henrimanguy

Thank you Michael to have asked the question I wanted to ask, and thank you Josh for the response. I will have to make changes still.

Thank you, Bartek and Barry for your responses. It seems that the use of this page as a default page has a bad result on the rating of photos. Because the members who used the default page for rate other photos rarely click on the "next" button more than five or six times on average, and so, if your photo leave the "rate recent" feature with low ratings, it has even less chances than before to be seen by other members, because it will always stay at the same place during the three days.

I request the return to the "average" page as a default page. Vote yes or no.

How does the "rate recent sum" page work ? I have a photo which has

obtained 14 ratings with an average of 6 and 6.08, and it appears in

the list with only 5 ratings with 5.06 and 5.8. I suppose I am not

the only one in this case, but I just want to know how it works.

Thank you for your responses.

When I enter french words with accents or other signs (like cedilla)

in my comments or request critic texts, they are replaced by a

question mark and the two or three following letters are missing. Is

there a way to avoid this problem which makes the text difficult to

read ?

Yes it is. Thank you.

This morning I find a problem to load a new photo. The process of

loading works perfectly, but the result is curious. The thumbnail is

of big size (but with enormous pixelisation), and the size of the

photo in the display photo page is very small, althoug the size of my

photo is normally of 800/600 pixels. Is it my fault or is it a

photo.net bug ?

I have recently read and admire a very beautiful photo album whose

english title is "The world's top photographers and the stories

behind their greatest images" (Rotovision, Great Britain). It is

devoted to the landscapes photographers. The title is enticing and,

indeed, you get value for money, the photographies are superb. That

being said, since now more than one year that I frequent Photo.net, I

very often have found among us photographies as beautiful, and even

more beautiful as in this book. Many of the photographers who exhibit

their works on this site, and whose names I will conceal, out of

consideration for their modesty, have no cause to be envious of

those one can admire in this album. If I talk about it today this is

both for slighlity criticize it and for mark my surprise of

something. The title is "The world's top photographers and the

stories behind their greatest images", but when I look at the list of

the 38 photographers who have the honour to appear in it, I find 34

Anglo-Saxons (among them 24 United States inhabitants, 7 of the

United Kingdom, 2 New-Zealanders/Australians and one Canadian). There

is only one French (Yann Arthus Bertrand, who is yet not really, and

does not consider himself as a landscape photographer), one

Palestinian (Yousef Khanfar), one Japanese (Shinzo Maeda) and one

Swedish (Jan Töve). All the same, this is very little for the rest of

the non-Anglo-Saxon world. So, the photos of the world you can see in

this book are essentially photos of the United-States of America.

They are beautiful, sure, and the wild landscapes of this land are

indeed of first greatness, but all the same, the USA are'nt the whole

world and I feel like an injustice feeling in view of this

disproportion in a book which intend to show the "world's top

photographers". Really, in the whole world you could find only one

French photographer, one Palestinian, one Japanese and one Swedish

able to compete with 24 "United-Statians" ("États-Uniens", as we say

in France when we want to emphasize that this land is not all the

America) ? I have trouble to believe that. I don't know many

landscape photographers, but just among the French people I can at

least name three or four who would have perfectly had their place in

such a work. I notably think to Philip Plisson, who has specialised

himself in the celtic lands seascapes (Brittany, Scotland, Ireland)

and whose fame is indeniable far beyond these areas. I would also

name Jean-Pierre Gilson whose photos can be admired in a very

beautiful and big work published in 2002, "Territoires de France". An

other lover of the celtic lands is Jean Hervoche who has published

(among other works) a book with the Franco-Scottish writer Kenneth

White, "Écosse, le pays derrière les noms" (Scotland, the land behind

the names). There are at least three names, for France, that the

coordinator of the work (Terry Hope, photo-journalist, co-editor of

the english magazine "Amateur Photographer") could have known if he

would have liked to get through the anglo-saxon sphere. As for the

other lands, I personnaly don't know very much for the landscape

photography do not very much enjoy the Art edition honours, but I

dare to believe that some famous names exist in Italia, Spain,

Germany, in Russia, in the rest of the american continent, in Asia,

in Africa, in brief in the whole world. Friends Photo.net members,

name all the names you know and you love, there is some, necessarily.

No ?... The landscape photography would be an anglo-saxon, and

particularly a United-Statian speciality ? I don't believe that, and

every day Photo.net prove the contrary. So ?...

