meddler

The only problem with abandoning the numbers and replacing it with words that the Top Photos Gallery uses numbers and IIRC the site organisers feel that those pages are important for luring people onto the site. <br><br>

Mind you, there is no reason why those numbers couldn't sit invisibly in the background and drive the rankings.

<br><br>

Then on the member pages instead of showing numbers show the nearest rating something like this:

<br><br>

<i>This member has rated 682 photos on this site, with average ratings of Average for Aesthetics and Average for Originality. The ratings went to 595 distinct photographers. You can browse some of the photos rated highest by this member. </i>

<br><br>

<i>This member has received 861 ratings, on 94 distinct photos, rated Average for Aesthetics, and Average for Originality.<i>

Ben I would Mark you as interesting if some sick little puppy hadn't forced the interesting people functionality out of action.

I would find it difficult to leave useful comments on your portfolio beyond great, awesome etc. I really like the toning you do on your black and white photos. Its something I've not got the hang of yet.

Nice answer Bob :) But I think you miss the point. The ratings are not just numbers out of 7, in the drop down the ratings have meanings and emotional weight.

I could have suggested just three ratings. Below Average, Average and Better than Average, but that wouldn't be useful to PN for deciding which photos are the best of the best.

So if your answer had been to change the words behind the rates to Below Average, Average, Good, Very Good, Excellent, Outstanding, and Unbelievable, that would have been a better response. Though perhaps less amusing :)

Ben, I totally understand why Bob would react that way, people have been whinging about ratings here for years. I wouldn't be surprised if this idea has been suggested a hundred times.

As for commenting to get more comments? I have found that the best way to get comments is to take good photographs, to be a woman, photograph nudes, to be a nude woman. None of which I am actually much good at:)

The subject of ratings does seem to get people quite emotive.

Perhaps it would be less so, if we did away with ratings for "Bad"

and "Very Bad".

After all its not very tactful to tell someone that their photo is

bad or very bad. Merely saying someone is below average leaves them

with at least a little self respect.

Would retaliatory rating have such a big effect if the worst someone

could mark was below average?

Given that 1s and 2s are pretty rare I imagine it wouldn't make a

great deal of difference to the ranking system and besides people

are only interested in looking at the top rated photos, not the

bottom rated ones.

What do you recon?

Lots of interesting viewpoints there. I would definately disagree to enforcing comments mainly because you would get non-comments if you know what I mean. Why clutter up the system with rubbish comments.

I can't imagine people rating harshly for the hell of it, but some people seem to do that now. But I would expect the reasonable ratings to outnumber the daft ones

It occured to me that the number of requests for critique might

outnumber the number of ratings in the rate recent queue. I know

that to my shame I have on more than one occasion requested

critiques without rating other people's work.

I wonder if it might be useful to limits people's RFCs according to

the number of ratings they have given. Given that most of us would

like to have at least 10 ratings for each of our photos, it would

only be fair if we had a 10/1 ratio of Ratings to RFCs

If that were the case I would need to do another 50 or so ratings

before I could RFC again!

Of course practically it might be better to have a lower ratio

especially as there are people who rate a lot and RFC less.

With people rating more frequently it might even encourage people to

comment more frequently as I tend to leave comments where I think

the rating requires explanation.

Does that sound like a daft idea? Mind you know photo.net its

probably been done before :)

IIRC Someone posted a site on dpreview where he compared the 1.7 and the 1.4. The 1.4 looked visibly sharper at 1.7 than the 1.7 did wide open.

I can't find the web site or the thread at the moment. I have to say though that I love my 1.7.

<p>I have the 1.7 and it is very nice indeed, though Im very tempted to trade it in for the 1.4 because it is sharper.

</p>

<p>

I managed to pick up my 1.7 from Ebay for about ?20, though they do tend to go for a litte more. The 1.4 is more rare on Ebay and tends to go for between GBP80 to GBP100.

<p></p>

If you are on a budget, then for the wide end the Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX is a very reasonably priced lens new. I picked one up from warehouseexpress for GBP149

<p></p>

Another good second hand buy is the Minolta 70-210 f4, its chunky, but nice and sharp. That sells for about GBP75 in the second hand shops and you can sometimes get a bargain on Ebay.

<p></p>

I also have a Minolta 24-105 f3.5/4.5 D that I bought with the camera. It performs well when there's lots of light and its a good walkabout lens, but its not my favourite by any means.

