a. a.

I still get the following:

Problem with Your Input

We had a problem processing your entry:

There was a problem with the database

Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.

How about whoever that wrote the critiques add a link to the page of the member here so others can view them as well...just in case they were interested?

This can make this tread a bit more interactive maybe.

Cheers

M.H.

I like the idea very much. I'll try to do it as often as I could....which I doubt it would be more than once a week.

Best of luck.

Cheers

M.H.

Brian

"hallucination or fabrication" ?!

You must be kidding me. I wrote what I observed more than once and even tried it right before mentioning it here.

Using an offensive mockery language is really unnecessary.

"I suppose M.H. thinks that somehow someone is observing his/her 6/6 ratings and is jumping in instantly and down-rating the photos. That is just flat-out stupid. Sorry to be blunt. Or maybe M.H. thinks that the site has singled him/her out and is running a robot to cancel his/her 6/6 ratings by creating bogus 3/3 ratings. Or maybe he/she thinks the "site" has predetermined how photos should be rated and compensates automatically for any ratings that are

out-of-line."

I doubt it that you are sorry for being blunt!

Your understanding of how "my" reasoning probably have worked is kind of childish really. "Someone"? Or a "robot"?!

It's really easy to write a short program to do this and the benefits for photo.net would be to get closer to that bell effect of the ratings that you always talk about and ballooning the quantity of the received ratings. It might show more activity in site or I don?t know what else.

Now I didn't say you "did" that, but I did "observe" what I wrote....

Hey if you want to write the program just let me know and I'll do it for you!

(I know the old programming though so it would be in Turbo Pascal or even Cobol but you can use the idea to create your evil machine!)

First of all, I noticed this matter 2-3 of days ago....so the fact that you check my old rating really is not necessary.

Last night before I write that feedback here, I did cut and paste the total of the ratings of my last rate as well.

(Because I knew you'll bring numeric examples to mock me. You always do that Brian to everybody and I bet enjoy it).

It was given to the last image of Bruno .

Now the average seems not important here but for sure the quantity of the rating is wrong.

28 ratings, Aesthetics: 5.71/7 Originality: 5.75/7 (Before my rating)

30 ratings, Aesthetics: 5.73/7 Originality: 5.77/7 (Right after my rating)

I don't believe the photos was in pick time because after another few hours it still shows the same 30 ratings.

http://www.photo.net/photo/4316114

Just to be clear, I tend to like Bruno's work and I often rate his images if I come across one. I don't think he has ever rated any of my images and yet I assume the "evil machine" counted it as a "frequently receiver of ratings from M.H." so added an additional rate to mine...not sure good or bad. But it did.

I think it happened in the following image too:

http://www.photo.net/photo/4322382

Cheers to you people.

M.H.

PS: Brian please do not shove the idea that if more people think one way or the other I have to follow it to. People should stay individual or they'll project a sheep mentality. I give any photo that I like 6/6 or 7/7 and any one that don't 3/3 . What others have given to the image has no effect on my ratings.

PS II: You said "I can invent facts to contradict his/her

"observations", people will say. So why even bother?"....are you suggesting that since this is a "private" site and "you" are managing persona of it, then there is no use to even challenge the matters?! Very funny! A wrong attitude really.

PS III: The times that you've mentioned really mean nothing. If a software is written to correct a rating by additional ratings, it's very easy to create a delay in "recording" of the additional ratings or create a fabricated time really. Again I don't say you've done it but it's easily doable. What kind of benefit "I" would have of fabricating the "observation"?! I am a member here and would like the site to actually do "good".

Ratings don't mean much. You shouldn't care about them.

However I've noticed that sometimes when I rate an image (directly) 6/6 or even 5/5 that image gets one or two more ratings (usually lower) instantly !

It's like photo.net has implemented a software to correct my ratings!...so for example if I like the images by Mr. X and usually rate them, the system probably assumes that I am a mate rater and add one or two additional rates to them to balance it out (based on a curve probably which would be flawed mathematically as well as based on algorithm (sp?) ).

