards, and this was an integral part of his presentation. It was as much an artistic decision as any other title (or as a frame or any other part of the presentation).

 

Mary, take this for what it is worth; I don't envy you the job and appreciate having a cleaner more civil discussion on the POWs in general.

Note that there is also a Sony Press Release today: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200601/06-0119E/

Minolta is still going to manufacture cameras and lenses, but all customer service and marketing functions are going to Sony. I read this as a cost cutting move (why should both Minolta and Sony maintain marketing operations if they don't need to?) and a branding issue, where Sony wanted to strengthen its brand by having a true Sony DSLR rather than some kind of amalgam of a Konica/Minolta/Sony camera.

 

Still, if they don't domonstrate clear commitment to the lens line as well as the body, I'll be trying to transition out. Unless someone can tell me where to find an 85/1.4 G really cheap... or the 80-200 ...

I took off the screws and cleaned up both the ground glass and the mirror with no problem, using a spray lens cleaner. Also cleaned the taking lens and its chamber, using cue tips and canned air in the chamber. You might as well get it all while you are in there.

 

The whole thing brightened right up.

The point on wide angles for the desert is a good one, as is the large format post. Note that if you factor in processing, printing and scanning costs, I'd say large format is less costly than medium. Why? If I go on a hike with a large format camera, I'll come back with 5 to 10 negatives maximum (as well as a bunch of polaroids). The same hike will yield me four or five rolls of MF film. In each case, I'm likely to get 2-3 "keepers" out of the deal, though on a few good days MF will yield more.

 

Of course, I get a lot more exercise with large format.

The Kowa 66 is a great choice if you're ready to put in some extra money. I have one of those, too, and love it. But I don't think I'd start with it as my learner, since it can act up until you are accustomed to it and has a nice big lens (great glass!) that will take a pretty heavy investment in filters and the like.

I would suggest considering a Yashica 44 (a 4x4 system, significantly larger than 35 mm, but smaller than 6x6) or a YashicaMat or Minolta Autochord. I have both of them.

 

The Yashica 44 is inexpensive - it tends to go for 60-70 dollars or less on ebay - and the film has become relatively easy to find and I find it less expensive to develop and print than 120 film, particularly if you shoot slides. Slides fit into 2x2 square mounts, so no special medium format equipment is needed to view them or scan them. The YashicaMat 124G goes for about twice as much.

 

The 44 is easy to carry and handle, and with the money you'd save, I'd invest in a set of Rollei black and white filters, a set of close-up lenses, and a lens shade. That gives you a pretty substantial kit to play with. The lens shade is quite important - TLRs can flare easily. If you decide to add a YashicaMat, Autochord or even many Rolleis later on, the kit will still fit.

 

If this bug catches you however, forget all about $200 budgets for anything - that can easily become your monthly film and developing cost!

I've not been very active on the site over the last couple of months and just came across this. I hope the policy will be revisited at some point, as I personally think it adds little. The aim of attracting people interested in sharing and display rather than discussion is likely, in the long run, to change what distinguishes this site from others, and so what attracts all those people in the first place. Yes, there is irony in that.

I buy things on ebay on a flyer at a bargain basement price. The risk is too great to pay top dollar. I trust listings on Pnet more, KEH yet more, and B&W the most.

 

But, for film holders, I'd go to ebay. There is a regular market there, and it's pretty easy to get them.

As someone far more likely to buy (occasionally) than sell, let me contribute a thought or two along the way. I can't say I've read everything above, but I have read much of it.

 

I like option 1. Why? Because I'm really not interested in a print to the satisfaction of anyone but the photographer. The people I am likely to buy a print from are likely to care, deeply, about the print quality and presentation. If there is a central production location putting out photographs that range from mediocre to truly stunning, the people printing will get sloppy. And they will approach the printing from one angle, which the photographer may not. And I assume there are still plenty of photographers still dodging and burning rather than printing pure digital files.

 

Also, I would expect most art prints to be signed. How does the photographer sign if photo.net prints and mails?

 

I also, however, don't think the two approaches are exclusive, and it may be that a lower-cost type 2 service would attract a different clientele (including the nudes) than a higher-cost type 1 service.

 

On Carl's point about why the commission, I would say photo.net serves the role of the gallery, and that can be worth a lot. If I wanted to get prints from 10 different photographers because my business had just rented a new floor and I wanted a selection to decorate, coming to photo.net and choosing five photographers so I could order two each would be a big service for the photographer and the buyer, and worth a fair bit. For a sampling of different photographers and the ability to make an impulse purchae, a gallery is very helpful. Also, to do this right, photo.net should make some marketing investment, since those who come here now are not necessarily buyers. That marketing will entail costs.

 

Undoubtedly, many, and particularly the collector who wants to consistently pick up individual pieces, would rather go straight to the source, but I don't see anything stopping them, and if photo.net gets a commission on some but not all the sales generated, what's the big deal for the photographer?

I guess you've got to have something to do at a bulemia convention.

Sorry, the first one should have been:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1002194

Here are a couple of mine that show what I think NPH is all about:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=438504

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2697947

 

 

NPH gives good skin tones (what it is really made for) and colors that are fairly true - if anything, the colors are a slight bit pastelly. The whites tend to be very clean without being glaring bright. For landscapes, I think the color is much more subtle than most of the options, and gives less of that surreal saturated velvia look.

I'm an NPH/Reala fan myself. You may want to look at the portfolios of people making various suggestions - I expect we each reflect our suggestion in what we use, and that may give you a sense of what we like in the film.

My favorite is the one in my hands.

 

Some do different jobs better. For portraits, one of my tlrs. For nature shots, my Mamiya 645 with a long lens. For landscapes I might pull out the heavy 6x6 (or maybe just go straight to the 4x5!).

 

My most used? That would be the Mamiya 645, for its versatility, and the old Yashica 44, for its light weight and ease of handling. You see, I can never pick one.

Yes, dr5. Thanks.

I have labs do most of my B&W developing, but have found only a few labs do truly good work with these films. Dw5 (esp. for HP5, Efke), A+I, and Films for Classics (inconsistent - they use a couple of labs, and I've gotten really great developing and just so-so developing) have been best for me; for a heavily pushed film, I'd stick to Dw5 or A+I.

Wow, Tri-X pushed past 100,000. Thanks, Bueh - I may have to try that.