bdpics

I've been seeing the same thing for 5 days or so.

Hi Brian. For me, it would be most helpful for when I'm searching through the TRP pages. When I go to the TRP pages, I like to sort by a variety of ways (i.e. RR av, RR sum, Photog av, etc.) There are usually 1,000+ images that come up, and it would be nice to see the middle or end of the sort without having to hit the "next" button 20-30 times. To me, some of the more interesting pics are to be found in the middle or towards the end of the sort.

 

Thanks!

 

Bret D

It would be really nice if in page views on PN we had the ability to

select the page number we wanted rather than having to hit

the "next" button 20-30 times..... I know Google and other websites

offer this i.e. page 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-next. Or, just the ability to

enter the page number we want. Not only would it be more convenient

for us, but it would cut down on bandwith usage no?

Illka,

 

Thanks for your thorough and interesting post. I have just a few comments:

 

I too do not fully understand the process by which lens are rated at Photodo.com, and I also agree that MTF charts alone do not fully account for a len's "image quality," (for example, there are conflicting opinions on whether or not bokeh is accurately reflected in MTF charts). But I can say that from my personal experiences and discussions with friends and other photographers that for the most part the Photodo ratings are reflective of real world experiences comparing the different lenses. Also, if you go to the Photozone.de website, they clearly explain how their individual lens ratings are determined. It's worth noting that in the majority of instances where MF and AF lenses of similar focal length and aperature are compared, the MF lenses are rated higher (as they are on the Photodo.com website)

 

It would be most interesting to see someone thoroughly test and compare the lenses with actual controlled tests and results that we could all see. Even Bjorn Rorslett fully admits that his reviews are subjective--though clearly he has substantial real-world experince with using these lenses. Further complicating the issue is the fact that everyone's ideal of bokeh, contrast, etc., likely do not agree.

 

It's interesting that the original topic of build quality has now transgressed into a discussion on optical/image quality. IMHO, this is inevitable in large part because there really is no disputing the fact the build quality of the MF Nikkors was superior (and in many cases FAR superior) to the build quality of the AF Nikkors. I think the topic reverts to discussing optical/image quality because we're pretty much resigned to the fact that the build quality of today's Nikkors leaves a lot to be desired, and we placate ourselves by saying, "well, yes, the newer Nikkors ARE plasticky and cheap feeling, but at least the image quality is better." And I think that is the great myth--that AF lenses are optically better. I believe that in a few specific instances (i.e. 70-200VR) that the AF lenses are the same or even better, but that on the whole the MF lenses are clearly better-built AND often have the same or better optical quality.

 

To me the question we should asking is, "why can't we have good or improved optical quality AND solid build quality???" I'd really like to see some numbers on what it would take (the extra cost of manufacture) to build say the AF 85mm 1.8 with a metal lens body, metal filter threads, and metal heliocoils. $20 more? $30? $100?? As I said before, if it's reasonable (and I really believe it is) I'd gladly pay for a Nikkor "Pro-series" of lenses that had better build-quality, and I think many others would too. I also don't buy the argument that plastic heliocoils and lens bodies are required for AF lenses--the real weight that could conceivably damage or wear out AF motors is in the optics/glass, not the non-moving parts like heliocoils, filter threads, and lens bodies.

 

Personally, I think what really drives the inferior build quality today is price-point and profit margin, along with some built-in obsolescence for good measure. I do commend Nikon for continuing to offer their 5 year warranty on all of their lenses, but I really think they're forgetting/sacrificing one of the keys to their sucess--the high resale value of Nikkor lenses. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to be trying to sell a 8 year old DX lens and hope to get even a fraction of it's original sales price.

I don't at all agree with your assertion that "...the majority of AF lenses in each category (price range) produce better image quality on the test stand than the old ones." Go to the Photodo.com website and look at the MTF charts--in the vast majority of cases the MF primes (and even many zooms...) test better than the equivilent AF primes.

 

I also disagree that the main problem with AF lenses is that they aren't AF-S: given the current build quality of these lenses I don't place a whole lot of confidence in the quality of the AFS internal focusing motors--seems like another cost and built-in obsolescence issue to me. I'd rather replace one AF motor in my camera than have to worry about 6-10 individual AFS motors in all my lenses. Of course if you really NEED AF-S, then you need it, but most people don't (how DID we ever take photos before AFS and VR????)

