venicia_l

Andrew,<p>

 

It seems to me you are just continuing the pretentiousness of the situation. What in the world are "art photographers?"<p>

 

Am I an artist? In my mind, of course I am. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me that there are (still) those who want to argue about photography "belonging" to art. What wasteless drivel such discussion are.<p>

 

But my believing that I am an artist, also makes not one bit of difference to the universe. The universe will decide whether I am or not. I know what I want to produce on "film." I look at the work of others and I try to absorb what is good there and reject the rest. I devour information that I think makes me a better artist and try to aquire understanding of design and form and line and color and value and relationships and harmony and aesthetic and technique wherever that information comes from. And it comes from all around us. It comes from the world of music and psychology and painting and drama and illustration and cooking and all the rest of life.<p>

 

And if my advertising photography or my portrait photography or my product photography or my illustrative photography or my nude photography or my landscape photography or my personal photography gets judged by others to be "art," then I suppose I have succeeded somewhere along the way.<p>

 

But if I just make images in a particular style which I dictate must be shown only under certain conditions to certain recipients and call myself an "art photographer," then I'm just blowing smoke.<p>

 

You know what I'm saying, Andrew?<p>

 

VL

. . . at people who label their photography as "Fine Art." That's an affectation. "Fine Art" is an accolade that others attach to your work. There are no criteria for the distinction and to claim of one's own work that it is by definition, fine art, is pompous.

<b> That </b> explains why all my images didn't make it to the Top Photos! I had always assumed that the large size didn't compress the uploads, but there was always a nagging appearance of slight loss of quality. Now this confirms the problem. Oh, if I had only known!<p>

 

VL

I don't think the site should ever require a commentary from the rater. Sites that do so are offensive at best.<p>

 

But I do feel that anyone who rates an image 1-2 or 7 should get a message before the system accepts the rating saying something like,<p>

 

"The purpose of this process is to help photographers improve by understanding the responses of viewers."<p>

 

"You have given this image an unusally low rating. Please be courteous and give the photographer the reasons for your rating."<p>

 

or<p>

 

"The purpose of this process is to help photographers improve by understanding the responses of viewers."<p>

 

"You have given this image an unusally high rating. Please be courteous and give the photographer the reasons for your rating."<p>

 

Then the rater could be given the choice to comment or not. Those who never had any intention of giving their reasons will never comply, but the invitation may increase the chance that many others will.<p>

 

VL

Walter,<p>

 

Yes that is the correct answer to the question.<p>

 

But the real problem is that the scenario proposed actually has no real meaning. It is VERY possible for a very poorly profiled (or adjusted) monitor to show every gray step perfectly differentiated from its neighbor with seemingly good contrast from darkest to lightest. And that viewing system will, of course, be very poor at consistently displaying even a small sample of images. Yet it will satisfy at least someone that it has been adjusted to SOME criterion.<p>

 

It is also very possible that a correctly profiled system will display an improperly prepared grayscale. Such grayscales are ALL over the Internet on so-called photography sites.<p>

 

Color management is not that difficult a concept. But it is quite a bit more involved than expecting that ability to render a grayscale under a specific set of conditions satisfies anything.<p>

 

I don't think most photographers appreciate the amount of real color management that was built into color negative and color positive materials for us by the manufacturers and hidden from view. With that kind of built-in technology, maybe calibrating to a grayscale was all that we ever needed to learn.<p>

 

Now it's different and we really do have to know a few basic principles. It's been my experience that photographers, as a group, have been strangely phobic of the whole topic. It hasn't helped that, again strangely, photographers were way behind graphic designers in accepting the computer as the tool of choice in their craft. Then they exhibited a strange attraction to PCs rather than Macs, probably due to price considerations alone and a misguided assumption that the system with the greatest numbers of installed machines was somehow the "safer" choice.<p>

 

So they chose in great numbers a system, Windows, which has openly and defiantly tried to defeat any notion of color management. It is actually a painful experience, and impossible for some, to work within a color managed environment on a Windows system. And without such control, it is impossible for two workers on two different systems to know that both are seeing the same thing.<p>

 

By the way, even though that may sound like another one of those Mac vs PC rants to someone who wants to read it that way, it has NOTHING to do with Macs or PCs.<p>

 

