tboehrer

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

No. You won't lose the data.

Why not mix Critque Only and normal photo's in the same queue? As a Critique Only photo is displayed, the rating radio buttons simply aren't displayed. This way, Critique Only photo's get similar exposure.

I would imagine there are plently of digital photographers who choose not to edit their images beyond what can be done with film.

 

Digital or film, there already is a checkbox that indicates whether an image is manipulated. Why can't we have a gallery for viewing only unmanipulated images?

"We all have dreams. But in order to make dreams come into reality, it takes an awful lot of determination, dedication, self-discipline, and effort." - Jesse Owens

 

Sorry for my simplistic answer. But you're 20 (21?). You have time. Hang in there. Just consider how much effort photographers had to make prior to the Internet and 8 bazillion books.

Actually, a little reading solves the mystery...<p>

 

On http://www.photo.net/photo/2637918, Lars writes:<p>

<i>Oleg, you couldnt know this, but Martin shot that photo right after I shot this one, he used my lens and camera for it. And if you look closer, the 2 shots are not the same! We were on a phototrip together :-) </i>

Primarily, the "visited" color (purple) will remain until the browser decides it doesn't need to remember it. For example, my settings are to keep history for 20 days. So after 20 days (on my browser), those purple links will start turning blue again.

 

However...

 

I've been in the computer field for too many years to mention. Sometimes I don't get the pattern either. There are plently of times where I know for a fact I've visited a link, yet it stays blue.

 

The long and short is these colors are visual clues to let you know you've already gone there. Most of the time they are correct. Other times not.

I assume you are talking about the link text? If so, one color is visited (you've clicked on it), and the other not. On my browser, purple is visited. You can change that... or not.

I have doubts that any image, by itself, could change my philosophical outlook on anything. At most, it would increase awareness, possibly causing me to reason through the issue.<p>

 

Martin Patek-Strutsky wrote:<br>

<i>Today it is almost impossible to be directly affected by any picture circulated by the mass media. Instead everyone asks to what degree pictures might be staged or pre selected and for whom the underlying message might be advantageous.</i><p>

 

Exactly. In this day and age of being blitzed by images of all sorts, from marketing to propoganda to politics, many times without me knowing the agenda behind it, I find it impossible to take most images at face value.<p>

 

That's not to say the image above doesn't have some emotional impact. But I would be remiss to let an emotional response (alone) change my philosophy.

I'm new to this site, and photography, but I have a couple thoughts on this issue.

 

I actually find some use in the ratings, even though I wish I knew why they were made. But on the other hand, I want a fair rating... even if the photo is average (or worse). That is, I would suspect many people wouldn't rate badly for fear of being "revenged", or from discouraging the photographer.

 

However, I almost always mentally adjust the rating by eliminating scores outside the median... if most scores are 5/5, I would eliminate the random low and high score.

 

As other people have noted, the validy of a rating is questionable. I don't even know the validity of my own ratings. Specifically, the originality score is problematic. As a new photographer, it's dang near impossible for me to judge the originality. After all... much apppears original to me... ;-)

 

Overall... I like the idea of having to comment if you rate. Especially if it's a low rating. I also don't see why the site couldn't automatically remove lowest and highest... like some rating systems for sports do (ice skating for example).

 

There should also be a way to weight the scores. A rating from someone who's been a member for a long time and has rated a lot of photographs should count more than a rating from someone like me.