andy e

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2936700-md.jpg"></center>

Very sorry about your friend, Malcolm. The image is wonderful.

 

Well, late to the party as usual for me.

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2832432-md.jpg"></center>

I'm getting a "Not Found" response to the link, James. Would you mind double-checking it? Thanks.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2839481-lg.jpg"></center>

Yeah, actually mine almost looks like it has a skin condition, but its working fine. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

<center><img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2817902-

md.jpg"></center>

Wow, you've really learned something from these thoughtless numbers, Bruno? The sum total of the ratings I've gotten has told me nothing except what would appeal to people who in my estimation don't bother to examine photos before slapping their numbers on them.

 

If you use the ratings to control what you do with your camera, that's quite sad in my opinion.

Oh, and one more thing... I guess what you're saying requires then to unquestionably hold all art as being equal. Therefore, I should hold Britney Spears in the same aesthetic esteem as W.A. Mozart because both have adherents who believe that what they do is "good art". I guess then the whole course of art history is invalid because from era to era people have made distinctions between the good and lasting and that which is poor and of no value to the consideration of art as art. Maybe I'm stupid but that makes no sense to me.

Andrew, that's a laugh coming from you. What, now you're the great champion of the democracy of aesthetics? Cut the crap. Words minus action equals zero or at best equals wretched hypocrisy.

Seven, very good points, but points, I think, that illustrate the absolute fallacy about the utiility of the ratings system here or, indeed, on any similar photo site. At best, the ratings system is a measure of the "vox populi" pertaining to a specific image. As the vox populi, it also carries with it all the foibles, quirks and other behaviors attendant to mass appeal or lack thereof. But as a measure of actual image quality, its a waste of time. Once you understand that, it no longer becomes bothersome. I've simply seen too many outstanding images get pounded by lousy ratings to believe that its any kind of reasonable measure of image quality. Certainly a glance at the first few pages of the Top Rated Pages will tell you that (no offense).

 

Kurt, you simply can't force people to see and think about things that they either don't want to or can't think about. If you need proof of that, see what happens on November 2nd if George Bush manages to win the election.

 

Just my humble opinion...

eee<div></div>

ddd<div></div>

ccc<div></div>

bbb<div></div>

aaa<div></div>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2827016-md.jpg"></center>

I was there in July and had no problems either. I had heard about this law but I never ran into any issues. Hell, if someone calls you on it, play the "dumb tourist" (who knows no French, of course), walk away and start shooting again.

Grant, didn't you know that you become a total chick-magnet if you get lots of 7/7s? The whole reason I joined Photo.net was to improve my sex life. Why isn't it working? Oh that's right, I didn't get involved in group groping/mate rating. Damn...

My friend Jean and I went out last August to see if we could photograph the world nude bike ride. The starting point was in back of some dodgey storefronts on the south side of Bucktown in Chicago. After the bikers departed we walked to my car but lost track of the riders. I saw a couple of guys sitting in the light of a store window drinking some beer and shouted at them to ask if they saw the bikers go by. "Yeah and they was all butt naked!" shouted one of the guys. One of the guys came over and asked if I had a few bucks so they could buy a little more beer. I gave him a $5 bill and he asked if I wanted to take some pics of him and his friends. It was difficult shooting in the dim light on Division Street but this is one of those shots I got.<div></div>

Spaghetti Western, your little snipe at me was classicly stupid PN herd-blabber: when you can't have something intelligent to say, you go ad hominem. Classic MO of a gutless idiot who won't post his own photos. Your inference is totally misplaced. I have a lot of respect for a number of photographic disciplines beyond street. Just because I'm not a particular fan of an over-PS'd photo that looks like a bad Christmas paperweight doesn't mean I don't like it because its not street. I just don't like it because, in my opinion, it looks cartoonish. Sorry.

Matt, if you believe that stuff you just stated, I got a bridge to sell you. The whole TRP is a popularity contest, pure and simple. The ostensible utility of it (which I think Carl Root has described accurately and well) has been subsumed by a big ego-massaging exercise that utterly skews the representation of work on this site. If you think that making the TRP is a true imprimatur of quality photography, you got a lot to learn. Much of the great photography on this site, sadly, must be seen after a lot of searching, often in a random manner. And after seeing the choice of this week's Photo of the Week, I now begin to wonder whether any of the movers and shakers on this site have the vaguest idea what compelling photography really is.

 

Just my $0.02 as well.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2817902-md.jpg"></center>

Very cool stuff. The images from Tokyo are particularly interesting to me. Just wish I had a broadband connection so I could see the latest project. Thanks for the link.

Ah, what the hell, just one more.<div></div>

Four's enough for me. I only have dial-up.<div></div>