 

I shouldn't have to buy Leica to get good build quality, and if Nikon, Cannon, et al really think that, then they're going to be in for a BIG surprise when prosumer's lenses start falling apart 3-4 years after purchase or after the first time they drop one. The photo forums have numerous threads on people dropping their kit or DX lens and hearing rattling inside and discovering the lens is now toast. I've dropped several of my MF lenses over the years, and NEVER had a problem beyond a blemish to the finish. I think it's DISGRACEFUL for Nikkor to sell "pro-quality" lenses like the 17-55, 70-200VR, etc. with plastic filter threads!!

 

Yes, weight is an issue for some people--witness those who will spend $500 on a carbon fibre tripod to save 2 lbs.....but the cheaper build quality these days has NOTHING to do with consumer wants (i.e. please build us lighter lenses...) and EVERYTHING to do with maximizing profit and (they think) market share. A developer will tell you that he's selling smaller lots because people don't want to care for large lawns, but this is little more than a feeble attempt to hide the fact that he makes a ton more money selling smaller lots.

 

Plastic construction in lenses/bodies and "foreign" assembly plants (Thailand, China) are utilized to lower costs and increase profits. Personally, I don't mind that they do this, but I wish that they would give us a choice between junky plastic and quality-built lenses--I think they'd be surprised!!

Didn't know I needed to be so specific....LOL

 

What I meant is why are there "robots" that prowl and rate PN?? What's the point? Who's behind ratings robots? Are these just hackers trying to create mischief?

 

BD

"Lighter materials DOES NOT mean inferior build quality. A Leica 90mm Summiwhatever is not better built than a Nikkor 85 1.4 AFD just becoz one is 'all-metal' and the other is a combo of metal & plastic. Formula 1 cars today are made from carbon fibre, but are much faster & SAFER than the metal cars from the 60's!"

 

Yes and no. The real marketing dilemma for Nikon is suggesting that plastic is just as good, while at the same time pointing out that the thousands of dollars difference in price between entry level and pro bodies and lenses is "build quality," and of course the pro stuff all has MORE metal and LESS plastic.....

 

Also, as to the car analogy, cars today are safer because of technology NOT because of building materials!! Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, etc could all be easily incorporated into the older "heavy metal" cars and make them just as safe if not safer. If the argument is that reduced weight=reduced mass=reduced damage, then witness the proliferation of the SUV's based in large part upon the premise that larger, heavier, and better-built is more survivable. Would you rather have the vinyl-sheathed fiberglass-tubed rear bumper off of a 2005 Chevy Impala, or the steel and chrome rear bumber off of a 1960 Impala??

 

Manufacturers will always hype weight as the main reason for the use of polymers, but the fact is that plastic is cheaper--period.

Build quality has been a big issue for me too with the newer lenses. In fact, I skipped right over the 80's-90's Nikon autofocus bodies precisely because of the cheap, plasticky feel of the AF nikkors vs the MF Nikkors. I now own a D70, but would never give up my trusty FM2's.

 

That being said, I still don't like the plasticky feel of the AF Nikkors--with obvious exceptions like the 80-200 2.8, etc. The new DX lenses REALLY feel cheap, and I think Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for the $1,200 price tag on the plastic "G" series 12-24 Nikkor.

 

I personally plan to buy as few DX lenses as I can, and indeed the only area I'll use them in is the superwide angle lenses because of the 1.5 crop factor. Many of my friends are running out and buying the DX lenses, and I'm always stunned at the difference in build quality as compared to my MF Nikkors. At the end of the day I guess image quality is what really counts, but A) I don't think the DX or AF lenses are any better (and somtime worse--go to Photodo.com and look at the MTF charts) than the MF Nikkors, and B) they're certainly much more fragile.

 

To me, this is the key question--why? The answer of course is that the plastic lense barrels and even plastic lens mounts (YUCK!) are cheaper than using metal, but how much cheaper? Magnesium and Aluminum are readily available, durable, and inexpensive. I don't know about everybody else, but I'd GLADLY pay the extra 10-$20 real cost difference to have metal lenses vs plastic lenses anyday!

 

I think the older Nikkors are way better built, and in many cases better optically as well. Even Nikon admits that the only real advantage to the DX lenses are size and weight, and then the ability to fulfill the 8-20mm range not covered by the digital crop factor.

