chad_goldman

<p>Matt,<br>

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Like you I was becoming disenchanted with PN, but I've made more use out of it this week (could be the accumulation of snow thats caused school to be cancelled ;) than I have in a while. I never really ventured into the forums in the past, but this week, I spend a good majority of my time perusing posts. I find it most helpful and invigorating. I'm ready for a renewed relationship with PN.</p>

 

<p>John,<br>

I am nostalgic to the point of clutter, just ask my wife, it drives her nuts. Those pictures of Katie, were among the first here on PN and for years I have wanted to delete a couple. I had no idea of posing, exposure, and even less knowledge of editing. But for some reason, I have held on. I kept one photo that you happened to comment on for quite some time just to go back and reread the comment. There was a barrier I kept creating, and each time I revisited your comment, I made some progress.<br>

Sometimes, I need a smack on the head to get moving. (just ask my wife...again).<br>

It's time to clean house.<br>

Thanks<br>

Chad</p>

 

<p>Again, Thank you all for responding.<br>

For the first time I've delved into forums and with the luck of being snowed in for 4 days I've really felt like I've made some progress. Your comments give me reason to reexamine photos i've seen for too long. I no longer question or critique them myself. I am excited that I have some renewed interest.<br>

Thanks<br>

Chad</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

I definately recognize 'too much' as part of my landscape photos. I always try to overdo by adding too much. I'm trying to capture what I see, it just doesn't always turn out as grand through the lens. Simplifying is now one of my goals. </p>

<p>I want to take classes, I've recently finished my masters in another field, and now want to extend into photography in order to improve. I'm not looking for a degree or to become a professional, I just want to be able to take quality photos. I've ran in the problem of no colleges nearby offer photography courses and I do not wish to learn online. I want the interaction with people.<br>

I've never ventured much into the forums, something I typically overlook. But as I started this thread and now have read your comments, I may spend more time here.</p>

 

<p>In my six years of using PN I have learned quite a bit. I began posting photos the moment I recieved my first camera. In the beginning I recieved a lot of user feedback, possibly because my photos were so poor :) But now-a-days, I find critiques hard to come by. I continue to make posts in the critique forum hoping to learn and to improve my photography, though the responses are few and far between. I do admit that I have some anger when I recieve ratings (high or low) without a response. I'm even more bothered when I see a mediocre nude having XX,XXX number of views in a short period of time and numerous comments.<br>

As I contemplate renewing my subscription for another year, I wonder, is PN a place to grow as a photographer, or is it just a place to see "artistic" nudie pictures.</p>

<p>Steve,<br>

If you could pick only 1 crop to use (assuming we were stuck with only 1 option) then the 4X6 is the most universally usable? (does that make sense?)</p>

Has PN ever had an option to view YOUR photos by number of views? I know if we go to top photos we can sort by

# of views. I can look at my photos based on number of ratings, but sometimes I feel as though number of views

give me a better idea on how people view my photo. For example, I have 2 similar photos (just flipped) one rates

about 5.2 but has 150 views, the other rates about 4.8 but around 8,500 views.

 

Instead of hitting details for every folder. I would like to see a sort by views feature on my portfolio.

 

Chad Goldman

The Thomas Kinkade idea is genius.

</p>

and Mark, I find the same.

This photo: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625157-lg.jpg

</p>

first hour it was posted had an avg. of 3.8/3.3 I also think it is what encouraged this thread. Now it is much higher. I knew it wasn't a 3/3 photo (yes, I have taken some that were, but I don't post those :) Could it be a timing thing? I post things at all times, I wish I could keep track of ratings based off the timing...that would be an interesting study. I did post 5 photos of nearly identical butterflies, only difference was a 1/3 of a stop here and a 1/3 of a stop there, or not. Posted morning, noon, night, weekend and midday. With that I have a slight variety of ratings. Now, most are similiar, mid 4's range, but one was in the 5's. odd, i thought.

</p>

cg

Thanks for the quick answers guys

 

Jerry,

I think you and I are on the same page with the rating biz. I read the whole thread. It once again hits to what people crave to see, at times I see a photo of a frog and think, 'oh that's so cool!' and see a photo of architecture and not get too excited.

