0 Online
Activity
Mosaic
Map

Your Opinion Matters

"Rants and Raves - Get in the Ring"

You got something to say? You wanna piece of me? Well, do ya...huh, punk...

(Keep it above the belt! No one is allowed to post here unless you are smiling when you click "submit". And, evil grins are NOT smiles!)




What others are saying...

(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:February 25th, 2013 (6:36am) PST
Not sure where I should post this, however I'm hoping someone can help me out with this problem. Several of my last posts the color in the thumbnail is muted, the actual image is fine. I shoot in raw and my camera setting is Adobe RGB, and all of my color settings in Lightroom, PS are set at Adobe RGB 1998. The one image Rose Drops the color is basically what came out of the camera, with a few tweeks for sharpness.I would appreciate any tips. Thanks and hope everyone has a great Monday. Jade
(@noisycats) noisycats said:February 24th, 2013 (9:46am) PST
Anyone know where Pandora went? She was among my faves here and now it appears her account is empty?
(@EarthandSky) Debra Ceravolo said:February 23rd, 2013 (9:47am) PST
@timbutler54I had that problem and contacted 72dpi via email. They responded quickly with the answer.I don't want to say what it was here in fear that 'jhon strauss' whatever he/she/it is will clue in. If anyone wants to know how it was fixed, email me at debra@ceravolo.com.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:February 23rd, 2013 (7:50am) PST
@EarthandSky I think that's a bug.Other users have reported problems for a long time with posted images not showing up in the Mosaic.
(@EarthandSky) Debra Ceravolo said:February 23rd, 2013 (6:47am) PST
Hey everyone. I just noticed that 'john strauss' has uploaded a bunch of photos again (go to view by new photos) but they are not showing up on the mosaic. Maybe 72dpi is doing something about it...
(@Marthe) marthe said:February 23rd, 2013 (5:33am) PST
@72dpi@timbutler54 I have to agree with Tim and all the others that have been complaining about"jhon strauss" and his postings. It reallyis annoying. Not sure he will have many customers from this site..
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:February 22nd, 2013 (4:58am) PST
@72dpi When do you plan to do anything about this jackass "jhon strauss", or do you?And yes, I said jackass with a smile.Why do you continue to ignore his abuse of the site and our pleas for you to do something about it?
(@debop) Debbie Oppermann said:February 19th, 2013 (7:11pm) PST
Me too Scott - very sick of winter!
(@fstop123) Scott Staley said:February 18th, 2013 (4:45am) PST
I cant wait spring gets here
(@imrenagy) imre nagy said:February 9th, 2013 (2:46pm) PST
Just joined here and hope to find some inspiration in images, not words. Been reading this thread and seems to me that some people have more to say about everything (that amounts to nothing) and a rare few have little to say about a lot. I've been told I'm arrogant and pig headed, but just want to see beautiful images, not read pompous pontifications about life and art. I see some people here I've encountered on abother site, and I look forward to renewing old acquaintances but I'm ready to pick up the gauntlet if anyone remembers me from there and wants to continue sparring.
(@KENBURROWS) Ken Burrows said:February 9th, 2013 (12:03pm) PST
I'm new here, really love it!Hey administration....Logging out is most times extremely difficult or not at all.I am always getting a 'page not available'.Can ya help a guy!!!
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:February 6th, 2013 (5:25am) PST
@shuggie @endlessreach1 @jaykay72 If you're so inclined I would appreciate if you would drop into the Bug Report area where I've been discussing this a little bit with the powers at be here.I actually should have started the discussion here but posted there out of frustration of the admins being mute on Carl's problem.I could use some help over there if you have anything to add.The admins don't seem to understand that there's a problem and have asked for an explanation.I think it's obvious.Would you care to chime in over there?Or maybe we should move the discussion to here?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:February 6th, 2013 (5:10am) PST
The end of the month seems as good a time as any, Carl @endlessreach1 - it'll be the first anniversary of my arrival here. Fingers crossed that someone upstairs wakes up and smells the coffee by then.
(@endlessreach1) Carl Shaw said:February 5th, 2013 (9:39am) PST
I was giving it to the end of this month.If I see no improvement...I'm sad to say I am out also...
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:February 5th, 2013 (9:01am) PST
@shuggie -I am sorry to admit it but that is rapidly becoming my conclusion as well, I have never posted pictures just to receive comments, but hopefully to be seen by a wider audience, that unfortunately is not happening now, the traffic seems to have diminished to a trickle, most on my snaplist either don't post at all, and haven't for the last 6 months, or are very infrequent posters, when they used to post 2 or 3 a day, ever since the back up failure and lost images it seems there has been a steady decline in traffic and site usage. I am also begining to think it may be time to move on, a very sad and difficult decision as this site promised so much and had positive and pro active administrators.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:February 5th, 2013 (4:58am) PST
John, @jaykay72- reluctant as I am to consider that possibility, I suspect you may well be right. If this slow downward slide is not arrested very soon, the site is in severe danger of withering away. In private communications, a significant number of the pros and semi-pros have told me that they've decided that enough is enough and it's time to move on to pastures new. Being ever the optimist, I didn't agree with them at the time and stayed on to see if things improved. They haven't - and I'm beginning to think they might have had a point: maybe it really is time to accept reality and quietly move on.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:February 5th, 2013 (3:52am) PST
@shuggie -Very little chance of something being done by - @72dpi - I fear, the admins seem to have abandoned us again, I guess the novelty of running this site has worn off now, oh well, I guess we will all try and keep posting, will the last one to leave please turn off the lights !
(@fstop123) Scott Staley said:January 31st, 2013 (7:54am) PST
I have been away for quite some time I hope to be much more active @ 72dpi
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:January 21st, 2013 (7:15am) PST
Yes there is something that can be done (see below), @Marthe, but only by @72dpi - in the meantime, ignore him if he upsets you - life is far to short to do otherwise!
(@Marthe) marthe said:January 21st, 2013 (4:07am) PST
I am sorry to change the topic, because I am finding the links provided very interesting and beautiful..
but I am annoyed by the Jhon guy... and his promotional pictures of hotels..... is there something that can be done??
thanks
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:January 21st, 2013 (1:47am) PST
If anyone is interested, I've got a couple of short videos here - just a bit of experimentation in one of my creative periods: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30117728@N04/4560973870/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/karl_williams/4571375192/in/photostream/
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:January 20th, 2013 (9:00am) PST
Charlie...it's 20 minutes long and was a compilation of my best shots from about 7 yrs ago when I first went digital.There is no link......I still have one DVD....that sucker took 3 hrs just to write though every one after that was only 5 minutes if you kept feeding the computer.Don't know why the first one is so bad to do but it sure makes you think about making them.:)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:January 20th, 2013 (8:51am) PST
@TomShacochis I use this sometimes as a sort of change of outlook. Especially if what I've been working on seems repetitive. As you say they do take time and I find that time away from shutter clicking helps. Also for me finding poetry and classical music that IMO fits the theme I'm working on, is really very enjoyable.I'd guess the time pressure of professional life makes this kind of endeavor tough to fit in. Since you gave no link I should honor your silence, but should you be willing, I'd like to see that video.
Thanks for response and your story. Personal stories are the meat of life.
Charlie
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:January 20th, 2013 (5:41am) PST
Charlie, I did a video with my pics several years ago set to the music of Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms" and "Local Hero" and some others of his instrumentals from his movie theme CD. There's a lot of work that goes into these things that unless you've done one, you can't appreciate.I made CDs and gave them to some friends......never got comment one back....so I never did it again.I thought it was something you could just put on and use as sort of a way to get away from the usual TV fare and relax by a fire.....I did get ONE offer from a dentist's office....I turned it down.....you know....the drill.:)Good work, Charlie, enjoyed it.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:January 20th, 2013 (5:31am) PST
Debra, LOVED the video......and miss IZZY!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:January 19th, 2013 (9:28pm) PST
@EarthandSky Wow, very professional. Astronomy is more than a hobby isn't it? I watched the Hyakutake video also and want to watch it again to understand more of it.Thanks for responding and providing the links.
(@EarthandSky) Debra Ceravolo said:January 19th, 2013 (5:52pm) PST
Really beautiful, Charlie! Quite touching. I have done something sort of similar a few years ago. It was not to poetry but to a song from a Hawaiian singer who has passed away. His recording company granted me use of his song for the video. It's a combination of deep sky astrophotography and other astronomical images.
If you are interested:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rREuwdvlRso
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:January 18th, 2013 (9:06pm) PST
Neither a "rant" or "rave" just an invitation. If you have a few minutes to look at a video, slide show, with music, of a poem by Alexander Pope, "Ode to Solitude".All still images, many of mine, with others also. I'm curious if others do things like or similar to this?
Thanks for consideration.
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/18937853_7tfQZs#!i=2325571581&k=mcC9wsr
(@mikesnature)  said:January 11th, 2013 (1:16pm) PST
Okay, it's time to "Spread the love".In light of getting a basic tounge lashing for not being active via a few members recently, I'm trying to rectify the situation --mainly and this is the 'biggie' - because these people made it clear to me that they use this sight for further education, inspiration and comraderie.Who cares about numbers?Seriously?So, I am trying to do my best(if nothing else) to help these people in any way I can - with what little time I do have.By posting new images, tyring to do a little more explaining about the process, etc.In a shell, just simply being there for them - old school - you know?Afterall, they're up and coming and they too can use a little help from time to time. I invite you to join me.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:January 7th, 2013 (1:47am) PST
By virtue of the fact that the images in Jhon's gallery are by different photographers (and therefore not by Jhon himself), he is in clear contravention of the usage terms for this site. Bump him - simple as that.
(@EarthandSky) Debra Ceravolo said:January 6th, 2013 (9:02am) PST
I don't thinkJhon is a he or a she. It's most likely an agency using 72dpi for free marketing. The photos which are very good are not from one person, which begs copyright issues. A little google research shows this agency using several other photo sharing sites and youtube for free marketing with no indication to who or what it is. But it is a little annoying to see the same images over and over again here. Must be a tough one for the admins to deal with this kind of thing. When ever there is something good, there will be abuse. It's just a shame it takes up space where there could be great 'real' photos.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:January 6th, 2013 (7:21am) PST
@Paul Every photo from Jhon includes marketing verbiage, links, etc. Its painfully obvious what he/she is all about. No likes, no comments, etc. Not sure what you think you're accomplishing by allowing it to continue.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:January 4th, 2013 (10:12am) PST
@Paul - Thanks for such a full and straight forward answer, I agree with all you say, it is the nature of the beast that people will come and go, and probably return, I fully intend to stick with it, although, the viewings and comment traffic is much diminished to what it used to be, of course it may be that my pictures not generating any interest which is fine, the appeal of this genre is it's subjective nature. I always look through the New Photographers section and comment on some of the work there, however, the newer members of the site don't seem to engage the way newcomers did before, again, no bother to me as I like all my pictures and if anybosy else does it's a bonus for me, I certainly don't want the "you comment on mine. I'll comment on yours" scenario, but perhaps that is the reason for the perceived lack of interst is lack of engagement in the community. Nothing you can do as Admins about that, just my personal observation. Keep up the great work, and a Happy New Year to you and all you folks at - @72dpi
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):January 3rd, 2013 (8:21pm) PST
I checked out the profile you guys were talking about and while I do see photos that were certainly taken for a marketing purpose, I don't see them as being used to market anything on this site, but rather to display them as part of that photographer's portfolio. Perhaps the other photos were removed, or are these the photos you guys are talking about? While the overwhelming majority of photographers here post photos of landscapes, wildlife, street, and other common genres, we don't have a specific policy that I'm aware of where we exclude genres such as food photography, real estate staging photography, and what you may call "product photography" or "marketing photography."
I will talk with Stephen and see if I can find out more about this. I realize it has been a little quiet lately but as Stephen has mentioned, Aperture Academy, which is the parent of 72dpi, has been very busy over the past few months. I, too, have been extremely busy taking care of a family member with a severe illness and while I do monitor what's going on, and regularly post new material, I'm not as active in the forums as I was earlier last year. Now that things have settled down, I plan to get back into the groove of things.
As is the case with all photo sites, people will come and go, and come and go again--that's the way it works. What's nice about 72dpi is that it has remained a free photo sharing site which is quite rare to find these days. We're also a smaller community and many of us know each other either through this site, through another site, and so forth. Some of you I have even met in person and have gone out on photo shoots with, developing new connections and new friendships.
My advice: Hang in there. Let the site grow organically, continue to post your material, and encourage your photog friends to do the same. We're not gunning to become the next Flickr, we're simply a group of photographers who like what we do and wanted a place to share our work with some friends and colleagues. That's how this whole thing started.
And as always, if you have a specific question about something, send me a message. If it's something I don't have an immediate answer for, I'll discuss it with the other admin and get one for you.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:January 3rd, 2013 (5:44pm) PST
IMO the apparent lack of interest, and not just on this matter, on the part of the admins is one of the contributing factors to the decline of this site, once an exceptional one.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:January 3rd, 2013 (4:40pm) PST
@EarthandSky - Yes. There's been at least 81 advertisement photos since Oct 18th 2012 from a member called Jhon Struass (there have been others). Other people have complained about it but it seems to be allowed by the admins here. I agree that this is not the place for such advertisements masquerading as photos.
(@EarthandSky) Debra Ceravolo said:January 3rd, 2013 (7:35am) PST
Why all the advertising photos? Doesn't seem to be the right place for that. Anyone else notice?
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:December 31st, 2012 (4:34pm) PST
Happy New Year everyone!
(@EarthandSky) Debra Ceravolo said:December 30th, 2012 (3:01pm) PST
Hi everyone, I'm new here and quite enjoying it. It's often true that processing an image takes much more time than acquiring it. I also do deep sky astrophotography and it is especially true that processing is much more demanding of time. I am now just getting into daytime nature photography and I find that my best photos take the least amount of time to process. Perhaps I got the exposure, lighting etc. right. If Ispend too much time processing, I stop and wait for another opportunity to go out shooting again. Keep in mind that I'm new at this kind of photography and have much to learn.Just looking at others photos is inspiring.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:December 30th, 2012 (7:40am) PST
Jeff.....are our wives "sisters" and neither of us knew.Mine will go with me anywhere and read her NOOK while I shoot, comment afterwards about the ones that she liked.....and then tell me thatshe "missed" me.I'm trying to figure out a way to shoot without processing afterwards.I think it will be a day of great discovery since processing involves not just dealing with what you shot even unaltered.....but downloading it from the camera and posting it to the computer.I will share the discovery should I solve its alchemy.:)
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:December 30th, 2012 (7:28am) PST
@TomShacochis I enjoy reading what you write....sage of Tidewater!The time I spend out shooting is always supported and welcomed by my spouse, but the time I spend staring at the laptop.....not so much!
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:December 28th, 2012 (4:49pm) PST
Only those that have left know why and all but a small minority never say why they are leaving.The reasons are legion or one special issue.From my perspective all of us are searching for approval or at least some affirmation/recognition of our effort.Some are looking to expand marketing opportunities. Some are hoping to learn from others.I see where one of my favorites not only left this site but another where he followed over 500 people and religiously commented on their works while amassing over 7 thousand followers, traveling to exotic places and writing text that would stand alone in its beauty and insight.
I am overwhelmed by what little I do.Trying to balance shooting material, view the work of others and then taking the time to comment is not something that I've been good at.It is not thoughtless neglect that my behavior is as it is but there is so much to do and so little time.My spouse is jealous of the time that I spend on this board since it is time notdevoted to our own relationship.So.....I post like nobody's watching....and comment on the work of others when time allows.It is what it is....and I am grateful for the time that I can spend doing this and enjoying the work of others.It is my therapy and escape from the "News of the Day"....which is usually anything but comforting.The "distractions" here are always pleasant.....even when someone rants on this board.I may not be able to "seize the day"....but IF I can seize a few minutes here.....it's GREAT!
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:December 27th, 2012 (5:59pm) PST
One of the first things I do when I visit is to check out the new photographers.Many are here but have ("0 Photos").Sometimes there's good stuff there, but many of the newbies...even those with strong talent...don't engage.
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:December 27th, 2012 (12:47pm) PST
Good point, @Marthe. The problem is probably that we're all so busy with life and with other social media sites, we do forget to check new work by new photographers here.
(@Marthe) marthe said:December 26th, 2012 (1:21pm) PST
I agree that 'many great photographers have left or are posting minimally' but there are new excellent photographers and not many people even look at their pictures.. I am guessing that many of us are mostly looking at our 'snaplist' and forget to look at all new posts.. with few 'visits' and comments, many of them probably just decide to try elsewhere..
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:December 23rd, 2012 (2:46am) PST
@72dpi -Nice to hear from you guys, we were all begining to wonder if you were still out there as we used to hear from you with suggestions or news on a regular basis :-) Obviously you are and I hope you all have a great Holiday break, and this site picks up in both members and traffic in 2013. Happy Christmas and New Year to all of you, thanks for everything !
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):December 22nd, 2012 (5:29pm) PST
We are all great @MimEisenberg. We've been very, very busy with all the things that we do with the Aperture Academy, 72dpi and more. Everyone is on holiday break now and then we'll kick off 2013!
@noisycats, yes there is a lot that goes into running a site like this. We've spent the last two years building all the features that users requested and things are pretty solid now. We are not out to rule the world, just have a photography portal that people can enjoy.
(@noisycats) noisycats said:December 22nd, 2012 (9:57am) PST
I'd like to hear if there are any plans for the future here. It must take incredible resources to keep this running and I don't see a sustainable model for the long term. The reason I mention this is because I like it here and I see potential. But there's also a lot of competition out there. I'm hesitant to get too attached only to see everything disappear. Hope that makes sense.
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:December 22nd, 2012 (8:07am) PST
Well, hi, there! We all just were wondering where you've all been. I wish you happy holidays.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):December 22nd, 2012 (7:14am) PST
Hello @MimEisenberg, how can we help? Happy Holidays!
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:December 21st, 2012 (1:51pm) PST
So, admins, where the heck are ya?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:December 21st, 2012 (11:17am) PST
@mauropasquero Mauro, my suspicion is competition gets in the way of supportive interchange of thoughts andjust plain honest responses on each others images. It was worse when we had the 1 to 10 ratings, but any "like, fav" and "Top rated and spotlight" segments are cause for some unhappiness and "elbowing" and "glad handing" to help an image along. My words here may be not exactly to the point but hope you understand what I'm saying. Most of us could be judged to have "helped along" an image or two.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:December 21st, 2012 (7:25am) PST
@TomShacochis You have a good attitude, Tom. I can learn from you. Merry Christmas to you and to every one here. You and so many that have left are the greatest.
(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:December 21st, 2012 (6:35am) PST
This is a perfect example of how non involved admin has been lately. This member has been posting since Oct advertising for Hotels, web site design, ect, this was brought up a couple months ago by another member and he is still posting, I thought this is a photo sharing site not a soliciting site, IMO this should not be allowed!!72dpi.com/gallery/jhonstruass
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:December 20th, 2012 (4:03pm) PST
I've enjoyed being a minor part of this community. I was out of work when I joined and the time spent shooting and being online here were very welcome and rewarding.But I must also concede that it feels like the inside of a Sears store around here lately. Quiet, sad and lonely....
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:December 20th, 2012 (8:51am) PST
I love this site as well, but it could be so much better, the admins seem to have disappeared like a lot of the talented photographers that used to post regularly here, my personal view is the failure of the back up and the resulting lost images was the start of people leaving or reducing their postings because of lack of confidence in the site,the community feel seems to have gone, there are rarely any discussions here now, it is so disappointing as I really thought this would become the best site on the web, as I said, I still love it but it's like my old school reports, does enough but could do so much better ! ! !
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:December 20th, 2012 (6:24am) PST
I fully agree with John and Jade: many of the bestphotogrphers have left or are posting minimally. I wonder why !
(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:December 20th, 2012 (5:23am) PST
I also love this site, however I agree with John @jaykay72, many great photographers have left or are posting minimally, Admin has been totally silenced. Not sure what to make of it. Merry Christmas to Everyone!
(@rpshah24) Ritesh P. Shah said:December 19th, 2012 (6:19pm) PST
I love this site and I'm staying.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:December 19th, 2012 (3:14pm) PST
@jaykay72 Well stated.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:December 19th, 2012 (4:08am) PST
No rants or raves is because people are leaving this site, mainly through lack of traffic and interest, perhaps it is best that it returns to the small and specialised site that was the brain child of Stephen Oachs, when admins were pro-active and innovations flowed.Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to one and all !
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:December 18th, 2012 (6:40pm) PST
Winter is the season for discontent.Right now we have the "Holiday Season" (the politically correct term) though I still prefer Christmas and "Peace on Earth".Be that as it may, I find it refreshing that there have been no rants.....and THAT is something to RAVE about.I shall now return to joyous slumber.:)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:December 18th, 2012 (4:22pm) PST
"Rants and Raves - Get in the Ring" First, wake up.
(@Hrishi) Hrishikesh Deodhar said:December 6th, 2012 (3:01pm) PST
Excellent Kevin. Bravo !!!
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:November 24th, 2012 (1:03pm) PST
Thank you very much.When I actually see it in person I will take a shot of it :D
(@rpshah24) Ritesh P. Shah said:November 22nd, 2012 (12:25pm) PST
Kevin, Congratulations!!I will keep an eye out for the Nov 28 issue.
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:November 22nd, 2012 (10:30am) PST
Hey family.Because of all your kind words, encouragement, and support, I was able to get out of my comfort box (when I am not in class) and took a leap of faith.It payed off.One of my photos is featured in Digital Photo magazine this month!! It will be on sale on the 28th November! I am beyond thrilled and I have all of you to thank.Love you guys!!!!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:November 10th, 2012 (8:00am) PST
Mauro, I apologize for bringing my bad moods here. Please don't disappear. You are at the top of the quality photographers here and we (me too) would miss your images. Tell me to kiss your ... (which I will decline) but hopefully it willgive you the satisfaction you need for us to move on.
Respectfully,
Charlie
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:November 10th, 2012 (5:46am) PST
May the wind be fair and at your back.....may the gods protect you in your travels.It has been a pleasure sharing time and thoughts with you!
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:November 10th, 2012 (4:45am) PST
Everything is fine but, as the philosopher says, "everything flows" and everythig comes to an end. I preferred to comminicate my decision with an image instead of simply disappear ...
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:November 9th, 2012 (11:51pm) PST
What's going on here?
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:November 9th, 2012 (6:27pm) PST
@mauropasquero This is sad.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:November 9th, 2012 (11:56am) PST
Dearfriends,my last post “PANTA REI”( two words of the ancientGreekphilosopher Eracltitusof Ephesus,535-475 B.C. )fairly represents my feelings towards this site in this very moment and means a great “GODBYE” to all of you.
It has been a great pleasure to share pictures with you all during the past months and I warmly thank youall for your very kind comments and generoussupport.
All the best.
Mauro
(@mikesnature)  said:November 7th, 2012 (5:51am) PST
Thanks to all of you! It just P!@&*S me off when you have members that the photographic community respects and looks up to (and one of them is a muckity muck member of this site) who feels obligated to spew his or her garbage onto the rest of the members. And speaking of garbage, isn't it in the best teaching interest of the members to encourage and embrace reather than to belittle or look down on others?If you're reading this right now it means that I'm taking a stand (as I always have) to try to follow that principle.Then again, I'm old school - and back then, you gave a hoot about others.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:November 6th, 2012 (6:39pm) PST
Mike, shoot and process because it is in your heart. To take a subject that someone has done before and present it in a different "light" is always the challenge.There are few things in this camera filled world that haven't been shot.....therefore...present it in your way and with your talent....you will succeed.I wish that I had half your talent.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:November 6th, 2012 (3:36am) PST
@mikesnature - It's nobody's business but yours what or where you choose to take your photographs, or what you choose to post here either, you post what you like, not what someone else likes, there would be a lot of flower photographers struggling for subjects if the criteria was "it's been done by everybody else", I must admit I personally don't take landscapes, mainly because I'm useless at it, but I appreciate a good one as a photograph, a work of art, and yours easilly fall in that category, please don't let a minority put you off being here, it's a great community and I agree 100% with - @timbutler54 - wise words.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:November 5th, 2012 (10:55pm) PST
@mikesnature I truly hope you will stay as I enjoy your work immensely, one if the top IMO.And I personally don't give two hoots what anybody says about what you should shoot and/or what I should like and/or look at.This may not be breaking news but I've figured out that stupid people almost always say stupid things and even otherwise intelligent people often say stupid things.As best we can, and God knows its difficult at times, I think we just have to let those things slide off.Again, I hope you stay.
(@mikesnature)  said:November 5th, 2012 (8:47pm) PST
Okay, I'll try to smile - but under the circumstances, it's very difficult. - Who gives someone the right to state whether or not you should or should not stay away from a certain subject "Because it's been done by everybody else and you're wasting your time."I'll be honest - I'm tired of it and to be quite certain, I'll give this site another week prior to pulling the plug.I don't have time for it!
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:October 31st, 2012 (4:09am) PDT
@limoz - Thank you. You are very kind.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:October 28th, 2012 (1:13pm) PDT
@Paradis Photography I agree with what you say.I see very different reactions to some of my photos posted other places.Each place seems to have its own personality, like us I guess!Hope you've had a good weekend.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:October 28th, 2012 (12:24pm) PDT
Good point @timbutler54. Unfortunately I am too busy with work, taxi service to a very busy teenage kid, volunteering and then I have my own social life so I do not have nearly the amount of time I wish I had togo through others works and leave my comments. I am very thankful for those, like yourself, who do visit my work and comment. It does help me learn as to what works and what doesn't.
Just so you know, I wasn't complaining but find it interesting as to why a photo will be popular on one site but not on another. Would be interested to hear others reasoning for the differences.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:October 28th, 2012 (1:04am) PDT
@Paradis Photography I think it also has to do with how much one engages the other users of a site and interacts with THEIR photos.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:October 27th, 2012 (9:24pm) PDT
@Paradis Photography - I see the same. Just different people seeing different photos with different opinions. The challenge is always getting your photo seen by people who might like it. The bigger the site, the more difficult that is.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:October 26th, 2012 (9:22am) PDT
Hey All, I maintain this and another popular photo site. I have no "group" to inflate my scores, nor do I troll to bring others down. I like to use these sites as a gauge for my work. While I take the shots for me, I am always interested to see how others view it. If it gets lot of feedback (relative in terms of numbers) then I know what I have done is in the right direction. Sometimes when I sit on the edge the feedback can enforce why I like the work or at times the lack of feedback has helped me look closer to see why it wasn't receiving feedback and hopefully learn from it. In the end though, the results have no bearing on whether I like it or not.
What I do find interesting is that I can put the same work up on the two sites, three if you include FB, and have totally different reactions. One site I will get plenty of positive feedback ( again relative) while on the other site it gets completely ignored.
Would anyone have opinions as to what the differences are?
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:October 26th, 2012 (9:14am) PDT
I have an ad for "The Open" that pops up every time I change pages.Does everyone?Is this necessary?
(@iDavid) David Bluett said:October 23rd, 2012 (2:56pm) PDT
An new to this site... Is it my 3G connection, or is the site a little slow?