Imagine if years ago, color printing filters had absolutely no quality control and varied all over the place, one set from another. And imagine that every box of color printing paper was a mixture of emulsions each with different color responses. Imagine the chaos in trying to predict the outcome of printing any particular color negative onto any particular sheet of paper. Imagine a photographer suggesting under such a system that getting a grayscale to show all its steps was any answer to that chaos. Happily photographers demanded extremely high degrees of color consistency in every part of their color reproduction work. And we TESTED (read calibrated) every new emulsion batch of paper and film.<p>

 

Running a computer imaging system without color management and viewing images which themselves have been created without color management is equivalent to the chaos of poor quality control of color filters and emulsions. But very few photographers want to even listen to advice about color management. And insistence about using a grayscale continue to appear and some websites foolishly continue to display them.<p>

 

I suppose that posting a grayscale somehow makes such sites appear more, um, "photographic" and gives some photographers a sense of reassurance by "familiarity."<p>

 

VL

Eric,<p>

 

And if one can't see all ten steps, what is your advice as to how to correct that?<p>

 

VL

Neil,<p>

 

The use of a display gray scale assumes that an "out of adjustment" viewing system can be brought into compliance by use of the monitor's brightness/contrast controls or other "on the fly" adjustments to that particular gray scale and its associated image. One should NEVER attempt to adjust the monitor to an image.<p>

 

The use of a gray scale for monitor adjustment is a carryover of "photographer think" to the control of an RGB viewing system and it is hopelessly inadequate. Monitor phosphors and video drivers and their color LookUp Tables are NOT photographic silver emulsions.<p>

 

To expect that a gray scale can be used to adjust a viewing sytem to an image is a serious and naive misunderstanding of the whole issue of color management, which is what is really the issue here. The method cannot be expected to correct a viewing system for a monochrome image, let alone a color image. The vast majority of computer monitors, their associated video drivers and the entire imaging system have no color management working. By and large Macs are in much better shape in this regard than Windows systems or other OSs because color management has been commonplace on them for years and their use in professional imaging environments far outnumbers other systems. But even on Macs, color management cannot be taken as a given because many Mac users do not bother to run calibration software or use hardware devices.

 

Never-the-less, the worst thing to advise is for the viewer to constantly adjust the monitor to each and every image or site they log on. The technique does NOT achieve its goal and if anything was even close to balance in the first place, nothing is after the attempt to make the monitor match the image. That guarantees a mismatch on the very next image.

 

If you are really concerned that others see your image as you do, first make sure YOUR system is properly color managed and that your monitor has been calibrated with a hardware device. Then post a message that the viewer should at least attempt to run color management at his end WITH calibration of his monitor by one of the more dependable software methods, or preferably with a hardware calibrator. You may THEN have some sense of confidence that the expected goal has been achieved.<p>

 

VL

I have advocated eliminating the "rating" system completely. The numbers are meaningless, applied with little thought to the "value" of the image (whatever THAT means) and used for purposes unrelated to the photography so often as to make a mockery of the process.<p>

 

I have no real hope that you would ever actually eliminate the system because you find some value in analysis of the numbers for trends and other (pseudo statistical) qualities.<p>

 

I would like you to think about your own admission that there is not a lot of significance to a single rating. Collecting a lot of single ratings, each of which has very little real meaning (none), and applying all sorts of mathematical manipulations to them, claiming that the results are then meaningful, is the equivalent of repeating 25 times a measurement which always results in an accuracy of 2 digits, dividing by 25 and carrying out the result to many decimal places and claiming all those decimals as valid and improved accuracy.<p>

 

Garbage in. Garbage out. The rating system has no real relevance to the quality of images here and it has no relevance to much anything else. The fact that people use the rating system, tells you NOTHING other than the fact that presented with the opportunity to use one, people do.<p>

 

VL

Mark,

 

I think you have a distorted idea about the value of a photograph because it is rated by one system one way and by another system another way. The fact that your image won a prize in a Hasselblad contest is as meaningless as the low ratings it got here. Don't use the Hassleblad rating as a yardstick with which to measure anything. I have participated in events where an artist, widely acknowledged by his community to be the "dean" of the community, who taught many others his superior techniques failed to have his entry accepted.<p>

 

It happens. Tastes are different in one setting versus another. We all knew the quality of his work and whether it won first place in a particular show, or failed to place made no difference to us at all.<p>

 

