darius.tulbure

I`ve noticed today that I can`t rate any photo on photo.net. I mean, I can

rate it, but my rating isn`t "registered". Well, surprised and confused I`ve

browsed through all the photos posted on critique forum and, guess what?

<b>Not even a single picture had been rated!</b> What is happening? Maybe this

is happening because we hate so much this rating system! :))

This is the new version for my photo:<div></div>

Thank you all for your answers and comments. They really help me.<p>Yann and Michael, I understand your point, and actually I have this custom of leaving 5-6-7 comments after I post a photo. It is efficient... I mean, usually somebody leaves you a comment in return.<p>Thank you Walter for the tips, in the future post of this photo I`ll do my best to follow your advices.<p>Joe and Susan, you are both right: encouragement is very important as well as a negative critique is. They have to be in balance, because if you only receive positive critiques you might start thinking your work is perfect; in the same way, if you receive only negative critiques you might think your work worths nothing.<p>SP..., thank you for this thoughtful comment. No, I don`t think this photo is my best work. Not even close. It is just an experiment dare I say. Strange, I wanted first to include it in the Aesthetics of the Ugliness folder... I shall post more photos of this wreck. It is the wreck of the "Evanghelia" ship, which agrounded to the Black Sea`s shore and almost broke in two pieces 30-40 years ago and noone "saved" it yet. It is a desolate place. However, I love my "The Aesthetics of the Ugliness" folder and it represents me well, but it isn`t the only one I like. You saw that my work is very heterogamous. That`s because I`m still a beginner and therefore I feel like experimenting everything done and never done before!

Will King, are you talking about Julio Seguro Carmona?

Sorry, I wanted to say "ascent". I mean, how do we learn and grow as photographers?

I came out to ask myself this question because I see less and less

constructive critiques on PN. All I see is annonymous ratings and stupid

praising critiques like "nice shot". How do I/we evolute in these conditions?

You post a photo and you get an average rating and you just don`t know why,

because nobody bothers to leave a comment. <br>It is the case of one of my

photos, called <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=4821726&size=lg">"The Wreck"</a>. Could you please tell me what is

wrong with it? I really need some feed back from you. Thanks!<div></div>

Well, Brian, I think you`re right here! I have photos with ratings suspended since April for example!...<p>However, this system can be enhanced. Yes, they try to eliminate frauds, but I`m not sure how actively they do that. I think they do not have enough personnel to check every new member`s rating. If they did, everything would be more operative. <br>More than that, since I didn`t frauded the system not even a single time, why they still suspend some ratings on my photos? I`ll tell you why - because they <u>do not</u> know this kind of things! I relly do not think they verify facts like that. It would be a monstruosly hard job to do that! <p>One last thing to mention, <b>the ratings from the new members are ratings like any other member`s ratings</b>... I`ve got 3/3s and I`ve got 7/7s from the new members. For instance, on my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00HF9Q&photo_id=4665698&photo_sel_index=0">Red Sunset</a> photo, I have 4 ratings suspended. Without them I have 4,43/4,43 and with them I have 4,60/4,30. Not much difference, huh? So, why suspend them? Because they do not know a thing about the quality of these ratings. It is just so comfortable to suspend all the new member`s ratings and release them after a period of time... when anybody no longer cares about TRP.

Tim, you are invited to rate the picture directly! Did I said that the photo deserves 4/4 or 7/7? What bothers me is that due to the "censored" (I know it isn`t the best word) ratings, my photo didn`t reached the TRP, on the first page or on the last one - I didn`t mentioned. <p>However, 4/4 is your opinion and only the 7/7 and a 5/5 are censored. 6/7 was the first rating. Anyway, even without the 2 ratings, the photo has 5,25/5. However Tim, they are not suspect because are high - I have a bunch of pending ratings of 3/3 or 4/4... <p>John, I appreciate the time you spent to clear a bit the things up. Now I understand better what`s happening. You are right, maybe I`ve exagerated with my theory.

I really don`t understand a thing: why the ratings from the new members are

not counted in the overall averages and totals until the moderators have had

an opportunity to review them? I mean <b>when</b> is that? My <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4659275">Railway (sepia)</a>

photo didn`t make it to the TRP because of 2 "censored" anonymous ratings.

<br>How do the moderators review them? Aren`t they suppose to be anonymous for

all of us anyway? And then, if the moderators have the power to "see" the

persons which rated anonymously, how can they decide if the rating is good or

not?<p>I think this is just a way to forbid the photos which are rated by the

very new members (who can be your family and/or friends) to get in the TRP. Am

I wrong?

I want to see some yawns out here!<div></div>

Hope to see some horror pics out here...<div></div>

I`d like to see some rainy photos...<div></div>

<div></div>

Browsing through the Top Photos is very difficult since you

can`t "jump" from photo 30 let`s say to photo 1567... You have to

browse hundreds of pages with 10 photos each. It should have down

the option to jump to whatever page you wish directly. Take the

example from the Google search engine.

To Jamie Nicholson: Your photo is fine. Here we are talking about something else. Yours is a composite. Btw, try to have the birds mirroring in the water - the fact that they don`t do distracts me a lot.

 

To Will King: I basically agree with your oppinions. I`m really sad & upset too that lots o kitschy "digital blasphemy" like photos get so many high ratings and a good unmanipulated photo gets nothing. You know, the simple, unmanipulated photos are considered by many "critics" not interesting enough. For example, you need to make the clouds and sky red, pink or yellow to get high ratings for a lanscape photo... It`s just sad...

 

My point and my oppinion is: I like digital manipulation, I often use it, but I do not appreciate the "composites". It`s ok to alter an image captured by your camera as long as you state that is manipulated. As well, I think removing some "distracting" objects in a photo is ok. You can`t allways modify the reality, you know, so you have to do something about it, isnt`t it so?...

Now what am I saying here is that I use PS only to enhance a photo or make a painting-like picture from a real photo... Actually I use PS to make "composites" but I call that "graphic design", but I do not post such things on photo.net.

In conclusion, because I read some out of place comments about what manipulation means, we all should read again (I read it twice so far) the photo.net definition of what manipulation is and what it isn`t.<div></div>

This link is usefull as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

So... If aesthetic means beautiful, what about the expression which I didn`t invented myself, "the aesthetic of the uglyness"? This is a whole concept.

Anyway, the facial deformity is not real. I don`t know what can I say... At least is technically well-done dare I say. The picture is an self-portrait and it is called "Grotowskian Mask". That means, what I wanted with this picture is to create a LIVING MASK, as Grotowski used to do with his actors.

Viewing the ratings on photo.net I often come to the conclusion that

some people confound aesthetics with beauty... and they just can`t

conceive that something (apparently) ugly can be aesthetic... It`s

just very sad. Look on the top photos, Portraits category, for

example. My picture is among them... I hope. Anyways, I don`t think

is genius, but I feel insulted by the ratings particularly when I

see some very bad photos which are above mine.<div></div>

This is a thing about which I can`t state anything. Yes. I know what

overexposure is, but there are some cases when I just can`t say

about a photo "is overexposed" (partialy) or "no, it isn`t. It`s

just a white thing in it that make the pic look overexposed".

What makes the difference between overexposure and bright white?

Thanks.

Darius.<div></div>