(@JeanAnnFennell) Jean Ann Fennell said:October 20th, 2012 (9:37am) PDT
I'm thinking that someone with the tag Jhon Struass is posting photos as ads for chain motels on this website and needs to be removed.His "photos" can also be found onother sites such as 500px.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:October 13th, 2012 (8:00am) PDT
@Paul -Glad you are back in the swing of life here, you have been missed. Hope all worked out well on the family front and look forward to viewing your work and your rapid and proactive participation behind the scenes.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):October 12th, 2012 (9:50am) PDT
Just wanted to leave a quick note to let you guys know I'm back in the saddle here after being gone for the past two months. Unfortunately, a serious illness in the family required me to literally drop everything I was doing and head out of town to take care of a sick family member. It's refreshing to come back and see all the great new photography that's been posted and I'm going to have to spend the next couple weeks catching up with everyone's work! I've uploaded several new photos that I took while out of town and a couple from the past couple weeks I've been back home. Can't wait to get back out in the field and start shooting regularly again now that things have normalized.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:October 9th, 2012 (2:54am) PDT
Thanks for your actions - @72dpi -The 99.9% of us that do all get along here are very appreciative of your support and prompt addressing of this irritating little issue.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):October 8th, 2012 (8:08pm) PDT
Without posting the secret recipe, we've implemented some "tweaks" to help ensure that those who participate in the forums have good intentions. Nothing's perfect but we'll give this a roll for awhile and see if it helps! "Can't we all just get along?" I swore someone said this once ;)
(@JimNall) Jim Nall said:October 6th, 2012 (1:34pm) PDT
John and Jeff make good points.After having thought about this subject at length, what really matters is what is right and wrong with my photo.Numbers and scoring?You really can't rely on them even without trolls.A score is derived from somebody else's algorithm, not mine.One can try to be more 'popular' hence possibly get more likes and favs, but is that really a true reflection on the actual photograph?Some morsels for thought.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:October 6th, 2012 (10:32am) PDT
I think - @mezzoduomo - is spot on the money, if like me, you just post stuff you like and if anybody else likes I consider it a bonus, I don't have the time or the inclination to go through all the new pictures posted to make a comment, except to photographs that really appeal to me and stand out. Like most people here I have a Snaplist of photographers whose work I like,not all of them comment on mine but I probably do comment and like or fav their work, and that is how all photo-sharing sites work. I never look at Top this, that or the other, just not interested in any form of league tables I'm afraid.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:October 6th, 2012 (9:59am) PDT
Let's face it:A pat on the head for a decent photograph feels good!But when it devolves into a pure tit-for tat, and everything somebody posts gets loads of likes or votes irrespective of quality.....is that really gratifying?I think we all realize what's behind that phenomenon.Like @TomShacochisI have so little time for this, that I simply can't invest the time required to upload, post and comment in any meaningful way. I also would not mind some criticism once in a while.A while back I asked a number of the shooters here that I really admire for some criticism and feedback, and it was incredibly helpful....it helped me improve.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:October 6th, 2012 (5:19am) PDT
Certainly there is a degree of "networking" on any site. The more time you spend with others, the more others will spend time with you. If what you are after is "numbers" then that's what you must do and you will get "exposure", more time on the "leader board" and such.I have very limited time to devote to my shooting and even less time to devote to spending time on the boards.I do have people who I follow.I don't "like" a shot just because it's theirs.I don't "like" every shot they take though the quality of their work is such that they don't take a "bad" shot....some are just better than others.I could name names but that's not what's important.Some folks just do consistent quality work and I will at least hit the "like" or"fav" button even if I don't have the time to comment.I hope that doesn't detract or lessen what happens here.I personally don't get involved in the numbers or the ratings or how they are calculated by what formula.What is pleasing to me is when people make a comment and they can even be critical in it if they so choose as long as it is constructive.I don't mind a bit.Life is tooshort and I only use my camera for the personal pleasure of it.It is the only thing in my life that I have total control over and can express myself with better than I can with words.I'll do some serious shots, technical shots and I throw in something just for fun.....because it is all at the whim....and pleasure of the "king" and the "queen" that he serves....and my wife tolerates my indulgence in photography. :)
(@JeremyBarton)  said:October 5th, 2012 (6:11am) PDT
I guess you get trolls on any site but what i am seeing is you vote for me and i will vote for you!even thoughthe photo is not great! friends will always vote on a photo even if they do not like it ! it happens a lot on500px!!and that my friends brings down the quality of the site!!
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:October 5th, 2012 (5:02am) PDT
Leave the forum in place please, @72dpi , it's a useful place to let off steam and it's now become part of the accepted fabric of the site. Apart from anything else, poor MOT would have nowhere to go since he plainly doesn't / won't / can't (delete as applicable) take photographs.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:October 4th, 2012 (6:05pm) PDT
@72dpi- I would say don't remover the venue, but also don't be timid about shooting the trolls on sight.Like looters in wartime, some people just need to be shot, plain and simple.I have not been around much lately, but as @timbutler54has pointed out, there seems to be a waning of activity and enthusiasm.That's a pity.....
(@JimNall) Jim Nall said:October 4th, 2012 (5:20pm) PDT
M.O.T., is it true you 'eat more chicken than any man ever seen?'
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:October 4th, 2012 (4:14pm) PDT
This forum needs to be renamed!Perhaps "You agree with the users here?Good!!f not, Get Lost!"The subtext can read something like "We do not allow any other views but our own.If you are not for us, you are a'gin us!So take your photography, and post it elsewhere.We do not want your views on photography polluting our site!!Our site is for the anointed few".
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:October 4th, 2012 (3:54pm) PDT
@JimNall : Zero mostly (autofocus).One in critical situations.Sorry, I probably did not understand your question.
(@JimNall) Jim Nall said:October 4th, 2012 (3:46pm) PDT
Hey, Ministry of Truth, a question.How many Ministers of Truth does it take to focus a camera?
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:October 4th, 2012 (3:40pm) PDT
It has also dawned on me that most of the users (posters) here have possibly never read (Orwell), and hence the "Ministry of Truth" reference means nothing to them!
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:October 4th, 2012 (3:31pm) PDT
Wow!Really?You remove (delete) my posts and leave other's who respond to them (with foul language and attacks)to be read without context ?Again, I agree with Charlie ... bad idea!What is more troubling, however, is that you also removed (deleted) Chaim's comments.The Ministry of Truth is alive and well!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:October 4th, 2012 (12:13pm) PDT
@72dpi Terrible idea!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:October 4th, 2012 (9:00am) PDT
@72dpi- That would just mean the trolls had won, to the detriment of the majority of members who use this andthe other sections in a responsible and community minded way. If you have an ingrowing toenail, you don't cut your leg off, I think closing this would send the wrong message to the Trolls and be detrimental to the site.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:October 4th, 2012 (8:59am) PDT
IMHO we DO need the Rants and Raves forum, or something like it so we can communicate with you and others in an open forum.While this does not seem to be a group of people that requires a lot of forum type interaction, I do feel like if we had none it would feel lacking.
Personally I'm less bothered by the trolls spewing their bile in here than I am with them out there mucking up the photo sections.In here we only have to ignore them.Out there our photos are subject to the shenanigans of their voting games.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):October 4th, 2012 (8:42am) PDT
Hello Photographers -- we've been working to remove users that are creating accounts for the sole purpose of abuse. It's a game of whack-em-all and so we appreciate your patience and alerting us to those that are blatant. While it seemed a good idea when we first created it, and it has been a great forum until recent weeks, we are considering removing the rants and raves forum. Thoughts?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:October 4th, 2012 (8:00am) PDT
My excuse is that I'm snowed under at work and knackered when I get home. Trolls like the self-important idiot that pops in here from time to time won't stop me from coming here when I get the time. Wonder what the next pseudonym will be?
(@JeremyBarton)  said:October 4th, 2012 (5:58am) PDT
I agree with Tim!!
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:October 4th, 2012 (4:55am) PDT
It's a conundrum.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:October 4th, 2012 (4:50am) PDT
Traffic is down, attendance is down, trolls are running about insulting users, no quick @72dpi response as in the past......what's happening to our great site here?This is troublesome to me.
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:October 3rd, 2012 (4:23pm) PDT
DELETED
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:October 3rd, 2012 (7:35am) PDT
@JeremyBartonFull moon, Jeremy? The kooks are about.
(@JeremyBarton)  said:October 3rd, 2012 (5:58am) PDT
Laura is uploading decorative boxes to sell!!! this is not photography!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! more then 25 images!!
(@JeremyBarton)  said:October 3rd, 2012 (5:46am) PDT
I have just seen 22 or more photos by the same person!to me it is not photography!!just decorative boxes!!! is this person trying to sell these items!!to me it is bring the quality of photograhy this site down!!!
(@Chaim) chaim teplitsky said:October 2nd, 2012 (5:32pm) PDT
DELETED
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:October 1st, 2012 (8:11am) PDT
@shuggie Sad but true.It's not even that difficult to figure out who's at the bottom of it.I'm not sure why it's tolerated.When a whole host of new users are all created at the same time, post 1-2 pictures and then Fav all of the posts of one user, its kind of obvious.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:October 1st, 2012 (7:57am) PDT
Oh jeez - haven't been here for a while and I see we're still having troll problems. Just looking through the faceless wonder's posts, my guess is that it's the same one that we've had problems with before. Charlie's right - ignore him/her/it!
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:September 29th, 2012 (3:52pm) PDT
@blu - I don't think you can disable your account on this site. You could ask the admin to do it for you.
(@blu) giovanni caffi said:September 28th, 2012 (11:29pm) PDT
however, is not a matter of who is guilty or not, the fact is that the results that come from these sites, regardless of the trolls, they are not just see what was written to me first ... someone please tell me how to disable the 'account?
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 28th, 2012 (6:41pm) PDT
Oh boy! Out come the insults now! You should see what got editted out of the original response and no longer visible (but still got e-mailled to me)!
Note to self: Don't ever respond to trolls, however wrong they may be, not even defending some other user (as happened here).
Sorry folks!
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 28th, 2012 (5:30pm) PDT
DELETED
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 28th, 2012 (5:15pm) PDT
@ministryoftruthGet lost asshole.Buck left on his own because he didn't like the amateurs here.You will get no additional response from me and I HIGHLY recommend that EVERYONE STOP answering your
crap.
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 28th, 2012 (5:10pm) PDT
DELETED
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 28th, 2012 (4:23pm) PDT
@ministryoftruth - I did not respond to you because I already answered your questions in previous posts, and did not want to keep going round and round. Since you decided to bring it up again, I had to respond, but this is the last I will say.
It is the pseudonym, AND lack of photos, AND you attempting to provoke other users, AND no comments/likes/favs on any photos that I objected to. We have had previous problems with this & other deceptive behaviour in the past (and it seems some more reappeared!), so we are sensitive to that. Besides, as jaykay72 says, it is better to not react. I already said I am all for intelligent discussion IF it is from genuine users of this site (which means sharing & commenting on photos). We do not "severely penalize" genuine users who "rock the boat". If you think users are being penalized for expressing honest & fair opinions, then you should complain to the site admins and let them decide how to deal with it.
Subject closed!
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 28th, 2012 (3:55pm) PDT
DELETED
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 28th, 2012 (3:15pm) PDT
@timbutler54 - I see what you mean. That's the first I've seen of someone complaining about too many likes/favs of their own work ;^)
Seriously, it seems they also did this for a few others. See the top of the most favs page for more. I think looking at the person with the most photos high in the most favs page gives a clue to the culprit.
(@blu) giovanni caffi said:September 28th, 2012 (11:36am) PDT
Good evening, my photos are certainly the beginner extreme, but this site as others don't brings out the best pictures, but only those who have more exchanges of votes and more friends.
I come from a website where I try to put a picture of a great photographer famous and the result was that I took a few votes.....
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:September 28th, 2012 (7:43am) PDT
@timbutler54 - Has a valid point, unfortunately, some people in life get off on upsetting others and being as devious, subversive and offensive as possible, and the reaction to that behaviour is how they get their kicks, I can't understand it personally, but it is a fact of life. I'm sure most of the regulars here know each other well enough not to react to this, as that is what these individuals thrive on. Time for a liberal application of Troll Spray - @72dpi - and then we can get back to the real reason we are all here, wonderful photography and a wonderful site.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 28th, 2012 (7:07am) PDT
Good post, Tim. There will always be skulduggery I guess and openness, I think,is the best way to combat it. If these trolls can get we regulars fighting among ourselves it will give them pleasure.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:September 28th, 2012 (5:35am) PDT
@72dpi I think you need to get your Troll Spray back out!Please take a look at my post "In Flight Refueling" and see the list of people who Fav'd the shot.There are at least 9 names there who did not leave any comment and who all joined in the last few days and they all voted at the same time.Now I'm being accused in private messages of having my photos unfairly rated higher than they should be.I didn't do this!I don't know these people!@Chaim wants to know why we can't just all get along.....this is why.
(@Chaim) chaim teplitsky said:September 27th, 2012 (7:50pm) PDT
DELETED
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 27th, 2012 (9:10am) PDT
Dear 72dpi, Thanks for doing what you do. I don't always agree, but you have put together the best group of people I've ever found on the net AND allowed us to "deal" with trouble in our own way. I wish you great success and hope we can be absolutely fair in our dealings with trouble.
Charlie
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 25th, 2012 (4:42pm) PDT
DELETED
(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:September 24th, 2012 (5:47am) PDT
@ministryoftruth Boy some people have nothing better to do than spew nonsense. @DayneReast I agree with you Dayne this "person" will no doubt never post an image, and will never enjoy this site for what it is!
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 23rd, 2012 (7:17pm) PDT
DELETED
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 23rd, 2012 (5:23pm) PDT
@ministryoftruth - you expect us to believe that when the first thing you do on this site is try to provoke others?! What nonsense!
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 23rd, 2012 (5:18pm) PDT
DELETED
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 22nd, 2012 (12:06am) PDT
Ahh! The troll is back under a different pseudonym. Still no photos! Mr Ministry Of Trolls @ministryoftruth , this is a photo sharing site. I think you are just trying to provoke people and have no interest in sharing photos or reasonable discussion, despite your protestations. We are happy to listen to honest discussion from users who are genuine members of this photo-sharing community. If you are genuine, why are you hiding behind your fake name? How about that for the dissension you so desire?!
(@ministryoftruth) Ministry of Truth said:September 21st, 2012 (4:55pm) PDT
DELETED
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:September 18th, 2012 (9:07am) PDT
Well done - @72dpi - On the ball with your swift application of Troll Spray. Great work.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):September 18th, 2012 (6:58am) PDT
Thanks all for calling out that little green trool. We busted out a can of troll spray. @CharlieBaugh, no we do not edit comments. Some comments may disappear when an abusive user is removed.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 18th, 2012 (5:44am) PDT
@DayneReast)I'm not sure that it is a "he". The one who was always giving advice was a she. Told me I shouldn't try to teach my grandma to "suck eggs".
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:September 18th, 2012 (5:20am) PDT
Come on- @72dpi - Sort this troll thing out as promptly as you did in the past ! ! No pictures, comments or favourites should equal no account ! ! !
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 17th, 2012 (9:52pm) PDT
I see the damn trolls are back - no photos, anonymous profile pic, hiding behind a pseudonym. It is ironic that the very things that the trolls complain about seem to be the characteristics that they temselves exhibit (narcissistic, eager to inflate their own ego).
Seeming as he decided to pick on @CharlieBaugh, I assume that is a certain deceptive person (who previously had a feud with Charlie) returning to the site again. I can guess who it is. I presume he was thrown out of all the other sites he went too!
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:September 17th, 2012 (5:30pm) PDT
Cool, we haven't had a troll in a while.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 17th, 2012 (5:28pm) PDT
Ok
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 16th, 2012 (2:18pm) PDT
Question for 72dpi: Are you editing and deleting some messages? It is your site, but if you are, it should be openly stated that it is being done. PLEASE respond.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:September 10th, 2012 (9:55pm) PDT
@chuznt123 Take a look at the bug report thread (http://www.72dpi.com/topic/Bugs) going back to mid-August. Somewhere in that thread there is also a solution to reload the images.
(@chuznt123) Charlotte Welch said:September 10th, 2012 (5:05pm) PDT
Can anyone tell me why I can see my thumbnail picture but when I click on it, it has an x and a blank picture? How do I correct this ....help.....don't want to loose what I have online ....my computer dumped on me a while back and lost everything.....includling my back up.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:September 8th, 2012 (7:48am) PDT
It is sad to use mosaic now with all the disappointment when an interesting thumbnail turns out to be a blank, black rectangle.
(@cozgrl05) Paula Eytcheson said:August 30th, 2012 (5:35am) PDT
ok, sounds good! Thank you for the help and I will try again and see what happens :O)
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:August 30th, 2012 (3:46am) PDT
@cozgrl05 I think there might be something to your problem.I tried to edit some sets this morning and found that it does allow me to drag from the library of photos on the left to the photos in the set on the right.I did notice that I had to hold the drag in the right side for just a short bit or it would snap back to the left.However, it's not saving my changes.So I wonder if there's something wrong with the Sets feature?I'm going to move this discussion over to the Bug Reporting section and see if anyone else is experiencing suspect behavior.This site is usually pretty quick to respond to issues.But I think our leader Stephen Oachs is still in Africa (although we would LIKE to see more pictures!) and I'm not sure who's minding the store.
(@cozgrl05) Paula Eytcheson said:August 29th, 2012 (8:49pm) PDT
ok , thank you Tim! I'm sure it's just me...lol...
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:August 29th, 2012 (4:42pm) PDT
Hey there @cozgrl05 , I'm on an iPad right now but will take a look tomorrow and see if I can find anything.I haven't added anything to a set in awhile but remember just dragging.But maybe something is happening with you.
(@cozgrl05) Paula Eytcheson said:August 29th, 2012 (2:06pm) PDT
hey everyone, Im not sure I am on the right board but I do have a question. I am trying to make sets and for some reason when I drag the image to the right of the page it isn't working for me. It sends it back to the left of the page. Does anyone know what Im doing wrong?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:August 29th, 2012 (1:06pm) PDT
@cozgrl05Hi Paula. Glad you found us. Good photos and good people here.
(@mcmac) Ian McGregor said:August 29th, 2012 (9:24am) PDT
@cozgrl05 Hi Paula and welcome!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:August 29th, 2012 (4:40am) PDT
@cozgrl05 - Hi Paula, Welcome to 72dpi, I think you will enjoy your time here, it is a wonderful site and community for all that have a passion for photography, and very responsive admins as well, look forward to viewing your work.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:August 29th, 2012 (4:36am) PDT
@MilesTaw - Well spotted, agree 100% with - @sasastro - it should definitely not be here - @72dpi - please note ! ! !
(@cozgrl05) Paula Eytcheson said:August 28th, 2012 (4:34pm) PDT
I just wanted to introduce myself and say hello. I came across the site earlier today and love it! I hope to meet new friends, see amazing work and just have a place to share my passion of photography. So, hope everyone has a great evening and talk to you soon :O)) - Paula
(@sasastro) sas astro said:August 28th, 2012 (10:46am) PDT
@MilesTaw something that shouldn't be here methinks
(@MilesTaw) Miles Taw said:August 27th, 2012 (6:42pm) PDT
What is this? http://www.72dpi.com/photo/55107
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:August 27th, 2012 (7:51am) PDT
I wanted to take a few moments to say thank you to everyone for your kind words and endless support regarding the passing of a family member and my constant lack of entires due to my classes.You ROCK and I am so thankful to be apart of such a great community.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:August 25th, 2012 (12:17pm) PDT
RANT! RANT! The missing images did not bother me until now. I just discovered that Steffi's nudes are gone.
She will return before long and I hope we will be more careful if she graces us with new nudes. [BG}
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:August 24th, 2012 (5:58am) PDT
I post on 2 sites.This one and 500px which was my first encounter with an International board.500 has a wider exposure and as we all know has had its controversy past and present. The wide exposure to a multitude of talented people helps inspire me and teaches me things that I might want to try out whether it is a manner of composing a shot or a "new" direction to try.This board does have a "community" to it.If you seek "numbers",it probably isn't right for you.If you seek folks who are able to share their experience with you and an administration that does have an ear to its constituency, then you are in the right place.The "missing" do not trouble me.Paul Simon was once asked what his favorite song creation was....he replied, "My next one!".....the past is the past....the future is wide open....and hopefully the shot will be better for the experience gained on here.
This board has more the flavor of the original place that I first posted and no longer exists.It was composed of caring people of all skill levels.It was killed by "progress" and I had over 2000 shots there.I miss the responses that I made to good shots and were made to mine. I miss the community..but the shots were never lost...they are on my "back up" hard drives.The community is what counted and hopefully that will remain the case here.
I have a hard time keeping up with both communities as I have a demanding occupation.Know that if I am not responding that I am still looking...and enjoying the work of all of you.Keep up the good work....and thanks to all of you who participate on this site.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:August 23rd, 2012 (6:10am) PDT
What about a daily upload limit ?
(@MilesTaw) Miles Taw said:August 20th, 2012 (7:42pm) PDT
Is rehab available to help you get off 72dpi?
(@endlessreach1) Carl Shaw said:August 20th, 2012 (7:13am) PDT
I put up a new avatar which shows up fine in my gallery however it still shows the old one when commenting...Thanks
(@sasastro) sas astro said:August 14th, 2012 (2:50pm) PDT
Spotlight. I know it's the photos that catch the @72dpi team's eye and I've no problem with that,but were it put to the public vote I woulddefinitely vote for this one http://www.72dpi.com/photo/52759
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:August 13th, 2012 (5:10am) PDT
Very fascinating piece @mezzoduomo , thank you so much for sharing.I love the show and now even more.The shot of the prairie at the beginning of the article could have been taken by any number of the excellent photographers here at 72dpi.I could name many of them myself Mr. Morley, Mr. McGregor.......
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:August 12th, 2012 (1:43pm) PDT
Here's a RAVE for the show, and for this article.I think many of the community here will appreciate it.
http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2012/08/the-look-the-feel-of-breaking-bad/
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:August 2nd, 2012 (8:18am) PDT
@bethany - The topics are added by the - @72dpi - admins, you have to post where you think your say so is the best fit ! Rants and Raves is the general forum for almost anything as long as you post with a smile on your face, the others are pretty self explanatory.
(@bethany) bethany said:July 31st, 2012 (7:04pm) PDT
hey how do you make a new one of these things????? i got somethin to say too hehehe
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:July 31st, 2012 (12:32am) PDT
@bethany Even on BLT'S?LOL, nice to see a creative use of the Rants and Raves!
(@bethany) bethany said:July 30th, 2012 (7:38pm) PDT
i hate mayonnaise :)
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:July 28th, 2012 (1:04pm) PDT
Engagement Score......Hmmmm.Nobody looks at it, nobody cares, nobody understands.I call this low-value web real estate.
(@chuznt123) Charlotte Welch said:July 26th, 2012 (8:57am) PDT
No Rant just a Rave for this site and all that has been put into it......!First a bit Thank you to the individuals that are responsible for the site. I love that it is free because as it has been said there is not many thing's out there that are free.....! Lastly I love seeing the work of other photographers at all levels. It helps me learn more and more.....can't wait to honored enough to get one of my captures on the spotlight page..........! Thanks again72dpi and to all the photographers who have left comments and or viewed my work.Still learning.........but loving it!
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:July 24th, 2012 (4:51pm) PDT
I've given up on trying to understand the engagement score and just try to ignore it.
(@JeremyBarton)  said:July 23rd, 2012 (3:36pm) PDT
I am really not bothered about the engagement score i never look at it!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:July 23rd, 2012 (8:13am) PDT
@stephenoachs - Your explanation makes perfect sense, after all this is a photo sharing community, it is a shame the philosophy behind "Engagement" was not explained in more depth before as it is certainly a hang up for some members, and I know it has been a contributory factor in some leaving the site. From a purely personal point of view I never look at mine as it continues to be a mystery I really can't be too bothered about.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:July 22nd, 2012 (11:07am) PDT
@stephenoachs I definitely agree with that!Thanks for everything you guys do here!
(@stephenoachs) Stephen W. Oachs said (72dpi Admin):July 22nd, 2012 (10:32am) PDT
@timbutler54, good thoughts on the Engagement score. In my use, I tend to notice it when I come across someone new and if I see them posting images and participating with the community (thus they have a score) it encourages me to want to engage with them knowing they are open to collaboration.
On the other hand, if I see someone posting images and they have never faved or commented, I tend to wonder if their intensions are to be a participate or just to "be noticed". IMHO, these are two very different behaviors.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):July 22nd, 2012 (10:31am) PDT
@mcmac, thanks for brining this to our attention. Karate CHOP!
(@mcmac) Ian McGregor said:July 22nd, 2012 (9:40am) PDT
@72dpi Might want to take a look at this guy: http://www.72dpi.com/gallery/pilfer101
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:July 20th, 2012 (11:20am) PDT
@72dpi I understand why you want the Engagement Score and how you intend for it to be used, now that you've explained it that way.But I personally don't see how what is being done now accomplishes that.I know of instances where one user may have many more comments and likes than another user but fewer Favs and the one with more comments and likes (seemingly quite "engaging") will have a lower Engagement Score than the one with more Favs.
Please don't misunderstand me.I don't need for anything to be "fixed".I'm happy with the way things are.But for your intended purpose of the Engagement Score I find that the scores make so little sense I don't pay any attention to what the scores of other users are.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):July 20th, 2012 (8:30am) PDT
@Everyone -- we know the engagement score is a bit of a mystery, and it's suppose to be that way. It is calculated using an algorithm (fancy word for complicated math) based on favs, comments, votes, posts and more. We have worked to refine this quite a bit. The idea is that your score helps others understand your participation level. Having visibility into how much others interact should help hold them accountable for participating in the community.
@CharlieBaugh -- appreciate your "opinion" on Spotlight. We hope people don't take it too seriously -- we just thought it would be fun to have 72-staffers pick a favorite every once in awhile and call attention to it. Sure, it's what "we" like but, said jokingly, I guess being a staffer comes with perks ;)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:July 19th, 2012 (1:15pm) PDT
@72dpi@timbutler54I have the feeling that "fav" is a dominant factor in raising the "engagement" score. When the old scoring system was changed I began using the Fav to give extra boost on images I thought were special. My engagement score climbed to what i thought was extremely high as compared with many others. I then began being more selective about that and my score has declined to where I think is more realistic. And realistic is to me more in line with some here who I feel I am close to the same thinking. Lots of opinion there [g]
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:July 19th, 2012 (1:08pm) PDT
@72dpiOther than to say what I did to attract your attention, I'd rather not say. "Opinion" is what it was, and my opinion shouldn't be a deciding factor. Thanks for asking though.
Actually I will say more. I thought when "spotlight" was started that it was your only mistake (again opinion). Choices are felt so differently by each of us that I thought there was the likelihood that each choice would disappoint more posters than it would please. I feel this feature is the least important to me in the entire site, but it has not been, in anyway, an irritant or source for strong disagreement.
Keep up the great work.
Please!
Charlie
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:July 19th, 2012 (12:56pm) PDT
@timbutler54I think that I Fav a lot of shots(perhaps I'm too indiscriminate) so I don't think that's it.You're right about ignoring it but it seems there must be a glitch in the system - just curious.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:July 19th, 2012 (12:49pm) PDT
@Michael Yes, I do.I've steadily watched my Engagement Score go lower and lower while my comments and Likes steadily increase.It seems to me that whatever else may be driving it, that a high number of Favs will increase your Engagement Score.For me, I have different reasons for liking or fav-ing a shot.I'm not going to Fav something I wouldn't normally just so I can inflate the Engagement Score.Since I don't understand it I've decided to ignore it rather than let it be a source of frustration for me.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:July 19th, 2012 (11:46am) PDT
I've noticed that the more comments and votes that I make, the lower my engagement score goes.Has anyone else noticed this?
