james_oneill

Actually now I'm annoyed. <br>

During the course of 7/7/2003 I picked up a 2/2 and a 1/1 on <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1435043">the same picture</a> from people who both joined up on 7/7/2003. In that time the 1/1 guy has rated 178 pictures without leaving a single comment. 178 pictures on the day he joined ? For heaven's sake! Between the pair of them they have uploaded one picture (and that was of some mud). No one who had been used to the requirement to comment for 1&2 scores would have rated that way.

<br> Put another way. Including the pictures that I've deleted I've had a total of 437 scores at an average of 4.86/4.95. Last time I calculated for the ones still on the site it was 5.01/5.12.

<br>Before July 1 I never had a 1 or 2 that wasn't obviously revenge. Since I have had 4, 3 of which came with people with a weeks experience or less. <br> It's bad enough that people don't know what originality means. <br> Its bad enough having to try to deal with revenge rating and mating rating (yes, I track people who conistently give my pictures higher scores than anyone else) but Now I've got to identify newbie-ignorant-comment-avoiding-drivethrough-raters.

<br>Or go and get 10 hot mail accounts and revenge rate them out of existence. <br>I started using photo.net to see if I could learn anything from other peoples pictures, to share views on pictures - I don't score bad pictures without leaving a comment although the comments have drawn flak and tied up my time for ages. And I'm posting a couple of thousand words of comments per week. <i>Maybe I need to get a life</i> <br>

But the <i>community</i> thing is that this goes two ways. I get one word of comment back for every 10 I post. And now its got to the point where the scores don't help me choose good pictures from bad. These two pictures of mine are almost the same but <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1435043">this one</a> gets 3.17/3.17 and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1445061">this one</a> gets 5.12/4.78 <br> So would someone tell me why (except for the lack of a life) I am bothering ? <p>

 

James

Personally I think rate recent photos is a waste of time and breath. Why people don't go to rating the photos which people actually want to be rated is beyond me. I've put photos up with "This photo is not for rating" in the caption and within a few hours, 3 or 4 ratings appear.

I'm not interested in how my pictures score against other peoples, I know the people who's work I think is good and I don't need scores to tell me that. What I do like is to know which of my pictures people generally think are any good and which they don't, but the rate recent thing makes it harder to compare because I'm getting the views of which ever "drive through raters" went on line just after I posted.

Comment on new uploads would be useful. Stick a number on them is not.

Just my 8 farthings.

 

James

Ivar's suggestion would have another side effect, if someone gives you a 7/7 you don't deserve ...

We've had a change to the way the site works. It used to be that to post a 7,2 or 1 you had to put a comment explaining yourself. To most people who have been on the site for a while, 2 is reserved for really bad pictures. 1 is almost unheard of outside of disputes.

So Arash, if you are going to give scores of this level you need to explain why - Why was it both offensive to your eye, and highly un-original ? <br>

I've had two cases recently of new members who "didn't like" one of my photos dishing out 2/2 scores. (For anyone who is interested the pictures are <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1481615"> here </a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1595238">here</a>.) I am ashamed to say my first though was to go and stick a 2/2 on one of theirs, but I didn't do. In both cases the people concerned rated more than one photo of mine and gave scores more in keeping with what I'd expect. So I mailed them asking, politely, what it was about those pictures they took such a violent dislike to, and they came back with (polite) replies, saying "Nothing much, just didn't like it". One of the two scored all 4 pictures I put up on the same evening - which makes him as Lex put it "just cruising through thumbnails as quickly as possible, dumping off numerical ratings like a batter swatting at warm-up pitches before the game? ".<br>

Sorry Arash but as you said

"I'm not here for the ratings but for creative comments I get on my photos, I was just trying to help others by rating their photos"

Most of us would claim the same: but you want comments not scores, but you give BAD scores without a comment to explain it. At least you know why he stuck a 2/2 on your picture (revenge - shame on him) but he has no idea why you put a 2/2 on his. <br>

If the elves are reading PLEASE can we have a requirement to comment for scores at the extremes as we did before.

 

<p><i>James</i>

If you want a classic case of where this sort of stuff goes on take a look at <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1564640> This one</a> 5 Ratings and I'm the only one not to have given it 6 for originality. But Tell the guy who put it for critique "Rain drops on Roses" hasn't been original since before the sound of music and he throws his toys out of the pram. But if no speaks up its pictures like that that end up top of the scores.

Stuart: YES. But....<p>

Culturally some people are seem to be taught "if you can't say something nice don't say anything". So you get something mediocre which a few people give 6/6 to and no one puts another side. I got involved in some time consuming stupidity with someone by calling a spade "a spade" (OK calling a soft porn pic "porn"). The person who took me to task was clearly offended because I'd said - in effect - that he liked porn. I've had flack from someone who shoots "postcards" - and sells them - because I said one of his very pretty pictures was a bit of a cliche. And I won't even talk about the fuss I caused when I said someone had made a good picture by re-using something which was unimaginative. <p>

Have you noticed how people seem to tie Aesthetics and Originality - I've got a spreadsheet with all my scores in. 58% have the same score in both categories. 39% have the same score +/- 1 and only 3% are +/- 2. How come ? Why can't people say "its clever, but horrible to look at", or "Beautiful, but I've seen it 1000 times before" ... what we get instead is "I like that ... 6/6". <p>

 

And statistically people are twice as likely to tell me they like a picture than why they don't. No one who has scored a picture 3 in either category has said why. Not a good basis to improve my pictures.

