jay_patel

<p>Phil,<br>

We shoot with any camera you can give us. My primary camera are 12-15 MP Canon camera with a wide angle lens. The trick with HDR is to be able to preserve "Natural Shadows and Highlights" and maintain a balance of light conditions. For example, if sky is lighter then the foreground then the final HDR should be able to represent that scene. I have more examples on my website at:<br>

http://www.jaypatelphotography.om<br>

Thanks.<br>

-Jay</p>

<p>More example at: www.timecatcher.com. Thanks.<br>

-Jay</p>

<p>Here are some examples:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6351678&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6888188&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/8655732&size=lg<br>

All of these are done with manual blending technique. Thanks.<br>

-Jay</p>

"What would be the rationale for giving the Critique Only photos wide visibility? What would qualify these photos as good if it isn't a reasnable number of high ratings?" Good response, Brian.<br><br>

A competing sight allow the comments to be rated as helpful/not helpful (all ratings on comments to be annonymous). Just a simple binar rating implemented with a checkbox control on the web. Every photographer has not only an average score on their photograph, but also a score on their comments (critiques). We can easily implement a similar system at PN. This system serves several goals...first it makes us all better at giving critiques by giving is a direct feedback. Second we can implement rational to select photographs for TRP based on one or more criteria on the ratings of critiques, rather then just the ratings on the photographs. Thrid this may ecourage everyone to critique more. <br><br>

We can also have have a TRP selection of photographer with the highest comment scores...after all it is they who contribute most to the site (unlike me). <br><br>

Following my own advise...I should say critiques anyone? :-)))

I like Jayme's quote from William Ward. Thanks for sharing that with us.<br><br>

Perhaps the reason that there are too many "WOOOOOW" critique is because the critiques are transperant and you never really know how a critique is going be taken. Even the best of critique can be taken as "Critize me and I will not like you" or "Encourage me and I will not forget you". Let face it everyone...It is hard to accept honest critiques and not knowing how it will be handled by someone it is even harder to give honest critiques. Even site administration has hard time accepting critiques...I remember the thread about "Ratings and concerned about the site direction?" Now I cant find it anymore. :-))) <br><br>

I do agree that Critique only photographs should get higher visibility then are today.

I agree with Christopher...I have plenty of them on my photograph to prove it. <br><br>

What I find interesting is that the site administration believes that anonymous ratings are the best because it is a true representation of what others things about your photos without fear of reciprocal ratings. But, yet somehow they also believe that comments are immune to this phenomena? I certainly appreciate the comments left on my photos by the photographers, and I am more likely to comment their photograph (reciprocal comments) for taking time to comment on my work...just like reciprocal ratings. <br><br> :-)))

So, much for putting comments on higher pedestal then the ratings.

"The "best" photographers have always been leaving the site. Attrition is a fact." <br><br>

Perhaps the rules of photo.net in last few month have contributed to this phenomena more then it has in the past few years. Any opinions?

Brian,<br><br>

Actually, I was about to become a suscribing member before the changes to the default TRP sometime earlier this year. After the changes to the default TRP, I decided to wait and see what happens with the new changes that you had instituted. There are couple of things in the past few months that have driven me further away from becoming a paying member. First as a paying member, I would like to express my opinions freely, including ratings I give to others without any artifitial limits on the ratings I give to others. Second, is lack of consistency in the ratings i.e. why should I throw my money at photo.net when in few weeks the ratings rules may change again to who knows what. As Forrest may state, ratings rules on photo.net are like box of choclates...you never know what you are going to get. :-)))) In other words, I am not sure exactly what I am suscribing to. <br><br>

-Jay

So most photos being rated are in the Photo Critique Forum, and in the last 30 days, only 900 photos would have failed to receive ratings because they weren't submitted to the Photo Critique Forum." <br><br>

Rather then plain old statistics, I would be more interested in knowing who were the photographer for those 900 photograph.

"Direct rating isn't prohibited. It is simply that if one wants a photo to be rated at all, it has to be explicitly submitted to the Critique forum, making it subject to both direct and Rate Recent/Rate Category rating. "<br><br>

The rational for the RR, RC que being annonymous was that a photographer can choose to get either annonymous ratings or non-annonymous ratings...per Brian's eailer threads. Those who go through the RC, RR appear on default TRP while the those who don't go through RC, RR do not appear on default TRP. If I remember it correctly, there was good discussion on how this compromise was put in place because rating were all about providing "visibility" and not about a valid feedback or a "learning" tool like some of us pointed out. And perhaps it was a fair compromise...<br><br>

So what changed? With the new system it seem like the goal is back to evening out the ratings, make the playing field fair...in a way visibility is taking a back seat as everyone will be forced to go through TRP. Any suggestion to those who do not believe in annonymous ratings?