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):July 19th, 2012 (9:55am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh, which image are you recommending?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:July 18th, 2012 (9:52am) PDT
@72dpi"Opinion" - There is an image today that in my opinion deserves a "Spotlight" recognition. As I said this is my opinion and not a blessed thing is wrong if others feel differently. I just felt that with the wonderful resource of "Rants & Raves" I would do my little rave.
Charlie
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):July 11th, 2012 (7:35pm) PDT
@TomShacochis, thank you very much sir!
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:July 7th, 2012 (2:56pm) PDT
I really like the addition of "SETS".Not only does it allow you to group photos into separate albums but it leaves them in their original spot on the site, lets you organize within the "SET", and use the same photo in other albums that might share a theme if you care to do that.This had to be a monumental task and you did a superb job.I have very limitedtime and don't comment much...but I had to take the time to tell you what a great job you have done with that addition.LOVE IT.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:July 3rd, 2012 (8:20am) PDT
@72dpi - Very true, I'd rather be a Photo geek anytime ! ! At least you are not trapped in a darkened room toiling over hot code :-))
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):July 3rd, 2012 (8:10am) PDT
@jaykay72, oh sorry, didnt mean to come off defensive! "ex-IT" guy...that must feel GREAT to say! There is more to life than being a geek...well a photo geek isn't all that bad ;)
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:July 3rd, 2012 (8:03am) PDT
@72dpi - It wasn't meant as a criticsm, just an observation, looking forward to the new look, as an ex-IT guy I know the work that goes into a new release only too well. Keep up the great stuff for the best site on the web !
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):July 3rd, 2012 (7:58am) PDT
@jaykay72, iPad app very soon -- we reviewed the latest rev yesterday but there are still about 20 details to iron out. Building an iPad app has taken much more time than we ever imagined! But it's cool, we hope you love it because it's also not cheap! (we hired a firm to build it for us).
The sets are due TOMORROW! They have also proven to be a big, big task. We are also pushing out about 101 little tweaks to the site tomorrow as well. It may appear we've been quiet but you guys only see what's on the surface...with the growth of the site, what you're not seeing is the network expansion/hardware stuff behind the scenes.
Stay tuned!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:July 3rd, 2012 (5:57am) PDT
Just wondering - @72dpi- when we will see the promised new release with sets and the i-pad app, the last message here about it was June 2 and as a month has now transpired I was just curious as to the progress ? ? Guess those bugs take longer to exterminate sometimes.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:July 1st, 2012 (7:00pm) PDT
@jaykay72 We are blessed, John, with a great site and great people.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:July 1st, 2012 (10:22am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - Agree 100%. By far the premier site for people interested in photography, both sharing their own and viewing the great images of other photographers and their genres. Great job - @72dpi
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:July 1st, 2012 (7:33am) PDT
Half way through the year I just want to say that 72dpi is IMO the best thing that ever came along forfolks that just want to enjoy their photography and the images of others. Mosaic it for me the most wonderful way to see what is going on.
Thanks, 72dpi organization. You have made it pleasurable.
Charlie
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):June 18th, 2012 (12:37pm) PDT
@jmwnaturesimages, we've finally gotten to the bottom of the 404 error thanks to @DayneReast. Thank you for your patience on this, it was a tricky little bugger for sure!
(@mervinanto) mervinanto said:June 11th, 2012 (5:41am) PDT
thanks to 72dpi i liked it. but please "remove right click -saveoption. we need safety to our pictures. pls all photography friends pass this comment to the admin. thank you
(@jmwnaturesimages) J.Michael Wilhelm, said:June 7th, 2012 (3:10pm) PDT
Well is seem as "SNAP 404" is the page I get way too often. Now I have a message that I cannot access because of SNAP 404. So I guess my rant,not really, is what is "SNAP 404"? I have given up trying to re-upload a replacement image...just not working. I had Mozella Foxfire loaded but it did not work,so I un-installed it to see if the problem cleared up...nope. Hope ya got a fix and not sure if you can retrieve my message or not...maybe email.
(@mcmac) Ian McGregor said:June 5th, 2012 (5:28am) PDT
@72dpi : really looking forward to sets (and the iPad app!). Great work guys!
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):June 2nd, 2012 (10:41am) PDT
@jaykay72, yes we've been knee deep and the new features coming are far more complex than those of the past so the updates are fewer and farther between as a result. To give you an inside scoop, we're working on two big things..."Sets" which is the long overdue ability to group/organize images and an iPad app, which is nothing short of a giant undertaking but it's almost done and pretty cool!And, on top of all this we still have to be photographers, our first love...Scott just got back from Russia, Stephen's been in Hawaii the past few days and Brian, the other Scott, Ellie, Alicia and Jean have been teaching workshops. And now the entire team is assembling at the Aperture Academy gallery for tonights big open house (see @Paul message below for details).
As for an upload bug in IE, we'll give this a look. @jmwnaturesimages, can you email us at info@72dpi.com with a bit more detail on where you're clicking, etc, so we can track this bugger down, thanks!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:June 2nd, 2012 (10:35am) PDT
Just an observation and by no means a rant or a criticism, the - @72dpi - guru's have been very quiet lately, no changes or comments, I'm sure they are all working hard on the next set of wonderful features for us to play with and enjoy, just wondered why we had not heard from them lately as there does seem a few issues in the "Bugs" forum to be addressed. Wonderful site and for sure and the best photo sharing place on the Internet.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:June 2nd, 2012 (10:27am) PDT
@jmwnaturesimages Are you using Internet Explorer? I have that same issue when using IE. Try using another browser, I use Safari with no problems. Hope this helps.
(@jmwnaturesimages) J.Michael Wilhelm, said:June 1st, 2012 (4:09pm) PDT
Just a question...I have been wanting for months now to replace a previously uploaded imageand all I get is SNAP!??? is it me or is there a glich?
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 30th, 2012 (8:48pm) PDT
*** APERTURE ACADEMY OPEN HOUSE THIS WEEKEND! ***
I almost forgot to mention this to @everyone, but for those of you in California who are familiar with the Aperture Academy, they're having an open house this Saturday, June 2nd from 6 P.M. to 10 P.M. at the gallery in Campbell, California. 72dpi was the original photo sharing and "Photo of the Day" website for the academy that has now evolved into what we have today. Some of the headlines for this big event are:
* Wild animal presenation - YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!
* 12 Free large prints of YOUR PHOTO to raffle winners!
* Live Music by the Monique DeMoulin Band - Bring your dancing groove!
* TONS of raffle prizes...and we mean TONS (more than ever before!)
* Spirits, appetizers and more
* 15% off EVERYTHING!
So, if you're going to be in the area, be sure to stop by this free event. To help estimate the number of people attending, Aperture Academy is asking that you take a moment to RSVP here: http://www.apertureacademy.com/open-house-rsvp-june2-2012.php
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 30th, 2012 (8:39pm) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - I think that's a very accurate observation. I agree, 99.9% of the folks here on 72dpi are respectful of fellow photographers and in the case you mentioned, also respectful of different points of view. I try to stay neutral on issues of politics and religion but occasionally as you experienced, a photograph is powerful enough to almost beg for such discussions from the viewer and I think that's what makes the photo so great when it can capture that sort of emotion. @pietflour is a great example of this. His photos almost ALWAYS spark some sort of emotion and I think that's a gift he has... a gift that is priceless for an artist and photographer. Some people spend their entire photography careers trying to master the ability to do that and more importantly, to do it consistently.
On another note somewhat related to politics, how was everyone's Memorial Day weekend? While the weekend usually marks the unofficial beginning of summer, it's also a quite somber day for many as we remember the soldiers who have died in war. I served in the U.S. military before, during, and after 9/11 and so it's a pretty special day for me. I can no longer count on two hands the names of friends who have been killed in action, the latest one was killed just a few months ago. One thing I've noticed that has changed since the Vietnam war is the support we as a society now show to the servicemen and women coming home. I think regardless of whether you support the wars or not (and honestly, from my experience, most in the military do not), it's great to see people come together in support of those who are over there fighting.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 30th, 2012 (7:05pm) PDT
There is a minor thing, currently, which I think deserves a "RAVE". A comment was made regarding a certain photo that condemned a common form of government. My first reaction was to respond with a counter response. I didn't, and now after some hours I see that everyone else has left it pass without comment.The overall collegiality of current posters, IMO, is exemplary.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 30th, 2012 (6:59pm) PDT
@Paul Reading this last post of yours, It now seems to me that some have complained about not being able to delete their account and now I see that this is an advantage in that they can't hit and run by deleting their account immediately after a nastiness. Some of what trolls have posted in the way of photos and comments made to others is very revealing as to who the troll actually is.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 30th, 2012 (6:29pm) PDT
@Paradis Photography - Thank you for the head's up, unfortunately I didn't get a chance to see the post you're talking about before the individual deleted it but I think your analysis is spot on. I find it hilarious that some people can be so obsessed with someone that they will actually go out of their way to create a fake account just to make a forum post... and then not even have the courage to leave it there! What a waste of time, LOL! But I guess some people's time really isn't worth much. Unfortunately, those who feel inferior or intimidated by successful people, oftentimes resort to such cowardly acts. Looks like the account in question is a troll account as the image they uploaded is a pirated image from the Datacolor company.
We'll take care of their account and IP address before they cause problems with others. We've done a pretty decent job of keeping the trolls and stalkers at bay to keep this site an enjoyable place for everyone and we'll continue to do so. Thanks again for the heads up!- Paul
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 30th, 2012 (5:39pm) PDT
Interesting to see that @bana-o-ramma's post is gone. The venom he spewed in a personal attack on @Paul just makes me think that he suffers from envy. (Length of lens envy maybe? ;-) )
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 30th, 2012 (1:57pm) PDT
Interesting timing on this subject. I just now had a situation where a friend asked for a print of her family taken at our vacation trailer park's event last year and when I printed it I thought it wasn't up to my standards. When I informed them they said not to worry as they copied it off Facebook (greatly compressed version) and printed it. This kind of ticked me off mostly as it didn't meet my standards. The photos would have been given at cost so it's not a matter (in this case) of the work being used without permission. Thoughts?
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 30th, 2012 (9:46am) PDT
@Paul The blog you are talking about would be great. As amateurs most of us have no idea what the legalities involved are. I do know people who have had their worked used without consent and that certainly would be a huge piss off. Should we actively search for this or will we just stumble on the situation? Thanks so much for passing on your words of wisdom and your knowledge. It's part of the reason I think this site is so amazing. It's got such a small town feel to it.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:May 29th, 2012 (3:59am) PDT
@Paul - Interesting points you make there, I look forward to your blog link with interest, I must admit as a stricltly Amateur photographer it has never really been much of an issue where my work appears, but I would be seriously peeved if one of my pictures was entered into a photo competition under another name, even more so if it won ! ! I can fully understand the different issues a Pro photographer would have with illegal use of their images, a whole different ball game then. Thanks for the heads up on this.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 28th, 2012 (10:56am) PDT
@KimVetten - Pinterest is pretty harmless for the most part I think and as @Paradis Photography Denis pointed out, it can get you some free exposure sometimes. Now on the other hand, if I catch someone using my work in a manner I don't approve, taking credit for it, selling it or otherwise, I'll come after them with a quickness legally. Pinterest TOA may state that once work has been added they have full rights to use it, however, that is assuming the person who uploaded it had the rights to give up in the first place. I always suggest not worrying about most of the less harmful sites and instead go after people who are maliciously using your work for profit.
I have had images of mine being sold on stock photography sites, entered into photo competitions under another name, etc. In those cases, I had to take swift action. I'm fortunate enough to be in a position where I can afford lawyers to handle these things for me and I realize not everyone can do that. Luckily, it can be done even without a lawyer with a little research and using the right forms/letters.
I'm considering writing up a whole blog post on this subject because there's a lot of useful info we should all know, software that can be used to track your work, ways to stop piracy, etc. I'll try to have that written up by the end of the week and will post a link then.- Paul
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:May 27th, 2012 (8:06am) PDT
Well, @KimVetten, that sucks, doesn't it?
(@KimVetten) Kimba Vetten said:May 27th, 2012 (6:15am) PDT
@Paradis PhotographyI think you should Google "pinterest and copyrightviolations"it. There are huge copyright violations with them. The problem with Pinterest is that once an image has been re-pinned a few times the original link is gone. Way too much to type about here. There TOA basically states that once work has been added they have full right to it.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 27th, 2012 (5:43am) PDT
@KimVetten, not knowing anything about Pinterest I guess it would depend on if you wanted the exposure, Also, as long as others aren't using your work I don't think it's a bad thing. Are they sharing your 72dpi site or your personal website?
(@KimVetten) Kimba Vetten said:May 27th, 2012 (3:22am) PDT
Sharing on Pinterest - Does it bother anybody here that our work can be shared on Pinterest?
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:May 24th, 2012 (3:19am) PDT
@sasastro -I try and go through all a photographers work on my snaplist, back to the last photograph I commented on, so as not to miss any new additions, plus I also look through the work of those who have me on their snaplist but I don't have them on mine. One of the advantages of being retired, having the time to do it ! ! Your original point is very valid though.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:May 23rd, 2012 (10:29pm) PDT
@mezzoduomo Glad to see I'm not the only one, though I'm probably the only grumpy old woman;-)
P.S. ditto
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:May 23rd, 2012 (4:03pm) PDT
@sasastro :I frequently look over the entirety of a photographer's gallery, Snaplist member or not.I also often upload a small series of related pictures one right after another.Maybe this practice impacts the number of comments I get, but that's really quite alright with me at this stage.
P.S.:I ALWAYS enjoy both your gallery, and your visits to mine!:-)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:May 23rd, 2012 (11:17am) PDT
small rant, I rarely upload two photos together because when I do it's rare for the second one to be looked at or commented on. Do people not check to see if there has been more than one upload since they last checked a snaplist contact? Or is it just me that does that?
Rant over
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:May 22nd, 2012 (6:28am) PDT
From what I have seen here everybody does enjoy it, that is not to say it is perfect because that is impossible, can't please all the people blah blah, but with such an on-the-ball team of adminstrators most reasonable and fair requests are implemented with refreshing speed and thought. I for one, love it here.
(@JeremyBarton)  said:May 22nd, 2012 (6:07am) PDT
Enjoy this site!its free!!you do not get much these days that are free!fotoblur is 49.95 and 500 pricks! charge the same and most other sites charge a fee!at the moment this is free!!!!enjoy it!
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 21st, 2012 (6:29pm) PDT
@shuggie & @PeterMichael, thamks for the tips. Seems I just need to get more familiar with my software.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 21st, 2012 (11:19am) PDT
@Paradis Photography : I use Adobe Bridge for all my photographic filing work. When my RAW images are downloaded from the camera (via Canon EOS Utility), they're automatically filed in a directory titled with the shooting date. I then convert chosen RAW files to TIFF format using the script in Bridge (Tools/Photoshop/Image Processor) which I have set to save the converted TIFF's in a sub-directory of the download directory called TIFF. I then do all subsequent Photoshop processing from this directory. As and when I'm satisfied with the results, I move the processed file to the appropriate archive directory. I also move the original RAW to a directory in which I keep all RAW files of all images I've processed. After I've processed everything I want from a particular download directory, I delete it - along with all unwanted RAW files in it.
Since I'm principally a landscaper, I tend to organise my archive files in directories named according to location - Loch Ard, Loch Chon etc. - and order the images in those directories according to shooting date. I also tag all my processed files for easy retrieval should I forget where I've stored them (which happens from time to time).
Hope this is helpful.
(@PeterMichael) Peter Michael said:May 21st, 2012 (10:25am) PDT
@Paradis Photography
Look at using the STACKING and COLLECTIONS in Lightroom, it will help clean things up quite nicely. I use the same process as you working in Lightroom and Photoshop. The thing you have to watch for his that when you are stacking you have to keep everything in the same folder. So, for example working with a single photograph, you need to keep the RAW file and any versions of it that you save from Photoshop or Lightroom, or anything you use to modify the file and save it, in the same folder if you want to be able to stack all the various version of that photo together.
Basically I start working on an image and keep itand all modified versions of it in a stack. When I have the work completed I usually export everything to a new folder on my hard drive where everything is in one place and back up that folder to a cloud and a backup hard drive.
You can also place files in Collections in Lightroom which can be useful, although I don't use that feature very much.
Just remember that the viewing function of Lightroom is simply a catalog system for your files, it has to uses the locations on your hard drive to keep track of where the files are actually sitting.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:May 18th, 2012 (12:02pm) PDT
Yeh, I don't get how the rating system works. Just looking at my own gallery, the top-rated doesn't seem to even vaguely align with those with the most likes or favs. My supposed top-rated photo is way down the list of most likes or favs. Strange!
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 18th, 2012 (7:04am) PDT
@JadeCarbone Jade, I think there's a bug in the system - I'm getting a similar problem (see the Bugs page).
(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:May 18th, 2012 (5:25am) PDT
This is not really a rant, more of a clarification. I am not understanding how images are being rated, on the calender for example a top rated image for the day may have 6 views, no comment or likes. On a picture I have posted on the same day has more likes, comments and views, not saying mine should be in the top rated, I am sure there are others ahead of mine with more views ect.Even on my own page the top rated image has been the same for ever, just not sure how this is being calculated?
(@sasastro) sas astro said:May 14th, 2012 (7:58am) PDT
@Michael have to say that I too sometimes forget to scroll back up to the like button, I've also noticed that sometimes I click the button but it doesn't seem to register as a like
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:May 13th, 2012 (2:57pm) PDT
@CharlieBaughThat may be Charlie, but I actually saw that you did 'like' the photo. :))
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 13th, 2012 (8:12am) PDT
Michael, I must confess that the "Like" button is not, for me, located where it is a natural function. I often give a comment and move on to another image and then realize that I had failed to "like" the photo and go back. I just know that there are many I have missed voting "like" that I did in fact like, but forgot to go up to the button. It is somehow "un-naturally placed.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:May 13th, 2012 (7:47am) PDT
Here's my rant.It's people who give positive comments on an image but don't bother to 'like' it. (One example - 22 positive comments, 15 likes)It seems to be happening more and more.I would assume that if one is giving praise to an image they must like it.I can understand a discrepancy of one or two - I'm sure everyone, including myself, might occasionally forget to hit the like button - but 5, 6 or 7?Is anyone else experiencing this?Am I being overly sensitive?
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 12th, 2012 (5:56am) PDT
Question for all you seasoned photo vets, what's the best way to catalogue your photos. I have files saved for the raw photos, then after processing through Lightroom I have them saved again and if I have used Photoshop then they must be saved again. As you can see things are a mess. I am not sure what the colored tagging and other methods within Adobe are supposed to be used for let alone how to use them. Help!
(@PSLessey) Peter Lessey said:May 9th, 2012 (3:00pm) PDT
I just finished reading this entire thread and have found to be both Educational and entertaining. I will have to come back again in the near future.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 9th, 2012 (6:29am) PDT
I must say that in my opinion 72dpi management has a genius touch in how they handle controversy and controversial posters. Those who wish to enjoy photo sharing for pleasure continue, those with other agendas do not.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:May 9th, 2012 (1:37am) PDT
Now that they're gone, who was this person?
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:May 8th, 2012 (6:56am) PDT
@Paul
Thx for being the 'bouncer', Paul.A certain person was a shit-stirrer right from the start.Fortunately, its very rare around here.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 8th, 2012 (12:41am) PDT
I'm usually very polite (but firm) to these guys, Tom, because I realise that (a) they're only doing what they're told to do and (b) they're probably stuck in a job they don't really want to do. However, I get upset when some of them appear to have difficulty understanding the phrase "I'm sorry, I'm not interested". It's then that the full force of my sarcasm (a peculiarly British thing which, I'm given to believe, is not always understood by our cousins across the pond) comes into play.
A fitted kitchen, by the way, is where a company comes in, designs a completely new kitchen and constructs it for you - or, more properly, your nearest and dearest - who then organises things completely logically (logical to her, at any rate) leaving you with no idea where anything is any more.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 7th, 2012 (10:00pm) PDT
@everyone - I have had a couple people message me about problems they were having with another member... interestingly, someone I myself was also having problems with. Needless to say, they have been removed. If any of you experience any harassing messages or personal verbal attacks from another member, please report it to one of us right away, don't simply let it go on. We want this site to be an enjoyable experience and a place where we can all share our photos, share stories, ideas, tips, tricks, etc. Not a place where attention seeking trolls cause problems. I think we've cleaned up the mess so to speak but I just want to make sure everyone is enjoying themselves and not being harassed.
On a positive note...CALLING ALL NATURE PHOTOGRAPHERS:
If you haven't heard about it, the Windland Smith Rice photography competition is an annual competition for nature photographers. Winners of each category get their work exhibited in large format at the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History Museum in Washington, D.C. and at several other large museums around the world. This is a big deal and a great way to get a lot of exposure for your work. Normally, the deadline is today, May 7th (I've been rushing to get images submitted before midnight), but they've just announced they're extending the deadline until May 30th. The entry fee is only $25 but that allows you to submit up to 20 images into the competition. One of our members here on 72dpi actually won Youth Photographer of the Year a couple years ago and you can read about his story here: http://www.apertureacademy.com/guest-photographer-alex-mody.php
More details and the online entry form can be found here: http://www.naturesbestphotography.com/competition_overview.php
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:May 7th, 2012 (12:24pm) PDT
I have no idea what a "fitted kitchen" is.I've heard of the Scottish Cursing Tree and that'' a great idea!With the new Smart phones it seems that it would be easy to go out in the back yard, find the tree and let loose while the guy was on the phone.I knew a young man who had the "urge" and was out in the back yard fussing at the tree when lighting hit it.His mother was nonplussed and asked him just what in the hell he had said to provoke such a response.
Is a "fitted kitchen" a place where one would have just the right size "fit"...or with the growing obesity problem, could it be a way of dealing with "oversized" people.I am confused.Here in America we still have a few "Out Houses" or "WCs" as they might be known "over there" on the Cliffs of Dover.They serve a goodly purpose and the "fitting" is one size fits all.
I don't think any time of day or night is a good time to solicit me....otherwise I might have a "fit".If I want your product....I'll call you....preferably at a respectable hour....or when you're having sex.Some people just should not breed...and rude salespeople are one of them.
Boy....I feel better now...and fit to tackle anything!!!:)(Karl....you know this was a tension reliever....don't you?)
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 7th, 2012 (11:27am) PDT
Sorry to go off piste as it were, but I've got a rant.
What are the thought processes which encourage a company sales department to believe that ringing me up at 8pm, and interrupting my dinner, is the best way of persuading me to buy a fitted kitchen?
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:May 7th, 2012 (5:45am) PDT
Carl, the only time that I notice focusing problems is when I add filters, but then I go manual for a still setting.Usually I keep a UV filter on it and it is no problem and I rarely add filters so that's not a problem either.I notice it with the circular polarizer. Overall I like the lens.Though it is large, it hand holds well.I use it for my flight shots and can track with ease. I also have no problem having it keep focus on the subject during flight because I use a single spot or a very small center cluster so that with the aperature a big bird closing on me stays in focusfor its whole breadth....like a Blue heron or Great White.It is a very utilitarian lens.I used it while in a garden in SC to bring in things from afar that I didn't want to have to walk to with my bad knees.It beats the hell out of lugging around a 500 or 600 though I'm not particularly a "birder" and without going commercial, that kind of expenditure is ridiculous unless I either won the lottery or got a divorce. With a 1.4 telephoto extender, you are at 600 with little additional cost. That's really the extent of my needs in "distance".I sculpted birds for over 20 years and so they are now of less interest to me and I choose to shoot Wildlife in more contained settings where I know the birds are either friendly or plentiful, like during migrations.I have a lot of birder friends who use it and they also have the "big guns".I like the fact that I can hand hold it and not break my arms or back doing it.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:May 7th, 2012 (3:06am) PDT
@TomShacochis - Tom, how do you like your 100-400 assuming it's the Canon one? I've been thinking of getting one for some time now. Seems there is very little lens distortion, but some people complain of hit-and-miss focusing. Are you happy with it? They are quite cheap in AU$ at the moment.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:May 6th, 2012 (10:13pm) PDT
There's absolutely no question about it - I would never have started snapping but for the advent of digital cameras.The very idea of messing about with film now seems ridiculous and archaic.Just as the concept of digital must have sounded like complete madness to the film snappers when it first emerged.
These days I think big numbers dominate the world of photography - and many forget what it's all about, namely taking pictures.Over the weekend I was out snapping at an event and two guys stood for half an hour talking about their new cameras (D800 and 5D3) without taking a single shot.Enthusing over this and that...but ignoring the entertaining activities going on around them, preferring instead to talk about what their equipment could do, rather than actually doing it.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:May 6th, 2012 (5:32pm) PDT
I remember starting to shoot with one ISO and then going into a different lighting situation and having to get that roll of film out of the camera, wasting at least 2 frames to not lose anything by the hand driven rewind, writing down the number of frames where you left off and loading the "new" roll to shoot that situation.There are some cameras in digital that allow double exposures, which back then you had to calculate in your head and you could even triple if you really wanted to frustrate yourself.Now processing with layers takes care of all of that. I shoot all manual or Aperture/shutter priority and sometimes let the camera choose the ISO which may go into the thousands....what a difference.It sure saves time.Changing rolls of film out of the camera on a windy/rainy day with dirt/sand blowing around, trying not to let anything fall on the shutter curtain...what a pain.I also have 3 different cameras with lenses that I rarely change off of.I have a 10-22, 28-135, and 100-400 for covering any situation without having to switch off lenses.I will switch off for macro or for Tilt/Shift....and that is rare.I can do an adequate job of Macro with the 400 and the 28-135 has a Macro setting. Though they are not true Macros, when I want to get serious I will dive into the bag and get the 100 Macro and the extension tubes.For filters I only have a ND that is adjustable to a 10, circular polarizer for each lens when needed, and a couple of graded NDs.Anything else can be done through processing.I only use a tripod for low light shots or when a timed exposure is necessary below hand hold level.I have hand held a 9 shot HDR bracketed set for landscapes.I use the tripod mostly when I need a walking stick.I generally have my 3 cameras, spare batteries and CF cards and a remote timer on me. Traveling "light" on bad legs is where it's at now.I can't do rough or unstable terrain.I broke an arm and several ribs trying to "think young".I try to know the camera's and MY limitations.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 6th, 2012 (4:56pm) PDT
(@TomShacochis" class="ulinks">TomShacochis and @TomShacochis" class="ulinks">TomShacochis. I tried my hand when back when with the traditional film photography but got totally frustrated. If there were 5 things to remember ( IE. Aperture, Shutter Speed, Focus, ISO selection, Flash) to take a good shot, I'd remember 4. If 4 were required, I'd remember 3. The dark room was always a disaster.