<p>

<i> James </i>

Art is always made for a purpose. It might be to express an idea or a feeling, to make money, to entertain, for therapy, for the pleasure of working with the medium. The list goes on. <br>

You can re-phrase 1 as "Who decides what is a valid purpose for making art". If the artist decides then anything is art where someone says "I am an artist and this thing I made is art", because if the artist thinks it is art they can't believe that it would be art if only they'd made it for a different reason. But does the reason matter ? <br>

I've photographed some nudes recently. Reasons for doing this might include <br>

*I am a visual artist and the body is what I choose to depict in my work<br>

*I want to spend time in the company of naked women and photography is a socially acceptable way of doing it. <br>

*I am having a mid-life crisis which includes trying to understand the nature of beauty<br>

*I'm interested in all aspects of photography, and just wanted to photograph something I haven't done before to see if I could do it.<br>

*I want to make a political statement about the relationship between the sexes <p>

If I'm openly a dirty old man (or overgrown school boy) who does it to be around "Sexy naked babes" and doesn�t claim to do art, then if I produce something beautiful by accident does that stop it being art ? If I claim to be an artist but end up producing what someone here termed pictures of "Bimbos flashing the camera" is that still art?

Take the case that I don't claim it's art. If the artist can say what is art then if they say what isn't, so if I say "Shucks what I do ain't art" then that's it case closed. <p>

But what if you don't know what I said about it or why I did it � it's in limbo. Which would mean that since we don't know what Mozart was thinking, we don't know if his music is art; and that doesn't make any sense. <p>

 

Let me ask you another question. I give you a work in a box � we're going down a sort of Schrödinger's art path here � now it can be in one of two states art or not art. If art is in the eye of the beholder it really isn't in either of those states until you look at it. Does that make sense ?<p>

 

Now for question 2, must art be made with the intent to be art. But like I said before, if you don't know the intent you don't know if it is art. I like the "Turing test" in the artificial intelligence world, it says if after communicating with something for a while you don't know if is a person or a machine, you might as well consider it to be intelligent. Similarly with art, if you say these technique/intentions/processes produce art, and these ones don't then if you can't tell whether what's behind something is valid for art then it you can assume that it is. <p>

 

And for 3. I've got flowers in my room and a picture of flowers. The picture is art (the artist and viewer agree on this because they are both me) , but the flowers are not art � odd thought, a flower on its own isn't art but an arrangement is. � why would I bother to contemplate only on of them ? I look at my fireplace from time to time � I doubt very much if the guy who built it for me called it art � it has no artistic intent. There's plenty of bad TV on which has artistic intent but I turn the TV off and enjoy the fireplace.

Well I'm going to disagree with Al. Its very hard to see the shortcomings of cheap zoom lenses in everyday use. There is a very easy test you can do. Put your camera on a table, tape a sheet of news paper by its top edge to the back of a chair, point the camera at it and release the shutter using the self timer. Examine the prints with a magnifying glass and see how sharp the text is.

Tripods: the best tripods are expensive because you need to hire an assistant to carry them. Any support will help to reduce camera shake, that includes monopods, shoulder stocks, even the a flash bracket can help, but a tripod you can afford and carry works 99% of the time - though may lack flexibility especially if you want to shoot downwards, and it may trasmit vibrations if there are any.

I keep a camera clamp which turns into a table top tripod in my camera bag, I've clamped it railings, car windows, all sorts of things rather than try to hand hold.

It depends what you are shooting and how much you understand of what is going on.

First things first. If you shoot colour negative film you have a lot of exposure lattitude so minor errors in exposure don't matter too much. Slide film is less forgiving. Black and Films like XP2 are basically colour negative without the 3 dye colours, and have lots of lattitude, traditional black and white have less - although still more than slide film.

Secondly, its very easy, for camera makers to create auto exposure systems which work for 80% of situations, they put a lot of effort into being workable the other 20%. Personally I'd back a camera's judgement over a beginner working with a light meter.

Thirdly - you learn quite quickly the situations when the camera's light meter will be mislead and how to compensate.

Fourth - In 18 years, I've never used a separate light meter except when working with studio flash. I even use my SLRs as light meters when shooting with my antique cameras from the 1920s.

Just on that last point. Fixed focal length lenses can be optically superior, but never enough to notice. Zoom lenses are more versatile, because you can frame the shot exactly how you want to. I've taken a lot of my pictures using either my 28-85 Vivitar zoom, or a cheap 80-200 zoom I was given when I was a student. I've also got a 90MM and a 135MM. Why ? My 80-200 lens is an f/4.5, the 135 is an f/2.8. Its smaller, and I use it at concerts, where the low light levels mean I want a wide aperture. That stop and a bit is the difference between most handheld shots failing due to camera shake and most working. I use the 90MM for studio portraits - and for some reason it just seems to work better than the zoom.

If you are not working to a big budget, I would look for a model with a good second hand supply. My two Pentaxes are both nearly 20 years old, and could be replaced through e-bay without too much trouble.

Usually as you develop you find you want more control, and want to camera to do less (although I know a couple of aging photographers who have been saved by autofocus). Depth of field preview is something you'll find is a pain to use - set the lens to f/22 and you will have 1/128th of the light entering the camera you have at f/2 trying to asses depth of field like that is a pain, and depending on how much things are enlarged you get different perceptions of what is in focus anyway. Multiple exposure is not something I've seen used to good effect either.

Conventional black and white file will screw up C41 chemicals - C41 typical runs at 38c and B&W runs at 20c, and I've heard stories of B&W emulsion disolving at the higher temperature.

E6 chemistry is very similar to C41, except that it has a reversal step in the middle. If you process E6 through C41, you'll basically get a negative image without the orange mask that you expect from a negative, it works fine but its difficult to get prints from it, and the lab may refuse to put anything through that's not got C41 on the canister - so a small pro lab where you can explain what you're doing is best.

If you do this with kodak infrared you'll a compound wierd set of colours. Personaly I'd rather process normally, scan and then resort to fun and games on the computer.