<p></p>

I also have sigma a 70-300 DL Macro, its not anywhere near as sharp or fast as the 70-210 and Im thinking of selling it and getting the 170-500 for the longer range stuff.</p>

I tend to mark as interesting people who comment on my photos. Then periodically I look at what they have done and comment on their work in return. I use rate recent, though less frequently these days and sometimes I look at who is online now.

Doesn't seem to make much any difference though. The only thing that seems to make a difference is the time of day I submit a RFC

Yeah its a good result for KM. Considering some of Phil's niggles I was a little surprised it got "Highly Recommended", especially when he compared it favourably with the Nikon D70. But it is obvious from Phil's conclusions that he really enjoyed using the camera.

I think the conclusions from the AS testing were at variance with the findings of the many people on the DP review forums who have been using. Many of them report getting better than 2/3 stops. Even if his 2 stops conclusion is correct, 2 stops on ever lens is worth paying a premium for.

The only thing that has held me back so far is the reports of back focussing problems, CCD misalignment and flash exposure problems. Im trying to hold out till PMA in February before shelling out.

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3044641-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3044641-sm.jpg"></a><br><i> Like this...</i></center>

<center><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3044641-lg.jpg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3044641-sm.jpg"></a><br><i> Like this...</i></center>

John, thanks, thats good feedback for me and other posters like me. You won't catch me using that word again. You can take it from me.

:)

I don't know how people get so many critiques. My own approach which is yielding modest dividends is to put anyone who give me a critique into my interesting list and to make sure I give them a critique back when I next see them submit something. Im still not getting the sorts of critiques I would like, but I expect I will get there in the end. And the other thing I do, is try to critique new people too.

As for what these other guys said about excuse mode. Im afraid they are right. Think about the title for your first album.

"Digital (and therefore thoughtlessly composed and shot) Photos"

I don't know how a digital camera can compose and shoot pictures on its own. It only the photographer who can be thoughtless. Digital is a great tool for getting along that learning curve. And after you have paid out for the camera its free!

At the end of the day the most important thing is the image. Its doesn't matter what type of sensor was used to capture it or even how much thought went into it. A good photo is a good photo regardless.

I'll put you in my interesting list and give you some critiques when you post new pictures. Perhaps you can do the same for me?

BTW, I had a look at some of your comments, I think you should use a little unsharp mask on your scans to stop people focussing on that aspect of your photos.

David,

I think you probably do rate a bit low. Looking at the distribution of your ratings, it looks pretty much like a bell shaped curve. However I would actually expect it to be skewed on the high side.

Why? First of all people aren't going to post pictures that they think are bad or very bad and TBH if they can't tell that they are bad or very bad then they probably won't appreciate your ratings anyway, unless you can come up with a good critique to explain it.

You have marked more images 1/1 than 7/7 IMHO there is no such thing as 1/1 If the aesthetics are that bad, then the originality must be a 7.

For originality you might expect to see more of the lower ratings.

I don't think anybody, myself included, rates properly for originality. There should be far more 7/1 scores out there than are actually seen.

I realise that, but why should you want privacy?

It seems to me that privacy is solution for something, so what is the problem?

If you give honest ratings and honest feedback I don't see why this should be an issue. If you rate someone 1/1 you should be prepared to tell them why in a critique.

TBH nobody unless they are delusional is seriously going to put up a photo here that warrants 1/1. If they do its probably not worth rating that photo as you will only get grief over it no matter what you say in a critique.

Thanks guys, here is my attempt. Perhaps the sky is a little too blue, but it certainly makes the original look dull by comparison. Useful techniques thanks.<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2709742">http://www.photo.net/photo/2709742</a>

I caught a rainbow on the move. Im fairly happy with the colours of

the sky but I cant seem to get the rainbow to stand out more. Do you

have any suggestions/techniques that I could try.<br><br>

Here it is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2701335">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=2701335</a>

<br><br>

My editing software of choice is The Gimp, but Im sure I could

translate photoshop techniques or to it if you can suggest something

I think without the rating system, some people would never get any feedback at all. I rarely get any comments. I like the idea of forcing people who rate below a certain level to make a comment.

If I rate below 5 I usually try and say what I thought might improve the picture, though some might think that it is very presumptuous of me.

I think it is only fair that someone who dislikes my pictures so much that they are prepared to say it is bad or even offensive through the rating system should have some words to guide me to improve it.