Needless to say the reasonable cost of Digital SLR cameras has allowed me to rekindle my interest in photography which is slowly becoming a passion. For me it allows me to relax and at the same time get a bit of exercise while out looking for subjects.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 6th, 2012 (1:38pm) PDT
@TomShacochis - Very good post, couldn't agree more. A lot of folks who shoot today have never spent a day in the traditional wet darkroom so it's sometimes difficult to truly appreciate what digital has done to the photography world. I still have a wet darkroom setup in my house in the spare room and although i don't use it everyday, I still try to get in there as much as I can. There's something about the process of developing your own film, mixing your developer, stop bath, fixer, etc. that I still like. Or maybe it's just the smell of the chemicals that I like??? ;-)
I remember this photo contest we had in grade school and one of the kids in my class thought he was hot stuff because he was using his dad's pro-grade Nikon SLR to take his photos. I had a $15 Kodak 110-format point-and-shoot. This kid made fun of my little camera with my disposable flash bulbs all week but I'll tell you what, he shut his mouth when my photo won the competition. Even with his expensive Nikon, he didn't even make it into the top 5. I'll never forget that moment. So you're totally right, it's the photographer, the creative mind of the photographer that gets good shots... the camera and lens are your tools but if you don't have the talent to use them, they're worthless.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:May 6th, 2012 (9:16am) PDT
I used to envy those National Geographic photographers and still do admire their work.Before digital came along I took very controlled shots and had to write down the data since there was no other way to retrieve the data on a shot like the new "metadata" contained in digital.I came to understand that these guys would hand load a 72 frame roll, put it in a freezer to preserve the quality of the film, lug their "team" to wherever and then take 100 rolls of that 72 frame ISO film.They had to switch out for certain lighting situations.Top film ISO back then reached 400.I used to shoot 25 and 64 and usually never went beyond 200, rare occasions, 400.
Each shot would then reveal itself in the darkroom.Hits and misses.Expensive film and chemicals wasted.I then developed the "frame" of mind that if I couldn't take 10 good pics from about a thousand then I would never make National Geographic.I now shoot and with the digital I can see immediately what I have in the camera.I can reset and shoot again if it wasn't a split second opportunity.I learned by shooting....like a National Geographic photographer.....from my mistakes.Take loads of pics with different exposures for the same setting. Without the availability of a Photography course, I learn by doing and now have a reasonable idea before I shoot what I want, so the "delete" button doesn't get hit much anymore except for flight shots of birds.I approach landscapes with ease.
To me, it is NOT the camera.An iPhone has an excellent camera in it.If it wasn't for mybig hands and some tremor of age, I would use it for its accessibility.It is PERFECT for my wife, so I leave it to her for those "moments".Over time I have used Kodak Instamatics, the original Polaroid Land camera where you had to paint the preservative on the pic, Point and Shoots, Canon AE-1 (my first love), and now the equal to the AE-1 with digital.
To me, it is having an "eye" for composition, a brain for dealing with the lighting requirements, and the knowledge of your camera's limitations under whatever conditions confront you and adapting to it to still get "a shot".A "masterpiece"....maybe.A record of the "moment"...always.Somewhere in between is where my shots fall.I am a small fish in a big sea of talented people.By looking at their work, I learn or try to divine what they did to achieve their result.We all know photographers who have the most expensive and state of the art equipment and shoot or process crap.
I have given up the "high tech" chase with cameras and lenses for processing.I leave the high dollar stuff to the pros...the real ones and not the wanna be kind.If you achieve great shots with lesser equipment by knowing your equipment and its limitations, then my hat is off to you....exposing my bald head with its blown out highlights.
"Masters" have their place...but we all start at the bottom.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:May 6th, 2012 (8:42am) PDT
Recently a local photographer,who gets tired of people asking what brand of equipment he uses rather than what his “vision” of the photograph was, asked on his blog if we are in love with photography or just the idea of it. FYI, I agree with his point regarding it doesn’t matter what brand of camera used, how many lenses, lights or whatever toys you have. However, the notion that we should all put our cameras down and not take another picture until we’ve studied the “masters” just doesn’t make sense to me. This is a guy I truly respect but his blog content pissed me off. Using this analogy, should we stop strumming our guitars until we know all about the iconic guitarists? Oh wait, we can’t start another wood working project until we learn all about the world’s best cabinet makers. Ridiculous! The point is when it comes to looking at the finished photographs we either like or we don’t. Does it matter if I can’t tell an Ansel Adams from a William Jackson, an Irving Penn from a Jim Marshall, if I like it? I think the point of photography is capturing a moment that is filled with emotion. That emotion can be joy, sadness, or even indifference, but in my opinion a good photograph captured something that meant something to someone, maybe just themselves. If we spent our time wondering how the pros did it and what were they thinking we’d miss the moment! For me it comes down to, just take the damn picture! How did the photography pioneers get their style of photography? I am sure at first they just took pictures and hoped for the best. I’ll bet some of their experiences were good and some were just downright horrific. I’ll bet they learned a lot of things from just trying things but probably, like life, learned more from their mistakes. I think for the newbie, like myself, the photography mantra should be, “if you can’t take shots, take lots”. Like asking a hundred girls out on a date, one will eventually work out. From that one successful photo, you build your repertoire. As a true hobbyist who is at the leading edge of my photography education, I have already had self taught lessons in what works and what doesn’t work from taking numerous shots. The beauty of today’s digital photography is that we get to go through the pictures and decide what we like and what we don’t at a relatively low cost. In answer to the question of whether I am in love with photography or just the idea of it. I’d say it’s both. Sure I am in love with the idea of being a full time photographer one day when I retire from my current job, but I’d also like to play pro sports but that isn't likely. This I do know, that feeling of capturing a moment that makes me, and if lucky enough, others truly feel a strong emotion when viewing my photograph. Thats what I'm in love with. “I don’t know anything about art but I know what I like” Gellett Burgess. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. Thanks for the rant!
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:May 4th, 2012 (4:02am) PDT
I think a lot of people here are fearful of this wonderful site becoming less so.It's natural to be protective of something you love.There are a number of reasons why sites like this (and I mean hobby specific, social media type sites whether they be photography, audio, video, etc.) go bad.Most or all of these reasons have been handily dealt with by the owner/operators of this site, i.e., voting trolls, gangs of traveling cut throats, etc.But another reason for unwanted change could be financial.As @BBM" class="ulinks">BBM mentions below, "servers cost money".I believe that social media should be free, and I suspect that the owner/operators do as well.But there is another reality of life that @BBM" class="ulinks">BBM points out and that is "nothing is for free".
I would like to say that if the owner/operators of this site set up a Donations button (PayPal related or something), I would donate to it.I have to pay for everything else in my life that I like or enjoy and this should be no different.I have no idea what the response would be to something like this.I don't know how far it would go to defraying the costs associated with operating a site like this, nor do I have any idea WHAT it costs to operate a site like this.But I do have an idea what a site like this is worth to me in monetary terms.I would like to have an opportunity to pay what I want to pay before I'm told what I have to pay.How many times do we get to do that?!I do know of one audio site that is quite large and operates just on donations.There are no fees and there also no advertisements.So everything comes from donations, as far as I can tell.Just a thought.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated or associated with the owner/operators of this site other than my participation here.
(@BBM) BBM Maniac said:May 3rd, 2012 (1:57pm) PDT
I wonder how its going to last before this site starts introducing costs like 500px did..its only logical as servers cost money and nothing is for free.i left 500px because of the way they changed the rules and how they did it too...seems to be a trend with all these social websites the minute they smell more money.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 3rd, 2012 (8:25am) PDT
We do have a source (site) for wonderful interaction of enjoyment seeking photographers of all levels. The key to that of course is the 72dpi present owners. As Paul mentions below this site has already, I'm sure, attracted attention of investors looking to take a site like this and turn it into a monster large money making venture. I think that is likely to happen and we will have to seek another site to satisfy our needs. Maybe, just maybe, the 72dpi folks are building this great success out of a personal desire to keep it pure and will resist cashing in on their magnificent creation.
Either way I am most appreciative of what this is, as of now.
Charlie
(@LovelyJubblyOz) LovelyJubblyOz said:May 3rd, 2012 (7:18am) PDT
Absolutely spot on @Stentionhouse. I've experienced similar problems with both of those places you name, and I wouldn't trust either of them. Both are just money making sites these days. @72dpi for me provides somewhere to share images with friends, and see work from others with similar interests. I think the most recent changes introduced here have been well thought out, and are perfect for my needs. Long may it last.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 3rd, 2012 (3:51am) PDT
You could be right @Paul - stranger things have happened in the fast-changing trend-driven world of the internet - 72dpi could well end up eventually with a user base to rival the big guys. I reserve judgement, however, on whether that would be a step backwards or forwards. My instinct at the moment is for the former in that a mushrooming user base might (would?) bring with it all the problems that @Stentionhouse Sten has alluded to regarding Flickr and 500px.
What are the feelings of @72dpi on this issue?
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:May 2nd, 2012 (10:27am) PDT
One of the major attractions of 72dpi is that it's not huge.When I was on Flickr I had snaps with 10,000+ views but those would frequently have less comments than I get here.Anyone wanting raw views could fairly easily get them.I understand why pros need exposure, but for someone like myself, it's better to get 10 views, each from someone who actually enjoys looking at the picture I've uploaded, than thousands from faceless people just passing through.
Flickr is dreadful - the way they treat paying customers is pretty shameful.They can and do delete Pro accounts for no good reason and then refuse to enter into any form of discussion.They apparently reserve the right to do this and yet still people use the site.Really it's just a huge bin these days, full of all manner of crap (and plenty of great stuff, of course, but you have to sift the detritus to find that).
500px was a good site till the owners got too big for their boots and decided to make wholesale changes to the place without even asking the punters if they agreed with what they were going to do.But a good few people who moved here and have since returned to 500, presumably lured by the new money making potential and the ego massaging number of view it's possible to get,
On 72, your voice can be heard.On the 'major' photo sharing sites, you're entirely insignificant and simply a means of generating revenue for the owners.That's fine if you're a pro and it's reciprocal.But less so if you're an amateur with no interest in selling anything.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 2nd, 2012 (10:12am) PDT
Thanks Paul. I'm so far out of touch with what is going on, and view this sight with very limited knowledge of the internet world.The vast number of people that will be interested in any photo site must certainly be amateurs, and IMO, this is now a very satisfying site for an amateur.Seeing how some go at the promotion of their product of photography, it gives me pause in my current thinking of starting to offer photos for sale.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 2nd, 2012 (9:53am) PDT
Oh, and regarding pros leaving because voting is gone, I don't think that's true at all. I honestly don't think pros give two $hits about ratings... they're irrelevant. What's relevant is selling your prints, and marketing yourself as a professional photographer. If your work is "rated" an 8.5 but you're selling dozens of prints of that piece at local art shows, then who cares if someone else's photo is rated a 9.8 if they're not making any money off of it?! If a pro has something to prove, they enter their work into PPA competitions, NANPA competitions, submit work to magazines, websites, etc. for peer review. Professionally graded peer review. If anything, the removal of the voting system has made it a lot less "stressful" around here for many folks and perhaps instead of the never ending banter/discussions on voting issues, trolls, etc., more people are now out taking photographs!
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 2nd, 2012 (9:45am) PDT
One thing I would add is, I don't really think it's accurate to say (as @shuggie Karl did below) that @72dpi "is never likely to" have the userbase of sites like Flickr, 500px, and so on. This site is still very, very young and has just recently got to a point where features have been added/removed to be competitive and effective, and bugs have been removed to make the site more reliable. At the rate in which it appears to be growing, it's not unlikely that it will be able to start pulling users from these other sites.
As a technology entrepreneur from Silicon Valley, I see this happen all the time. Look at MySpace for example. The "unstoppable" MySpace (valued at $12 BILLION dollars six years ago) was once THE social media outlet for the world with hundreds of millions of users, even surpassing Google as the most visited website in the United States. That all changed in 2008 when a couple college kids came along with their Facebook website and started implementing features in their website that MySpace refused to implement. So, after a couple of years of that, MySpace, the company once valued at $12 billion dollars was overrun by Facebook, it's 1600 employees dwindled to less than 200, it's userbase went from hundreds of millions to just 30 million and it was sold to Justin Timberlake for $30 million. It tanked.
To beat my point a little further, fast forward to today, still focusing on Facebook. Now we have Instagram, a website my friend Kevin started in Silicon Valley less than two years ago. It was actually called Burbn back then. Just a little app for sharing photos in a 4:3 format. Several of us investors put money into it early on and now 18 months later, it was just sold to Facebook for $1 BILLION in cash and stock! (Flickr was bought by Yahoo 7 years ago for $35 million, just to put this in comparison.)
I guess my point is, the technology industry is a dog eat dog world. If you let your guard down, you're done. Done. 500px is doing that now. Flickr has been doing that for a while. Honestly, this is how many of us investors have made money on these deals... because so many people are betting against the success of the little guys and instead invest their money in the big, established ones. Yet from our experience mixed with a bit of "gut feeling", we know it's always the new guys in the tech world who come around full swing. And once you've built one company into a multi-million dollar company, the others come more naturally. This isn't the first rodeo for the developer of 72dpi, lol, that's for sure. So I'm going to predict right now, give it a year or two and 72dpi is going to look a lot different in terms of userbase and industry dominance than it does now.
Oh, everything else you said, I agree with, LOL! The tech industry stuff is just "shop talk" for me so I get carried away. But yes, we typically use these sites predominantly for exposure and "community."
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:May 2nd, 2012 (7:00am) PDT
Karl - excellent words of wisdom which provide a valuable and balanced perspective.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:May 2nd, 2012 (6:50am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - Agree 100%. I view this and other sites as a way of furthering my photographic knowledge and a way to obtain advice and comments on my own pictures,and the opportunity to view wonderful photographs I might otherwise never have the chance to see.
I guess I might see it differently if my living depended on exposure and sales of my work but that is not what this site is about, and long may that continue.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 2nd, 2012 (6:26am) PDT
I guess is really doesn't matter, John, and if my post looks like I am very concerned, it wasn't meant that way. Karl gave an honest appraisal of the difference of how some of us view the use of photo sharing sites and how an honest pro deals with the differences between these sites. We went through a period of some pros trying to scam the site into being strongly promotional of their work and that *did* matter.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 2nd, 2012 (6:14am) PDT
A really great post Karl. I agree with everything you say here. Thanks for saying it.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:May 2nd, 2012 (5:07am) PDT
@jaykay72 your 2 cents worth was well spent, couldn't agree more.
@shuggie spot on summary of why we are all here, if I could I would like and fav your post ;-)
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:May 2nd, 2012 (4:06am) PDT
@shuggie - Well said!
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 2nd, 2012 (3:59am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - I think your statement that "amateur and pro factions are looking for different satisfactions from photo sharing groups" is absolutely spot on.
I can't speak for others in the pro / semi-pro bracket but I principally use photo-sharing sites as a means of increasing the exposure of my work to the world, and to drive traffic to my website. The "social interaction" side of things is valuable (I've made a great many contacts and lasting friendships from such over the years) but it is secondary - a spin-off, if you like - to the main purpose for which I joined. To that extent, 500px is still (despite all its problems with trolling and idiotic site management) the best "exposure mechanism" available in that a good image can have upwards of 5,000 views in the first 24 hours - which, on a good day, will translate into around 100 visits to my website. Then there is Flickr - which has its "quality" problems (as we all know) but, on account of it being so well-known, is STILL the first port of call for editors and publishers surfing the net for images to publish (and, of course, pay for!). On those sites, scoring is important - simply because scoring equates to exposure: it is brutally simple.
In this respect, 72dpi doesn't even come close: it doesn't have the user base that those sites have and, unless we divorce ourselves completely from reality, is never likely to. That said, however, it does have a number of plus points which sites like 500px, Flickr, RedBubble etc. will NEVER have: principally those which derive from the fact that it's a site set up BY photographers FOR photographers and not a commercial venture set up with the sole purpose of making money. What has happened here, in my view, is that a disparate group of individuals, all with different viewpoints, different attitudes and different levels of expertise, has coalesced to form a community with a common "identity of interest" - that of photography, be it from a learning standpoint or a teaching standpoint. Although it might not be apparent in the quality of my work - ahem - I've learned a great deal from being here, and long may that continue. I'd also like to think that, by virtue of indulging in a bit of requested critique from time to time, I've contributed something in return. Apart from that, it's bloody good fun - particularly the "Rants" and other forum pages - and that's important!! So is scoring important here? Sure - we all have an element of vanity in our DNA if we're honest but, other than that, it makes no difference at all - at least, not to me.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:May 2nd, 2012 (2:32am) PDT
Does it really matter who is active and who is not, surely it's the quality of the photographs that this site is all about,I've seen some absolute rubbish, in my opinion "Pro" shots and converslely some stunning "Hobbyist" pictures, for me it's the photograph that counts, not who took it, if the Pros are less active because there are no votes then so be it, that to me is not what this or any other photo sharing site is all about, its mutual appreciation and learning from others to improve our photographsand enjoy taking them, not seeing who could top the a league table of votes.My 2 cents well and truly spent.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 2nd, 2012 (2:18am) PDT
@DayneReast , I know you weren't!
@Paul - thanks for the compliment - very much appreciated!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 1st, 2012 (6:49pm) PDT
@timbutler54) Hi Tim, It had occurred to me many weeks ago that the amateur and pro factions are looking for different satisfactions from photo sharing groups. It did surprise me that there would be such a strong difference in how these factions felt about each other. Scoring must be a very big thing for pro's and my reason for this post is that, and I may very well be wrong, the pro's have become less active of late.
Am I wrong?I admit to being wrong lots of times and don't mind being told that I am, but do appreciate explanation of why I am.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):May 1st, 2012 (6:18pm) PDT
Speaking of HDR, @shuggie Karl has an absolutely outstanding tutorial on his website covering HDR photography. Admittedly, I haven't been a big fan of HDR, mainly because I had some misconceptions about it and didn't fully understand it. So I decided to read through this tutorial of Karl's and while it gives you all of the technical details you need to shoot HDR (settings, software, processing, etc.) it also covers in layman's terms what HDR is and what it is not right at the beginning of the tutorial. Definitely worth checking out. One thing I've learned from fellow photographers here on 72dpi is to keep an open mind about different styles and genres and to try them out if you haven't yet done so. That said, I'm going to spend a couple days this week shooting some areas downtown that I think would look pretty goof in HDR and give it a shot. We all have our favourite styles and genres but it's always nice to branch out and try something new.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:May 1st, 2012 (2:43pm) PDT
@shuggie Karl. I certainly wasn't referring to your work. You are very open with the fact that your's are multi-exposure HDR, and I find that they tend to be very good and tastefully done. Well, to my untrained eyes, at least.
Besides, it's not the blues & greys that I find an issue in HDR images. It's all the other colours of the rainbow that are frequently oversaturated that I personally find a little nauseous.
Of course, it could be me that is colour blind! Ha ha.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:May 1st, 2012 (1:54pm) PDT
Apparently, I can't tell some blues from some greys @Paul (again, a military physical) - but I'm unaware of this deficiency in day-to-day life. Perhaps that explains Dayne's comments about HDR!
(@sasastro) sas astro said:May 1st, 2012 (1:21pm) PDT
@DayneReast :D lol love that comment
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:May 1st, 2012 (12:38pm) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - if you mean amateur photographers who seek the pleasure of learning how to take and make better photos, then I see it too.Before the voting change I practically begged for constructive criticism and found little to none of it.But since the voting change I have had several critiques from very good photographers which included some VERY good suggestions and advice.I know my photos could be better and there are people here whose work I admire a great deal and would LOVE for them to give me their honest opinions.It seems to me that people are feeling more free and open to help with advice where they think they can make a difference.I hope that does give them pleasure because I certainly derive pleasure from producing better work as a result of it.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:May 1st, 2012 (10:34am) PDT
@Paul - Judging by some of the HDR images we see, I think there are a lot of photographers out there who are colour blind and don't realize it !^)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:May 1st, 2012 (7:16am) PDT
Is it just me or has the elimination of voting made this site more an amateur group of pleasure seeking photographers?
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 30th, 2012 (11:54pm) PDT
So here's something I've been curious about and this mainly applies to the male photographers out there as this affects 6% of the male population and less than .01% of the female population, and that is colour blindness. Specifically how it affects your photography. I am personally colour blind (this term is technically inaccurate as 99% of colour blind people are really colour deficient, meaning they see colours different than those people with normal colour vision and I fall into this category.)
In my case, I am colour deficient in one eye. My other eye is normal. I actually didn't even know I was colour blind until I served in the military and was told this during my physical exam. I typically see reds much darker than most. Sometimes if they're dark enough, they may seem almost black. I also see yellows and greens differently. So far, this has worked to my advantage because one eye can see tonal qualities the other eye can't (colour blind people need only two spectral lights to match any colour whereas normal colour vision people need three spectral lights.)
The main reason I ask is, with statistics showing 6% of the male population as being colour blind, that means there are a lot of photographers out there who are colour blind and have to find a way to work around it with their photography. Anyway, if this applies to any of you, I'd love to hear your story regarding how it affects your photography. If you don't feel comfortable sharing your story on here, feel free to send me a private message.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 29th, 2012 (1:38am) PDT
@rpshah24 - Knowing what your budget is for a tripod and filters would also be helpful. If you want to know what "the best" is, that's one thing, but if you're working within a specific budget, there would be tripods that could fit within that budget. Personally I use a Gitzo GT3541LS carbon fiber tripod (in many photographer's opinion, this would be "the best"), as well as a Really Right Stuff BH-55 ballhead (also viewed as "the best"), and for wildlife, specifically birds, a Wimberley WH-200 II gimbal head. These three tripod pieces alone cost $2,000. If you're working within a specific budget, Manfrotto makes some really good tripods and ballheads that can be purchased for less than $400 total, for example.
Same goes with filters. I use B+W filters exclusively because after experimenting with a few brands, I've decided these work the best for me. Lately though, I've only been using the filters as needed, instead of keeping a UV filter on the lens at all times. Some people keep them on the lens at all times to protect the lens but there is a slight loss in image quality and it sort of negates the point in spending thousands of dollars on a lens with great image quality, just to have it reduced by a $50 filter. If you are looking at filters, I would initially recommend a UV filter and a circular polarizer to start with as you'll likely use these the most. Once you get into more advanced photography where you want to create smooth textures in flowing water on a bright day for example, you'll want to start looking at getting some ND filters to artificially step-down your lens to allow for longer exposures.
Feel free to message me if you have specific questions about gear you're deciding on. Through my photography school I have literally seen dozens of different cameras, lenses, tripods and tripod heads used by my students, some really good ones, and plenty of really bad ones. You can view my "Equipment Used" page on my website at http://www.paulkomarek.com/about/equipment-used/ and either message me through here, or through my website.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 27th, 2012 (1:40pm) PDT
rpshah24 -If you are true newbie, I'm not sure you really need to worry about filters yet.If this is your first dslr, I'd just buy a protective uv filter to safeguard the lens and not worry about other filters for now (just mho).I don't think you'll really know what kind of filters you'll need until you have an idea of what kind of photography you may want to "specialize" in.I do mostly macro work and I don't use filters.Landscape photography is where you'd have the most need, but you can certainly do high quality work without filters even in that realm.
As far as tripods are concerned - I have a manfrotto that is built like a tank and weighs about as much as one.I'm sure it will survive me and several generations of my descendants.I use it a lot and I love it, but you may want to look at a lighter weight "travel" tripod.Velbon make some excellent ones - I have one that is very light, yet plenty stable enough for my dslr with any of my lenses.
Hope these ideas help.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 27th, 2012 (1:38am) PDT
@rpshah24 - further to what Carl says below, you will find some useful information about the use of the "welding glass" filter for long exposures in the "Long Exposures using the NDx1000 Filter" tutorial on my website.
You will also find some useful information about tripods in the "High Dynamic Range Imaging" tutorial.
Both tutorials are presented in downloadable PDF form at http://karlwilliamsphotography.co.uk/tutorials
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 26th, 2012 (8:35pm) PDT
@rpshah24 - This might not be the right place for gear discussions, but you did ask.
I've just been through the filters decision thing and learned a lot by searching the web. I looked at Cokin and Lee filters. At the time all Lee equipment was out of stock all over the world for many weeks so I settled for the much cheaper Cokin P System. I mainly wanted a Lee Big Stopper so decided to make my own out of welding glass for a total cost of $16 and it works quite well. See my test results here…
http://500px.com/carlparow/stories/25331/long-exposures-using-welding-glass-filter
and here…
http://500px.com/carlparow/stories/25784/more-examples-with-welding-glass-filter
And also an image posted to 72dp taken with the welding glass 10 stop. There is not a colour cast in this image. What you see is the result of some intentional post processing.
http://www.72dpi.com/photo/29712
To help you decide about filters visit the Lee and Cokin sites. Lee have some very informative videos on their site. Lee is regraded as the best system. There are screw on filters, but they are less versatile.
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/index
http://www.cokin-filters.com/
Also read this article by 72dpi member, Peter Hill. He's the man for filter knowledge.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/peterh111/journal/4421304-the-ultimate-guide-to-neutral-density-filters
(@rpshah24) Ritesh P. Shah said:April 26th, 2012 (12:27pm) PDT
Can we start a forum or a discussion group on equipment?Some newbies like me would benefit greatly by getting input from folks more experienced.For example, I am looking to buy a good tripod and some filters but there are too many choices.I love nature/landscape/architecture photography and wouldn't minding a bit of wild life photography in future.I have a Canon DSLR T3i, 18-55mm Canon and a Tokina 11-16. f/2.8.I don't have any filters yet...
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 26th, 2012 (4:17am) PDT
@drdab99 - Perhaps our next ask should be a built in translator to better understand some of our global friends comments ! !
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 26th, 2012 (4:02am) PDT
I just want to echo with my own feelings expressed eloquently already by others- the responsive administrators and the sense of community among people from all over the world make this a special place to be, and not in just a pure photography website kind of way.I love sharing something I love with others and receiving their comments and support, even (maybe especially) when I have to use Google Translate to understand the message.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 25th, 2012 (3:08pm) PDT
one other thing that makes this the best site- the wonderful sense of humour from @72dpi ;-)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 25th, 2012 (9:47am) PDT
IMO @72dpi is beyond comparison the best, for all the reason youmentioned below and the relationship you maintain with participants is not only beyond compare but uncontested by other photo sharing sites.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 25th, 2012 (9:33am) PDT
@72dpi - No question in my mind of this site is head and shoulders above the others out there for all the reasons you listed, I know, I have belonged to others, no contest, this site wins every time in every department. I realise that dropping voting was a bit of a quantum leap for you guys especially as you nurtured the site from its conception, but as you say, in the end it was meaningless for all the reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum. Brave move by you guys which we should all applaud and move on to greater things.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 25th, 2012 (9:17am) PDT
I cannot take exception with anything that you just stated.I have been on several sites and the "VOTING" is the least of my concerns.I do believe in a sense of "community".I believe in free exchange of views in a respectful manner.I believe in responsiveness to a "free" public and where self promotion is not the goal.
This is a "smaller" community of "multinationals".There is some good in that."Exposure" can be done in the camera, the privacy of your own home, or in public places.Some strive to be in the limelight and the center of attention.If one person appreciates what I've tried to accomplish then my mission has been successful.
I do know some of you from other sites and I follow you here just as I did or still do on those other sites.I do it because I admire your work.I learn from your processing or in the case of some....your great captures within the camera with no additional processing.The END PRODUCT is what counts.I try to be eclectic and "universal" in my viewing. I lean towards the landscapes because I want to see places in ways that they haven't been seen before or you might have been "there" and I brought out features of the place that were unseen by you in your visit.
To me the hardest thing to capture is a place that has been shot a thousand times before in a new way.I just shot some birds, flowers and gardens in my current "break" from the office.I will still lean towards the landscapes, but I may post a few as a respite from earth and sky.
The important thing to me is as this site growsto try and maintain the balance between the photography and the "community".Right now there is a decent mix of genres.There are some very good photographers and photographs at all levels.I think this is a site that I will continue with for those reasons though the audience may be smaller and the "numbers" less than on other sites.It is not a matter of whether you hit a "home run".....but how you do when "at bat".Hopefully you get "on base".....even if it's a "walk".