Ratings are meaningless. Ignore them if you wish. (You obviously don't - although you say you do). Or heed them as an indication that there are those with very different opinions (disregarding the obvious attempts by a few idiots to simply trash anyone's work).<p>

 

All this grumbling about the "rating" system by everyone is just nonsense. Get over it! If you get some comments about your work, and you get a chance to hold a discourse, negative or positive, and to share viewpoints, you have benefitted from the experience. But to focus on the meaningless (actually stupid) numbers that others assign to an image is self-defeating. What in the world do you think you can do with the ratings anyway? How in the world do good ratings benefit you? How in the world do "bad" ratings hurt you? Can you take your accumulated ratings from this place and buy even a cup of coffee with them?<p>

 

VL

The universe as we know it will now come to an end because of the "treachery of the moderators."<p>

 

Contributors can no longer tolerate posting their work here because they no longer can directly indentify the (mostly) back-slapping friends giving meaningless accolades and the occasional jerk giving the finger, using a seriously flawed rating system without any understanding of how they are applying it.<p>

 

And one contributor has just figured out that he can beat the system by putting his rating in a comment. I am amazed that it took more than 2 or 3 messages after the change happened before that occured to anyone.<p>

 

Brian NEVER takes anything in these forums as a serious suggestion because he has explained that on this one issue he's calling the shots as best he can.<p>

 

Wow! Anyone want some cheese with all that whine?<p>

 

VL

David,<p>

 

I think you need to relax a little. If you are implying that Brian's comment means he is doing something wrong or sneaky, I interpret it completely the opposite. Of course he's going to watch the actual performance of the site and gauge his moves by that. Of course he's not going to make changes based on the demands in the forum. This is NOT a democracy. It's a business that he needs to run the best way he can. For every ten posts here, there are 15 demands for yet another way to run the site.<p>

 

He had to do SOMEthing. The whole rating thing had (has) gotten out of hand. Images make it into the highest ranks of Top Photos for no reason other than the photographer has friends. Yes, a lot of the images that make it are good. But that's not why they make it. And the one's that don't deserve to be there make other contributors feel like they don't want to play in this sandbox any longer.<p>

 

Protest photos? Destruction of the community? Come on. Why are you taking this so seriously. If anything was destroying a sense of community here, it was the elements Brian is trying to change. Why should anyone who wants to give an honest critique have to endure the scorn of the photographer and his/her "supporters" when a rating of less than perfect is suggested?<p>

 

Personally, I think he should end ratings completely. But whatever the rules he settles on, it won't make one iota of difference to the field of photography.<p>

 

VL

Jay,

 

I long ago gave up asking the photographer displaying an image on any Internet photo forum what he or she intended to convey. It's not a concept most photographers who are drawn to this medium seem to understand. Is it important? It's crucial to any critique process.

 

Notice I didn't say crucial to any VIEWING process. There are many images which simply stand on their own. They are representative in one way or another, they are compelling in their color, they show unmistakable action, etc.

 

But to critique an image it IS necessary to know the photographer's intent. Why? Because the Photographer must HAVE an intent before anyone else can intelligently comment about anything but the most rudimentary technical details. A masterfully composed, hand-held, slow shutter shot of the sun-drenched gallery at Wimbledon, showing swirling masses of color, and hints of human forms can be a wonderful abstract of the scene by a worker who intends to make such an image and who has experimented with shuttter speeds and the sweep of his arm as he takes the shot. The same effect by another photographer who intended to record a sharply defined image of a player's service, but who does not know how to set his shutter is an entirely different matter. And critical advice would be entirely different for the two (similar) images.<p>

 

Actually, most poor photographers have no idea WHAT their intent is when they take a shot. They haven't a clue as to the capabilities of the medium, their equipment or lighting as to how the image is going to render. Without SOME pre-conceived idea as to how to control things to make the image turn out in some particular way, the photograph is an uncontrolled snapshot. It is not until a student can learn to articulate his/her intent and to carry through with that intent that his/her work can BE critiqued.<p>

 

And in case no one has noticed, these opinions fly directly in the face of those who insist that art should stand entirely on its own, who object to any explanation of their work, to the point of refusing to give an image a name. I obviously think such thinking is elitist nonsense. However, such thinking is perfectly alright for the artist who presents his work, for sale or display and says, "take it or leave it, it's whatever it seems to be to you." It's just totally out of place when requesting critique.<p>

