howard_foto

I started a theme project not long ago. doesn't matter what that was but I got no further than a portion of one session and one pic before I got bored with it. unless you're young or a student, life is too short, and the world is too glorious for me to limit myself to one theme for longer than one session. in whatever I photograph that interests me from session to session I try to hone and grow my personal style so that the images I select to show others will communicate my intent and the image's "meaning".

<p>"<I>There are many reasons, philosophical and commercial, why <b>we use a popular rating system</b> (rather than, for example, a panel of "experts") <b>to determine which photos are going to be prominently displayed on the site</b>.</I>"

 

<p>does the site's editor-in-chief honestly believe that the popular rating system would be <b>less fun and less meaningful to users, and generate less subscription revenue</b> if that system did not <b>exclusively</b> determine which photos are to be most prominently displayed on the site? specifically, does he truly believe that if the most prominent display of photos were at times random or rotated or specially-featured or whatever, but users still could actively opt to select <b>the</b> view of highest rated images, or perhaps a personally customized view, that site participation clicks would suffer, and that site subscriptions would ebb in growth or decline as a result?

let the celebrations begin!<div></div>

<p>"<i>if you remove the act of criticism from the demotion of an image, than people would be more likely to ignore comments they felt weren't helpful.</i>"

<p>not sure I agree. it's gotten to the point that even non-abusive comments get removed upon request. and this occurs without rating the image! yet, one reads that some who receive a low rating resent it when it is not accompanied with a comment to explain it! seems that the combination of a low rating and a non-abusive comment is "acceptable" but the very same comment without the rating can be removed as "abuse". note that by "abuse" I mean comments aimed at the person, and not the image. strange small town world, this PN!

<p>"<I>...keep suggesting tweaks in the hope that some of the ideas will be implemented.</I>"

<p>basically, NT, I agree. my point was that until the TRP reaches the critical rotting point that the site's editor-in-chief thinks then it would be more advantageous to offer alternative or rotating views of images sorted by whatever rationale would be instructive to photographers, members, subscribers, and other site users, then that will be the day we will see any of these kinds of changes. not that I'm saying that we ought to encourage or abet the absurdity of the TRP games and its practitioners, but...

<p>"<I>An "ordered" highest TRP actually works against the very principle and clumps all the best into a little club.</I>"

<p>no denying that, PG, except I wouldn't call any of it, or they, "the best" here or elsewhere. here's a reality check: the best is out there in the real world, not here (at least not yet). but I doubt your other premise that the TRP can be used in that way to reap financial gain since what goes on is quite transparent and embarrassingly humiliating just a click or two into an image page. btw, PG, you never answered my query as to why you weren't embarrassed to have that poorly manipulated dahlia pic so highly over-rated. you know, the second pic you asked to have my non-praising comment(s) expunged. hmmm? so guess what? when what you preach (comments-wise, since I don't rate) gets practiced on you then it's a different story, huh?

<p>but there's a more salient truth at work here. the editor-in-chief has already stated, albeit <b>in effect</b>, that the current TRP system is solidly entrenched because he fears that to tamper with it would have a profoundly negative impact on subscriptions and their renewals. that's because he firmly believes that TRPs are the "holy grail" of PN; what every photog no matter how good or not can aspire to if they play the game to win. why does he feel this way? here, competition is fun, interactive, full of role-play, and addicting. remember, actions speak louder than words. or, in his case, <b>inaction</b> speaks loudest. and oh, yeah, none of this is rocket science.

<p>"<I>I'd be happy to add a "Landscapes" category to the Nature forum...</I>"

<p>the landscape, or depicting the natural land, as an art genre became attractive due to the exotic appeal of what most humans could not hope to personally observe during their lifetimes. in many photo circles today, landscapes as a category excludes man-made elements, so in many ways it is a close cousin to the "nature" category. so why not simply rename that forum "Nature and Landscape Photography"?

<p>"<I>a very sad period in the evolution of the gallery on photo.net.</I>"<p>on the contrary. the sooner it worsens to the point of univeral embarrassment the sooner we will see change. I'm content to simply let the TRP fish head rot (while holding my nose) until, per force, action gets taken.

but Joe, that's where many part company about this. the quality of the TRP stinks to high heck and mainly as a result of M-R practices. this is what I have observed (the TRP getting steadily worse and worse) in the three weeks I've participated here. for me, I'm content to simply let the fish head rot (while holding my nose) until, per force, action gets taken.

RV, can you elaborate more about why a landscape forum would be useful since there also exists a travel photography forum and medium & large format camera forums (in addition to nature photography)? let's see, the essentials to do good landscapes, aside from basics of equipment use and composition, are access (travel) and lighting (morning & evening). beyond that it's really a matter of doing it and printing it, and there already exist plenty of forums covering all that. perhaps a forum for "static/found subject photography" might encompass landscapes, architecture, and the like.

another thing that PS doesn't do is directly convert color images to b/w via custom color filters that can be applied especially directly to selections and layers. PS has workarounds via the channel mixer and hue/saturation, and these work but crudely. One effective and useful plug-in available to download free is this one called "virtualPhotographer" that addresses b/w conversions, color/tonal adjustments, adding grain, and more:

 

<p>http://www.optikvervelabs.com/default.asp

as of this morning there were 3,099,000 images total uploaded, an increase by 2,893,000 in the past 36 months; that is an average of 80,360 uploaded monthly, 18,540 per week, and 2,650 daily. but figure that this trend has accelerated from the daily upload of 450-500 three years ago, so that the daily figure now is likely close to 4,000 per day.