(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:April 25th, 2012 (9:12am) PDT
Well said @72dpi there are so many wonderful features on this site...many ways to view new images and have some exposure. I truly am enjoying being a member. This site is leaps and bounds above others, the admin listens and responds with such witty remarks. I have and will continue to recommmend this site to other fellow photographers...and last however not least the members are what also makes this site so terrific. Keep up the good work!
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):April 25th, 2012 (8:52am) PDT
@Everyone - there seems to be a feeling that now without the voting system that 72dpi is now "just another" photo sharing website. While we do agree there are many choices, and it's hard to pic a fav we'd like to point out a couple of things...and YES, we are biased ;)
- This site is free (but if you buy in the next 10 minutes...)
- We are REAL photographers, not posers like...
- We work super hard to hear every opinion and consider if/who/when it might improve 72dpi
- Our goal is to drive a sense of community with feedback and encouragement...not the usual "great shot!" 100 times. Who learns from that?
- For feedback, we build a massively complex feature called "Critique" to facilitate photographers helping one another.
- We build a feature called "Versions" so you guys had the ability to share variables of a photo to spark ideas, feedback, etc
- 72dpi offers MANY more ways for your photos to be seen than any other photo portal. This is important, right?!
And, last but not least, you can turn the lights on and off to view in black or white, depending on your preference. Come on, admit it, that's COOL! :)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 25th, 2012 (8:26am) PDT
well said @shuggie and @jaykay72 you both summed up perfectly why this site is head and shoulders above the rest
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 25th, 2012 (2:48am) PDT
@shuggie - Nailed it perfectly. Where - @72dpi -is streets ahead of the also rans is in their responsive and pro-active management who listen, observe and then make considered changes in a timely non hasty manner, the others out there don't even come close to that level of member engagement.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 25th, 2012 (12:58am) PDT
@Joe has asked a legitimate question in a very civil manner and, I think, deserves an answer. As far as I'm concerned, the new voting system is very similar in appearance (if not in effect - the jury's still out on that one) to those used on a number of photo-sharing websites and, in THAT respect, it may be reasonably suggested that there is little to choose between 72dpi and many of its competitors. That said, however, what sets 72dpi apart from the competition in my view is the sense of community spirit, the sense that everyone here has a shared interest with an extremely conscientious and responsive management in developing the site to its full potential.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 24th, 2012 (4:44pm) PDT
Anyone seeing that there is "nothing else" here at 72dpi, It is my wish they stay away.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 24th, 2012 (4:15pm) PDT
@Joe 500px have not removed their dislike button.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 24th, 2012 (7:52am) PDT
@Stentionhouse - So true, the only piece of equipment you need is a photographic eye, you can have the most expensive gear in the world but all to no avail if you can't"see" a picture.I would pay good money to be at that David Cameron photo opportunity !
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 24th, 2012 (7:43am) PDT
I don't like having my picture taken.At least not in any posed sense but I really don't care about street snappers or people who just decide to snap me because I snapped them ;)I think you do develop a feel for people who aren't comfortable - I would never snap anyone knowing they didn't want to be photographed, unless it was maybe David Cameron out on the lash with a ladyboy or something of the kind ;)
There does seem to be a knack of putting people at their ease and getting them to play to camera without actually posing.Some people seem to be natural in front of a lens and I alway try to seek them out.Buskers, street performers, exhibitionists - these people are an absolute treasure for the street snapper.But it's the guys and girls who are able to conjure something out of nothing that I have particular admiration for.The ability to spot that little something no one else would is a pretty rare.I constantly try to improve my own eye but I need a contact lens and a monocle...and still struggle.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 24th, 2012 (7:19am) PDT
There are also the people who genuinely don't like their photograph taken, even some are not comfortable with it when among friends and family so that may well happen in public, I once chatted to a stunning black woman with wonderful corn row hair, I did not intend to photograph her, just was interested how long a hair style like that took and without prompting she said "you are not going to take my picture are you ? I can't stand having my picture taken" so that is something I am always aware of. Having said that, I try to shoot the more "eccentric" members of society or unusual street performers, both of whom like to be extrovert and they love the attention, no point in a man dressing as a woman if nobody notices ! !
It's true the DSLR seems to attract the most attention, regardless of the numerous mobile devices and point and shoot cameras that may be photgraphing the same scene or person, maybe to some size is everything ! ! !
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 24th, 2012 (7:01am) PDT
We live in an age where the 'authorities' find it entirely acceptable to the point of being essential to film and monitor members of the public virtually everywhere, including inside shops, banks etc, which aren't public places.Everywhere we go we're constantly being recorded.Who can say that all of that footage will be erased and that no one is behind the scenes abusing a position of trust?Many taxis and most buses now have CCTV in them.The surveillance presence is even spreading from the cities and towns into the villages.
So in this environment, surely it's no biggie at all to be snapped by photographers.It happens to me all the time and I never give it a second thought.In a public place, you have no right whatsoever to an expectation of privacy.You have to accept that anything you do might well be recorded, either by the 'authorities' or by other members of the public.
From speaking to people I know in the States, I would say it's much more laid back and open over there, especially in the big cities, than in the UK.Most of the cops seem to understand the law - whereas in Britain, many are shockingly ignorant of it.I think there is more of a celebrity culture in the US, where people like to look good and would actually be flattered to see a camera pointing at them under normal circumstances.Brits are notorious for their reserve, on the other hand.
These days virtually everyone has a camera, be it a point and shoot or built into their phone or other mobile device.Everywhere you look there are people constantly snapping away at anything and everything.However, you only really seem to attract attention when using a DSLR.I have no doubt at all that the terrorists and pervs use small and discreet methods to get their shots; yet people with bigger cameras tend to be singled out for suspicion, which is pretty bizarre really.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 24th, 2012 (6:52am) PDT
@drdab99
I believe that in the US, in a public place, where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy, you may photograph them.In the street, at the mall, yes.Through their window in their kitchen, no.Caveat....I have not researched this too terribly thoroughly.Only interesting reaction I've ever had is a dapper older gentleman notices me taking his picture in a public outdoor market, turns to me and says, "That will be $1000, please.People pay me a lot of money to take my picture.":-)
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 24th, 2012 (6:12am) PDT
I think the laws regarding photos in a public place are the same in the U.S., but, (and this is a delicate subject)I think there may be a real cultural difference between the U.S. and the rest of the western world when it comes to matters like this.I think that in the U.S. we may be quicker to feel that our privacy is being invaded.I have never travelled to Europe, so I am not speaking from experience.I am merely speculating.
I have lived in the states my whole life (61 years) and I am sad to say that we have become a more contentious and litigous society in that time.I find myself being surprised that people feel so free to photograph strangers.Again, probably a cultural thing.
I may be wrong about this.What do others think?
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 23rd, 2012 (10:14pm) PDT
Re people's reactions when they know they have been photographed. As I believe I've already mentioned it's often after when people find their picture on a site such as this that you get a reaction. Take a look at the comments from bury-boho on this upload of mine
http://www.72dpi.com/photo/25450
The reaction there is the one I usually encounter
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 23rd, 2012 (3:08am) PDT
@shuggie - they need to do what many parents have done locally - refuse to let their kids take part in anything where videoing and snapping is banned.Amazing how quickly the authorities change their tune faced with every event being boycotted.
I have to say that instances where I snap kids, the police or anything that might remotely be construed as sensitive are few and far between.But remember that you don't actually need to be doing anything iffy to still attract suspicion - it's happened to me when I was just out snapping the usual stuff.That's why I'm excessively obvious when I snap now - no one is ever going to say I'm being anything but open to the point of being comically so on occasion ;)Have to say, this method is far more successful in scoring good shots, even if you get a lot less candids.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 23rd, 2012 (2:47am) PDT
@Stentionhouse -You are right of course and I have also taken pictures of most of those things, the point is, as a street photographer you have to be aware that some subjects may be more contentious than others, whether you take those subjects is your decision, but if you do choose to take a "sensitive" subject, don't be surprised or indignant if there a repercussions, it's part of the surveillance, security conscious, health and safety world we now live in, which is not going to change anytime soon,a modicom of common sense has to be exercised. There are without doubt a lot of security jobsworths, and any rules regarding freedom to photograph in public places etc etc are only as good as the person applying them, most security guards are not the sharpest pencil in the box as it is a thankless job forlow pay so no matter how well versed you are in your rights any reasonable well structured debate with them will doubtless fall on stony ground.
I have to say most Police around London are cool about pictures, as they get snapped so often by the tourists, even posing with them or taking their photo with the tourists camera, I have never had any problems with that subject, I have seen the armed response guys get quite hot under the collar though, especially if you snap them on a "shout". Agian a bit of common sense required.
As - @shuggie" class="ulinks">shuggie -quite rightly says, not every adult male is a paedophile but media paranoia has convinced parents that they may be, I would certainly think it was wierd if a total stranger started taking pictures of my 18 month old Granddaughter, innocent though it may be, it is the way we a are conditioned now, that is why I avoid kids in street shots totally. Also - @shuggie" class="ulinks">shuggie -"mountains don't talk back" what about rockfalls or avalanches ? ? That sounds pretty loud to me ! ! !
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 23rd, 2012 (1:34am) PDT
What you say about kiddies and photography is absolutely right, @Stentionhouse - most sensible people recognise that every adult male is NOT a potential paedophile. However, those in authority are not so sensible. My good lady is a nursery teacher with Glasgow City Council and her nursery has an annual battle with GCC to try and persuade them (at the behest of parents) to allow parents to video their kiddies in nativity plays, concerts etc - but there is no budging them.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 22nd, 2012 (8:00am) PDT
@jaykay72 - I've taken pictures of all of those things you mention.Maybe not regularly but if it's legal to snap something/someone and I see an interesting shot...snap.That's it.The British police are shockingly ignorant of the laws regarding photography in public places...but that's their problem.See YouTube for various confrontations between snappers and cops and especially security jobsworths.
Fortunately I think the vast majority of folk realise that people with an unhealthy interest in kids are unlikely to draw obvious attention to themselves by walking about with a substantial camera in a busy place covered by a proliferation of CCTV cameras.And the same goes for terrorists - anyone wanting pictures of pretty much any exterior of a building or area could find it online; and if they did decide it was necessary to take to the streets, would almost certainly use a small point and shoot and be as discrete as possible.
The thing I've really enjoyed about bird and nature snapping is not having to worry about where you point your camera.Though most birds are a lot more shy than your average pedestrian ;)
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 22nd, 2012 (7:53am) PDT
With you all the way @TomShacochis - mountains don't talk back!
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 22nd, 2012 (5:53am) PDT
@carlparow
Carl,I've been listening to Brooks for a couple of years, and he's become a familiar, inspirational, wise voice.I admire that guy, and I recently subscribed to the LensWork publication, but the snail-mail version, not LensWork online.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 22nd, 2012 (1:39am) PDT
@Stentionhouse- @sasastro - I can sympathise with the diffculties in less populated areas, I did some pictures of the local fete once in a small Suffolk village, my friends wanted some for the parish magazine, I had more people ask what I was doing, what sort of camera was it, where were the pictures going in the hour I was there than I ever have in six years of street shooting in and around central London. Certainly in London and I guess all major cities people are in such a rush or wrapped up in their own worlds street shooters are invisible to them, also you do see quite a few TV camera crews and of course thousands of tourists all snapping away so a camera does not draw the attention it does in a quiet spot, also, people very rarely, if at all challenge what you are doing or object to having their picture taken, something I take no notice of if they do as anybody in a public place is fair game, mind you, there are some common sense rules to follow, don't take pictures of children, the armed response police or military people and of course security heightened areas like the Houses of Parliament or government buildings.
I can see the appeal of landscapes when you never get a tree objecting or a waterfall turning the other way and no tourists walking in your picture the moment you press the shutter ! !
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 21st, 2012 (8:57pm) PDT
@mezzoduomo - Nice article, Jeff. Thanks for pointing it out. The author of it, Brooks Jensen, has a wonderful podcast called Lenswork - Photography and the Creative Process. A 3-6 minute monologue about all aspects of photography every few days. I have downloaded and carefully listened to all 752 episodes to date from this wonderfully articulate and knowledgeable man. It's about all aspects of the photographic process. He also produces a magazine called Lenswork and a downloadable version containing a lot more called Lenswork Online. I haven't subscribed to it yet. Has anyone here done so? I'd be interested to know what you think of it.
For anyone wanting to improve their photographic skills I thoroughly recommend listening to the podcasts. Better still, subscribing to them via iTunes or whatever other prefferred method.It's free.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 21st, 2012 (3:28pm) PDT
Well...that's why I shoot landscapes! :)Some things you just let "pass".....it's the Southern way.... :)
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 21st, 2012 (10:02am) PDT
@TomShacochis - I would have told him in no uncertain terms never to threaten me again or make any suggestion I might be up to no good.And would then point out that it's perfectly legal to snap anyone in a public place and would unquestionably have snapped his daughters, just to prove a point (if anyone antagonizes, it's like a red rag to a bull).I am absolutely open in my snapping and if anyone has a problem, that's them with the problem, not me.
Being as open and obvious as I am, frequently people see me (as anyone who looks at my snaps will notice lol).In the past I tried to be more surreptitious and found myself with the gaze of suspicion upon me more than once.So I thought, right, no one is ever going to think I'm trying to hide what I'm doing again.Since then, I've actually got much better shots (IMHO).No one has ever challenged me for taking their picture - if anyone asked me to delete their picture I would refuse, simply because there's no point living in a democracy with the relatively open laws we have re photography it you're going to let jumped up halfwits get their own way.Having said that, I've pretty much perfected a style which seems to work without rubbing anyone up the wrong way.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 21st, 2012 (9:01am) PDT
@mezzoduomo interesting article Jeff, thanks for the link
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 21st, 2012 (7:29am) PDT
Here's another thoughtful perspective on the issues of candid portraits in public places, 'fly on the wall' photography, aka 'street'.
http://daily.lenswork.com/2012/04/chavez-ravine-1949-a-los-angeles-story-by-don-normark.html
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 21st, 2012 (7:28am) PDT
@TomShacochis) you are quite right Tom in that people with camera's are often looked upon suspiciously. And yes it is much harder for a man alone that it is for a woman (though even I have had suspicious looks from protective parents.) I have taken pictures of children, though not many. If there are parents in the vicinity then I usually show them the picture and ask if they mind if they are uploaded. I've not yet had anyone say no. I do think that as a street photographer you get to know the 'vibes' and know when it's OK to take a picture.
What's sad though is that future researchers and historians will find that there will be a couple of generations of photos of kids at play missing.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 21st, 2012 (7:03am) PDT
It is probably easier to shoot "street" in more highly populated areas.It is more difficult in areas where the people are less "detached" as they roam the streets.
I was in an area of South Carolina and this woman was setting up a picture of her 3 daughters in Easter finery. She had placed them on a low slung branch of a Live Oak.They were dressed identically though they were of different ages from 4-9 years old.I watched with my own camera by my side and a fellow came up beside me.He would glance in my direction and then back at the lady with her children.The "vibes" were not good.
I turned to him and said, "Don't worry, I'm just watching and not shooting."He replied, "You'd better not.", obviously "Daddy".I told him that I would make a suggestion though, if he would allow.I said the shot will look much better and more soothing....if his wife recomposed it....without the MENS Room sign in the background above the children's head.He never replied, but his wife overheard it and didregain the proper "composure".
I think it is far more difficult for a male in this country to point his camera at the "unknown" of the opposite sex or children.Times have taken away the innocence of such a shot even if there was no Internet.I have had others give me a wary glance and one that questioned my motives in even carrying a camera in a lightly populated area....though I concentrate on architecture and landscape.
Just some thoughts........
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 21st, 2012 (2:19am) PDT
Interesting discussion there, I do not ask people before shooting, as - @Stentionhouse - said, in the UK you do not need anybody's permisson to take their picture in a public place, neither do you need any release or permission to post that image on the internet, I don't know the rules in other countries though. The candid nature of the subjects is to me the essence of telling the street story.
When I go out I have no preconceived ideas about what I m going to shoot, I just take what happens in front of me as it happens, I know there are various areas of London where I will get a certain style of picture, but the random nature of what may happen is the real buzz for me.Once you ask permission as - @sasastro - says, the candid, natural behaviour of your subject goes out of the window, that's not to say you do not get a good picture, but then it's a street portrait, different in my opinion to street photography, which is the recording of random, sometimes humorous moments of life completely unposed or orchestrated.Now I have no problem recording the plight of homeless or the less fortunate,a lot of people look the other way and ignore that fact of life in todays cities, I hope I treat them with dignity and compassion for their plight, and not in an exploitative way, my opinion is their situation needs exposing as much as anybody elses.
I can fully understand this may be a difficult concept to grasp or understand, for me,it's the only genre of photography have ever been interested in, can't pin down why, it's just the way it is, it may be the fact that you are recording a social documentary of life, the way people live their lives now which may be viewed in years to come and tell our era's story.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 20th, 2012 (11:06pm) PDT
@mezzoduomo - I recently became aware of Carmelo Eramo.An outstanding street snapper indeed.He benefits considerably from his environment.Would be nice to live somewhere with a so many interesting characters, especially older ones.
Lee Jeffries is an artist really, more than a street snapper, but an extremely good one.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 20th, 2012 (9:38pm) PDT
Thanks for the link Jeff. No I'm not disappointed I learn and so much of street is still strange to me. I believe someone below mentioned Lee Jeffries and his work moves me.Is his work considered more portraiture than street? This the link to his images on 500px: http://500px.com/LeeJeffries.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 20th, 2012 (6:23pm) PDT
@sasastro @CharlieBaugh @Stentionhouse @jaykay72
I submit for your consideration another modern master of street, reportage, etc.Take a look, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
http://500px.com/10dicembre
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 20th, 2012 (2:14pm) PDT
Sas, I would not be honest if I didn't admit to being in transition from my recent days of anger at the way the 500px king of street (yea right) irritated me. I've said it before and will now. This group as it is now is a fine bunch of people. Hope it stays this way.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 20th, 2012 (12:50pm) PDT
I think, from a personal point of view, that I see the homeless, alcoholics barely coherent on benches and the vulnerable as too easy and obvious targets.And I never feel comfortable snapping someone who isn't in a position to object if they want to.
Manuel Tello's shots are exceptional and in a class of their own, I would say.
My own brand of street snapping is disposable.Popcorn for eyes.Little snippets of inconsequential visual frip.I'm under no illusions.But I still enjoy getting out there and snapping.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 20th, 2012 (12:44pm) PDT
@CharlieBaugh OK Charlie, my mistake, I did take what you said as a dig at street photographers so please accept my apologies for misunderstanding.
As for @ManuelTello I greatly admire his street photography. He captures emotion so well.
I personally haven't seen other forms of photography diminishing here, perhaps what you are seeing is that more street photographers have signed up and become members?
I do have pictures of the homeless and down trodden probably to the same balance as they are in my part of the UK, ie there are not as many of them here as say London. Probably where I differ is that I take pictures of both young and old people, demographically we probably have more older people here than in other parts of the country. So at the end of the day it's what's available to us when we go out with our cameras
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 20th, 2012 (12:26pm) PDT
@sasastro I had concern that my post would be taken as a put down and it wasn't intended that way.I can see the reluctance to record the downtrodden (so to speak) but feel that is more a part of city street life than is shown.I really don't have what I would call a "negative" view of street photography. I do have some thoughts that it is somewhat out of balance with what is out there.
Manuel Tello does more personal, I could almost say personality views of the street. I like that. I also like yours and Stens and just about all that is done here on 72dpi. I may be wrong but other forms of photography seem to be diminishing here and I wonder why. Is that just my view or do others see a trend also?
If I were to try street I believe I'd trend toward the downtrodden. I've seen some here and on 500px that really moved me emotionally. There is something that I have strong feelings about, balance. PLEASE do not take this as me wanting the humorous street to stop or even decline. I'd like to see more balance but will not feel bad if it continues as it is now.I laugh at so much of what is being posted.
My question was not a statement of what i like or want. It was an observation and if I was wrong in my slant hit me with it. I can and do want to learn.
Charlie
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 20th, 2012 (11:45am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh
I'm no expert, Charlie...but I'd say I try to take pictures on the street (any public place, really) that include people, and that give the viewer a sense about the place and what goes on there.In my gallery, I have a few shots from Seattle, as follows:2 smiling, attractive, affluent young people walking along the sidewalk in front of a sleek, modern building.If you visit Seattle, you'll see similar scenes all over town.I also have a couple shots from the Bremerton ferry, featuring folks sleeping, hiding their faces, looking wistfully out the window.Once again, a slice of real life on that ferry every day.Finally from Seattle, a homeless gentleman, from behind.He didn't see me, but I saw him, and dozens more like him.They are, unfortunately, another feature of the city.I have not ever struck out looking for humor or irony, but once in a while you get that, too.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 20th, 2012 (11:43am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh I woudl like to ask you why you have such a negative view of street photographers. We all know that there were some... erm...tensions between you and a street photographer that is no longer here. Has he skewed your views against all of us?
My goal when I go out is always to try and take good photos (though I don't always succeed and I know I still have a lot to learn where this is concerned) my goal is also to catch a slice of life as it is now and as it happens and if possible something a bit special aka a decisive moment.
I too try to find the lighter side of the street simply because there is so much doom and gloom around a few smiles never come amiss. Since I've been doing this I have become far more observant, I find people watching quite addictive. Also, I don't think street photography is just portraying people in cities. Street (ie life as it happens) can occur anywhere there are people.
And to echo @Stentionhouse the buzz you get when you know you've got a good one is hard to beat
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 20th, 2012 (10:31am) PDT
I suppose I would fall into the category of street snapper, as that seems to be what I do most of a lot of the time.For me, I don't go out with any aim at all other than to take pictures that I'm happy with and enjoy taking.But I tend to find the more amusing side of life appealing and rarely take pictures of the homeless, those in distress or suffering etc.
My favourite kind of photography is 'events'.Carnivals, festivals, street fairs etc.You can snap performers and the spectators and there's usually something interesting not far away.I admire and envy those proper street photographers who seem able to find something worth capturing in any situation.I personally thrive on 'something' happening.
I can understand people who take fabulous portrait, landscape, wildlife and sports pictures looking at shots of people apparently doing nothing much and wondering WTF it's all about ;)But you never know what will happen whenever you go out street snapping.The buzz you get when you know you've got a good one is hard to beat.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 20th, 2012 (9:44am) PDT
I'd like to ask "street" photographers a question that perhaps is an area of some negative feelings from some of us. Now please don't be upset. It is, at least for me, a "two way street".Is your goal when starting out a photo session to find funny, laugh producing images or great photos?
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 20th, 2012 (8:55am) PDT
Cheers Jeff ! Have a great weekend...everyone !!
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 20th, 2012 (5:45am) PDT
Sorry, @PhotosEcosse
I guess I did overreact.Maybe 'lazy' touched a nerve.No harm done, and I respect your view, as you respect mine.....Cheers!
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 20th, 2012 (3:06am) PDT
Glitch in the system.....or mine....the word after linking @davercoxwon't stay separate !
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 20th, 2012 (3:03am) PDT
I don't know why you took my input regarding Titles so personally Jeff, I most definitely was not pointing my finger at any individual....as @davercoxmentions, just expressing my pov !
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 20th, 2012 (12:08am) PDT
In my opinion Street photography should be candid, that is you take a photo when the other person is unaware. As @Stentionhouse said, sometimes the subject will become aware and often strikea spontaneous pose. This is still street. Invariably if we are spotted the subject is amused rather than insulted.
Exceptions to the candid rule are buskers who see us as familiar faces, though often they just carry on playing whilst I carry on snapping. There is also the odd interesting person as Sten mentioned who you just can’t get a good shot of unless you ask. But apart from this if you have to ask then it's not Street
One thing I don’t like is Street photographers who go right up to a person and point acamera in their face. Magnum photographer Bruce Gilden is a good example of how Street photographers should NOT act, I don’t care how famous he is or how good his photos his approach is appallingly intrusive and gives street a bad reputation.

@carlparow As a woman I have to admit that it is probably far easier for me to take a street photograph than a man. It’s a sad sign of the times where people imagine the worst first.
Watermarking - I agree. I used to, I don't any more. Though for a while when I was on Flickr I used to "hide" sasastro somewhere in a photo. Just a bit of fun really.
Low score and run - yes it is still happening. If a picture of mine deserves a low score that's fine. But please say why
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 19th, 2012 (11:09pm) PDT
Re street - there's a knack to it.But IMHO, it's more difficult to take a picture of someone with them aware of your presence but for which you haven't asked permission, because in theory they could take exception.It's rare for me to ask anyone's permission - and I wouldn't consider that a street photograph personally.Very occasionally you might see a really interesting character in a situation where you just can't get a decent shot without asking.However, most interesting characters are the kind who like to be noticed and thus have no problem with being snapped.
When you're street snapping, things just happen.That's how it should be.You can't think about whether the person might not like it - so long as you live in a country where taking pictures of people in the street is legal, you just go ahead and snap.However, you develop a feel for people over time.To date, I have never had anyone berate me (though I've had a the odd sidelong glance and hard stare).But like I say, there's a knack to getting it right.Often people will see you snapping and adopt a pose of some description - that's still street, because it's spontaneous.
I have only had someone ask me what I was going to do with a picture I was taking once - and that was a busker who I think was worried his picture might appear publicly...when he was (almost certainly) earning money he shouldn't have been ;)I just told him that I collect snaps of buskers and it wouldn't appear anywhere, and it never has.
Not sure about the law elsewhere, but in the UK you can take pictures of anyone in a public place and use those pictures commercially with no legal obligation to inform the subject or get a model release (contrary to popular opinion).There are a few limited exceptions (mostly related to security and anti-terrorist laws), and obviously you have to act within the law and not harass anyone, cause an obstruction etc.
I can't understand why anyone wouldn't give a picture a title, even if it was numerical, just so it could be referenced.Imagine seeing a novel with no title - wouldn't happen.You wouldn't be able to ask for it in a shop ;)But each to their own, as ever.
Many a great picture has been ruined by ugly watermarking.Agree with @Paul - it is completely pointless, IMHO.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 19th, 2012 (8:05pm) PDT
On the titles: Titles should come to you naturally when you take the photo or when you're processing it. If it doesn't, add a brief description as the title, or call it "Untitled" and move on. I don't think titles are necessarily good or bad as there are pros and cons to using them. Sometimes I feel they give the viewer a preconceived interpretation of the image before they have a chance to make their own.
Similar to titling is the issue of watermarking. I think it kills the image and is completely pointless to do unless your intent is to ruin the image. Watermarking does not prevent someone from copying your photo and using Photoshop to quickly dismiss your watermark. What is does do, is take the viewer's focus directly to your watermark instead of to the subject. It's the same concept of taking a photo of a person, a bird, or any other animal... you want the eye to be completely tack sharp because it draws the viewer to the subject. Watermarks draw the viewers attention to the watermark. I have never seen a photo yet with a watermark where my attention first went to the subject. And it doesn't matter if it's some loud, gaudy watermark that takes up 20% of the frame, or one of the small opaque watermarks "hidden" in the image... the result is the same.