 

The image presented simply with the request, "All comments welcome," drives me fairly crazy. Tell me how you came to make the shot. Tell me something about the circumstances of the situation. Tell me how you intended the lighting to be. Don't make excuses for things that didn't work, simply explain yourself so I can understand your viewpoint. Until you can articulate yourself verbally, your photography cannot improve.<p>

 

VL

Stuart. I agree with you completely. I'm going to resist the temptation to give compelling reasons to justify my position with lots of examples and comparison with my own experiences over a period much longer than I care to admit.<p>

 

I think it's laughable that some individuals re-submit individual images with "improvements" suggested by others, usually asking for a re-evaluation and the implied, "Is this better?" When I critique an image, I NEVER mean for the photographer to change THAT image, but to think about the concepts in forming future images.<p>

 

There are a few individuals who can benefit from what they see here, but such photographers already posses considerable skill and are always expanding their outlook no matter what they do.<p>

 

This kind of web site is a curious social phenomenon, and will always be only that. Claiming that the process results in improvement is about equal to claiming that tennis club members improve their sorry games sitting around talking about their last shot or even participating in their yearly tournemant.<p>

 

However, This does NOT mean that certain contributors to this site have not improved their skills in the time they have been participants here. But their improvement is the consequence of their motivation to display their work in the first place, not the consequence of having displayed it. (I hope that made sense)<p>

 

VL

Arash,<p>

 

For many weeks now, if I comment on an image first, then try to rate it, I get an error message saying that I have already rated, although I have not. It askes if I want to "change" my rating, which I attempt to do, but the system never recognizes any rating.<p>

 

VL

Ben,<p>

 

It just isn't possible to do this in any way that leaves the process palatable. How do you monitor the "comment" if the person simply complies by saying, "Great color. Congrats," as is so often the case? Do you monitor the comment for length, content and appearance of certain word repetitions as does another photo site where the "critique police" watch for "conforming" vs "non-conforming" critiques? THAT system is so offensive and arrogant as to be intolerable. Are you going to "force" raters to say something "meaningful?" How?<p>

 

You've just got to accept that some people are going to use the place for the inappropriate kind of rating that you dislike, and others will be honest and avoid that silly behavior. I think that "blind" rating will cut down on the problem a lot, but if someone wants to flaunt the process, they're going to.<p>

 

VL

Come on everyone. It's only a website. This is supposed to be fun. It's getting much too serious. Taking away the human element? How? Human beings are still rating images if they are posted without identification of the photographer. Copywrite problems? Please. How is copywrite jeopardized if the artist's name is hidden briefly to raters? Original work is protected by virtue of its existence, period. The identification of the artist on this website confers no additional protection and the temporary absence of the name does not increase any "vulnerability."<p>

 

As far as the annonymity of the artist for ratings/comments, has anyone ever submitted work to a juried show? The judge(s) is NOT permitted to know the artist. To avoid possible identification by familiarity with style, the best juried shows are by judges brought in from outside the "community" of those submitting. The judging is of course subject to the likes, dislikes, biases, preferences, experiences of the judges. That's the essence of the process. But identity of the artist has nothing to do with the process. Beileve me, it IS a learning experience to subject yourself to that.<p>

 

Want another measure of your work? pay to have a lot of it framed and try to sell it at an open market type of venue.<p>

 

Want another? take your work to a commercial gallery and see if they'll accept it for display and sale.<p>

 

Try to engage a photography rep to represent your work. They don't work for you just because you're willing to pay them.<p>

 

All those methods will give you VERY honest feedback, at least about the commercial viability of your work and how it fits into broadly accepted notions of photographic value.<p>

 

I think it would be an intersting thing to do here and it would not isolate anyone from the raters. A brief hiding of identities would simply delay knowing who had rated you.<p>

 

A bit of advice I once got when a legal discussion took place over copywrite law in photography and the graphics art industry, and "experts" voiced their understanding of the law, was that the opinions and "facts" and "info" that one gets on the Internet is worth just about what one pays for them. And THAT applies to all of us.<p>

 

VL

Knicki, you are being too naive. Of course, certain work is identifiable by an author's style. That will always be the case. But the great majority of work here is not. There is just no denying that the work of some is rated (and commented) based on little OTHER than their name. And their images get magnitudes more (useless) high ratings than others.<p>

