gamitch

Yeah, I hope everyone knows what I meant :) I didn't notice it and when I made the second post I just copied the link. We need an edit button.

Let's try this again <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5731614">blue-yellow ploarizer </a>

A <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5731614.html">blue-yellow ploarizer</a> gives an interesting effect as well.

<div></div>

<div></div>

Would a some sort of filter solve the ratings issue?

 

For example, 5 to 10 ratings - lowest rating and highest rating is dropped, 10

to 20 ratings - lowest two and highest two ratings are dropped, 20 to 30 ratings

- lowest three and highest three ratings are dropped, and so on.

 

The debate over anonymous ratings may never be resolved, however, I like the

idea of showing ratings with that persons average rating value instead of the

name associated with the rating.

 

These suggestions combined may give more accurate value for the ratings by

removing the many unwarrented 3/3's and preventing some of those high ratings

that may occur due to "returning the favour".

<div></div>

The debate over anonymous ratings may never be resolved, however, I like the idea of showing ratings with that persons average rating value instead of the name associated with the rating.

 

There should also be some sort of filter placed on the rating system for example,

 

5 to 10 ratings - lowest rating and highest rating is dropped,

10 to 20 ratings - lowest two and highest two ratings are dropped,

so on, so on

 

These suggestions combined may give more accurate value for the ratings by removing the many unwarrented 3/3's and preventing some of those high ratings that may occur due to the "returning the favour idea".

I would like to thank everyone for their responses. I agree with Walang, it looks very much like a Tanacetum. Thanks for the link.

Here's another photo of the plant.

It was taken near the Shuswap Lake in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada.

What type of plant is this?

Gradual ND filters

<div></div>

<div></div>

The North Saskatchewan River flowing through the city of Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada. The river originates at the Saskatchewan Glacier in

the Columbia Icefield.<div></div>

Canadian two dollar coin.<div></div>

When is it necessary to get a person to sign a release form? Do you need every

person in the photo to sign forms? Or is it only necessary when people in the

photo are recognizable?

 

Do photojournalists have to get release forms signed by every person in there

photographs or do they have some sort of exemption?

This is not a typical portrait, but one of my favourites. I feel the off center subject and slight underexposure along with the direction of the subject's eye gives it a mysterious feel.<div></div>

I did some more searching and I agree with Emily. It's a Spiraea douglassi, or hardhack.

I did some searching online and I would have to agree with Bruse, it seems to be some sort of bottle brush plant.

Thanks for replying. Here's another shot of the same plant.

I was wondering if anyone could tell me what type o plant/tree this is?

After contemplating this issue, I have come to the conclusion that the use of filters DOES NOT MANIPULATE THE IMAGE that the camera captures, however, it DOES MANIPULATE THE SCENE that is being photographed. Now this is a subtle difference, but as I have said before, for the purpose of education, I think it is important to state whether or not AN IMAGE or A SCENE as been manipulated, whether that means checking the unmanipulated box, or listing the filters used or a brief description of what enhancing tools were used to alter the image, as long as there is some idea of how the photo was made. I think this will be beneficial to all the people visiting this site looking for instruction.

Out of the interest of new photographers, I think it is important to define whether or not a photograph is manipulated. As it states in the opening paragraph on the "Definition of Unmanipulated" page,

 

"It is helpful for them to know whether the photo is more or less as it came out of the camera ("unmanipulated") or whether the photo has been significantly altered ("manipulated")."

 

The question I posted yesterday was whether or not the use of filters was considered manipulation. After contemplating this issue, I have come to the conclusion that the us of filters DOES NOT MANIPULATE THE IMAGE that the camera captures, however, it DOES MANIPULATE THE SCENE that is being photographed. Now this is a subtle difference, but as I have stated before, for the purpose of education, I think it is important to state whether or not AN IMAGE or A SCENE as been manipulated.