That is all.;-)
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 19th, 2012 (7:50pm) PDT
@carlparow and other street photographers. I totally understand where you're coming from. It's probably the reason I don't do street photography. But from what I've learned from reading about the street photographers from the past is that the best street photos are candid ones where the subject doesn't really know they're being photographed. I think the main reason though that I never got into street photography is due to the litigious environment we live in today where privacy is a very real concern for most people. Back in the day, you could take a street shot of someone and they may never see that photograph. And even if they did, it wasn't a really big deal. Today, with the internet, it's much more likely, and with everyone suing each other these days, it's a real risk.
It is my understanding that you can take a photo of anyone in public for any reason and it's "photojournalism" because they are in a public space and the expectation of privacy doesn't exist in a public environment. However, it's when you go to sell that photograph that you run into the problems. This has become a big problem for some people in recent years. If you publish a photo of someone, for profit, without a signed model release, you're opening yourself up to potential lawsuits and the courts have been very subjective in their rulings on these lawsuits.
So I have a lot of respect for street photographers. It takes a lot of guts to approach people and take their photo, and then dealing with potential problems later when publishing that photo would always be weighing on my mind. I know if I get a shot of an eagle or a bear, I don't have to worry about that. One positive development, however, is that many of the professional photography organizations like PPA have been pushing for legislation to help protect photographers in these situations.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 19th, 2012 (7:17pm) PDT
@davercox - Re. low votes without comments. Seems to happen to all of us. It's infuriating and there seems not much we can do about it. I just try to live with it and not get upset.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 19th, 2012 (7:10pm) PDT
@davercox - No. There are two types of street photography. Asking permission, and candid.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 19th, 2012 (7:07pm) PDT
@carlparowRe: photographing strangers. I find this difficult to answer as I'm not a 'street' photographer but isn't asking their permission BEFORE taking a photograph sort of defeating the whole objective (I thought it was to make a candid shot?)
@mezzoduomo I think you have maybe taken that a little too personally! Opinions are opinions and if you don't think a title is required that's great. Some people do think a title is nice, and that's great too. I love the challenge of one word titles and I hope the title adds a little something to the image. Just my opinion lol!!
Separate rant follows: I added a macro image yesterday (a small departure for me) and was hoping for critique (I clicked the add critique button). Instead of leaving critique some idiot just left a vote of 7 without a comment. I asked for critique for god's sake and therefore I'm expecting a certain amount of 'I don't like that because....'!!!!!! So frustrating.....
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 19th, 2012 (5:34pm) PDT
Photographing strangers rave.
Asking permission to photograph a stranger in the street is my biggest weakness. I find it extremely difficult to do.
It seems to be much easier if you are walking with a women, and easier still if you are a woman, but if you are a man alone with a big camera then strategies, as well as your personality, need to be developed.
The basic idea is to walk up to the interesting stranger with a big smile and start a quick and friendly conversation, preferably with humour, and offer a compliment about their appearance and a quick and simple explanation of why you want to photograph them. This requires an extrovert personality and a way with people, which I don't have, but can be developed.
A recent scan of my photo library showed only three photos taken by asking strangers permission - a dismal record.
The first was two young girls at a Polish Festival who actually approached me first, the second was a Korean girl at an art gallery, and the third was an Oregon tourist girl I met along a lonely and isolated waterfront walk. All were very happy to pose for me, and all were started with a friendly conversation.
There was one other attempt, my first. I simply walked up to an attractive girl, after plucking up the courage, and asked to take her photo and was flatly refused with a suspicious frown. I think I frightened her, and I was so put off and embarrassed that I didn't ask again for a few years.
However, the most interesting type of street photography is when it's candid. I hope to write about my experiences with that, later.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 19th, 2012 (5:33pm) PDT
I won't publish an image unless I can give it a good title. Not usually to explain what it is, the photo should do that, but to add interest. Some of my images need a caption or even a long description to flesh them out. I think words and photos can go together very well.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 19th, 2012 (1:45pm) PDT
So I "SHOULD" make up a title, or else I'm being "LAZY"?These comments will be a surprise to a number of legendary photographers, past and present.And, yes...I'm smiling as I hit the comment button.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 19th, 2012 (1:32pm) PDT
I too agree that images should be titled,like @JadeCarbone Jade I don't go out looking for a title but one often comes to mind when I've clicked. Mind you I think it's often easier to come up with titles for street. Not so for Nature.... a robin....... another robin....... yet another robin..... (yes I have been that imaginative in the past lol)
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 19th, 2012 (12:05pm) PDT
Images should always be titled....how else would we know where and what we are viewing ? SEO also comes to mind !! I always think if an image is untitled it is laziness on the part of the photographer.
(@JadeCarbone) Jade Carbone said:April 19th, 2012 (10:26am) PDT
I agree with (@Stentionhouse) and IMO pictures should have titles, I don't go out looking for image to match a title, however one may come to mind once I have clicked the button. I believe a title is the final touch to an image.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 19th, 2012 (8:17am) PDT
Jeff -I just googled the new Nikon d3200.Incredible specs.I haven't really felt the need for more megapixels ever since the dslr's reached 10 - 12 mp.For me, that seems like the sweet spot.Plenty of megapixels to allow for some cropping and still get nice enlargements up to 11 x 14 or even 12 x 18.And the file sizes stay reasonable.I might change my mind if I tried the new Nikon.I better not - I just spent my allotment of toy money on a new iPad .Now the app store is making me go broke a few bucks at a time:)
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 19th, 2012 (8:12am) PDT
Pictures should always have titles, IMHO.A picture does speak a thousand words but they're often in Braille.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 19th, 2012 (8:02am) PDT
@mezzoduomo - Yes I'm the same, I can see the merit of it especially if you are looking through small thumbnails and you get lots of untitled coming up, in the dark ages when I was learning photography I was told if you have to have a title the picture has failed, it should attract the viewer on picture content, mind you, no thumbnails in those days ! !
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 19th, 2012 (7:54am) PDT
@jaykay72
Personally, I never really have a spontaneous title for a picture.I have to force myself to come up with something, or type out 'UNTITLED' to keep @72dpi happy.Once in a while, a snappy title adds to the overall experience of an image, but I'd be just as happy to have mine in numerical sequence or just untitled.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 19th, 2012 (7:40am) PDT
What are people's opinions about titles on pictures, are they really necessary or should the picture speak for itself, or are there some who have a title in mind and go out to shoot a picture that fits ?? You are correct - @drdab99 - it has been quiet for a while. Might change now.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 19th, 2012 (6:18am) PDT
@drdab99
Are you trying to start something, Doug?!?!? LOL!!A peaceable kingdom is a good thing.Let's chat about the new Nikon D3200, which has oodles of megapixels at a bargain price.Maybe we can stir something up on that topic.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 19th, 2012 (6:11am) PDT
Wow, no rants and raves in almost 2 days.Aren't we a contented bunch?No Great Post Processing debate.No Voting Debacle gripes.No Pro versus Amateur class wars.No trolls.Everyone must be too busy taking pictures :)
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 17th, 2012 (7:47am) PDT
@shuggie - Exactly, that's what I meant to say so thank you for clarifying. I don't go off the person's title but rather their work. In this case, I know Stephen Oach's work matches his title as a pro and that's why I used him as an example. But you are exactly right. I have seen many people with "pro" titles who probably aren't pros and even more so, I've seen a lot of "advanced amateurs" and even "hobbyists" whose level of work is far beyond that of an amateur level. I look at the pro title as someone who is saying they make their living off of photography which is what 72dpi's definition of pro is. To take it a step further, even if you are a "pro", there is always room for improvement. If I thought my level of work now was the best it could be as a pro, I would be very disappointed in myself as I hope to continue to refine and improve on it, both in technique and processing.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 17th, 2012 (7:40am) PDT
@shuggie - I think I would agree with your view re value placed on critique's. As I said, I would only critique a picture that was in my own particular genre, and there is that saying that those who can do, and those who can't teach, might be a bit controversial and certainly NOT always the case, I share your opinion on critique value though.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 17th, 2012 (7:33am) PDT
OK @Paul and @jaykay72 (John) - what you both say makes a lot of sense regarding the anonymity of critiques - so I'll go with that. Whilst I agree with Paul on the matter of some people's critique carrying more weight than others, I have to say that the value placed on such critique by me (and possibly others) would be based more on the standard of work they produced than on who they were or what they did for a living - based on the experience of nearly 40 years of photography which has taught me that, whilst photography instructors/teachers are MOSTLY good photographers, that's not always the case!
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 17th, 2012 (7:03am) PDT
@jaykay72 - Exactly, I think if you're asking for a critique, you should accept the critique you are given with an open mind. You can choose to ignore or delete the critique if you take extreme issue with it but if you're going to selectively use only the critiques that are less critical, then that individual should really consider why they're asking for a critique in the first place.
I am very honest in my critiques and as @shuggie (Karl Williams) does, I too start with the positives of the image and then get into the areas where changes could be made to improve the image. I am a big proponent of keeping the VOTING anonymous because that's how voting is supposed to work, and being forced to have your vote public could cause retribution against your images if the photographer can't take the heat. But for the CRITIQUES, I am all for the transparent process now in place and the main reason for this is simple: If you received a bunch of critiques and they were all anonymous, many positive ones, many negative ones, I think you as the photographer should be able to know WHO gave you each critique so you can weigh its value. I'll be perfectly honest, if @stephenoachs were to give me a critique (which he has... thanks Stephen!) that critique would carry more weight than some other critiques because I know he is a fellow photography instructor and master wildlife photographer and teaches photography for a living.
That's not to say I would just disregard all other critiques from folks who aren't "pros" or photography instructors, it just means if I have two very conflicting critiques, I'm going to rely more on the one from the person with a professional background in that particular genre of photography. And so in a nutshell, that's why I believe an open, transparent critique system is key. So great post, John! I think you articulated it very well.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 17th, 2012 (4:15am) PDT
I think making critique's anonymous would be a backward step, surely, if you request a critique, you want some advice, help or constructive crticism on a photograph that you feel is OK but could be improved, or to see if others share your view about any shortcomings.
If you are going to critique somebodys pictures it is because they have requested it, if they don't agree with your opinion, so be it, that also is their choice, but have the courage of your opinion, hiding behind anonimity would take us back to the vote scenario.I would only critique pictures that are in the same genre that I am reasonably competent in,not those where I have no knowledge of the genre or subject matter.
I don't think you will ever get around peoples perception of quality, what is one persons meat is another persons poison, we all see things differently, even images that may not be spot on technically can redeem themselves with wonderful subject matter,that is the subjective nature of photography and that would be difficult to categorize or standardise.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 17th, 2012 (2:43am) PDT
I'm not sure whether this is the right section in which to post this - but here goes:
The new "critique" feature is a particularly interesting and welcome feature which, in many ways, highlights the (much discussed) problems with the voting system. I recently critiqued a landscape image as honestly, as objectively and as kindly as I could - starting (as I always do) with all the positive aspects of the image and finishing with a selection of "try this instead" suggestions. Quite frankly, I had extreme difficulty finding anything genuinely positive to say other than that it was "an interesting study" - it was badly composed, badly exposed, badly processed and, in short, was just the sort of thing you would see in a "how to" photographic magazine under the heading of "Try to avoid doing this". Just out of interest, I clicked the author's avatar and found the image in his (or possibly her) portfolio - to find a selection of "WOW!" and "Great shot!" comments in the "non-critique" comment stream - and a rating of 10!
I really think we need to address the problems with the current rating system - but, to be honest, I can't think of a way to get round the problem of peoples' individual perceptions of "quality". Anyone got any ideas?
Maybe we also need to look at the possibility of tweaking the "critique" feature - in that I'm far from convinced that a truly objective critique is possible from a "non anonymous" user (based on my own experience of trying to get the message across without actually saying "This is essentially crap - in anybody's book". Perhaps there is the possibility of 72dpi setting up an anonymous "critique panel" for each of the genres on offer, comprising a selection of "highly rated" (yeah - I know - but how else would you choose them?) authors in those genres? Again - anybody got any ideas?
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:April 16th, 2012 (8:13pm) PDT
@Joe I am not overly concerned with security.I wouldn't back up financial data or anything like that, just my images and music.Everything else is so small and changes very infrequently that a single memory stick at the office will do.
As for the backpack question, I have an F Stop Satori Exp I love.Since I hike to pretty much every shot I take I need a pack that actually is comfortable for long distances.For the longest time I just used a regular high quality hiking backpack from Osprey with individual cases for each lens and my camera.The F Stop bag isn't quite as comfortable as my Osprey is, but the convenience of the camera gear access is worth it.The fstop's harness is good and the bag is roomy if I need to carry stuff for an overnight camping trip, but the compression straps let me shrink it down to a pretty small sized pack if need be.It even fits on regional airplane overheads. The only reason it isn't as comportable as my old pack is that I am a little too tall for it, I would like the harness to be 2 inches longer.Other than that it is pretty perfect.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 16th, 2012 (7:21pm) PDT
@Joe - Photography bags to me are like purses to women, LOL. Maybe even more so! I have a Domke F2 and I use it 90% of the time, even for wildlife photography because it's so portable, the wax keeps it dry in wet conditions, and I like the way it looks (like I said, these are like purses for me.) I have mine configured to hold my 1D Mark IV, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, my 16-35 f/2.8L II, a folding wallet of my B+W filters, my flash, Better Beamer, 16 enelope rechargeable batteries, and then all the little items like memory cards, cleaning cloth, business cards, etc. Because I use my flash for birding, I always carry enough batteries to refill the flash twice. I use eneloop batteries because they have decent recharge rate, they hold their charge longer than any other rechargeable, and they are rechargeable 1,500 times. I write the month and year I bought the battery with a Sharpie on each battery so after several years, I can recycle them and replace with fresh ones. (A bit obsessive, I know, but it works.)
I would only use this configuration for local trips to the lake for birding/wildlife though because space is a bit limited and for extended hikes, it's just not as comfortable as a full size backpack. For that I use a Tamrac Expedition 7X. This bag is big! (Not as big as some I've seen but enough to hold everything you would need.) The only other lens I would add to this bag would probably be my 24-70 f/2.8L lens. With that lens, I have everything covered from 16mm up to 200mm (and even further with the extenders.)
I have a Billingham Hadley Pro, again, just because it's nice and compact for a day trip... and looks nice. Much smaller than the Domke, I can literally fit one body, and one larger lens or two smaller lenses in it, that's it.
Then a have half a dozen other random bags that I use occasionally, especially for longer trips. I also have a dry room I built in my house for all the gear to stay safe. It's temperature and humidity controlled to help keep fungus from growing on the lens elements. It's a completely secure room, fireproof, and also is where I keep my server and the harddrive backups I keep locally that mirror my cloud storage. I built this sort of for fun as an addition to the safe room that was already in the house. (We live in Texas which means many tornadoes and no basements so a lot of the newer homes have safe rooms built now.) Got to use it last week when we had the dozen tornadoes rip through our city here in Fort Worth.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:April 16th, 2012 (5:02pm) PDT
I am curious about those that store backups in the cloud.I would love to use that as my offsite solution, but the upload time just seems to be a huge burden.I mean I have 350GB of images on my computer.Uploading that is pretty nuts.How much data do you backup in that manner?
As for me, all of my images are stored on a external mirrored raid array connected to my computer via a thunderbolt port.That raid array plus my boot drive are also backed up to a NAS raid array using time machine.So just in my house every image I have ends up on 4 hard drives (silly amount of redundancy I know).For offsite backups I do a clone of all of my hard drive to another external drive that sits in my wife's desk at her work.I don't do this often enough though because it takes a while and is a bit of a hassle - hence my interest in the cloud based systems.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 16th, 2012 (4:13pm) PDT
I use a Mac and back up my entire hard drive with Time Machine and SuperDuper to an external hard drive on a partition dedicated for each.
Time Machine keeps hourly backups for the past 24 hours, daily backups for the past month, and weekly backups for all the previous months until the drive or partition is full in which case the oldest backups are deleted. SuperDuper is set to back up once a day and clones the internal drive.
Time Machine can be used to recover single or multiple lost files or be used to restore your entire internal hard drive to its last backed up state. It happened once before that my internal drive died and after replacement the external was connected and it restored everything exactly as it was before. You have no idea what a relief it is to experience this kind of restoration.
I use SuperDuper alongside Time Machine because it makes a clone of my internal so that if my internal dies I simply reboot from the external and go on working as is nothing has happened until I get the internal replaced. Then I do a full restore with Time Machine.
If my external dies, I rush out and buy another and immediately back up with Time Machine and SuperDuper. This has also happened once before. The only times this system can fail is if both my internal and external die at the same instant, or I get robbed, or my house burns down. I do not store back ups off site. Maybe I should.
Now, can anyone tell me about the Drobo system and how it works in practice and how it works with time machine? It is a 4 or more bay stack of replaceable external drives with redundancy built in and is regarded by some as the ultimate back up system. http://www.drobo.com/
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 16th, 2012 (1:05pm) PDT
@PaulRe backup:I have an external hard drive, but it's a mess of images, no folders or organization at all, and I'm not very regular about backing stuff up to it. I also use Apple's built-in Time Machine.I assume that would provide a more organized back up structure, but I've never had to go back and retrieve anything so I'm not sure.Amazon cloud solution sounds like a decent thing to investigate for lots of reasons, not just photos.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 16th, 2012 (12:21pm) PDT
Good to hear everyone seems to have some sort of backup method in place. About a year ago, a photography buddy of mine lost a years worth of work when his harddrive crashed. He thought his computer was automatically backing up his files but for some reason the software stopped working. Because of his story I always double check mine every week or so just to make sure it's still sending everything to the cloud. Losing that much work could be devastating, not just emotionally but monetarily too.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 16th, 2012 (11:38am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh I don't think any of us worry about an honest vote and comment, it's those who vote low and run that are the bugbear
Re backing up photos. I put mine on an external hard drive
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 16th, 2012 (11:28am) PDT
@Paul - all my images are backed up automatically on the Mac Time Capsule; additionally, full-size jpegs are backed up on my website.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 16th, 2012 (10:09am) PDT
Voting is frustrating. I'm beginning to think it better to not vote. On an image just now which I thought was very good but not perfect I voted a 9. Thought that was a very good vote for that image. Problem is that I then learned that 10 people had already voted a 10 and I was the one who diminished this persons score. How can any of us vote honestly without causing negative effects to others?
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 16th, 2012 (9:46am) PDT
I use a mixture of external hard drive and usb memory sticks, and archive onto DVD, as it is not my living or revenue source I probably don't have the same concerns as a Pro, and I use other sharing sites so I could retrieve from there as well. Good subject and no doubt one which a lot of us don't think about until the worse case scenario occurs.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 16th, 2012 (9:39am) PDT
I use DVD's and an external hard drive, but I'm investigating the Cloud option.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 16th, 2012 (9:29am) PDT
If you guys haven't checked it out yet, the new critique feature is up and running and it works great. I wanted to change topics though and get an idea of what everyone is doing for file management of your photos. Hopefully everyone is doing SOMETHING!
I use Amazon S3 which is a cloud service to backup all my DNG files and derivatives like my TIFF files for print. It costs about 12 cents per GB, per month to store your data. I had bad luck in the past with the regular "consumer" services like Mozy and Carbonite so I decided to try out the Amazon S3 service. From reviews, it seems much more reliable and scalable and it's easy to use if you download any of the free software that manages your files on the service.
Besides this, I back up completed work to archival grade BluRay discs, and do the same thing for my DNGs just to have them in my possession besides residing solely on Amazon S3.
I'm curious to know what everyone else is doing to backup their images.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 16th, 2012 (7:38am) PDT
@drdab99 - Wow I admire your bravery using the smorgasbord (I only know because I just Googled it ! !) analogy ! ! !I think the owners and members have done a great job in making it as troll free as possible.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 16th, 2012 (7:33am) PDT
Well said, John.This site is a smorgousboard (sp?) of different delightful styles.Also friendly banter - excluding the occasional troll invasion.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 16th, 2012 (3:43am) PDT
@Joe - Absolutely not, being a Brit I just loved the analogy with brussel sprouts, thought it was spot on ! !It is always a great discussion here,good points well made in support of any discussion. I'm the same with Landscapes and Flora, I love to look at them, I just cannot do it, I know, I've seen the results ! !I just enjoy photography in all its genres.
(@davidmcmahon) David McMahon said:April 15th, 2012 (2:06pm) PDT
@paul (Paul Komarek) has put it in perfect perspective. (And thanks, 72dpi for paying heed.)
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 15th, 2012 (11:14am) PDT
I think a lot of people like top lists.Many will look to these when they first join a site like this, to see what's considered popular.I think implementing a system where there was no Top Rated section(s) at all would be a mistake.
At present the scoring system means very little but I still think that by and large the best pictures rise to the top.So long as whatever algorithm is implemented gives sufficient weight to a fav over a 10, there shouldn't be any real anomalies.Of course, you will always get some fantastic pictures that don't get many votes or favs - I am constantly finding them as I flick through Mosaic.
Personally, I think the best way of sorting out the problem is to just total up the scores, also taking into account favs, views and maybe comments.I would implement something like this...
All vote scores for an image are totaled up.If an image has had 6 10s, 2 9s and 1 8=86 points.Each fav gains 25 points.Each comment gains 5 points.Each X number of views gain 1 point.Combine these numbers and you have the definitive score for each image.'Negging' will mean little.Someone giving a 6 would just add to the picture's overall total - it wouldn't knock it down any list.Effectively, it would be impossible harm a upload's score.The worst anyone could do would be to not vote.To my mind, this is as close to a system that can't be cheated as you can get.Yes, people with a lot of friends could probably get them to join and vote them up - but I'm sure a minimum level of participation before voting privileges are enabled would sort that out.I think it would be worth giving it a go, given the frequent dissatisfaction voiced with the current method.
I've probably overlooked something obvious... ;)
(@LovelyJubblyOz) LovelyJubblyOz said:April 15th, 2012 (5:29am) PDT
I'm back following a period of absence through illness. This is the first place I look to see the same happy, smiling faces still chugging on about scoring of points. I agree with @Paul and @carlparow, remove numerical voting, replace with like and fave buttons. That's basically what I'm already doing since I blocked scoring on my pics. If I like a shot it gets a 9 or 10, sometimes a fave, and if I think it's outstanding it gets a tweet. I don't waste my time with pics I don't like, same with people. That way I get to enjoy @72dpi even more now. I suppose I've invented my own scoring system. It suits me, and the whingers can do as they please. :-)
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 15th, 2012 (3:37am) PDT
I'm also with everyone else. The current scoring system is basically defunct. Like + fave is the only credible solution. I had another private message today asking how to beat an anonymous 6 voter. It's a shame that these people can cause so much malcontent.
Thanks for listening @72dpi - this is becoming a great site.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 15th, 2012 (2:32am) PDT
I'm with everyone here - like + fave. Their might be a problem converting existing scores though .. any ideas?
(@LarryLancaster) Larry Lancaster said:April 14th, 2012 (11:31pm) PDT
It's real shame! This used to be genuine sharing site. It's turned into a "kum be ya" love fest where everybody gets a 10 if it's a "nice" shot. Totally lost the meaning of the ratings. I'll see ya on the flip side.
(@carlparow) Carl Parow said:April 14th, 2012 (9:35pm) PDT
Paul Komarek was on the money when he said, "Remove numerical voting altogether. Replace with "like" and "fave" buttons. Add a checkbox during photo upload for the photographer to request a critique on their image. (72dpi could then create a sort feature up in the "view by" section to sort by "Photo's Requesting Critique".) This would be an excellent way to encourage active participation."
I would also add the number of views to a score. Like + Fav + View. If you don't like an image, just pass it by. That is the only way to stop all the consternation about votes that are too high and too low and all the other problems it brings, including malicious voting. The only problem with this (and with most other voting systems) is that the people with the highest number of followers (friends) will usually get the highest score. But that can easily be nullified by taking into account the number of followers a person has so that regardless of the number of followers, the playing field is leveled. In other words, whether you have 200 or 2 it would have no effect on your overall score. I don't know what algorithm can be used to achieve this. I only know how to spell it :-)
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 14th, 2012 (2:04pm) PDT
Thank you, Paul and thanks to 72dpi for looking at this issue.I am content with not participating in the voting system and I appreciate that option, but it does decrease the exposure and views my images get.I would consider participating if the current system can be improved.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 14th, 2012 (1:45pm) PDT
I've received wonderful, helpful feedback from members here.Sometimes in private, sometimes publicly.More feedback (e.g., rationale for a low vote) would be great, but it's all still highly subjective...so it's not likely to 'please all of the people all of the time'!
I'd be remiss if I didn't add my thanks/props/high-fives to the @72dpi honchos.Bravo!
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 14th, 2012 (12:20pm) PDT
@72dpi it must be hard for you because you can't please all of the people all of the time, so all due respect for listening and acting on feedback
@Paul an excellent summary and some good solutions. I like solutions 2 because as you say it's just wanting to know why a photo has been voted a 6 or whatever. I did post a picture and asked people to vote and comment honestly on why they voted. Only a few took up the challenge. Therefore on balance I think I would sway towards your solution no 1. Like and Fav are more or less what folk are doing now with votinganyway.I'm always willing to learn and want to take better photos so critique request box is a great idea.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 14th, 2012 (10:08am) PDT
Thanks - @72dpi - Will watch with interest for surfacing ideas !
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):April 14th, 2012 (9:59am) PDT
@Everyone and @Paul for his fantastic recap of the ongoing topic of numerical voting. We don't typically participate in the Rants and Raves category but Paul Komarek's overview of the topic is spot on to how we at 72dpi view this subject. As you all have seen, we try to be responsive to new ideas and add new features all the time. Understand we are still debating the best approach/changes to make to improve the voting system. This is one tough nut to crack and the ideas/feedback/suggestions you are all (if we were from the south we'd say ya'll) providing has been really good. Stay tuned as we do have some ideas brewing that will surface soon!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 14th, 2012 (9:55am) PDT
@Paul - Perfect, I would concour Option 1 straight away, a well thought out solution, I agree re new photographers, that is how I learnt form more experienced photographers, that is the way it should work, Option 2 might work as long as a comment was mandatory before a vote could be cast, I still don't agree and never will about it being anonymous, have the courage of your convictions.
Great post Paul, and well thought out, I think this s a wonderful site and anything that encourages community participation should be actively encouraged.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 14th, 2012 (9:41am) PDT
@jaykay72 - Yes, I did post a much longer winded comment but after re-reading it, I figured I'd condense it, which I did. So I think everyone is in agreement with the voting system in general from what I've been hearing. The only issue still at play appears to be the anonymity of votes.
But something important to remember is people are hesitant to vote any lower than an 8 or 9 because they fear it may be taken the wrong way and they will receive retribution in low votes on their own photo. As we all know by observing the voting patterns over the past month, the system right now yields one result: All decent photos are lumped into 9.0 to 10.0 ratings. Bad photos, or photos which the viewer would rate a 7 or lower, are skipped altogether. So I've thought of two possible solutions here, and a hybrid solution of the two. Maybe we're getting closer to a solution that would work for everyone:
1. Remove numerical voting altogether. Replace with "like" and "fave" buttons. Add a checkbox during photo upload for the photographer to request a critique on their image. (72dpi could then create a sort feature up in the "view by" section to sort by "Photo's Requesting Critique".) This would be an excellent way to encourage active participation. I usually leave somewhat basic comments on most photos I comment on because I think the photographer already knows what I'm going to say so a simple congratulatory comment with a couple specifics as to why I like the photo is the norm. I LOVE helping new photographers by critiquing their images for them and several members on here regularly ask me to do so. I think others would love to offer critiquing as well so this combined with the "like/fave" system would work great.