 

It all burrows down to what you are interested in. I would think it all equals out over time, but I had a photo of a crane fly. Posted it because it was unusual, though it Bombed in the ratings. I noticed after it seems to bomb it doesn't pop up to be rated much more. I deleted it, waited a week, reposted and resubmitted to critique. Same photo, this time with much higher results 5.0/4.8 just matters who stubles upon it.

 

I try to not get too excited about ratings, and would even submit w/o allowing ratings, but that limits who sees your photos. I want them out there because I want critiques. I'm a teacher, not a pro, so I need help at times. I want to put my stuff out there, not to brag to see what I can do, but for people who know what they are doing to point out ways I can improve. I have came along way in my year on PN and many thanks are given to the community for the help. Besides, I look at who the ratings come from, a 5/5 from someone I respect means much more than a 6/6 or 7/7 from a random person.

 

I was just hoping with a rating category then people who would be interested in what I am attempting to do would take time to consider it. And like you said, it works two ways, it also keeps people from wasting thier time on stuff they don't want to see.

 

ah, I guess we never have to agree with the ratings, just live with them.

 

Sometimes it's just good to know i'm not the only one having these frustrations.

 

thanks

cg

I'm sure this has been brought up in the past, but I was gnawing on 3/3's I've

recieved recently and in the past. And I thought about this, when/if I choose

just to rate photos and see one in a genre I do not care for I skip without

rating. I don't want to rate something I'm not familiar with. Not all do

this, that could be why the 3/3 bandits exist. This is theory, just go with

it.

 

Suggestion is this, when you select "Rate" you get to choose a category. If

you like nature photo, or more specifically insects, choose to rate insects.

Because we know people look at insects and say "it's another dumb insect, *

click 3/3*" This keeps people from rating stuff they don't want to see

anyways, be it nudity or birds.

 

just my 2 cents.

cg

I never knew I could convert "Save for web" as jpg. Thanks, I'll try that as well...seem as though I may need to reupload many many photos.

 

Thanks!

Emre, Thanks, I'll try that.

 

Mike, I know my setup isn't the best at the moment, I'm just concerned about the difference in quality that PN shows. I'm using "Save for Web" and the default for the D50 is sRGB IIa. I do not change anything in PS.

 

Thanks!

This has been nagging at me for a while, so I thought I would ask. There are

some photos that I love and seem good and sharp. When I upload them to PN,

either as JPG, straight from camera, or GIF from editing, I notice that there

is some loss of quality. They seem just a hair fuzzier. I recently pulled

identical photos up, one on PN, one on windows explorer and I could tell a

slight difference. Subtle loss of sharpness.

 

Could part of it be a sizing issue? Any clues to what may help here?

 

btw, I shoot a D50, with my attempts at macro I use a 4-5.6 70-300mm with a

1.4X. I shoot pretty bright daylight with fill flash. I am able to use

shutter speeds of 400-500 when lightly cloudy and 1000 when bright. I use a

monopod for stablility and flexiblity. I know I could improve things with a

tripod, but thats not the issue at the moment.

 

Ok,

I think I revealed everything I needed to.

 

Thanks for the help

cg

When I post a vertical photo it is very large (I have a large

monitor set to high res) and I must scroll to see the whole thing.

When I resize it and repost it, it is the same size on screen in

addition to distortion.

 

How should I go about posting a vertical photo without it being so

large?

Guy,

You said exactly what I was thinking. I think by technique I was refering to the technical side that you mentioned. It does not make sense to have 2 subjective categories. I guess that is why the same photo can be littered with 3/3's and 6/6's (and sometimes in equal ratios). We do need a objective category, what ever it may be labeled. To me, that would be more beneficial as a learning novice than if someone is telling me how original I am.

 

cg

Misha, this is what I posted on your photo... "Yes, I think this photo would qualify as original (Atleast for me). I've not seen a photo like this before, though I have seen some of other productions. What stands out to me, and seperates this from other photos of similar substance, is what is happening within the photo. The colors, lights and motion that is occuring really make this eye catching."