 

BD

I've had a Nikonos IV and a V. While they are really wonderful pieces of equipment, I would strongly urge you to go digital instead!!

 

Underwater photography is IMMENSELY difficult! Just dealing with the diving aspects (neutral buoyancy, currents, air supply, etc.) are really hard--add to that lighting, moving subjects, and the expense of the dives, and it's hands down the toughest photography I've ever done!

 

That being said, it is also very rewarding, and after you get over the steep learning curve, you can get some good, even great shots! I strongly recommend digital because seeing the image on your screen while still there underwater makes a HUGE difference in getting good shots. I used to shoot 36 exp rolls with my Nikonos V, and I'd be lucky to get 1-3 decent shots--whereas with digital at least 50% are keepers. Half the battle is positioning your strobe correctly, and with digital you can compose the image, take the shot, and then see the image on the screen to know right away if you need to make adjustments or not.

 

The other huge disadvantage to the film UW cameras is that they are rangefinders, which means A) you have to guess at the focus distance (not easy to do underwater) and B) no autofocus.

 

The other big advantage to a P&S digital for underwater is the ability to use the large LED screen to compose the image instead of trying to squint through the finder with a mask on!

 

I wound up getting an Olympus C-5050 ($500) with the Olympus UW housing ($150). The housing is rated to 130' and functions very well. Similar housings for DSLR's and SLR's start at $1,000. It's been two years since I got my digital setup, and I've used it all over the world with no problems. Having now used digital, there's NO WAY I would ever use film underwater again. If you'd like to see some of my images, you can go to my pbase gallery: www.pbase.com/nonprophet and go to my undewater gallery.

 

Good luck!!

 

BD

I too have heard a lot about the robots, but don't really understand who's behind them and/or who benefits from them??

Nic, my request has absolutely nothing to do with my photographer's average, mate-rating, etc. If I had posted the images to be mate-rated, then why weren't there any mate rates present before you went and rated my images??

 

What my request IS about is the fact that a photo.net member took it upon himself to go my gallery and rate and comment on all of my images, including the majority of which that I have never "publicly released" into the critique forum.

 

Further, this person's actions were only taken AFTER we'd had a conflict, and I believe they were meant to be malicious/retaliatory and I'd like to not have to look this person's comments in MY workspace--it's really just that simple.

Knicki you're right in a sense. Truth be told, if someone had "invaded" my gallery and rated everything 6's and 7's and left comments like "Wow, these are the best photos I've ever seen," I likely would not be complaining (I wouldn't believe them-but I wouldn't complain!!) LOL But there are two real issues here.

 

1. People shouldn't be allowed to venge-comment our galleries and force us to pester the admin to change it. A "good" stalker/abuser will never blatantly attack somebody--they will instead appear to be innocuous and harmless, all the while proclaiming their innocence and seeking empathy in order to further taunt their victims....

 

2. I'd like to leave some images in my portfolio that are just for those who take the time to view my various folders instead of running them through the rate-recent gauntlet. I guess I see it as rate-recent images are for mass-viewing while images I DON'T request a rating for are more private as they are in "my workspace."

Brian, if you are considering a hide/delete function for gallery comments (and I hope you are) perhaps the "thin-skinned photographer warning" could simply occur at the time a new critique is going to be posted "...this gallery owner has deleted 'X' comments from their critique section."

 

One other aspect of this is that I think there is a differnce between images put forth on PN for critique/review and those that are not.

 

In my case for 2/3's of my images I did NOT request feedback, and yet two individuals now have taken it upon themselves to enter my gallery and post unwanted comments/ratings. At the very least should we not be able to have some control over images that we did not seek comment on?

An earlier thread like this was deleted because it turned personal--

I'd very much appreciate it if posters to this thread (including

myself!!) would stick to the topic...

 

I think that we should be able to delete unwanted comments from our

galleries/images. While I can understand that being able to delete

ratings would skew the ratings process, comments are not weighted in

any ratings scheme. My gallery is my "personal workspace" and I

feel that I should have the ability to delete or hide comments from

people that I deem inappropriate and/or that are unwanted.

 

In my case, I've had a conflict with a Photo.net member who then

decided to rate and comment upon my entire gallery, even though I

did not request a public critique for most of my images.