2. The second solution would be to keep the numerical voting in place and require every vote to have a coinciding comment linked to it. This should remain anonymous to encourage honest votes and comments and to protect the voter/commenter from retribution. The resounding concern I hear from everyone in favor of the numerical voting system is they just want to know why someone gave them a low score. They don't care who it was, they just want to know the reason so they can improve. Problem solved. Whenever you vote, below the photo would be an area with the numerical vote given and next to it, a comment as to why that vote was given.
Solution 3 could be a hybrid of this. Maybe have the numerical voting system with mandatory, anonymous comments, yet give the commenter the option of having their anonymity removed for that comment. Also, add the "critique requested" function and "view by critiques requested" sorting feature. Either one of these three solutions would result in more accurate voting of images, reduced trolling, and more community participation. I think all of us can get behind that.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 14th, 2012 (8:17am) PDT
@Paul - I am taking bit of a guess here that you posted a long reply to my voting comment, then deleted it and posted a condensed version, I got an email of the original courtesy of the new mentions feature, if it was not your reply please accept my sincere apologies for my mistake.
I agree with all you say, down in the depths of Rants and Raves you will find I was in favour of a comment/favourite system, no voting at all, and I still think that is the way to go, the current numerical system is used exactly as you describe, 9 and 10 are the norm, no reflection of true merit of any particular photograph.
Now, I have absolutely no problem with whatever vote is given to any photograph of mine, what I do have an issue with is a low vote with no comment or critique, I am anxious to learn, if there is something about a picture that someone feels merits a 6 then please let me know what that is, any constructive criticism is very welcome, it's how we learn and improve, surely one of the goals of a photo sharing site as good as this. it's the tactical,low vote, no comment and run, hiding behind anonimity voter that I object to.Had my 2 Cents worth now,promise I won't mention voting again ! ! !
@Joe - Ha, join the club, I don't think anybody here understands their Enagagement Score or what it means, let alone how it is calculated, I did ask of - @72dpi - that if it was not essential to the smooth running of the site then get rid of it, it seems alas, the suggestion fell on stony ground ! ! Great line about Street Photography as well, made me laugh even as a street shooter :-)) !
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 13th, 2012 (2:46pm) PDT
@mezzoduomo I don't know that there is a "proper" way but I still vote and favor even though I opt out of being voted upon. My thought is that those who still want votes, get them, if I feel like a vote and I readily admit that many of my votes are often elevated above what they would be if others were not voting 9 & 10 on most everything. It is what it is and what I do will change little.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 13th, 2012 (2:04pm) PDT
@CharlieBaugh @Paul I removed all my images from voting some time ago, I post only in the 'no voting' mode, and I seldom vote on other's images.I 'fave' and comment, and I'm enjoying things here much more.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 13th, 2012 (1:24pm) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - Exactly. That's why I think they should just leave it alone, to sort of "meet in the middle" and keep both sides reasonably happy. And then all of us should just have fun, post our images, engage in conversations, learn some new things, etc. I think too much emphasis has been placed on the numerical scores of photos in general. This should be a place to share your work and meet other photographers. I have totally seen that happening, especially over the past month. Many of us have made many new friends on here, and have even been able to work together outside of the site. I'm arranging a workshop in November for example to Alaska to photograph bald eagles at the annual bald eagle festival where there are dozens of wild bald eagles migrating. The people who are now involved in helping me with that workshop I have met either directly or indirectly through 72dpi.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 13th, 2012 (12:57pm) PDT
@Paul the way I see it is we have the option to vote or not and now to opt out of having our own images voted upon. That may be the best way there is of giving posters their freedom to do what they wish. It may be that management has seen that there is no problem free system and making change upon change trying to find one is kind of amateurish.
I can only speak for myself, but with being able to view the number of "views and favs"my images get, the opt out of voting has been very satisfying. You may feel, as I do, that some (perhaps many) photos are rated higher than they deserve, but that is small price to pay for as amiable a group of present posters we now have.
I love this 72dpi.
Charlie
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 13th, 2012 (11:31am) PDT
Can anyone point me to instructions as to how to make a "live" link to a larger image on my site within the description of a photo I am posting?
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 13th, 2012 (9:25am) PDT
I wonder what the reluctance is of the normally very proacvtive - @72dpi - team to address this issue, to my small intellect there are two simple solutions, either remove the anonimity from voting, or, if that is a step too far, make it mandatory that before a vote can be cast a comment has to be made. The second option is not as preferable as the first but it would be a step in the right direction IMHO to eradicate some of the voting anomalies.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 13th, 2012 (9:04am) PDT
@jaykay72 @timbutler54I was sixed too - I thought maybe someone thinks I'm a pervy old man taking pictures of leggy girls - I'm not I'm a pervy old woman taking pictures of leggy girls rofl
Seriously though it woudl be nice to get a comment as to why, Idon't mind critique, I can take it. I'm a big girl now ;-)
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 13th, 2012 (5:33am) PDT
I agree with @jaykay72 on transparent voting.I've also seen an increase in low scores from anonymous voters not only in some of my photos, John's and others.Also like John I don't care about the score.In fact I made a plea in my profile for voters to actually give me lower scores if it is accompanied by a constructive critique as to why.Too many people feel reluctant to do that.But there seems to be plenty of cowardly low scores.It's just too obvious when there are several scores of 10 and all of the comments are glowing, and then the one lone 6 or 7.Pretty childish I think.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 13th, 2012 (3:55am) PDT
@davercox - No apology necessary,I can fully appreciate that street shots must take a bit of understanding, some of the street shots I see take a while for me to understand also :-)) With the portfolio of stunning images you have I can fully appreciate how a totally different genre, probably as far removed as you can get from the world you photograph takes some understanding. I admire landscapes, I just can't take them, I've tried and they are rubbish, I enjoy looking at all genres of photography but I am only capable of operating in one to any degree of competence.
On another tack but not a different subject I have notied a sudden outbreak of the 6 vote on some of my photographs, not that it bothers me one iota and I'm flattered someone thinks I might be a threat to their Top whatever pictures, but I wondered if we have another manifestation of the "me" virus ? ? When will 72dpi make voting transparent instead of annonymous ? ? I can't understand their reluctance to make a simple change that would eliminate trolls.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 12th, 2012 (10:54pm) PDT
@mezzoduomo - have checked out some of Carmelo Eramo's work and will look at the rest later.Outstanding photographer.I do think certain areas lend themselves well to being snapped, and seem to have a high concentration of interesting characters.Or maybe some street snappers just have a better eye.I live in hope that I might I might pick up a bit of that certain something with practice but I don't think it's happened yet (or is ever likely to, if I'm honest).Maybe if I moved to Italy... ;)
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 12th, 2012 (4:03pm) PDT
@Stentionhouse Our friend Manuel T seems to be MIA.His street shots moved me as well.
For more wonderful stuff, check out Carmelo Eramo here: http://500px.com/10dicembre and here: http://flavors.me/10dicembre
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 12th, 2012 (3:21pm) PDT
@jaykay72 I apologise if you misunderstood me (or more likely I didn't make myself clear). I was in no way saying or implying that any kind of genre was more difficult, deserved more respect, etc. All forms of photography are intriguing, challenging and deserve to be treated as equals (imho). I'm trying to understand 'street' and this dicussion is very healthy, entertaining and educational towards that end.
As you quite rightly say, 'horses for courses'. I do like to think that I have shown a 'liberal acceptance' of an art form that I have no real appreciation of. If I haven't then I'm sorry but I genuinely am trying to educate myself.
@Stentionhouse - I looked at the image 'Gesture of Humanity' and think it's a wonderful shot - very poignant. Thanks for pointing it out.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 12th, 2012 (8:46am) PDT
I'm with -@Stentionhouse - on this one, every time I go out I never know what I'm going to come back with, sometimes nothing, sometimes loads, it really is luck of the draw, perhaps that is the appeal, I don't know.
I understand and admire the work of wildlife and landscape photographers, and the sacrifices and perils of obtaining some of those pictures are incredible, but we are all photographers of the subjects we are interested in most, and long may that continue.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 12th, 2012 (8:19am) PDT
@davercox - Street *is* largely lots of shots of unremarkable things ;)I can completely understand people being bored or baffled by it.If you take a fantastic landscape shot or get a superb picture of a magnificent bird, it will have a pretty much universal appeal.That rarely happens with street, unless you get really lucky (for example Manuel Tello's 'gesture of humanity' photo on 72dpi, which actually moved me to tears the first time I saw it and is right up there with the best street shots I've seen).
I don't know what motivates others to snap street.For myself, I walk a lot to keep myself fit and found that snapping as I go helped to alleviate the tedium.As I don't live anywhere teeming with wonderful landscapes or fantastic wildlife, I tend to snap what there is...namely people ;)It's not my favourite area of photography but is the one most accessible to me.
The big appeal of street is that you never know what is going to happen.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 12th, 2012 (8:06am) PDT
Sas, I know you are right, that this form can be done anywhere, BUT as I think John alluded to, the city offers near constant refreshed subjects where in my little communities people are more conservative and great patience would be required to find those moments.
I wonder at the reluctance some have voiced about shooting the down trodden and homeless. The most moving of "street" for me have been photos of despair. Showing this may have positive effect on a public that does not see it close up.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 12th, 2012 (7:53am) PDT
@sasastro - Very true, there is certainly a lot of patience required, especially when tourists step into your line of fire at the critical moment, but as the saying goes, horses for courses, I just wish there was a more liberal acceptance of the different genres and their practitioners here.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 12th, 2012 (7:47am) PDT
@sasastro So true, Sas!
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 12th, 2012 (7:44am) PDT
@mezzoduomo Jeff one day in the future the street of today will be a nostalgic documentary of today
@CharlieBaugh I'm of the opinion that street photography doesn't have to just take place in cities Charlie. There are streets, people and potential photography opportunities everywhere from cities, to towns, ti beaches and on to the smallest village.
@jaykay72 Wellsaid John, I couldn't agree more. I'm not a lover of HDR as I've mentioned, doesn't mean I don't look at such pictures, nor does it mean that I don't think there was skill in the original photo. Street for some reason (even though popular) seems to be the poor relation when it comes to most non-street photographers. Being a Street photographer does not mean one lacks the same skills as other photographers.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 12th, 2012 (7:39am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - I agree with you there, I wish I had taken pictures in the North of England when there was still heavy industry or in the Welsh Valleys when they still had a coal mining industry, some of the black and whites of the working mans struggle everyday of their lives in that era are so powerful and evocative, social documentary more than "street" but still very illustrative.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 12th, 2012 (7:26am) PDT
My two cents: Street is like all other forms of photography. There are real gems and many, not so much. Though this form has been done since the beginning of photography, it is especially popular now. I wish I had tried it when I got to cities in the past and I have by now formed in my mind the kind of thing I'd do if I did get the chance.
Count me as a shooter of most anything BUT "street", as one who likes the best of street, ALOT!
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 12th, 2012 (6:26am) PDT
I heard the Vivian Maier story a while back on one of the photography podcasts.There's no question that its a compelling story, whether 100% true or not.This was a great talent.In these images are incredible portraits, fine art images...and some that we'd probably call 'street', some of which I agree is a bit unremarkable, in terms of content.And some of the appeal here is clearly nostalgic, in that the pictures document a time gone by.But I think there's so much inherent quality and artistry in some of these images....they deserve all the accolades.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 12th, 2012 (5:54am) PDT
Surely this is what makes us humans so interesting, what a dull world it would be if we all liked the same thing, I appreciate all genres of photography but that does not mean I like them all or would want them on my wall, I marvel at the dedication of landscape photographers who trek for miles in the middle of winter to get "that" shot in the perfect light, or the unrelenting patience of a wildlife photographer who stalks his subject before sitting for hours hoping for a chance to get a picture. Being a street shooter I see something interesting every time I go out, I'm fortunate to live in London so there are many subjects, I do not shy away from homeless or less fortunate subjects because that is the reality of life in any major city, it's easy to look the other way, I try to portray their desperation and loneliness, not to exploit them,to illustrate life is not always nice and rose tinted.I find people and their diversity fascinating, always surprising,just as a landscaper would a waterfall or a tree in the middle of nowhere.
Long live that difference amongst us all, its what makes photography so wonderful for me, and long may we all appreciate each other for having such a diverse range of interests.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 12th, 2012 (3:49am) PDT
VM - I love the story but I still don't get 'street'. Just looks like lots of photos of unremarkable things to me. I understand that's the whole point but I just don't find it enthralling.
Even worse, I now find myself embarrassed that I don't think it's amazing!!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 11th, 2012 (11:06pm) PDT
When you look at VM's shots, you see life as it was during a long gone period in time, as it was rarely seen in the media and elsewhere.That's where street has a certain level of importance - it documents ordinary life.It's only retrospectively that it seems in any way significant.Of course, there are those who are only too happy to promote her as a genius as they're making a lot of money out of her work ;)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 11th, 2012 (10:42pm) PDT
@Joe @Paul no need for this particular street photographer to Google VM, I've known of her work for some time now. I would encourage others (not just street photographers)to go Google her though.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 11th, 2012 (6:02pm) PDT
@Joe - LOL, I know, me too! Hopefully now between the two of us, we've created enough suspense that EVERYONE will go check her out!!
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 11th, 2012 (5:41pm) PDT
@Joe - LOL, I didn't mean to give away the story but after looking over my comment, I totally did! Here, I deleted my comment and left it more vague to encourage people to research her themselves. :-)
@JoeThank you for bringing up Vivian Maier, I totally forgot about her. Anyone into street photography should really go check out her work and the story behind how she was discovered. An incredible story!
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 11th, 2012 (12:22pm) PDT
Having made a good few attempts at snapping (sorry, photographing ;)) landscapes, I can attest that it's an art form and nowhere near as simple as walking about in busy places taking shots of passers by.That's probably why I walk about in busy places taking shots of passers by :D
The obvious appeal for many of street is the fact that anyone can do it.Unlike nature, landscape, macro, portrait and other forms of photography, you can buy yourself the cheapest little point and shoot and off you go.Some of us use DSLRs.A lot use top quality gear and take it seriously.But it's accessible to anyone, unlike (for example) birding, which is virtually impossible without a pretty long lens.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 11th, 2012 (11:53am) PDT
I don't think anyone suggested that landscape photography isn't a decisive moment captured did they? Andto allude to street photographers using compacts is a bit off the mark in relation to the street photographers here.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 11th, 2012 (11:39am) PDT
....Quite apart from the fact that there is a HUGE difference between ""snapping"" away, and actually taking a PHOTOGRAPH...waiting for the light to fall upon a certain spot, enduring the elements ( both QUITE a challenge in Northern Scotland ) and hiking over extreme terrain...with a heavy camera backpack....THEN there are the seasons to take into account, and as Scott says, getting up at silly o'Clock to shoot the Sunrise...FAR more challenging than wandering around the streets with a compact !!
I would repeat what Andy Rouse says..."you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"... IF a shot is rubbish to begin with, then THAT will be the end result, which Photoshop will NOT improve...unless you are optically challenged!! I can't imagine why anyone would enjoy being in a crowded place anyway.....!!!!
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:April 11th, 2012 (9:48am) PDT
I also will have to disagree with the concept that capturing street photography is capturing a fleeting, decisive moment, while landscape photography is not.To capture a good ocean shot at sunset, you have a small window of time (sunset), constantly changing waves, and constantly changing clouds.Yes, there will always be another wave, and another cloud, and another sunset, but never one combo like what happens right now.Capturing that perfect combination in a well composed scene takes both a good idea and an extreme amount of patience.A particular spot up in the mountains has alluded me so many times I don't want to even say it.I have woken up 3 hours before sunrise, driven two hours and snow shoed to the shot only to have no clouds, too many clouds, melted snow, etc etc.That great shot you envision is usually very fleeting.
This is not to say that street photography doesn't have similar challenges, but in the same way that there is always another wave I can pretty much guarantee that there will always be another goofy looking guy on the street, another homeless person sleeping under a bridge and men will ALWAYS check out the scantily clad girl.:)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 11th, 2012 (9:01am) PDT
Ah have we moved on to discussing the merits (or not) of street photography now? As a street photographer I too try to find the lighter side of life, though homelessness is no doubt a sad part of today's street life. Call it social commentary if you prefer but the fact is we are recordinglife in the street as we see it, and as Sten says, looking for a decisive moment that is there one moment and gone the next.
I am always open with my camera, though rarely intrusive, I hate seeing street photographers in people's faces. I don't try to hide what I am doing, nor do I shoot from the hip. If anyone finds themselves on my uploads and asks me to remove their photo then I would. Fact is those who have found themselves have often asked for a copy of the original. If anyone spots me taking their photo and asks me not to then I stop. (twice in a number of years that has happened).
Some posters here have mentioned Ansel Adams, he too was well known for his street photography. So what's different between the 1940's and now? People are caught on camera a lot more nowadays than they were in Adam's day thanks to cctv. Wherever you go in public you are on camera, at least we don't hide our cameras from you.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 11th, 2012 (3:13am) PDT
The point I was really trying to make is that post processing can turn a good picture into something startling by use of effects not captured in the original shot.Not saying there's anything wrong with doing that necessarily.But it can give an impression of achieving something with the camera that was actually achieved using processing.
There are certainly street shots out there which I would consider to be overly intrusive.I rarely snap the homeless myself though I am a fan of off the wall characters, and particularly buskers and street entertainers (who expect to be snapped regularly).I always try to find fun elements out there, light hearted moments.Some people are covert - they shoot from the hip and such.I prefer to be open and often people see me.It's extremely rare for anyone to react badly - you just have to use your common sense on not get right in people's faces.Street is also frequently not about snapping people at all.I am regularly snapped myself, often by the folk I've just snapped ;)No doubt there are plenty of times when I was caught and didn't know it - no problem with that.Public is public - if there's something you don't want someone else to see, don't do it in a public place ;)
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 11th, 2012 (12:59am) PDT
@Stentionhouse With all due respect I absolutely don't agree. Post processing can certainly enhance an image but it can never make a bad image good. It simply can't. If the composition, lighting, subject and balance of the image is wrong it will always be wrong. Cropping can improve composition and brightness/contrast can improve lighting but not enough to change the original scene.
I guess I just don't 'get' street photography. To me, most of the shots I look at appear completely random (though I understand that it is kind of the idea!) and they almost never seen to tell a cohesive story. I also object in a small part to looking at photos of people who don't know they've been photographed. For example, to me a photo of a drunk or a tramp is invasive and opportunist. That's just my opinion and I'm not saying it's wrong but that I just don't agree. I know that I would feel in a small way violated if I saw an image of myself on the internet and I had no idea it had been taken.
Anyway, it's certainly a great debate.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 11th, 2012 (12:41am) PDT
The thing is, I could go out and take a few landscape shots, fire up [one or more piece of photo editing software] and make my ordinary results look fabulous.I've seen people do it - I've seen original nice but mundane shots turned into something eye catching.You might argue the person doing the editing is using skill to transform the image but for me, that's then moved into the realm of art and away from photography.
Street snapping requires catching decisive moments that may last 1/100th of a second and are then gone forever.You have your camera and your eye.You never know what you might see and that's the appeal.Wildlife photography is similar - though it's more difficult as birds and the like are considerably less sociable than people are, at least with human in the vicinity ;)Wildlife and macro work probably requires more skill than any other form of photography, which is no doubt why I'm no good at either.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 10th, 2012 (7:59pm) PDT
@davercox - Hey no worries; I hadn't read that far back to see the comment you mentioned. Anyway, that's right, each genre is unique and different and each person values one higher or lower than another. When I started with photography, landscapes and cityscapes were my thing... I LOVED them (and still do). At the same time, I couldn't stand wildlife photography. I would always think, who cares about some random bird, or bear when I can just pick up Nat Geo and look at pictures of them all day. I never realized the amount of work that went into getting those shots until I tried it out myself. Wow, what an eye opener that was! It's like sitting around fishing, waiting and waiting to catch a fish but instead of catching a fish, you MIGHT get a decent photo to take home. Now, I've been devoting almost all of my photo outings to wildlife photography.
I still don't like modern street photography much, at least not the type I've been seeing recently. I like the original street photography from the '30's and '40's from people like Helen Levitt, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and the like. I think there was more emotion in the street photography scenes back then. although there are quite a few people on 72dpi here that are taking some awesome street shots.
Wow, this is off topic, lol. Didn't realize I'm practically writing a bio. Anyways, that's all.:-)
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 10th, 2012 (7:39pm) PDT
@Paul maybe I took a particular comment a little harshly but for someone else, ( @Michael ) to describe a whole genre of photography as 'trite' is pretty denigrating (to me, anyway, and maybe that's because that particular genre is the one I hold dear to my heart). The ocean and coast to me will never be boring, just as street scenes will rarely be interesting. That's just what I like and, try as I might, I can't change that.
I love this discussion anyway and wasn't trying to sidetrack it into a personal 'ding dong'. I really agree with 99% of what you say Paul.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 10th, 2012 (4:55pm) PDT
@Paul Nice summary of the discussion.
Here's something I hope everyone can agree with regarding post tools and their use:"STRAIGHTEN your images".I see so many images here and elsewhere that feature sloping water levels, cock-eyed horizons, and elements that are clearly supposed to be vertical...and they are not vertical.I know that some photographic artists intentionally tilt images for effect, and I know that certain lenses make it impossible for both vertical and horizontal elements to be correct at the same time.Nevertheless, I think it's a fundamental step to make a strong effort to straighten all images.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 10th, 2012 (4:35pm) PDT
@davercox - I don't think anyone has denigrated a genre in this discussion, unless I'm missing something. But I do think this discussion has been a real eye opener to see where people stand on the subject of post processing and how little or far they're willing to take it. I have no problem using any filter available, tweaking exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. but I really thought more people were "traditionalists" and would never dream of adding or subtracting entire objects from their photo. I guess I was wrong! But as I've prefaced in each of my posts, I think this is really a personal choice for each photographer to make. (Although for contests, I think it should be noted if the photo was significantly altered so the judge can weigh that in their voting. Many contests require original .DNG files for this reason.)
@Stentionhouse - I agree with you 100% of the HDR topic. While I think it looks fascinating, I just can't make my mind accept it as photography. But then again, in 20 years, who knows what sort of cameras and photo technology we'll have. I guess it's just the traditional side of photography drifting away.
@Everyone - It has been interesting reading all of your thoughts on this topic; that's why I like having this little rant section. It's a good way to learn what other photographers think instead of just accepting what you know as an absolute.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 10th, 2012 (3:39pm) PDT
It's a shame that when some people aren't 'into' a certain genre of photography they feel the need to denigrate it but that's life I guess!! Personally, I can't see any attraction in taking endless 'candid' pictures of people I don't know but there are people who love that so that's great. Each to their own!!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:April 10th, 2012 (3:08pm) PDT
I was born at the end of the first half of last century...now the cars are safer, the tipewriter machines (i.e. PC) are faster, and the digital cameras are fantastic !!!
I used to carry my Hassy with many lenses and 3 or 4 backs, charged with different films ( color and b&w with different ISo, to use in different circumstaces ) a lot of ND split filters (3,4,5stops, soft edge, hard edge) and so on .
Then may be Nikon with a shifting lens for architectural purpose...
The tripod was a must.
Actually, more Galen Rowell style than Ansel Adams...
It has been a great experience, very useful, but why to continue to suffer nowadays !?!?
Now I enjoy mylow noise D3s, with which I can change ISO at any shot,and I try to improve my PP skills, doing in PP exactly what I did before with filters, shifting lenses, and other mechanical devices...
IMHO what really matters is the result of each individual image as well, so let me say toghether Michael and Charlie: "ME TOO" !
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 10th, 2012 (9:45am) PDT
Michael, your post is so exact to my thinking and I could not have said it as well, so with your permission I'd like to say "me too".
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:April 10th, 2012 (9:04am) PDT
It seems to me that, unless we're shooting for a specific commercial or informational purpose, we're trying to create beautiful or thought provoking images.No photograph represents reality because it's a flat, 2 dimensional image and reality is (at least) 3 dimensional.When Ansel Adams used a red filter to create those dark skies, it was beautiful but not reality.I'm not opposed to any kind of manipulation IF it can ENHANCE the beauty of the original image.I generally don't care for HDR but sometimes, when done well, it really works for a particular image.I'm really tired of seeing flocks of birds or full moons or whatever added to images, but sometimes it works.Those long-exposure seascapes are becoming pretty trite but a few are absolutely breath-taking.The point is I think we should look at and judge each individual image for its beauty (or whatever criteria we're looking for) and not by how it's done.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 9th, 2012 (8:02pm) PDT
@Paul I sort of half agree with you!
I think the core issue is who is to say what it is your eye really sees? My opinion is that it's somewhere between an unedited photo and HDR. I see many unedited images that just appear flat yet so many HDR's that have that cartoon-like hideous (to my poir eyes) surreal look.
It's a great debate and I 100% agree that someone teaching photography shouldn't be using HDR as a starting point for students. That's just wrong!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 9th, 2012 (7:18pm) PDT
@davercox - Ya, I agree with what you're saying about the 16mm/35mm and format stuff. And I think no matter what camera or lens you use, if you're controlling and capturing light on a photosensitive surface or material, whether you're using filters as Ansel Adams did and as many of us still do in black & white, it's a photograph. I think you can use all the filters you want and it's still a photograph because all you're doing in controlling and manipulating light with them. Same goes with burning and dodging, adjusting contrast through magenta, blue or yellow filters in enlargers, etc. All manipulating light.
What I was saying is that I think you cross from a photograph to mixed media "digital art' once you start adding and subtracting subjects from the photograph. But again, as I said before, that's just my opinion and I know a lot of photographers who look at it differently. I suppose with photography, as with many other things, there are traditionalists, and there are people who prefer to branch away from the traditional side of photography. Both sides are right.
I still disagree with HDR. Not only is it accentuating shadows, it's also doing the same thing with the highlights. And while I believe this is closer to photography than adding and subtracting subjects from the photo, it does still take an average looking photo and make it appear surreal and "better" than the original. Looking at HDR images for an hour and then going back to regular photographs it becomes more noticeable. So I don't really have a problem with HDR, it's just not for me and like I said, I think my biggest problem with it comes from a photography instructor who touts herself to potential students as a "professional photographer" and every image in her portfolio is HDR. I want to see her RAW files!
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 9th, 2012 (6:48pm) PDT
What the eye sees is actually closest to that taken with a 16mm
Fish-eye lens, with the image inverted (upside down).
Now, I don't see many images on this site representing that!! Of course, 2 eyes combined gives close to what a 35mm lens sees but not in a 3:2 format. In fact, no photo will ever, or can ever, truly represent what the human eye sees!!
The human eye has almost infinitely adjustable focal length, depth of field and dynamic range so I find this debate to be fascinating!
I don't think there is a correct answer but to call any form of photo manipulation cheating is a little harsh (imho). Ansel Adams experimented with all kinds of filter materials and other things and it would be a braver man than I to label him as a 'cheat'.
Ultimately, I disagree with the last comment below in that HDR cannot make an average photo great. It can't improve composition, focus, lighting or DOF. It can enhance shadows, that's all. I prefer to do that manually but each to their own.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 9th, 2012 (12:03pm) PDT
Oh boy, this discussion could be dangerous! :-)Let me preface this by saying I think this comes down to personal choice. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that nothing should be added or removed from the photograph if you want to call it a photograph and that the only modifications you should do are adjusting exposure, contrast, saturation, grain, etc. I would never subtract any objects from the photo and certainly would never add any. I think once you do, it becomes graphic art, not photography. But again, I'm old school I guess. I was trained in the wet darkroom where the luxuries of digital photography were not available and you made do with what you had.
