spaghetti_western

"...since virtually all those who know that have stopped posting the reasons why, the 7/7s win"...

 

theres no rule to say you must comment on them all cuz no one has the time to do that. just pick one everynow and then, say why that type of crap dont work, then ditto to rate whatever else is pretty much same

 

"...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"...

 

what you gonna do, for some, if it aint badassed street it just aint compelling

as i understand it the interested persons list is another way for photographers to attain visibility for their photos from friends and admirers of their work. each time one posts a new photo or comment (or rating?) their name shows up at the top of one's interested persons list. since there is no requirement that a photo need have requested critique in order for someone to rate it, then it follows that interested persons may become aware of new photo uploads of their friends or admired, and then proceed to post ratings on these new photos uploaded. does that make sense?

 

one sensible solution would be to require that a photo be requested for critique in order to appear on the most currently visible TRP page or pages, and perhaps no more than one photo by any single photographer appear on the very top of those pages in order to promote some semblance of variety of images and visibility to photographers

one begins to wonder if this is the kind of sneer-down-the-nose like attitude generally toward PN-life and PN members that is engendered by the so-called PICTURE THIS group of which poor young matt is a part

be careful what you wish for. you might consider slowly building up a community of like-minded subscribers (it is a subscriber only feature) who sincerely value critique (and not just useless 'nice going' comments) rather than inviting everyone to the party and thus spoil what might be a good thing

 

"no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded!" - Yogi Berra

from what i have read the site does not require the photo uploader to categorize a photo unless one requests a critique which by the way also is not required. neither does the site require the photo uploader to check the box if the photo is not manipulated but only asks that she/he not check it if in fact it is. so its likely that many non-manipulated photos go "unchecked" as such. part of the thinking goes that there are too many photos in the gallery archives that remain uncategorized and 'unchecked'

 

yet there is inconsistency even when it comes to the manipulation concept. for instance, why is it manipulation (to some purists) to apply saturation to a digital image in PS and not manipulation to apply it by using velvia 50 film to capture the same scene? the same question can be asked of simulating grain in digital compared to doing so with high iso b-w film. while some digital cameras can apply film-like effects to a captured image they can only do so with .jpg (and .tif?) but not 'raw' "digital negative" images, so why hamstring the digital photographer using PS on the manipulation question while the film photographer is given lots of room on this?

this discussion is humorous because how could any member "detect" if another were to submit ratings so quickly? now a script could do that, perhaps??

 

however, it is quite reasonable to determine how a member could submit to the site a number of ratings in quite rapid succession and with excessively due consideration of the quality of each of the photographs. it would be quite a simple matter and the method should be rather transparent to anyone who knows how to efficiently utilize windows. here's how:

 

suppose a member were to "shop around" for photos to rate. the intention could be anything from honest to nefarious. but let's assume it to be scrupulously honest for the point of this example. now, the member peruses from recent requests and/or among the many top rated pages and right-clicks on whichever photos suit his fancy. suppose the member clicks on 13 photos, and creates a separate window for each. he studies each one and in the ratings dialog enters the rating but does not immediately click "submit". he does this for all 13 photos. now, the member decides to "rank" the photos in his mind, and also decides that in doing so he wants to adjust some of the scores accordingly. then he systematically does so, again without clicking the "submit" button. finally, he determines that these are the ratings he finally will submit to the site. then, he clicks on each window and quickly clicks on the "submit rating" button, for all 13 photos in rapid order, and quite possibly in an average under 3 seconds apiece. this would be somewhat eccentric behavior, but it certainly would not be abusive

<b>and there are solutions to give critiques-only uploads a chance to actually receive real critiques, don't you think...?<p></b>

perhaps, like many solutions, this starts with Y-O-U to "find" these photos and give real critiques

<c><b>what do you think up there?</b></c><div></div>

and it's done: subscriber's critique requests / critiques-only

like I say I upload to my HD first then back up the raw and tif files I keep to CDs. the CF raw files get expunged almost daily. from the responses maybe this is one more advantage of a CF card over a microdrive (not wearing down the same sectors)? thanks - sw

recently I purchased a 1gb CF card for making RAW photos which are

12mb each, so about 84 to a card. however, in a typical day I might

shoot and 5-15 images which I always upload that night or by next

morning. but now I'm thinking that I will quickly wear down a portion

of this card's memory whilst the bulk of it gets unused (or does

memory space get randomly cycled in a CF card?).

 

so my main question is this: would it be better to purchase a

good/fast 256gb card to match my daily photo regimen and carry the

1gig card as backup and for when I shoot extensively all-day or on an

extended trip?

perhaps Brian should add "non-rated" as an accessible feature (with its own list) above the photo critique forum's "critique by category" heading list so that people interested in finding interesting no-rate photos to discuss or comment can do so. from this PN could develop a data baseline to determine how worthwhile is the no-rate request feature

six weeks ago I purchased one of the 8mp cams both for its operating characteristics and potential image quality via post processing to final print (typically, 11x14 to 12x18).

 

six weeks in and it has revived the photographer (whence only 3mm color slides) in me that was dormant for many years, but now with the finishing power of ps-cs in my toolkit. the camera?s tested raw mode power -- the capability to capture wide range tonality plus detail if used with correct technique -- was a definitive factor in my decision.

 

I now have a capture tool I carry everywhere all the time that provides maximum artistic versatility less some selective focus effects (oh well). for other uses, I can switch to lower res jpeg capture at will and automate processing for snap photos or whatever.

 

debates about higher quality capture remind me about past debates over higher fidelity stereo sound equipment. why pay ten times more (in cost, both in dollars, and more in lost opportunities) to gain perhaps ten degrees of bench test measure?