In my opinion, the comments are intended to be "jabs" at me--even

though to some they may appear innocuous (other PN members have

written to me to complain about similar "behavior" by this

individual).

 

Regardless of the validity/tone of the comments and ratings, it

seems to make sense that we be able to hide/delete comments we deem

innappropriate. For example, certain images may provoke unwanted

controversey (i.e. political, nudes, etc.) and I have seen many

instances of unwanted flirting and self-promotion ("hey, that's a

nice shot, check out mine at www.feedmyego.com....") contained in

the comments section of people's galleries. Surely it's easier for

us to hide/delete these unwanted comments ourselves than to have to

go running to the administrators every time.....FWIW, the other two

photography sites that I post my images to allow this to be done.

 

Thanks,

 

Bret D

Take a chill-pill Johnathon!! Absolutely NO need to use profanity and personally attack people who express an opinion that you don't happen to agree with!!

 

My understanding of internet advertising is that sites make money when their members USE the ads--NOT when they just look at them.....which is why I suggested an ad sponsors page instead of annoying pop-up ads/banners.

 

As I said, I'm still in process of deciding if I want to join Photo.net or not--rude, childish posts like yours certainly don't have me reaching for my checkbook if that is the level of discourse that is tolerated here.....

 

In the past year, I've joined a variety of other photography websites, with varying degrees of satisfaction. $25 here, $50 there, and it starts to add up. Before I fork over any more money, I've decided to be bit more careful with who I support. I for one, don't like being blasted with unwanted ads, and that's a consideration for me--so are "flame-forums" where people apparently delight in blasting/attacking people just for sport.....

 

BD

As a "newbie" still trying to decide whether or not to become a member, I must say that I HATE being forced to watch ads!!! There are NUMEROUS free forums/websites on the net that don't charge me anything, much less force me to watch ads!!

 

I know bandwith costs money, and I don't mind supporting all the hard work and effort that goes in to making a site like this work--but I REALLY resent having annoying, slow-loading pop-up ads that FORCE ME to look at them/click through to see what I want!! Further, according to Bob Atkins, I'm violating the user agreement for the Photo.net site if I use an ad-blocker??? I've NEVER heard of anything like this in 15+ years of avid internet usage......

 

I do buy a fair ammount of photo equipment and supplies, and I'd be HAPPY to use Photo.net as a portal to reach those sites before placing an order so as to provide Photo.net a revenue stream. If you had a "sponsors link page" I'd be happy to help out by using those links as I stated above. But if the SOP here at Photo.net is "you're going to look at these ads whether you like it or not,AND we expect you to pay us to look at these ads" then I'll just find someplace else to go.

 

Soory if I sound pissy, but I'm really just SICK and TIRED of being blasted with ads, and spyware, and tracking cookies, and telemarketers, and junkmail, and.......

 

Bret D

I think this too is a great idea to have our names hidden (temporarily) while in the rate-recent que--this will go a long way towards eliminating those mate/venge raters who currently abuse the anon ratings.........

I think it's a great idea, provided the the folks who choose favorites A) have images posted here themselves, and B) there are NO anonymous postings!!!

Brian,

 

While I agree with your statment:

 

"We can't tell which photos really belong in the show, if lots of people give out 6's and 7's like candy for the little kids on Halloween."

 

I also don't think that promoting the anon-ratings (which obviously skew the numbers far lower than known-ratings) is the answer!! Perhaps some folks who feel as you do are intentionally abusing the anon-ratings in an effort to bring down the ratings to be more in line with where they think they should be, but I would argue that this is NOT the way to accomplish that, at least not without creating a lot of bad will amongst users and members. I have the following sggestions as to how this could be accomplished.

 

I think a scale of 1-10 would work much better than the current 1-7 scale. If 5 is the median point for rating, average photos would receive a 5. This still leaves a wider range both above and below average for rating. I personally have a hard time choosing between 6 and 7 for many images, and would appreciate a wider range of rating options. I also think that rating over a wider scale would help in only letting the truly outstanding images rise to the top.

 

As for your statement:

 

"For me the main problem on this site is that people rate too high, and that tends to render the rating system less useful for its only reasonable purpose, which is to select the fewer than 5% or so of photos that are going to be exhibited prominently on the site."