I think I noticed the phenomena couple of days ago. I rated a photo 6/6 and it had only 14 ratings...but as soon I submitted my rating, it had 17 instead of 15 and the additions were two 4/4 ratings anonymously. So I tried it with another photo of the same person and it happened again....so from now on I either should stop rating Mr. X photos or poor guy actually will get a lower average and wonders why!

To be sure I just tried it again and it happened again...but this time after my voting it does show that the images has got "two new ratings" instead of "one new rating" but it doesn't show the amount of the extra rating even as anonymously . So the software is getting improved.

If this happen to be the case here (which sadly I think it is) then photo.net assumes, it knows the best and even its software has better understandings of the quality of the images than an actual viewer...that means not only the received ratings are useless but also giving ratings out as well. (for photographer the least to say.)

Do you think government does that in their voting system too?

"Well, we assume that majority of the votes in Florida should be republican so let's for every democrat vote add one or two automatic republican votes as well!" ...probably!?

I hope that I am wrong....I don't see how I could be.

Chad

You have to remember who rates here....whoever with an email address!

Majority of people are not experts of photography and its history to be able to judge correctly the technique, aesthetic or even originality...they easily misundersatand the intentions of the photographer.

...and that is fine...because anybody can have an opinion...most of museums, art publications etc (thankfully) were not based of popular demands either or we were ending up with pretty sorry excuses for art.

I'm not sure if the name of the ratings would matter at all....90% of people will rate based on:

"How much I like the Photo" 3-7 (which includes subject matter)

and

"How much I like the photographer who took the photo" 3-7 (which includes self prophecy for the photographer/subject matter as well)

If they don't know the photographer then the first one determines the ratings of both and if they know the photographer the second one make the call for both ratings!

That's why ratings are mostly just a tool for the site...and nothing more. A way of getting feedback but not necessarily a deep one....fast food style critique.

I do appreciate your passion for bettering the site. I think any positive idea is worth mentioning.

Cheers

M.H.

PS: Just wondering...do you consider the following photo original?

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00FiNO&photo_id=4242662&photo_sel_index=0

I would choose the first one as travel (if it somehow has special characteristics of the local/place) and the second one as street. If it had more graphical elements then abstract could've been a very good choice.

Cheers

Misha

Hello Brian

Thank you for the previous responses.

I just looked at the top 48 photos of 3 days rate recent average and 39 of them are either have landscape format (framing) or square (3-4 shots) .

It's a pretty high percentage in my opinion.

Do you think it's normal or it has happened because the horizontal images get less effected by the new system of exhibiting them?

I don't know if it has been the same in past or not but most likely not.

Cheers

M.H.

PS: Personally I don't mind additional tasteful adds here and there if it helps that you keep the site running successfully while trying to achieve higher qualities in every aspect of site. Of course I know my idea might not be a popular one but might be a good compromise for this and similar situations. Better quality over quantity.

Sylvie

I think many images have small details which are part of the compositional elements as well as the thought behind the shot.

In case of close up shots, portrait and similar shots the presented quality/size might not matter much but when the environment or details are important matters of the image then the small size hurt them greatly. Thank you for the feedback.

Brian

As I have mentioned on top I have no problem with the speed or the quantity of ratings.

I also understand that this site needs business to stay alive so by all means please feel free to do any tricks that you need to so you and site be successful financially. I actually advertise for the site between many other photographers so you can get more active members.

But this is a photography site and if people are going to rate images, the quality of the presentation matter. I just saw an image of a snowy mountain in RR and was going to give it a normal rate for originality but then there was a small dark dot at the right hand corner bottom of the image...after opening it I saw a person climbing it which adds much to the image...I wonder how many people will miss that just by the original presentation. Let's say no body, but I am sure this effects many other images. Forget ratings...I hardly can enjoy viewing such little images. Just an opinion of course.

The original question simply was if there is a way to compromise in the size of shown images in RR with speed of presenting them?

