bruce levy

I've tried to upload photos three times in the past 1 1/2 hours via email with

Picasa. I've always done it this way in the past. None of the photo are

showing up and I haven't received an answer from the administration when I

emailed about it. Is there a long time lag in the evening. When I uploaded

during the day they appeared within a few minutes.

Jeffrey and John, for me, your two posts pretty much covers what I feel to be the truth about the situation. Thanks.

Mike, I've followed your ratings explanations for a while. While they may be generally true, they are specifically not. It is true that there is a spate of first and quick ratings of 3/3. Your "real time" testing of this theory doesn't really prove anything. It's noble of you to try to track down the problem, but it's being done with tunnel vision. You suggest sending examples to abuse@photo.net, which I have, and am still awaiting results. Maybe it's happened to me because many of my shots are nudes and we have a fundamentalist or two doing the ratings- who the hell knows? However, your statistics does not negate "my lying eyes".

Are you feeding the paper with the single feed by pushing until there is a stop where the feed then takes the paper? If you just load it until it reaches the bottom of the feed that won't do it. You need to push it further until there's a definite "stop" and the feed grabs it and aligns it. I haven't had a problem with mine.

Actually, looking back at the responses I see a wealth of good answers to your question, dispersed with valid criticism. If you can't glean the answer you were looking for within the above posts, you will remain the same person who asked the original question.

In addition to the valuable advice above, if you don't get to work with a pro, to wake you up in relation to what you now think of the "biz" you'll continue to not have a clue. Walking in for a job with your present portfolio would be a waste of your and the photographer's time, and your present attitude will undoubtedly eliminate you before you even get started. The first step is to do enough research for you to see that you don't know anything about the "biz", and your present take on the matter has nothing to do with reality. The second step is to get to a place where you can see that your work is lacking, and correct that on your own. You'll only one chance to see any specific photographer, don't screw it up.

A short answer, that's only true sometimes: When I do a shoot the prep takes most of the time. Once I start shooting it goes pretty quick. I recently did a CD shoot. We had previously met at the location, walked around, shot some tests and left. We spoke a few times. Once we were at the set to shoot each shot took approximately 10-20 min. to cover it's possibilities. We did about 4 or 5 scenes and the whole shoot took less than an hour (an intense hour- because that's how I shoot). If it's a very complex scene that's a completely different story. We did shots on location and we knew where we were going with it. The more prep, the less shoot time is necessary-ideally. The real trick is to develop the report between photographer and subject quickly. If you take too much time, because you weren't prepared, it's eventually like beating a dead horse. The energy's gone and report is a lost cause. Know what you both want out of the shoot.

Call some cd art directors and tell them your situation and question. They won't want to give you a high quote, because often they are the ones who hire the photographer, but ask what is the lowest and highest paid for photographic work on a national cd and go from there. I'd ask several AD so you can cull the bull shit answers.

Juha and Leszek...good points. But the larger something becomes, the harder and slower it is to move, if it moves at all.

"What I find strange is that some people think everyone should give the same rating to a particular photo."

 

That's a "straw man" argument that doesn't do justice the the above questions.

Exactly which "biz" are you trying to break into?

And no, not "to everyone". Perhaps only to those that threaten their image of themselves.

Or, paraphrasing the Dixie Chicks, just shut up and keep shooting.

I guess it's just a waste of time to even discuss it.

But yes, overall, this is a distraction from the positive aims of the site, I would guess.

Hi Mike,

As absurd as it may seem. perhaps your sample is not being taken at an ideal time. Slime mold needs darkness to propagate. Wait until there is a lull in 3/3 complaints, maybe a month from now, or when there is not an active thread pertaining to this. Go through the newly posted shots that YOU think are really good. Observe the earliest ratings that appear on these. Also, be sure to include in the sample some shots that might push the envelope for your rank and file members (nudes, really innovative stuff etc).

Also, I can't see what valid objection one would have to non-anonymous ratings. It might cut down on the overall "number" of ratings, but eventually a new equilibrium would be reached. I would guess it would also be more conducive to helpful criticism, and just generally and naturally cull the schmucks from the ranks.

Tim, Mike, We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally don't care about your "samples", or "re-samples" etc. I've seen what I've seen. Your "slice of life" examples actually prove nothing, but dream on. It's like taking a flashlight into the basement and aiming it in a corner where rat droppings have continually been found. Every day you go there with the flash light and shine it in the same spot and say "You see, you are all imagining this. You must be crazy. I've been here every day for a week and haven't seen one rat. I've proven you just have this baseless fear of rats". Well, thank you, you've certainly cured me.

And, no, they aren't removed from pn, except in rare circumstances.

My friend, while there may be a variety of people who give 3/3's, the person or persons who sweeps through and rates 3/3 within the first few minutes of a posted photograph is a singularity that you are ignoring. You may not be aware of it, but many of us are as we watch it happen in real time. So please, if you feel the need to be an apologist for these schmucks, go right ahead.

It's common sense that the people who sweep through and rate virtually all the shots 3/3 are going to diminish significantly if their name is connected. No one wants to show themselves to be mindless schmucks that anonymous ratings allow. One doesn't even need the critique. I think knowing who they are would be significant, for no other reason then we can judge if it's coming from a place of knowledge and understanding, or if it's just coming from a schmuck.

I don't advocate removal of the rating system. The main purpose of ratings as I see it is increased visibility to induce constructive advice. Would requiring a critique or non-anonymous ratings change anything? I don't know. If 4/4 was the lowest you could give without requiring a critique, I'd guess the 3/3 schmucks would just move up to 4/4. It's a vicious circle.

I partially agree John. Knowledgeable advice is one thing, someone sweeping through rating everything 3/3 or 4/4 is completely different. If they really do know what the hell they're talking about, one would hope they would validate their opinion with a useful critique. Any idiot can press 3/3, and often does.

The Josh Bell experiment:

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_04/011101.php

The 3/3 schmucks have gotten so much criticism lately, they are transmuting into the new and improved 4/4 schmucks. That will allow them to sleep better at night. All you need is a "troll immunity pill", and some useful criticism from people who know what the hell they're talking about, and the discrimination to know the difference.

Josh Bell, one of the world's top violinists recently did an experiment where he played in a train station with an open case at his feet with a few coins dropped in. In like an hour or two of playing, three people stopped for a significant amount of time, only one recognized him. The rest didn't have a clue. What does that tell you as far as society and art?

Hey Chip. You'd be surprised at the difference in gas exchange between what happens with a broad flat relatively closed surface (edges sealed) and the exchange allowed from open edges between support and mat. You won't be getting much degradation from the print itself, but rather from the board (archival or not) adhesive, or plastic corners or hinges. The more open, the better (within reason). But, you know, "archival" is still pretty variable and open to discussion. Things we called "archival" ten or fifteen years ago, we would never do today. That's why "relative" reversibility is as important as archival materials. Also, the tests that are done even today on materials are suspect themselves. Putting materials in a 100 degree oven for a certain amount of time only approximates "some" of the degradation, but doesn't really replicate "time" and different kinds of exposure. But it's the best we presently have.