bruce levy

It's working a bit better now.

Hi Josh,

 

The last few days, and since the format change, I'm having problems with very slow page loading, or they don't load at all.

And he quite obviously has a portfolio, and you well know it.

That's a straw man Lex, and you know it. I'm surprised.

Dan, we're comin after ya.

That's why I say one can never know one's true motivation. But you can sure as hell make an educated guess.

No, Lex, it's perfectly possible that he does not find that particular photo of a nude woman especially original or aesthetically pleasing?

 

Also possible:

 

Perhaps because it occurred during the conversation, and because he's so facile with dogmatic critcism yet has a pretty unremarkable portfolio in light that his icon shows he has so much to say.

This was during our discussion here incidentally.

Hi Lori,

 

We all have to develop calluses. Ken's even messing with me.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=10089294

Frequently the rating show more about the rater than the ratee. I advise closely examining a rater's work to see if their views holds any water. There are a some bitter people who alleviate their own inadequacies at other people's expenses. Luckily these people are in the vast minority. One can always file an abuse claim with the moderators, they do their job admirably, but one can't regulate opinion infallibly in a place like this. One obviously can't be sure what a person's motivation is. I have been contacted in the past by moderators who explained that changes have been made to ratings based on their examinations.

You don't get my meaning at all. What I meant is there are a small number of people who use the rating system to assuage their own mediocrity and lack of talent. Your interpretation of my statement makes your judgment quite suspect.

Lori, and while there is a whole spectrum of tastes that one can't objectively judge, there are also some "little" vindictive, talentless and envious people who will diminish others to puff themselves up and demean others. It's just like the real world.

We're all human. I received a low rating on a shot that over the years made me a substantial amount of money and has been shown in some fairly prestigious shows, and that I like personally. So I went to their portfolio and thought the best way to even things up would be to find their best shot and give it a HIGH rating (one of course that would be justified) rather than a low rating to be vindictive. I would do this for ME, not for them. But as I said, I usually don't give a rating if it doesn't show some potential. Well, even though there were many shots, I couldn't find one I would rate as above mediocre, so I didn't rate any.

 

Ratings (giving them) can often be the refuge for the "little" person.

Well, now you have Ken's pronouncement. Who can ask for more?

Here's an example of what one can expect from ratings. Notice the spread from members and then the spread from everyone together. Yes, it's frustrating sometimes but one has to choose between critiques that can expand one's talents or ratings that will either puff you up or crush you.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=10089294

All of the above, while at the same time, there has been some cases of some people (in the past) who just sweep through and give lousy ratings based on their misguided aesthetic. If you put up 5 shots at once and get bunch of 6/6's and higher, but you also get the 3/3 each time, you just have to accept that it COULD be the person's taste, and it also COULD be that the person is a schmuck with camera envy. I pretty much look at what "member's" ratings and comments are and discount the rest, even if they're 7's. Even more, the ratings don't mean squat. What can you do with them? The critique's the thing (even though I still do rate occasionally- I'm only human- and I like to encourage so I don't rate shots I feel are low on the scale).

Sorry, that's kraft paper.

Or craft paper.

They call the typical paper butcher paper. Though it doesn't come in contact with the print "package", it's highly acidic lignin paper. When I line I use an alpha cellulose paper. One can use any paper theoretically as long as it expands and contracts. When I was a framer many moons ago we would dampen the butcher paper and adhere it to the frame. When it was dry it would be drum tight. I suppose one could leave small un-adhered spaces when you glue the paper on. Sort of like vents. But I'm still not sure if it would be over-kill. Maybe Lex has a thought.

Jeff, you must be talking about paper on the back of wooden or composite frames. I would think the amount of space between the glass and the frame (though you can't see it), as well as relative porosity of lining paper and typical frame irregularities would allow enough circulation. But it's a good question. Assuming one is using good materials I would guess the potential harm would be negligible.

People generally don't value what they don't pay for. It's just human nature.

Thanks Lex. My bad.

Wikipedia: The byline on a newspaper or magazine article gives the name, and often the position, of the writer of the article. It's a photo credit we're talking about, IMO.

Patrick, that's pretty much how I would go also.

One more suggestion: regardless of what you're told by framers, do not allow the edges of the "package" to be sealed or taped before framing. "Real time" has shown that trapping any acidity or other degradation products in a sealed package accelerates any deterioration. While it's useful to shield framed prints from environmental pollutants, it's also good to allow the print, support and matting to breath.

Just for the semantics, you're talking about "credit" not byline. Byline is something else completely.