 

It's meaningless and is almost laughable. But it IS an annoyance and it diminishes the experience for many here and makes a mockery of the process for anyone just beginning in the field and desiring to get honest opinions.<p>

 

In a blind rating system, with "honest" raters, the great majority of the images posted by the "offenders" would get only average ratings. Some of the group does very good work and they don't seek out the over reaction they get. I really think it's useless to try to do anything much about it, but it is hard to totally dismiss, hence these messages.<p>

 

VL

Brian, you are right, but I don't think more than a few percent of raters have any understanding of that. The comment about a well-rendered stream and forest scene produced, "I've seen a zillion of these before," some weeks ago, with his 1 rating. It couldn't hurt to have that list of "Originality" attributes displayed in the rating process to stimulate the thinking of the less imaginative raters.<p>

 

VL

Tim,<p>

 

Any photographer who wants to beat such a system, and announce his/her identity to "friends" can embed identification in the image. Only people who already play by the rules would comply. Those who have made this kind of discussion necessary would get around it immediately.<p>

 

Sad, but true. Human nature is what it is, and on a site such as this, trying to really enforce conduct would make the site so unpleasant, that it wouldn't be enjoyable.<p>

 

VL

Dorian,<p>

 

I actually agree with you, but paid my $25 anyway. I think it is well worth the money, at least for a year to make up my mind about continuing. I think the admins deserve support for the service they are providing and I feel much better about contributing if I'm going to ask for changes.<p>

 

Unfortunately, the admins can't control the behavior of people who want to co-opt the system. Any controls that would be really effective would make the site much too unpleasant to use.<p>

 

I'm satisfied that there are enough good photographers here and intelligent people to talk to that the $25 is an insignificant fee. Yes, things could be a lot better, but in a "direct democracy" (or more accurately, a "direct anarchy") the problems we are experiencing are almost a given.<p>

 

Ignore the useless noise and use the site for its strengths. If the problems here really affect anyone's well-being, it's time to get a life!<p>

VL

I think it is a very good idea to have it turned off. I also believe the photographer's identity should be hidden. These 2 pieces of information could be hidden for 3 days. THEN I think we will see more meaningful ratings.<p>

 

The "cliques" will figure out a way around this also, but it might return PN, for a while, to the quality site it was some time ago. The "rating" game has dragged PN into the same kind of "personal" popularity contest that has affected so many lesser sites.<p>

 

I don't think there is any way to really change the behavior of those who misuse the sysytem, and I don't attach any significance to the rating system at all. Its misuse is simply annoying.<p>

 

VL

Would it be possible to show the time stamp of all image submissions

and all comments?

VL

I agree, But the "clubs" would eventually get around the impediment by emailing each other, including identifcation in the image, etc. There is no way to really control this kind of thing, just slow it down from time to time.

My suggestion was partly tongue-in-cheek.<p>

 

. . . removing tongue from cheek . . . so I can speak more clearly . . .<p>

 

There can never be a consensus on anything in a "participatory anarchy" such as this public Web site. That's why the admins would have to appoint a committee. Benevolent Despotism is the only form of government that would work here. You appoint the committee, it makes its choice(s). And that's it. Like a juried exhibition. Yes, afterward there are howls of protest and endless discussion about the ones that made it and (in the opinion of the Great Unwashed), should not have . . . and the opposite. <p>

 

Would I be on the committee?, nah, I prefer to remain among the Great Unwashed so I can then take shots at the selections.<p>

 

But as this thread has already shown, there would have to be a Blue Ribbon Committee to select the Category itself and define the criteria for selection of images. It's already getting too complicated. And that just bores the snot out of me.<p>

 

"Five most compelling images of pastoral, patterned Italian farmland taken in golden, glancing, evening sun with a lone tree against manicured, tractor-grooved fields of wheat enhanced by boosting the saturation so the color is dripping down the screen."<p>

 

VL

 

VL

I think PN should establish a new category entitled something like

"The 5 Most Compelling Images Posted in the Last Year." The selections

should be made by a Blue Ribbon panel. This image <p>

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2468043<p>

 

should head the list and be permanently used as the icon for the

category.<p>

 

I can't stop coming back to this. Damn! The only thing that might make

this shot better is more dramatic lighting.<p>

 

VL