Thank you for the feedback.

Cheers

M.H.

I like the quantity of the received ratings.

I don't mind lower ratings either.

But I think I really can't judge the quality of the photos based

what we see in the RR.

Specially for the photos which have details...it would be unfair of

me to judge them and rate them like that.

And if I click on the image and see its larger version then it's

defeating the purpose of the new system which is speed and higher

quantity of rating.

Eventually people will start post small size images so they won't

get hurt in the RR because of automatic resizing them...then even

clicking on them wouldn't help much because we'll see the same size

image or a bit larger.

Is their a way of compromise here...keeping the speed but viewing a

little larger size images in the RR?

Cheers

M.H.

I understand your point and respect it.

So I went and looked at your portfolio for the very first time.

I find it calming and relaxing but that's about it. (a personal opinion of course).

Here is honesty for you...I don't think I have rated a single shot of yours (didn't check really...but can't remember) but if today I was going to rate all of your 152 photos I would have given at least 10 of them 2/2 (or 2/3 or 3/2) and another 30-35 of them 3/3, around 30-40 of them 4/4 (or the combinations of 3 or 5) the rest mostly combination of 5/5 (or the combinations with 4 and 6) and around 10 of them 6/6 . Not a single one was 7/7 to me while I am sure many of them are 7/7 to you, and other viewers. That brings the average of your work (in my opinion) to around 4.25-4.4 . That's above average but not great.

Which is not really bad but since everybody here is so spoiled with 7/7 they think it's bad. Think of it like this...if you had a portfolio with close to 6 average (real average in a fantasy world!), most of national publications should be trying to fight with each other to commission you for their projects. That is just one way for looking at it of course. A true artist wouldn't care for the approval of the publications either...he/she is doing the art because she/he can't stop herself/himself.

Opinions are different. Even if you have a few people out there who give you 3/3 just for fun (or automatically )there is nothing you can do nor you should be worried about.

If there is a fake member who does it, then site will find it eventually and if not then, that was an opinion. A numeric opinion. If they want they can add a critique to it or not. It's a matter of choice. If a critique wants to discuss your shot then of course you can defend it if you choose to do so...but again it's a matter of choice.

Art is not a voting matter or 80% of them were not in the museums today!

You do nice photography, so enjoy what you are doing and forget the ratings. Life will be more fun for you. Try entering your work into few competitions. It's more real, fun and the reward is deeper.

I invite you to go to my portfolio and give a series of 3/3 (or lower if you think they'll be active one day) to all the shots of mine that you find in your opinion desrving of such ratings. I would actually appreciate it.

The good thing is that I have all kinds of photos so always somebody can find something to hate! :)

Cheers

M.H.

Will

Nick is right.

In my case they usually mean that my photo is working and is not just another standard shot. It makes statement and create emotion...like or dislike:

Sample (I like it a lot personally): (They are interests from two publications to publish the whole series too.)

(with 7 ratings of 3/3 and 7 rating of 4/4)

21 ratings, Aesthetics: 4.00/7 Originality: 3.95/7

http://www.photo.net/photo/4154747

Another Sample from the same series:

22 ratings, Aesthetics: 4.09/7 Originality: 4.00/7

http://www.photo.net/photo/4154763

Now I almost hate the following image: (good for technical experimentation though)

16 ratings, Aesthetics: 5.19/7 Originality: 5.00/7

http://www.photo.net/photo/4156054

So the ratings, sadly tend to push you towards being average and stop thinking out of box and understanding art and trying new things.

Well I prefer to be my own person and not accept votes for the direction that I want to take in photography/art.

Ratings are only good for exposure but at what price?! So I try to keep a balance...once in a while I post a crowd pleaser so few people check out my folders and maybe leave feedbacks on other shots as well and the rest of time, doing my own thing.

Cheers

M.H.

It's a mixture of anybody and everybody.

I think 80-90% of members do digital photography here and 60-80% of them use digital enhancements as well. So if that's the case with you, you'll find yourself at home too.

