faith_cohen
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by faith_cohen
-
-
The last sentence should read ... And they are not too stubbornly wedded even to that as to prevent their responding flexibly to criticism.
-
The photographers I enjoy most are the ones who try not to say anything definitive moments before exposing their subjects to light but whose creative process allow their finished photographs to speak eloquently for them and they through their photographs. They have some general idea preceding the event yet are able to respond to the moment (and the subject!) and are not so wedded to the moment of exposure as to prevent an idea from evolving until they feel ready to present it. And they are so too stubbornly wedded even to that as to prevent their responding flexibly to criticism.
-
Bob - I think that the spirit and letter of the site's terms of use does not preclude the photographer receieving assistance in the material processing of the image (slides come to mind), provided that the subject content of the image is entirely the photographer's.
John - I wouldn't get too worked up about the meaning of the ratings. What you might consider to do is replace the old version with the new, and post a comment about it with a copy of the old version accompanying that comment.
-
And many have long argued in this forum that the ratings system has excluded "Top" photos under varied definitions (controversial, experimental, whatever) from visibility. So really, for a Top photo site, what is the point of this exclusion? If there is a significant venue in PN where a significant number of unmeasured "Top" photos are exhibited, as they seem to do in "critique-only" then isn't it to everyone's benefit that these get showcased more visibly? I think that is part of Dave's point.
-
"I was concerned that a high percentage of the Top Photos would disappear into a the "critique-only" venue, that I would need to figure out some new systems for making photos in that venue visible again, since the "visibility systems" on the site are all ratings-based. That doesn't seem to have happened."
But how would you know if significant numbers of these have disappeared if the ONLY definition of "Top Photos" comes via ratings? Come to think of it, how do you know that significant numbers of Top Photos have not disappeared and their vacuum filled by photos just nearly as "Top" ?
-
I could be wrong but I believe that the overriding consideration is to maximize typical image size viewability as opposed to crowding too much information into one module at the expense of image size. As it is when you either rate or comment you cannot simultaneously view technical details. It's been advised by a few that a good user method is to right click for each of these activities in order to create window views of everything, including the root gallery page by which you arrived at viewing (and rating, and/or commenting on) a particular image. While all that really isn't easily intuitive, it should be a workable method for those who (like yourself) can devote the time to the task.
-
Cute idea, Faith. Or is that Jerry? Or Hanna? Or Tom or Barbera? Can't figure out which cartoon character and/or animation producer you want to be?
Nope, Bart. No provocation. You reap what you sow by your whining and denial about your addiction to mate rating; but mostly it's your off the top rack photos. Here is what I posted to your sepia version of a recent photo of yours (http://www.photo.net/photo/2858833) before you deleted it (as I suspected you would). You just can't accept criticism and a fair rating (3/3): "Same familiar problem. Composition is static with no foreground interest (no surprise!) and it suffers from image flare at left."
Oh, and Marc G. The hilarity won't be complete until you post a lengthy tome here :-)
-
Just wanted to say for the record that I have posted an honest 3/3 rating on Bartek's latest upload and added a comment as to why. You might disagree on both counts, but it's there (unless BB deletes it)
-
Now the photo has ten ratings, so enjoy the (comments) view!
-
Kurt, stuff like that happens. When it does I move on. There's so much to see, read, and learn on PN that such inconsequentials, much like posters who shadow my posts, matter not and are not worth my time.
-
Carl is correct. I self-deleted my portfolio after an appropriate time (and probably to Jerry's frustration).
OT note to "Jerry": So where's your sister account "Hanna"? And why haven't you "two" opened accounts for "Tom" and "Barbera", since your posts are nothing more than cartoonish cat-and-mouse affairs with Carl and moi?
-
Simple. If enough "friends" are emailed as to when you upload photos they will pile on the 7/7 ratings in a very short time.
-
Sorry to moan, cry or whine, but can somebody please fix the bug that habitually retitles a forum thread by "subject" entered by the most recent respondent? Oh, and an automatic heave-ho warning by the abuse department to anyone who submits ad hominem attack posts would be pleasant to wish for, too.
-
As an example of how usably rich this site is, as a change of pace I searched the recent critique requests list of "street" and noticed one entry with a novel photo title that attracted my curiosity, and so I found a hidden photo gem (though it might have been just as easily categorized under "children" or "sports"):
-
As Matt smartly suggests, one can take full advantage of PN's selection menus to find "interesting" images, however slowly. But I wish there was ability to jump to the middle pages (go to page #) rather than search/wait via "previous" or "next"; okay, another to-do list item, Brian?