"...<i>I'm just gonna continue bringing him down to earth until PN gets wise or he sees the light.</i>"

 

<p>otherwise I have no problem with your approach. mine is similar but has more to do with critiquing off the forums, and with no one in particular as friend or not.

<p>but be honest, if one of the mate-raters you detest had uploaded that type of inanely manipulated pic of yours to high ratings you'd have been all over it with criticism, no? I know that if I had uploaded a pic like that and got embarrassingly high rates for it, I would have deleted it fast to get rid of the ratings stink.

<p>"<i>I prefer seeing things I don't recognize. It allows me to construct a much more interesting story.</i>"

 

<p>I dont' think that what Plachy meant was that we only photograph what we feel most comfortable seeing because we previously recognize it. surely she knew that creative photographers prefer to see new things and see old things anew. probably, by "recognition" she meant that we recognize what we train ourselves to observe (the seeing) and thereby realize what it is (the recognition) that we want to photograph. therefore, it is that process of "photographic observation" that creates the "recognition" of what a photographer "knows". indeed, haven't we all had moments, as photographers, of "'falling in love' at first sight" with what we are "observing"?

I give Mark credit for walking the walk. but should a "town bully" take credit for appropriating the term "town crier"? see <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AuXd" >this</a>. :-)))

"<i>But I'm not convinced that the reciprocity effect is really significant when the highest-rated photos have 50+ votes.</i>"

 

<p>could it be that when "mates" commence to rate an image highly that a high-visibility "bandwagon" effect takes hold with a synergistic reciprocity effect 50-100 ratings or more thereafter? I don't know much about all this since I do not rate photos or follow the TRP pages much. but I do know that one who comments contrary to the glad-handing crowd does so at one's own risk.

there is experienced wisdom in Aric's post, especially in the last two paragraphs. for me, there is a lot to be said for facilitating your subjects to speak for themselves through your photos, and for you to help convey or interpret what they are saying based on your feelings and direct experience in photographing them, all the while respecting what or who they are since they will be presented to a larger audience to comprehend. it is often that kind of interactive quality that separates pictures that "work" and those that do not. for me, the latter ones (of mine) simply do not see the light of day. the ones that especially do quite often reflect Aric's "working together" definition of "wow".

the starter of this thread appears to practice what he preaches. and I especially think that his statement... "Don't contradict and dismiss those that dare to offer an honest appraisal..."... should apply especially to many so-called "honest" critiquers who seem to go out of their way to contradict or demean the honestly given critiques provided by others who critique their own friends' photos. they know they you are. that practice only sends mixed messages, that while they support honest critique they take exception to it when it's applied to their friends or to photos they especially like.

<div></div>

<div></div>

now it seems that if a member writes to abuse they can have critical comment posts about an image deleted by that department. of course, I cannot prove this now since my comments were deleted, but this happened this morning before I logged in. prior to that, the photo poster kept changing the title and folder theme to make my comments seem disrespectfully abusive as to his intent. this was done by a photographer who apparently has now found "PN-religion" of rate-mating acceptance but who previously fought on the barricades against the mate-rating practices of others. btw, the deletions had nothing to do with my rating of it since I do not rate images. this was purely about critique, which specifically had to do with the penchant of photographers to "dress up" their photos with all manner of lyrical and rationalizing explanations in order to justify poor photographic or PS-process work and win the hearts and minds of other members to comment and rate the work highly. finally, good PN propriety prevents me from posting the links to these photos or identifying the photographer.

the lunar Chinese New Year begins Wednesday, February 9th<div></div>

<p>"<i>Couldn't we rotate the TRP so the first one offered for viewing is page 20, or 50, or wherever so many images languish never to be seen again?</i>"

 

<p>nope. the editor just explained that since ads are irrespective of what's displayed, then it's purely the click-traffic generated by non-logged-in viewers of said ads that means anything, coupled with the probable fact that it's the TRP page you now see upon first click that underpins a fun-to-participate-in rating system that generates the most membership subscriptions and renewals.

<p>"<i>Having crap on the default TRP must pay some bills, I suppose, but I'm not sure it serves the purpose of inspiring photographers to take better pictures...</i>"

 

<p>Marc G. raises a provocative point. it seems even the site's editor buys into the myth that advertisers care a hoot whether the primary TRP page <b>must always</b> be one that features the most popular images. I suppose in part that it's a matter of how this page gets marketed. I suppose that it's also a matter of encouraging users to aspire to have their images featured this way. and therein lies the essential problem that leads to all the other problems with the rating system. and I suspect that Marc really is darned sure that it does not serve "<i>the purpose of inspiring photographers to take better pictures...</i>," but rather that it encourages photographers to upload photos that others will appreciate most with their ratings votes.

...it is the challenge of the photographer to engage the viewer by letting the photograph speak for itself and evoke what it may. but it usually takes several photos on a theme or a body of work for the photographer to say something meaningful. aside from that, anyone with a semblance of writing talent can pluck a word from the lexicon, or harness words into paragraphs and profess that his or her photos "say" just about anything under the sun.

sure, some, perhaps a few, or one or two. but the lion's share of world class talent, established and emerging, has yet to touch this site or any similar one. and if they did, well, you'd know about it fast.