 

If that is really the sole purpose of the ratings system (and I think a lot of users/members would disagree with that...) then wouldn't the popularity (number of unique/individual views) of an image be a more accurate and less problematic way to accomplish this? Given that the nudes would dominate (as they already do) then it would seem that the top (most popular) 20 or 30 images from each category could then make up the TRP gallery.

 

Another option would be to choose at random 10 or 20 members each week ( a "virtual jury" if you will) who would then be the only one's allowed to rate that week. This could be done either anonymously or not. It would still allow for rating, and the randomness of "jury selection would eliminate (or at least severely limit) mate/venge-raters.

 

Just my thoughts....

 

BD

I agree with everyone else here--the anon ratings really stink! I think they do nothing to prevent abuse, and indeed I think the encourage it!

 

If the "benefit" to anon ratings is supposedly more objective/realistic ratings (yet ripe for abuse by venge/mate-raters) vs non-anon ratings that are supposedly inflated because of fear of bruised ego's/venge-rating (yet at least transparent when it comes to who is saying what) then I'll take the latter any day!!!

I agree with Maria! I don't see how anon ratings stop mate-rating or vindictive-rating at all--indeed I think remaining "hidden" actually ENCOURAGES this bad behavior!! PN users are smart enough to see if Bob, Sarah, Kent, et al ALWAYS rate Jim's photo's highly--at least we could if we could see who was rating the images.......same thing for those who venge-rate........

Hi! I'm a new member basically giving Photo.net a trial to see how I like it. So far, I am very impressed with the quality of work here and I look forward to learning and contributing.

 

In scanning the forums, it seems like there is a lot of controversey surrounding the ratings system. While I can understand the desire for some folks to remain anonymous in order to give a more free opionion, I don't agree at all that anonymous ratings diminish the pathetic actions of those who would engage in mate-rating or vengence-rating--in fact quite the opposite!

 

While there is no doubt that different people will judge an image accordimg to their own tastes, it's very interesting to me to see that the anonymous ratings are overall substantially lower than member's ratings. I'm sure there are many explanations for this, i.e. if you're using the rate recent feature and you've just seen your 5th bird or flower image in a row (because in rate-recent you can't choose the order of the images), the uniqueness of an individual image gets lost in the shuffle. One could also make the argument that anonymous ratings are lower because people feel that they can say what they really feel without fear of hurting someone's feelings and/or retribution. Compounding the problem is the sheer volume of images for rating. That being said, I must say that I really don't like the anonymous ratings, for several reasons.

 

Looking back to photograhy school, peer review was no doubt the single most powerful tool in making me a better photographer. Once a week we would have a 5 hour critique, with about 40 or so students. In the beginning, it was difficult for some people to either accept or give an honest critique. But as the year progressed, we developed a sense of community that allowed us to be open and honest. Sure, there were some folks who always said good things about their friend's work or who had an obvious axe to grind against someone who they didn't like (for personal and/retrinutive reasons) but most of the students were very astute in those situations, and would value the comments accordingly.

 

I guess that what I'm saying is that in a sense Photo.net is a similar community. Yes, there will always be those who will mate-rate, and sadly there will always be a few who will let their bruised ego's alter their sense of fairness and objectivity and compel them to vindictive-rate. But at least when people can't hide behind the mask of anonymity, the Photo.net community can collectively view the behavior of the few bad apples and discount their ratings and critiques accordingly.

 

I know from having been involved with other forums that there are ways to eliminate (or at least severely limit) those people who would set up fake accounts just to bolster their own ratings and/or to attack their perceived enemies. Limiting registraion to ISP-based email and utilizing ISP/ISDN address filters can be utilized to thwart these efforts--similarly there are other filters and software available.

 

In conclusion, I think the anonymous ratings must go. Not only do they skew the ratings, but they are ripe for abuse and fraud. Also, using the anonymous ratings to compile the TRP gallery seems highly problematic. I stand proudly behind each and every rating I've given. If a photographer wanted to view my work in order to formulate some opinion as to the value of my rating/critique, I would encourage that. I would also be happy to discuss my rating with any photographer that had questions regarding the rating/critique that I gave one of their images. There have been some who have suggested that only paying members be allowed to rate/critique, but I think that this a bad idea--I welcome critiques from all sources--though I do think that only people who have galleries here should be allowed to comment as opposed to the public at large. Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion, and I look forward to my experiences here on photo.net.