I don't think anybody is out there to get you.

Just enjoy your work...post, write critiques and don't bother to look at your ratings...(if you got low ones).

Best of luck.

M.H.

Wonderful addition!

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ERDc

Cheers

M.H.

This was what I suggested 2-3 months ago:

(if intersted read the whole thing it might make sense to you):

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ERDc

Cheers

M.H.

I agree with Bob regarding un-manipulated images.

For film photographers, if you scan the image, you simply can try to recreate the quality of your "on hand " print, negative or slide in the digital format.

That should be a good enough measurements for it...have a look at your print and a look at monitor if they look the same then the image is un-manipulated. You might need to sharpen the the scan result, clean the dust or darken/lighten the image a bit, correct the colors (if the scanner is hot, cold, old, new etc. those all effect the result), but once the result is close to the original then you have it. Anything beyond that, is manipulation in my opinion.

How often do we see models/babies with plastic like skins or older people with leather or cardboard effect skins while their eyes are so sharpened that seems like laser rays coming through them? They look more like animation.

Of course it's a personal sentiment of mine and I would understand and respect people who disagree with it.

Cheers

M.H.

To put it bluntly, I think It cheapens the site a bit.

Jerry's idea is great.

It can keep everybody happy while site can get its exposure as well if photographers decided to use the e-card option.

Cheers

M.H.

I like the idea.

It can be a small book with only few of hundred photos...so the costs stays low (while testing the water) so if it turned out to be a success then it can be a semi annunal thing.

Around hundred photographers, around 300-400 shots...half a page bio of each photographer.

Photos need to be chosen from the posted images on the Photo.net during certain period of time (so it makes sense for marketing).

This will motivate photographers to post their best works on the site in future as well.

I think you can ask photographers if they are willing to submit their work free of charge.(At least for the first edition).

For model release form as long as photographers can submit the signed form with a copy of the picture ID of models, there shouldn't be any problem. (at least not towards the publishing company and Photo.net).

Book can have a theme or few chapters...from street photography to Fashion to Nature, Abstract and fine art etc.

I think it would be worth the hassle to create something special like this.

Cheers

M.H.

Jeff

I think as a moderator, it would be nicer to approach any matter with a rather more civil manner. ("kindergarten level" ?)

(Are you a moderator anyway? Then the name is on it.)

Personal attacks are really unnecessary !

As I remember sometime ago, the subject came up in a different topic and Brian said something in the effect that whoever posts his images on the site (photo.net) knows that his images can be used in different parts of the site...otherwise site needs to get permission for every photo being appeared in many rating charts that we have here as well as photo of the week or portfolio of the week.

For example do you guys get permission from the photographer for choosing his/her photo as the photo of the week? Do you simply assume it's ok because it's a positive matter? The site uses those photos as an actual advertising tool which should be more serious than what I tried to do for the above images. Therefore I think then maybe site needs to get those permissions as well.

The images above are posted in the critique forum (requesting for critique) from current members of the site.

A link also is created to the original image as well the name of author and their title.

It's not like that I have posted an image taken by somebody out of the site who hasn't asked for critique from other members of this site.

All being said it's very easy to get a written permission from the photographers every time . Is that good enough? I can do that.

This supposed to be a positive thing...not negative.

Cheers

M.H.

Very interesting analogy.

Cheers

M.H.

Renan by Fl?o Sganzerla.

http://www.photo.net/photo/4019796<div></div>

Barry

I don't know. It just felt right to bring attention to a very a good image which is going to be buried under many other images.

Jeff

My understanding of that sentence is that if I post an image in "my portfolio", I need to own the copy rights and have taken the shot.

Discussing and bringing attention to somebody else's image (with crediting them) when they have already posted the image for critique in the forum is no different than what Photo.net does in the first page with Photo of the Week or portfolio of the week (is it?) .

Thank you for the note.

Cheers

M.H.

I just though to post this.

Just an opinion of course! :)

http://www.photo.net/photo/4054117&size=lg<div></div>