Thank you for your answers, but I am not very satisfied with them. The most of the high rated photos are really good and very good photos. The number of rating does not inevitably go hand in hand with the high ratings but this is very often the case. If it exists really cliques or rating fan clubs, they do not rate anyhow. Perhaps this exists. I don't know. One time, I had began to send emails to my "interesting peoples" for tell them when I was posting a new photo. Having not received the same sort of emails from them, I have deduced that this was not the habit to do that in photo.net, and I have stoped. Do you do this or not ?

I have a problem. The most of the photos I submit to critic rarely

exceed 12 to 15 ratings after three days. Some reach 20 to 25 and the

most of them, whatever their number of ratings, collect only 3 or 4

comments; sometimes no one. During a certain time I have thought that

the reason to this was that they did probably not worth more of that,

then, by dint of look the other?s photos, of judge them, of rate

them, of comment and critic them, I have ended up to find that

certain photos I estimated more or less equal to mines, often quite

similar too, and sometimes less good than mines, got higher sums

(more than 50 ratings after three days) and also a number of comments

quite impressive. Why ?...

 

A first answer comes to the mind : the subjectivity. You always think

that your own production worth more than what it worth in fact. This

is no doubt true most of the time, but if the judgment about oneself

can be distorted, the judgment about the others is surely less, and

by comparing photos more or less equivalent about the principal

criterions (composition, subject, technic quality, colours, etc.),

you are surprised to see differences which can double, or even triple

regarding the number of ratings and comments put down.

 

I don?t talk about the levels of ratings, only about their amount,

that is to say all things considered about a number which reflects

more or less the visibility of the photos. We know that a photo which

has got 10 ratings has been visible only during more or less one

hour, the maximum time it can stay in the ?critic request? page

(variable along the day). Out of this page, it will be lost into

the ?dregs? of the ?top photos? list, which one is hardly explored by

the great majority of the photo.net members which prefer ? and this

is quite rightful ? take an interest in the cream of the crop. I can

make a mistake, but I would bet that very few are those who take the

time to go down to see what is exposed below the last of the 20

ratings page. Only those who have put your name in their ?intersting

people? list can have the idea to take a look at your recent loaded

photos and to rate them if need be, permiting so to bring them out of

the anonymity and to be seen by more of people. And also those you

have yourself rate and/or to who you have put down a comment. But

this is not all, unfortunately, and even far from it. I never have

obtain more of 5% of visits on the amount of those I had myself

visit, rate and comment (except my own ?interesting people? which I

try to visit regularly and which give me the change, thanks to them).

 

Then I wonder : Is there a strategy in order to be visible ? How do

you proceed, you ? And do you also have this feeling that your photos

are not enough seen, that they obtain not enough ratings for that,

nor enough comments that could help you to get better (since one of

the photo.net?s aims is this one) ?

I totally agree with you. Every one makes as it please to him, of course, but as far as I'm concerned, I generally give to my photos captions as factual and descriptive as possible. For my own archives first. It�s more easy to find on a hard disc a photo which title describes what you see on it. You know that you search a photo where a girl is sitting by the window, but if you have given the title �Inspiration�, you possibly have forget this caption. Secondly, I often find the �poetic captions� rather foolish (in popular French I would say �cul-cul� but I don�t know the equivalent English word) than poetic. In an other hand, some photo.net members give just a number to their photos. But when you want to speak about their photos, I am not sure they understand of which you talk under a number like 129867521 or 34687462.

I think I understand your problem. It's probably not a problem which can paralyse your own ability to take photos of nature and landscapes, but in the contrary it could became a sting to search for others way to photograph such or such famous site. But it's true that they are very few those who reach to be totaly original. For my own part, I do not try to photograph the famous sites of the world, nor even in my own country. I prefer stroll in a small region and search little familiar landscapes: a tree, a field, a path, a house, etc. I don't think be original, but what I photograph is what has touched me around me. Perhaps this is not great photography, and this is neither very popular in photo.net, but this is what please to me.

 

About landscape photography, I just have posted a question in this forum under the title "The need of landscape". Have you read it ?<div></div>

Night in the par Henri Matisse<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I love her eyes<div></div>

The night embellish all, even the building sites.<div></div>

I propose a theme on smokes, all sorts of, big or small, coming from

all sorts of sources, with or without fire.<div></div>

<div></div>

Merci André. A peine j'avais posté ma question que j'y ai pensé et qu'à ma grande satisfaction ça a marché. Mais s'il y a une autre solution plus rapide, je suis preneur.

Hello,

 

Yesterday, i have noticed that it is impossible for me to delete a

photo from one or another of my folders. When I click on the "yes"

switch, this is the message which appears:

 

Problem with Your Input

to www.photo.net

 

We had some problems processing your entry:

No Folder ID.