-
"We should be able to "personally filter" the site for ourselves by using common sense, knowledge, and [when necessary] discretion." - Matt Vardy
Too many of us in the real world live filtered lives. The filtered view is what the current U.S. administration promotes as "good for us." In the end this amounts to censorship and censureship. Here in PN users want only glad-hands and high ratings. There are those who say they want their photos visible for critiques but they don't want criticism and only "nice going" or "wow". My highest compliments go to young Matt for his thoroughly mature approach to the subject!
P.S. to Brian: rotate the defaulting TRP to provide a richer variety of image/photographer views. This would help educate PN users to do their own searches into the site.
-
"Right now, I feel that the mate raters are clogging the very small entrance to a potentially very LARGE ROOM."
John (and others?), you don't think that rotating the defaulting TRP view would make much difference then? Perhaps not. They might then flood each others' pics with volume rates, high rates, volume comments, and multiple reclicked views to cover all the bases. But at least they might burn out faster at the "game".
-
The best suggestion I have read in these discussion pages would be for Brian to program the defaulting TRP view as a continuously rotating one, with no fixed parameters that users can "game". I don't understand why this can't be implemented since just about any "top" 12 photos view (if not logged in) or 21 photos view will suffice to entertain and entice visitors to explore the site more deeply.
-
-
This week's POW should interest some who are in the market for the latest in high end burkha couture. It should spawn discussion ranging from eating disorders, designing practical wear for real people, and who knows...perhaps photography. As for pn-elfin taste, here is the forum to discuss that.
-
"A bit of a tangent yes maybe, but looking today i see 16/21 top pics are digital and over last year 9/21."
More photogs are switching to digital. Most film photogs scan/digitize their images for Photoshop. Few photogs display their scans unaltered.
-
"My concern is in losing serious quality community members over time. I have no solution to offer the community. I do have confidence that PN will, in time, find a solution."
Responding to Howard's concern... Part of the solution is to transform the interactive culture in PN. The recent changes have begun to accomplish this. It may well be that certain "serious quality" community members cannot adapt to change. But these are but the tip of a vast iceberg of "serious quality" photographers making their transition to digital and internet participation. An old Broadway show music lyric that goes "princes come, princes go, an hour of pomp and show they know, princes come, and over the sands of time they go" aptly describes this process. Fear not the exodus of some talent and mind. There's far more and some better from where these come. And Brian & co. should continually readapt PN to accomodate them rather than simply cater to entrenched tastes. The key is to find the right balanced formula to do it. That takes trial and error, and some failures, when dealing with the human factor.
As to the TRP, the best suggestion I've read in some threads would be to rotate the default page so that any entrenching cultural pattern of PN behavior is minimized. I don't think a changing default page would reduce visitor "hits", but it could increase them for the very reasons that people complain now (that we're seeing the same names and same types of photos over and again... might not visitors get bored? and if not, then changing it would have no adverse affect?). And it would be nice to see others who regularly and thoughtfully post concerns about the system to actually support the underserved critique-only forum with quality critique comments and an upload or two.
-
I posted this scenario for "originality" scores before; notice that this take on "originality" accounts for subject genre, so that flower images are evaluated as flower photos, thus:
<p>7- transcends the subject genre, revealing anew
<p>6- elevates the subject genre, moving the viewer
<p>5- works well with the subject genre
<p>4- no thought given to subject genre, or whatever
<p>3- stilted, cliche for subject genre
<p>2- pretentious and probably self-serving
<p>1- don't waste my time with this nonsense
<p>I think that PN wisely defines the O and A scales ambiguously, from "excellent" to "very bad" and gives due respect to the viewer/rater to decide how to interpret photos to these scales.
-
<p>"Is originality also a subjective issue?"
<p>Indeed it is. Many feel that there is "good" and "bad" cleverness, and actually assign 4 as a neutral (for non-originalness) score.
<p>Note: I apologize for reposting this (a third time) but the Subject Box was not working. I had tried to include the response "question" (above) in the Subject Box, but twice this didn't register. Anyway, please kindly remove my previous two (redundant) posts.
New Category
in PhotoNet Site Help
Posted