klimax

<p>I thought they were swell shots. But I don't see what the photog has to say. All I see are images whose context I don't understand. I needed to go read the articles in last week's Economist to get <a href="http://economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6744226&subject=France">the story</a>.

 

<p>What I do see is lots of pictures of well-armed and well-armoured protected police, some of them smashing unarmed kids. I also see young people marching, some dressed up funny, some smashing stuff, and some burning stuff.

 

People get the government they deserve.

I think you want to find out not only the strict legal limits and rights but also the conventions. Would you piss people off just because you have the right to do so?

 

I was in a park outside Toronto last weekend and I photographed some teenagers. They objected and I went on my way, taking photos of other people. I don't think the teens who were complaining had any rights or expectation of privacy. At the same time I had no interest in pissing them off further.

 

Photographing around schoolyards is another sensitive issue. I had a conversation with an acquaintence who had been an elementary school principal in TOronto. She said that they taught kids to be alert to anybody taking their photographs. As soon as she got any such reports, she would run out with her camera and take photos of the photographer. She said it always worked; they always left immediately.

For any member (e.g., Brian Mottershead),

click: photos rated highest by this member

select Period: Last 6 months

click: Search

 

Result:

Gallery | Browse Photos Rated by Brian Mottershead

HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 27 Feb

2006 02:50:23 GMT Server: AOLserver/4.0 Content-Type: text/html

Content-Length: 540 Connection: close

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this

server.

 

AOLserver/4.0 on http://www.photo.net

Fabulous work, Andy.

 

By the way, have you seen these fight shots by <a href="http://www.bulgergallery.com/dynamic/fr_artist.asp?ArtistID=78 ">Pete Doherty</a>?

 

I met him last summer and gave him your name.

Over time, fewer people will have had experience with Tri-X and so fewer people will remember what feeling they are supposed to have when they see those spots.

 

Also, over time, people using digital will discover new visual metaphors that go beyond coarse grain. Gabriele, I hope that you will put your imagination to work and become one of those discoverers.

Lurking from a suburb west of Toronto. Shooting with digital Nikon and Pentax, Contax film. I follow and admire Ray . Eric ~ Andy K and other street-shooters.

Bruno,

The majority of photos I see here are taken by skilled photographers. However, judging by the non-titles and

silly titles, they're sure not skilled with words. In

fact, many times I see titles that are nothing more than

silly puns on pop-culture associations.

 

I think you're right about photographers passing up the

opportunity to create images with more impact. Ben S,

for example, does a very nice job of commenting his

portraits and elevating them.

 

Who wrote this rule about images needing to stand on their

own? I see lots of images here that do have a powerful emotional component... including yours. So in practice I think many

images do quite well standing alone.

There is endless grumbling about unfair mate-ratings and what not. Also lots of grumbling about unjustified 3's and 4's. So if this crew of 1- and 2-rating reviewers has so much time on their hands that they're taking time out of their busy lives to bless all the 1's and 2's, perhaps they should also review the 3's, 4's, 6's, and 7's.

 

And as for me? I'm sure everybody would be better off if I just kept my opinions to myself because ultimately I'm sure that nobody would give an ounce of dog poop for my opinions.

Have 1- and 2-ratings been deleted? The 1- and 2-ratings

that I received on my images have disappeared. And I'm

unable to find any other images with 1's and 2's.

<p>The bots already do a job preventing lowball ratings from appearing. (But they don't prevent highball ratings.) I tried an experiment on this photo:</p>

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3023151

<p>It had these ratings already:

<p>Aesth Orig Ratings<br>

3 3 1<br>

4 4 4<br>

5 5 2<br>

</p>

<p>Here is what happened when I tried lowball ratings:<br>

1/1 disallowed<br>

2/2 disallowed<br>

2/3 disallowed<br>

3/2 disallowed <br>

3/3 allowed</p>

<p>

And my highball rating:<br>

7/7 allowed<br>

 

</p>

<i>how in the heck is a 7 further away from a 4 than a 6?</i>

 

These ratings are ordinal scale, which by definition means they are invariant only under monotonic transformations. Subtraction is inappropriate in this scale of data.

 

OK. Are we now completely off topic?

It's back. Thank you, Brian.

Wonderful shots. Well done. My best wishes for your brother.

Timothy, I was looking at your BMX photos. Which type of person do you suppose is in a better position to comment on them: (1) A photographer who is clueless about BMX, (2) A BMXer who is clueless about photography? I suggest to you that both of these types of people could offer you constructive ideas. In fact, you might even get constructive ideas from non-BMXer non-photographers!

 

Alternately, you could ask people to send you comments only if

they are qualified BMX rider-photographers who photograph freestyle non-competitive BMX riders in outdoor (skate?) parks under bright sunlit conditions. On Tuesday afternoons, or whatever. You get the point.

Sure, I'll do it.

Thank you, Z.

Brainbubba:

I disagree. Compare Avijit's "Kids" (row 5, column 2) with

Bruno Trematore's

http://www.photo.net/photo/2889389

(rated Aesthetics: 5.40/7 Originality: 5.53/7)

 

And Compare Avijit's "Dog" (row 4, column 4) with Edmo's

http://www.photo.net/photo/2608903

(rated Aesthetics: 5.43/7 Originality: 5.29/7)

 

And take a long close look at Suchitra's "Boys" and

put yourself in her place. What do you see?

<p>There is a documentary film opening today entitled, "Born into

Brothels". The filmmakers lived in India off and on for 6 years,

documenting life in a red-light district. At one point the filmmaker

decided to give the children cameras and this became the theme of the

film.

 

<p>Some of the resulting photos are street photography at its most

engaging. You can see a selection at:

<a href="http://kids-with-cameras.org/purchaseprints/">http://kids-

with-cameras.org/purchaseprints/</a>

I've wondered about this issue myself. I notice that there are significant numbers of people whose first language is not English.

 

Perhaps the simplest and most helpful thing we can do to help

the International Community is to write more directly, and to use fewer cliches and less slang. This helps not only those using machine translation but also those who are not totally fluent in English.

Charlene, I don't understand the "syntax" or flower shots so I don't rate them or comment on them. But I liked your puppy with snow on his nose--very cute--and I like your water jug too.

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your comment at the top of the page. I thought you were saying that one of the books was yours.

Which of the dozen books on the powerhousebooks.com page is yours?

Which one is your book?

<p>Even in the face of anonymous low ratings, those who post have a variety of other inputs to find comfort in; to mitigate your reaction to the viewers' reactions.

 

<ul>

<li>The number of views indicates how many people found the thumbnail interesting enough to look at the whole image

<li>The number of ratings (high or low) relative to the number of views indicates how many people you reached

<li>The number of extreme ratings (1, 2, 3, 6, or 7) indicates how many people felt strongly about the photo

<li>The average rating means something, of course

<li>The number of people who made any kind of comment

<li>The number of people who made a comment which went beyond a restatement of their rating

</ul>