I think your overall style is original. You are one of the very few people whose photos I can recognize almost immediately.

 

Brian, "Is this a photo that anybody with average technique, a bit of effort, ... So you can think of "Originality" as an amalgam of "cleverness", "difficulty", "impact",..."

 

I think this is a wonderful take on originality. Trouble is, the work that goes behind the photo is misunderstood by many. Not only from people who don't understand what is going on, but from one genre to the next. I guess orignality is broad in meaning, but narrow in understanding.

 

"Originality is obviously not in the eye of the beholder. Should we have a rating dimension that depends so much on the experience, contextual knowledge, background, and interests of the viewer? But can't we ask the same about Aesthetics? "

 

There is no easy answer is there?

 

Peter and Ben, You'll never find a system to satisfy everyone nor meet all the needs of photographers...unfortunately.

 

Thanks all for contributing. Gives me something to think about. And who knows, maybe the elves are watching... cg

Subject: Technique replacing originality?

 

Good or bad, here's an idea.

In the overall scheme of PN there are some incredible original

photos. But that is the minority. The Majority, I'm including myself

here, is recreating. Many times I do something completely new, which

is easy because I havn't done this a long time. To me, a photo may

be original, but not according to the large scale of photos here on

PN.

 

Certain types of photography doesn't require that edge of being

original. A picture of a songbird or in insect doesn't have to be

completely original to be good. True, professional photographers

want thier photos to have some sort of originality to them to make

them marketable. But are professionals all that PN caters to?

 

Most raters, if they are going to give a 6 in asthetics will also

give a 6 in originality. Even though the photo is not original at

all. I have done this, I have recieved these ratings. Sometimes

there is a 1 or 2 number discrepancy. For example A5, O6 or A7 O5.

But they rarely get more skewed than that. It is still not a

accurate reflection of the orignality of the photo. Now, what got me

thinking about this is the fact that I did get a "true" rating. On a

photo of a Sandpiper, I recieved a A7, O3. He/she liked my photo but

knew it wasn't original. I accept that, I was erked because that

does not fall with in the 2 point skewing system. But, the guy was

honest. For me, who had just moved from a P&S to a dSLR, this was a

monumental step in my photos.

 

This also makes the people who see "another bird picture" (wheres

the boobs man?) to automatically rate it to 3/3 because he/she

doesn't like seeing birds.

 

I suggest Merging Originality to Asthetics. Part of the "feel" of

the photograph should also include how original the photo is. The

other critiquing category should be Technique. How well is the photo

composed, focused, color, etc etc etc.

 

Thoughts, Ideas, Comments? cg

Once again, thanks. You have still cleared up more question marks for me. Now I know the 1.5 is a crop factor, always thought it was a multiplier.

I would like to thank everyone for thier responses. Answers a few questions for me. I'm upgrading from an N75 and was wondering whether I should keep my 28-80, or spend the extra cash and get the 18-55.

 

Thanks, your help will aid in my decision.

cg

I want to thank everyone for responding to my question. I will undoubtedly get the 5t and 6t. I was planning on it anyway, just wanted to justify the extra $$.

 

Thanks!

cg

Nikon's 5t and 6t closeup lens is 2 element, other lenses are 1

element. Now I know there is a huge price difference ~50 $ as

compared to about ~15 $. I know the 2 element are going to be

better, but are they <i>that</i> much better?

 

</p>

thanks

cg

Nikon says the 18-55 is designed for digital (could this be to

negate the 1.5 multiplier?). My first question is, Is there going to

be a difference in Image Quality between the new 18-55 and my old 28-

80?

I have a similar question along the same lines. They say the 18-55 is designed for digital (could this be to negate the 1.5 multiplier?). My main question is, Is there going to be a difference in Image Quality?

When I rarely rate photos in the rate recent photos, is if I see a photo I don't particularly like, I skip it. Technically it might be ok, but I don't want to skew the rating b/c I don't like it.

 

Others, just rate it low.

 

something, unfortunately, we just have to deal with.