 

No camera specified.

 

No film / media specified.

 

Press the back button and change entry values.

 

Or, go back to Home Page.

 

Please back up using your browser, correct them, and resubmit your

entry.

Thank you.

 

 

This message is incoherent with the operation: I want to delete a

photo which exists, so where Folder ID, camera and film ar specified.

Thank you to give me an answer or to help me to find a solution to

this probleme which never occured previously.

 

H. Manguy

Sorry, I am not of the same opinion. Please, read below what I have write on the subject. And sorry again, there is not only two lines, and probably many faults in my english. I hope this will not be boring.

 

WHY VALTER PHILIPPESCHI HAS BEEN BANISHED ?

 

1. EMOTION

 

My aim is not to revive the controversy which opposed, there is some time, Valter Philippeschi and Anna Pagnacco on the one hand and the direction and some members of photo.net on the other hand, about one photo posted by Valter Philippeschi, and which ended by the banishment of Valter and the deleting of his portfolio. I just want to try to understand why this has may happen. Perhaps is�nt it the first time this sort of thing happend, I am too new in photo.net to know, but I was really shocked by this and I feel necessary for my own balance to analyse why it happend.

 

First, let me tell you how I have discover the affair. Valter Philippeschi was the author of Tuscany landscapes photos very well appreciated by number of photo.net members, and by me too. These photos give me the wish to discover this region of Italy and I had decided to pass a week there in the month of october. The 30th of september, I decided to take a look at his portfolio and to let him a comment and a word to say that I will go soon to Tuscany. I clicked on his name in my "circle of friends" page, and when the page of Valter opened, I could read these words : "This portfolio has been deleted and this member banished from photo.net". Nothing else, no explanation. Underneath, the blue link used to open the portfolio stated : "0 photos uploaded". I stayed some long seconds without understand. The word "banished" had been like a slap I would have receive in my own face. What could have been the gravity of his crime to be banished ? was I wonder. I could�nt imagine what one has to reproach to him which deserves banishment.

 

So, I decided to post a question in the forum. And this is what I done immediately. And do you know what ? After some minutes, when I decided to look if there was answers to my question, I saw this words : "Your thread has been deleted". After the slap, it was now a punch in the face. My question have been censored !... I can say that at this moment I was frightened.

 

And I decided to send a mail to Valter himself. By chance, they had not deleted his email adress.

He answered some minutes after, saying it was a long story, that certain in photo.net do not like him nor Anna Pagnaco and have find a pretext to evict them.

In the same time his answer reached my mail box, others emails arrived, and one, perhaps sent by the direction of Photo.net, but I am not sure, which was a copy of all the controversy beneath the incriminate photo. I read it all, and at last I could understand all the affair.

 

2. ANALYSIS

 

I have think about it during a long time. One thing is certain, Valter has lied in saying that his photo was not manipulated. If this deserves banishment is another question. As for me, I find it is a too hard punishment but this is not the question I want to discuss for the moment. I am more interested by this other question : Why has he lied about this whereas it was certainly not expensive to recognize it was manipulated ? To answer this question you must observe that Photo.net (I will use the name "Photo.net" for "the direction, or the webmaster, of Photo.net") shows an extreme tenseness on the question of manipulation. So much so that there is a box to check off if you want to assure that your photo is not manipulated. One can wonder why one would assure that a photo is not manipulated, as if it was the criterion of the photography in all its purity. As if a manipulated photo would not deserve absolutely this name. As if, after the moment of shot, it was a bit ashamed to touch up the negative or the print. You know, to touch up is a means to hide the imperfections... or to disguise reality. And photography has much to see with reality. Unlike painting or drawing, the photography can reproduce reality in its least details. And it is very tempting to go from the "can" to the "must". And also to the "not to have", and the "not to be" manipulated.

 

I think there is two sorts of photographers : those whose passion is photography itself, and those for whom photography is just a means in the service of their art. It is probable that among the firsts one find mainly the champions of the unmanipulated photo, and among the seconds, mainly those for whom manipulation is not a problem and for whom only the result is important, not the manner to manage it.

I dont think I make a mistake if I say that Anna Pagnacco and Valter Phillipeschi are among the seconds. This explain why they feel allowed to manipulate their photos, even without say it. But that does not explain why Valter has lied and go on lying when one have demonstrate his manipulation. I think I can explain it thus : for Valter it might have be a challenge. I can imagine him thinking thus : "I will so well manipulate this photo that nobody will see the manipulation." For an artist this is a very strong sort of challenge. For example, the artists in trompe-l��il style are in this sort of challenge : to trick the best informed. I find this absolutely lawful. The only point where Valter has made a mistake is to have not admit that his manipulation was�nt perfect and to have persist to say his photo was�nt manipulated when somebody has began to call his work into question.