Brian, <br><br>

You have my strong support for this idea. As far as logistics of the sales are concerned, there are number of differnet approaches you can take. Webshots is one extreme where they do their own printing, while there are galleries out there that let the photographer print their own photos as well let the photographer fulfill the orders. I favor second approach because of the fact that I like to control the quality of prints. <br><br>

I also favor the use for sale gallery only rather then ratings. I would recomment that this gallery should have number of sorting options (similar to what photosig) provides, so a potential purchaser can search the images according to a specific criteria. <br><br>

From photo.net logistic stand point fixed subscription cost may be easiest way to implement this gallery. This way, the buyers assumes all responsiblities and the seller is free to set any price he or she wants and is responsible for fulfillment. This may also attract firms wanting to license images rather then buying individual prints alone. <br><br>

Hope we can make this work...:-))

Jayme, <br><br>

Excellent suggestion. A while back I suggested a way to use something like out favorites list to display the images in TRP (as well as to calculate the ratings based on the photographer we admire or respect), but there was no respone. <br><br>

-Jay

Hi Carl, <br><br>

I second your opinion...

Hi Guy, <br><br>

You bring up some good points here...<br><br>

First, I don't think that Vincent and I differ on our ratings approach. I would give Richard Van Hossel's photos high ratings. His photos are simply outstanding.<br><br>

I don't know how Brian's propose favorite TRP page would work to give any meaning full comments.<br><br>

Gustavo,

I agree about your point about originality...What is orignal? It is highly subjective. Very rarely I penailze someone on originality because lets face it there are lot of photographs that look like others. This is specially true for Landscapes...

Laurie - My point was that critiques suffer from the same phoenomena as ratings do and for the same reasons. People don't like "nasty emails", "revenge ratings", "having their heads bitten off" or "healthy exchange of ideas" however one may describe it. <br><br>

Perhaps I should phrase my idea a little differently...Would one get more honest comments/critiques if the critiques were anonnymous? My guess would be definately!!

Hi Kathy, <br><br>

"That doesn't detract from the comment, or from me. You chalk it up to the varied tastes of the Muse and move on." - Well said...Something I should remember when I get a bad comment. :-))

Bob, <br><br>

I agree with your assement about rigging. <br><br>

On the other hand, I wonder if the sponsors (advertiser) are worried about the recent trend in mate raters creating "mulitple" accounts? Or the site statistics being skewed by Robot ratings? <br><br>

I believe that we would all like to find a solution that generate maximum revenue for photo.net and be fair to its members at the same time. Sort of Win-Win situation.

Bob, <br><br>

Not at all inapproriate. I would do the same thing i.e. rig the system to generate the most revenue. It make perfect business sense.<br><br>

Laurie, Kathy, <br><br>

In my opinion critiques have the same problems as the ratings....What makes you think that you are always getting an honest critique? Perhaps some of us refrain from honest critiques for the very same reason as we refrain from giving honest ratings....fear of having their heads bitten off. <br><br>

If the culture for the ratings system is to lean towards instant gratification, then why should that not hold true for comments? You can certainly see the evidence of that in the comments left on lot of the photos.<br><br>

Perhaps we should rate people on their ability to accept honest critiques and rates. Perhaps I would flunk at that...But, then again it would be another growth opportunity for me.

Hmm...You raise an interesting point Vincent. Care to guess who else does not run their photos through RR que? Check out first few pages of TRP by Average...you will be stunned as to who is not running their photo through RR. For me the reason is simple...I want to know who rated me and what their portfolio looks like. If you can discriminate between talent and mate raters (it is easy for me to tell), this is a superb tool to learn. <br><br>

So, you can argue that I don't get objective ratings if I don't run through RR que...and I can arque that it is easy to abuse RR que. In fact it is so easy to abuse RR que that it can be automated as evident from the fact the robot program was able to do it from couple of weeks ago.<br><br>

The bottom line is that the culture on photo.net have changed...Lot of us don't want to learn, they are just looking for instant gratification, a pat on the back, recognition. So, a good question would be: How did we get here?

HI Kathy,<br><br>

I think Brian was referring to rating others people photos. We all look at the photos and then decide to rate them based on some criteria we have in mind i.e. ratings by you to others are not always random meaningless? (I am not talking about mate/hate rating phenomena). If that is the case then studing and rating photographs of people who are truely talented should also make you look at your work rather objectively. No?

Hi Brian,

"Frequently, one finds that by commenting on other people's photos, especially the ones that are good but not quite excellent, one starts to develop objectivity about one's own work."

Couldn't agree with you more...But to some extent this is true for rating as well...Or you would disgree?

I am with Walter on this one...The whole rating system is meaningless. Even the ones that claims to be fair raters gets irritated when someone crtiques their style or photos...myself included. Specially true for those of us who can't stand the perfect calender shots of others. <br><br>

I for one don't believe in annonymous rates...If you want to give me a low rate, show your work in return. Let me judge if that low rate is worth paying attention to or just done out of spite, revenge, jealousy. And I do the same for high rates...Is someone giving me an high rate because they are a fan of my work? My friends? Or is their work comprable in quality and style for me to pat myself on back.