 

Now, Photo.net say that the reason why it is necessary to mention if a photo is or not manipulated is the pedagogy and the honesty towards the beginners in photography. Perhaps. And without doubt, if you agree to the Terms of use, you implicitly accept this rôle of teacher at the very least. Yes, but how many make the effort to this ? Very few it seems to me. And moreover, the box "manipulated or not" don�t force to state if you have manipulate, but just allow you to point out if you have not. The distinction is very subtle. If you had to check off the box to point out that your photo is manipulate, some (like me, I confess) who are in disagreement with this notion of manipulation, could check the box for all their photos, arguing that as soon as the moment of the shot there is a manipulation of the reality. But the Photo.net notion of manipulation is not this one. Photo.net don�t want you state that your photo is manipulated, but that you point out that it is not. I think there is no teaching in there. The "not manipulated photo" is just a plus, a "self-awarded" distinction which say that you are a great photographer, whose shots are perfect and who don�t need to arrange them, neither in the dark room nor with a software. I wonder if such a photographer does exist ? We know on the contrary that great photographers in the past where also great technicians (is the good english word "contact printers" ?) in the dark room. To work on a computer is not different in the principle, only in the possibilities and the easiness it offers.

 

So, what was the crime of Valter in faking the reality of the Tuscany landscape ? I think it is thus : He gave me (and others) the wish to go in Tuscany, and when I will arrive there, I will see with great horror that the real Tuscany is not like his photos, that it is an ugly land where nobody would stay more than an hour...

 

Another point in the "Terms of use" is that photo.net members must post photos that are their own. And what is reproached to Valter is that he would have post a photo of someone else.

 

The reality is somewhat different. He has used of a piece, an extract of a photo (a sky, some clouds, what a carry on !) taken by someone else to make a composite with one of his own photos. There is here another distinction, which is not subtle this one, but essential : the result of the composite is a work by Valter and by no one else. The author of the sky is�nt the author of the final photo. The art of collage is a century old at least, and no art critic would reproach to an artist to use of this technique. I think that if a piece of a photo is�nt an essential element of this photo, if, moreover it is a banal object used in an ordinay arrangement, if this element does not permit to say immediately : this element come from this photo of this author, one cannot say it is a theft. If, in a nocturnal sky a bit empty I decide to paste a moon cuted up in a photo of another author, will this later accuse me of theft of "his" moon ? And if he do that, which one will be the more ridiculous ? The problem is different if this moon shows a particular appearance that make it unique and recognizable of all ordinary moon, in a certain manner signed by one author. But I have not seen something particular in the sky used by Valter, and the person who has find the clone of this sky in a photo of Anna Pagnacco must have seek several minutes to find it. And even this is not the appearance of the sky itself that tell him where he had to seek but more probably an intuition (Anna and Valter are friends, they both photograph Tuscany).

 

3. IN CONCLUSION

 

My feeling is that in banishing Valter and deleting his portfolio, photo.net has not punish his fake, which is not so grave if my demonstration is good, but his stubbornness in not recognize it. But I feel there is stubbornness too on the photo.net side which, have I said on the begining, is somewhat tense on the question of manipulated photo. I think that if the box "manipulated or not" was suppressed, another atmosphere could establish in the all photo.net site. Those who would reveal their manipulations could do it in the "technical details" box, those who would not could let it blank, and those who would point out that they have not manipulate could do it if this is their pride. Well, photo.net is�nt a news website where manipulated photos could serve disinformation ends. It is a site where photography amateurs gather for show their works, for learn, for pleasure, for discuss and contest. Controversies like this one can occur, it is probably unavoidable (I even think it is a good thing), but for pity�s sake, let it not end by banishment ! In what sort of world do we live ?

 

When I look at the top photos on Photo.net, I feel full of two sorts

of discouragement.

 

The first : in front of all these beautifull photos, I would let a

comment to each, but there is the problem of time, the one of find

words which are not always the same (Waouh!, beautifull, well done,

etc.), and the one (if you have find something interesting to say) to

translate it in good english (what is moreover sending back to the

problem of time).

 

The second is discouragement in thinking to the progress I must make

and to all the knowledges and experience I must acquire before to

hope realise as good photos as those on the top. And if only I was

young! But at 49 years old, maybe it is a bit late. Have somebody the

same feeling ?