I still remember, one of my favorite 35mm film images where the number on the dial of the watch were underexposed. I had to develop each print as normal and then before taking it out of the enlarger, had to go by hand with a piece of cardboard with a hole in it and "burn in" the numbers on the dial so they would show up. This would have to be done each time I wanted to make another print. Now with digital, it's just a couple mouse clicks and voila, you're done!
I also think of HDR as "cheating" that can make even a crappy photo look surreal. I think this bugs me the most because one of my "competitors" here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area uses HDR for almost all of her advertising shots for her photography school. Of course the potential students are in awe when looking at them and think this woman is just an amazing photographer. Little do they know. But in a world of instant gratification, perhaps this is the way photography will be moving. I wasn't surprised when I noticed Canon has actually built HDR into the 5D Mark III. Unfortunately, it only takes HDR shots in JPG which is basically worthless and since 99% of 5D users will be shooting in RAW, it's a gimmicky feature.
But anyway, these are just my opinions and while I know many people would agree with them, many would also disagree. My partner is a graphic designer and we have this debate all the time and guess what... neither of us ever wins! So just keep taking photos, be creative, and most of all, just have fun. Once this becomes a chore for you, you know you're not meant to be a photographer. Just have fun!
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (11:34am) PDT
Stention....I could accommodate you with a Cardinal as it is the State bird and I have 9 in the backyard as we speak. I too would love a Bee Eater andwhen carving competitions "opened" up their vision to "world" birds and not just those in the US, there was a proliferation of wooden ones in our competitions.I'm afraid that "wood" wouldn't do for your purposes as there would be some "strings" attached.The lighting is a matter of choice and the options are "wide open" on that issue.....perhaps some fluffy clouds?:)
With regards to the politicians....I try to erase them from my mind....and shots as I do not wish for them to spoil the view.As far as reality is concerned, it is a perception...and over eons, mankind has tried to express it both with and without drugs.I have no idea of what "reality" is...but I try to create what I hope "reality" could be....in my sphere of perception.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 9th, 2012 (11:21am) PDT
@shuggie I did state in an earlier post that it was what MY eye sees that I'm trying to capture, ergo my pictures are my reality. But then we can ask (as you have implied) what is reality?
The difference between us is as that you have said that you are more interested in creating a picture than recording a moment in time. Whereas I am more interested in creating a photograph of a moment in time. Neither of us is more right than the other, we just have different approaches. As @jaykay72 said; what is the line between a photograph and an artistic image based on a photograph. That line is purely personal choice.
@TomShacochis agree with you re politicians
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 9th, 2012 (11:21am) PDT
@TomShacochis - while you're dropping birds in hither and thither, perhaps you could put a few about 20 feet from the end of my lens, ideally in perfect light :DA bee eater and maybe a red cardinal would be nice, they rarely visit the UK ;)
@shuggie - the Joe Rosenthal shot isn't staged so much as recreated.It's not really a decisive moment but a symbolic and iconic one, which has come to represent a whole series of events.Whereas something like Nick Ut's 'Napalm Girl' shot is a decisive moment.That couldn't possibly have been staged or anything but a spontaneous reaction shot.Such events happen once and you have a split second to get it right - if Ut's shutter had jammed for a moment or two, the moment would have been gone forever.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (11:07am) PDT
The fact that 3 of the 6 marines that "staged" it died later on the island. The fact that one "hero" was so taken by the events of being one of 27 survivors from his original 250 "man" unit and found that to be so hard to live with that he became literally a "dead drunk". The fact that the "men" were all 18-24 year oldboys.....the "staging" would still carry GREAT weight with me as a statement about fear driven heroism and the sacrifice that it took to gain control of that misbegotten hunk of lava."Stage" and "contrive" away, sir....it was the IMAGE of the "image" that counted.
As far as "staging" is concerned, there is no greater illustration of posturing for the camera than our chameleon politicians who are always displayed in the best light!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 9th, 2012 (10:53am) PDT
@shuggieBut although he restaged the scene he did not add something that was not in the original scene, adding in items from another entirely different image to enhance the original is not to me, and only a personal view here, a photograph anymore, it is a piece of art derived from a photograph. I can understand why the landscapers do that, again personal choice. I don't think the fact the Iwo Jima flag photo was a set up was revealed until long after the event, it may not have received so many accolades if it had been.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 9th, 2012 (10:44am) PDT
Interestingly, Sten, one of the acknowledged greatest photos of the 20th century was a "cheat" - that taken by Joe Rosenthal of the raising of the US flag on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima. He saw it happening the first time, but didn't manage to get off a shot - so he asked the marines to repeat the exercise for him. So, I guess it was a form of "contrived" reality. Was anybody bothered? To judge from the reputation and iconic status that photo has gained over the years, it wouldn't appear so!
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (10:42am) PDT
I will have to join Karl in the confessional.I play it both ways.I try to use the landscape as it is....but every now and then to get the essence of the landscape that I'm viewing on the final product, I too will drop in some birds.The birds I use were generally there on that day....but the little buggers were always there at the wrong time or the wrong placement when I took the basic shot.I will usually state it as such when I post the picture.The birds were there, I was there, the scene was there.....putting it together to compose a statement is not a crime to me.It is "artistic license".
My wife often paints my landscapes and when she feels the need, she adds or subtracts items from the scene. I always found that to be a point of envy when I was stuck with slide or film processing.Those awful telephone poles with their low slung wires....that I now miss...were an inescapable item that I could do nothing about and "ruined" a magnificent setting.Now I get to clone or mask them out of there....IF I choose.Having the ability to select is a modern marvel for me and now my wife and I are on the same page of "creativity" that is not stifled.
The landscapers accept this and utilize it.I know when I look at a pic what might or might not have been there....particularly if it is a familiar place.It does not detract from my appreciation by knowing that someone altered it to give a more pleasing view of it.
My wife would soundly criticize me for shooting a tourist site and then deleting all the tourists.It is hard even in the early morning hours anymore to not have that person in a NASCAR jacket or Nike T shirt from entering your bucolic scene.Now it can be....EXIT stage left.I like my streets empty, I like my beaches like Robinson Crusoe found them before his man Friday set foot on it in a SPEEDOand pot belly even if I could make a cute comment about Mister Beer Belly and his wife who should not be wearing a Thong.
Draw your lines in the sand...but the desert winds or the tide will erase them over time....just as my "brush" in PS.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 9th, 2012 (10:38am) PDT
That is the whole point of this discussion, what is the line between a photograph and an artistic image based on a photograph. That line is purely personal choice, and quite rightly so, some photographers feel in their particular genre PS improves the finished product, some don't. I am not a film purist, I have not used film for years, and neither would I want to, the number of images you can get on a memory card and the low light sensitivity of modern sensors makes that decision a no brainer but that does not stop me from wanting my images to be as taken with minimal processing, but that is my personal preference, its the choice of us all, there is no right or wrong.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 9th, 2012 (10:30am) PDT
There are certainly people who 'cheat' at street.One or two quite well known snappers have taken shots which I am certain are staged.Sometimes a shot just looks too perfect.Such events happening by chance are exceptionally rare.When you see the same person with a whole portfolio of similar 'perfect' shots, you begin to wonder.Take a look on www.in-public.com for examples ;)
To clarify what I mean by 'cheat', to pass off something which isn't which it appears to be.A great landscape shot which is tweaked and enhanced to bring out certain elements captured in the original shot isn't cheating.Adding something which wasn't there, on the other hand, is.Which isn't to say the end result isn't excellent to look at.It's just not something I would want to do myself.By the same token, I'm sure there are plenty here who wouldn't traipse the streets hoping to catch some silly little 'decisive moment' which might never even happen.Horses for courses.But it's nice to add a pinch of spice to the pot now and then ;)
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 9th, 2012 (10:26am) PDT
I still love you and your work @shuggie ....it's just my personal limit of what I'll do to satisfy my own personal artistic appetite.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 9th, 2012 (10:23am) PDT
Guilty as charged, Jeff (@mezzoduomo) - I often drop photoshop birds into a scene if I think it enhances the picture - but then I'm more interested in creating a picture than recording a moment in time, and would never pretend otherwise. Call it "enhanced reality" if you like - the sort of things the great landscape artists of our time (Turner, Constable, Faed, McCulloch et al) did with some regularity.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 9th, 2012 (10:11am) PDT
@sasastro - perfectly true - the camera doesn't see what the eye sees - thanks for reminding me! We have stereoscopic vision, depth perception and instantaneously variable apertures (i.e. irises) - the camera has none of those. Not having an angle of view or depth of field of anything approaching that of a camera, our eyes look at various parts of a scene (with our irises adjusting to the individual luminosity of the various parts of the scene - so the sky is seen in all its magnificence and none of the shadows are impenetrable) and transmit the information piecemeal to our brain, which forms a composite image from such which we call reality. The camera gets one bite at the cherry, with a set field of view and a set exposure level (usually an average) - so, by definition it must be different.
Then we come on to the question of whether your "reality" is the same as my "reality". There is every chance that two people can look at a scene and see something completely different. On my last photo-shoot with Babs (@PhotosEcosse), we ended up with very different results from what was essentially the same set of views - she saw things that I missed entirely, and I saw things that she missed entirely - suggesting strongly that "reality" is an interpretive exercise and is by no means an absolute.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 9th, 2012 (10:11am) PDT
Very interesting discussion, and everyone has been very clear in articulating their personal point of view.Just the same, I'm not sure that any of us creates images that are *exactly* like the objective reality, as @shuggie pointed out.Even the ultimate film purist must acknowledge that the evolving limits of the technology have changed the relationship between reality and a photographic image over time, whether the photographer wants to admit it or not.Therefore, all of us start beyond the point of purity, and thus aren't we all just debating the degree to which we personally and subjectively approve of the use of the tools that are out there?My personal line in the sand is the photographer here or elsewhere who has images of flying birds that he/she drops into images where there were no birds, etc.:-)
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 9th, 2012 (9:55am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh -If you mean in PS then there maybe but as I don't possess such an item I don't know to be honest, I'm a straight down the middle type of guy as I said before, compose and expose in the camera. I'm not saying some street shooters do not "cheat"as you say, I certainly dont arrange people on the street before I press the button, that is cheating, all my shots are as I come across the situation or as it unfolds in front of me,sometimes I get seen and stared at but I've never posed a subject.
I'm not against PS or any other manipulation packages, it has it's place in other genres as discussed previously, It is just my personal preference and choice not to use it and post as taken.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 9th, 2012 (9:42am) PDT
@CharlieBaugh I never arrange people in my street shots, what would be the point? A candid street shot is exactly what it says on the tin, candid and spontaneous.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 9th, 2012 (9:32am) PDT
Are there not cheating tools used in "street" photography? Like arranging people and element to tell a story that was not totally spontaneous?
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (9:09am) PDT
Doug, I was a "happy snapper" when I met that girl in high school.I married a girl in college that I met as she was exiting an Art class.I remarked that she seemed to have some gesso in her lovely hair.Turned out it was pigeon poop.From that meeting our love of Art and the art of relationships progressed to marriage.We are still "growing" in that relationship as we go from the passage of youth and "firmness" of bodies and beliefs to one of dealing with the "infirmities" and lack of all but one certainty...like taxes...our lack of immortality.But yes, "fumbling" efforts can have some lovely outcomes.I try to capture the past more than the present in my shots.I reminisce and remember the good times and what a journey it has been.I use it to tap into the emotion that was so sure of everything and find stability in the chaos of today.It is the basics that are important in keeping us grounded as we complete this work of art called life.May all your light be favorable.May you see beyond the vision of your eyes. May you never waver from trying to achieve something of value at a personal level.......and may you always find Peace and shelter in the storms for they are just Nature's way of cleansing the Planet.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 9th, 2012 (8:36am) PDT
Tom - two things:
1. Thank you for reminding me of that girl from high school.The one I remember most fondly is the one I married 40 years ago.The end result was 3 children and now 3 wonderful grandchildren.It's amazing what can come from those first fumbling efforts :)
2. I agree with all of your sentiments except where you imply that if you would sell your photos or compete with them you would not do so with manipulated images.I don't see why you should feel like that.Your images are beautiful as presented here, and they fit your prose perfectly.If you would choose to sell at a gallery, especially with one of your perfectly constructed paragraphs accompanying the piece, it would be an awesome presentation.Believe me, no one would feel cheated.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 9th, 2012 (8:29am) PDT
@shuggie) Karl, in all fairness both sides trot out the same arguments. I could say the same for the "the camera is not what your eye sees argument"
@jaykay72 well said and covers all angles as to when manipulation may be necessary and when it isn't. I have seen street pictures given the HDR treatment which to my mind is a pointless exercise. HDR processing does not reflect the street as it is.
@timbutler54 Tim I started this discussion by honestly stating that I did not know my way around photoshop, I agree with you that it can be an intimidating program. You also made some good points.
re cheating that has been mentioned - I'm sure that you folks are taking the word too seriously, I doubt @Stentionhouse was talking the fraudulent here but was maybe implying disingenuous illusions. Either way I may be putting meaning where it isn't but suspect the word was used tongue in cheek. It has certainly enlivened the discussion
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 9th, 2012 (8:09am) PDT
This discussion is of great interest to me.Although a "picture taker" for a long time, after leaving dark rooms behind in favor of DSLR I've never altered a digital photo more than very basic cropping, straightening, etc.Not because I don't believe in it but because I didn't know how or have anything to do it with, other than the very basic editing software that is bundled with most computers.Photoshop was always far too intimidating for me.But I've just now purchased Lightroom and am very excited about having some additional control over my photos.So far, after reading this discussion and considering my own preferences, I think I'm in the camp that up to some point we are making our photos better by "fixing" some minor points.Then there is a point at which we begin to manipulate out of the "this is the picture that I took" realm and into the "this is the ART I want to create from that picture" realm.Personally I like both, better pictures AND art created from pictures.Have I mentioned how much I like this forum?!
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 9th, 2012 (7:29am) PDT
A very good discussion with some excellent points raised and debated in support of both opinions, I think, for what it's worth, that - @TomShacochis - nailed it saying that preference for major manipulation is genre driven, now I, as an old dinosaur, prefer the quick tidy up of an image, being a street shooter you can't "overegg the pudding" as vivid green people on purple pavements (USA = Sidewalk) under an unnaturally blue sky would soon get shot down, quite rightly, in flames, it may not be an enhanced version of what my eye saw but the cameras interpretation of a steeet scene is normally sufficient. What I see is what you get ! The landscape, flora and fauna or wildlife photographer however needs the ability to manipulate their images more than I do for the host of reasons adequately covered here, neither is wrong or cheating, just a matter of personal preference and genre driven requirements. There is also no doubt some images here bear no resemblance to what was downloaded from the camera, but, that again, is personal choice, it just does not happen to be mine but who am I to say it's wrong ?
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (7:01am) PDT
Karl, I leave autopsies to the forensic pathologists. At one time, some in the hierarchy of philosophers would debate the number of angels on the head of a pin. Now we debate what we do with the pixels.I am always amused at such discussions but the end result is that I usually throw the pixels like a deck of cards into the air and see how they fall....then you pick up the individual cards and play the hand...and usually its "solitaire".:)I was once asked by a person at a show if I didn't feel like a prostitute displaying my wares and then selling my "assets".I replied that though sometimes would accept money for my "favors" to help maintain my "assets"....that I had the most pleasure when I would just give it away, like that girl that I remembered fondly from high school.We never got into "technique" or "skill" level....just the end result.:)
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 9th, 2012 (6:48am) PDT
Of all the people who've purchased or published my images over the years, Tom, not one has ever expressed any interest in the technicalities of how the image was taken and/or processed, and not one has ever asked whether the image reflected the reality of what I saw.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (6:24am) PDT
Thank you, Karl....you have a firm grasp of "reality" and the technical skills/knowledge to wrestle with it!:)
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 9th, 2012 (6:19am) PDT
Aha - the processors vs the purists .. interesting discussion! I see the old "portraying reality" chestnut is being trotted out again.
With this particular chestnut in mind, and in order to aid the discussion, let's start off with an oft-overlooked fact: when we press the button, irrespective of what the subject is, all we're doing is creating a bucketful of numbers (effectively the RGB and luminosity components of the light falling on each sensor element) which we convert into an image (using a formula called a colour space) which we view on our computer monitors, or which we print.
Some more inescapable facts, followed by a simple question:
For any given scene and set up point:
1. 10 different cameras, all using the same focal length and depth of field (to give equal coverage) will produce 10 slightly different images, depending on the sensor in each camera;
2. If an image taken with a single camera is separately processed using a different colour space each time, each image will look slightly different when displayed;
3. 10 identically-processed versions of the same image will look slightly different if viewed on 10 different computer monitors - irrespective of whether or not those monitors are correctly calibrated (which most probably are not);
4. 10 identically-processed versions of the same image will look slightly different if printed on 10 different printers, even though the same paper is used in each case;
5. 10 identically-processed images of the same image will look slightly different if printed on a single printer but using a different paper in each case;
Now the question: of all the images resulting from the various combinations of camera / sensor / colour space / monitor / printer / paper, which is the one which most closely represents the "reality" which you saw (or, more properly, THOUGHT you saw) through the viewfinder when you pressed the button?
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 9th, 2012 (6:07am) PDT
Words can be incendiary or they can have a calming effect.It is their use in context or intent from which we derive the meaning.I like words and I also play with how they are used...double entendres are my favorite for they allow the listener or reader to interpret them and then you get to see where their "head" is at.I also find it "fun" to see the expression on a person who speaks a foreign language say something insulting with a smile then reply in that language to let them know that you knew exactly what they said.Now that's a reality check.
The word "cheating" is such a word.People will get irate if you do it in a game of skill for high stakes.That is a deception.That is not an honest "win" or achievement.They will not do it as intensely when a legislature passes a law that is intended for the "people"..but not for themselves.That is considered "expected" behavior by them.
I am a self proclaimed "amateur" and my "intent" with the use of that word is to imply that I know a little bit about what I'm doing...but not enough to have a level of skill that I can go from the "big boy" pants fresh out of diapers.....to wearing a suit at the gathering of the CEOs and "fit in".I would also say that what I do in photomanipulation is not "cheating"....embellishment, yes.....altering the decor....yes....but I neither sell my work nor compete with it.If I chose to compete, then I would do it at the most "honest" and "purist" level.That is because of my conscience.....and not yours.
I both competed and sold my other art work....all the result of honest endeavor, sweat and toil.People would ask me at shows "how long did it take to make that piece?"I would reply that it was the number of years that I had been at it plus one month to conceive the idea, one month to sculpt it and another month to paint it.....the next one would take even longer because it was all the previous time plus the 3 months.When I quit doing that due to some physical impediments it was over 30 years.I still had not learned nor mastered all that I wanted to do.
I turned to photography because of the "spontaneity" of it an the low level of effort that it required to produce an end result.I have shot "pictures" for years that I regarded as "snap shots"....the "Happy Snapper" level.I met with photographers that I respected and "purity" was not only their baseline but their goal....that's how you learn to use your equipment...the "novice" level.I now am at what I consider to be the "amateur" level.By that I mean that I know a little bit about some things but not a whole lot about anything....but it allows me to now express myself in a combination of the some technical detail AND the ability to use my "artistry" such as it is.
Take for granted that ANYTHING that you see of mine has been "manipulated".If you feel "cheated" by that experience...then so be it....look away. I don't sell, I don't compete....I just "create".
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:April 9th, 2012 (6:03am) PDT
HERE HERE DOUG!!Chocolate for everyone!Screw those vegetables :D
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 9th, 2012 (5:47am) PDT
I think it's the word "cheating" that bothers some.
It's sort of like saying eating raw vegetables is the only true way to eat, and steaming them is cheating.And mashing them up and adding other ingredients is downright despicable.
I'll continue to process my images.It's fun.Sometimes it results in something that pleases me.And if I don't like it, I can always feed it to the dog :)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 9th, 2012 (1:04am) PDT
I didn't realise that my post would start such an intense discussion, it's interesting to read people's views.
Here's an analogy, I can tidy and redecorate my house or I could demolish it and completely rebuild a different house, maybe deciding I want a pyramid shaped house instead. The former to me is OK, nothing wrong with tidying up a photo to make it look more presentable. The latter (though still a house) is not the house I originally had or (personally) desired.
I agree with @PhotosEcosse that with some pictures the post processing is skilfully done. Here's an example that to me looks OK and (to my untrained processing eye) http://www.72dpi.com/photo/23874 This is redecorating my house.
I won't post an example of a house rebuild so as not to upset anyone. But I have to agree with @Stentionhouse in that in a lot of cases processed images are art based on photography. Or maybe we should say a photographic art form. As with all art it's a matter of personal taste and it's nice to see that folk here are able to express their tastes.
Re what the eye v. what the camera sees argument. Like Sten I like to capture a moment (maybe it's built in to us street togs) But it's what MY eye sees that I am trying to capture, not the human eye in general. And yes my eye doesn't see in black and white but that's just me re-decorating my house.
Finally, isn’t it nice that we can have this discussion with such differing views without anyone getting irate, we're a civilised bunch ;-)
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 8th, 2012 (10:29pm) PDT
@CharlieBaugh - yes, B&W conversion is cheating.Using a digital camera is cheating ;)But to be serious for a moment, 'cheating' is to use software to create something substantially different to what you actually shot, I would say.Using PS to add or remove things, or to (for example) make the sky more blue than it really was.But I notice that quite a lot of people, here on 72 and elsewhere, are entirely open about the things they use to create images.I think if you were entering a picture in a competition and giving the impression it was SOOC or close to it when in fact you'd spent hours manipulating and tweaking that shot, this would have to be regarded as dishonest.
It seems that there are people who consider photography as a means of creating something and the clicking of the shutter button is just a part of that;and those who consider the clicking of the button to be the definitive moment - the point where you either succeed or fail.As someone who mostly snaps street, I lean strongly towards the latter point of view.If I specialized in shooting landscapes, no doubt I'd think differently because it's a completely different type of photography.Sometimes I see pictures where the sky is fabulous colours that I think probably don't occur naturally (though I'm probably wrong) - the shot is pleasing to the eye but does it represent something extraordinary that the snapper saw?If I took a picture of a blackbird and used PS to make it green and then claimed to have seen a rare green blackbird, what would you say?;)
A lot of people like to chase the 'decisive moment', which is there and gone in a moment.Having tried my hand at taking a wildlife pic or two, it's a completely different ball game and requires considerable patience.But you're still looking for the decisive moment - only this time when the bird shows itself and is in the ideal light and his head is cocked just right etc.IMHO, when you click the button you either get it right or you don't.And using software to turn a miss to a hit is 'cheating'.
This guy provides excellent examples of what can be achieved without any kind of post processing:http://www.72dpi.com/gallery/davidmcmahon
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 8th, 2012 (5:42pm) PDT
One "given" that some who don't approve of post processing of images always allude to is that using software to "manipulate" an image produces something unnatural and fake. That is simply not true.
Software, depending on how it is used, can help us create an image MORE like what our eyes actually see.It can, if used properly, make an image more natural, not less.The use of multiple images in challenging dynamic range situations has already been alluded to by Scott.I use image stacking to increase dof in a lot of my macro images because although I can see an image inside a droplet and the edge of the droplet all in focus with my eye, my camera lens cannot, even at the smallest apertures and the most glacial of shutter speeds.So the image stacking software helps me present what my eye can see but my camera lens cannot, similar to the dynamic range issue alluded to below.So, software in these situations actually removes the artificiality imposed on the image by the limitation of our lenses.
But besides this use in allowing us to present an image closer to what our eye actually sees, software can also allow us to present what our heart "sees".I would not trade any of Tom Shacochis' wonderful images, accompanied by his beautiful prose for all the tonally accurate travel brochure pictures in the world.
So I think the folks who (sometimes self-righteously - present company EXCLUDED) decry the use of post processing as a somehow fake, with a whiff of dishonest, way to present an image - well, they are IMHO producing a false dichotomy.There is no either-or purity in photography, or anywhere else in this realm of existence.As soon as someone slapped a lens onto a pinhole camera he/she created a whole brave new world of artistic choices for photographers.Some of us make different choices, or more choices, but we all make choices.
I plan my images around the postprocessing software I will use.If the software was not available, I would plan things differently.I could still produce decent images straight out the camera, but I choose a different way - not artificial, not fake, just different.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 8th, 2012 (2:36pm) PDT
How far do you go Sten. Is it cheating to convert a colour (spelled in your honor) photo to B&W? Colour is standard now.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:April 8th, 2012 (2:31pm) PDT
Wow seems we've created an interesting topic. Bottom line with regards to editing of photos;it's like going to a wine tasting event, you like red wine - I like white but we all like wine!
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 8th, 2012 (12:55pm) PDT
On the other hand....my other half, TOTALLY a non-photographer, thinks that using a tele lens for landscapes is cheating !!!!!! His idea is that " Well, it doesn't look like that to the human eye ! " He hates Black and White...not natural in his opinion. Each to their own as the saying goes !!
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 8th, 2012 (12:53pm) PDT
I don't cheat on my wife of over 40 years.....so I could never run for office.I don't cheat at cards...but then again I don't play cards...strip poker once with limited attendance.....in my case it can lead to an "ugly" game for "real" high stakes. I do cheat death....when I wake up every morning...at least so far. I probably will "burn" someday....but so far only in the light of day at the beach.I will continue to "cheat" with photo art as my paint brushes are losing more hair than I have and I'm dried up...the paints that is.It's all in the way you approach life.I've even waltzed to a Hip Hop song.....but then again....the music was in my "soul" and not my ears.Such is life.....and so it will be.Keep shooting any way you like....and may your light always be "favorable".....the wind is at my back....I think I'll take a walk. :)
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:April 8th, 2012 (12:41pm) PDT
@PhotosEcosse A similar question to your ND question I like to ask people is "Is it ok to use a warming filter attached to my lens?"They always say yes.The follow up is "Well why I can't I use a warming filter in PS then? It does the same thing, but it doesn't cause vignetting like the glass one does AND I don't have to spend money on another filter"
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:April 8th, 2012 (12:32pm) PDT
@PhotosEcosse Couldn't agree more.I should have read your comment before writing my small book there.The grungy look or the completely over the top coloring creates images that can grab attention, but in my mind, not ones that can hold that attention.In general I have found that if you show people such a shot next to a shot of the exact same scene processed more naturally (but still processed from multiple exposures) they will nearly always choose the natural one as the one they would want to hang on their wall.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 8th, 2012 (12:29pm) PDT
@TomShacochis - yes, that's all cheating.Please throw all your photographic equipment away at once and burn every picture you've ever taken where you cheated! lolPeople use different means to achieve the end result.IMHO, it's a different ball game entirely for professionals because you're being paid to produce something specific.Whereas as an amateur such as myself can have peculiar ideas about what constitutes 'proper' photography and I don't have to worry about my snapping paying the bills.
One man's meat is another man's pet dog, as my old grandma used to say ;)
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 8th, 2012 (12:27pm) PDT
PS...is using a ND filter for Long Exposures also "cheating " ?
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:April 8th, 2012 (12:27pm) PDT
So I have been travelling for work and haven't been posting or commenting in the last week, but I am home now and I have to weigh in on this topic.
If you are shooting a landscape at sunrise or sunset, a single exposure can not capture what the human eye can see.It just isn't possible.The human eye can see a much larger dynamic range than the camera sensor can capture.When you stand and watch the sunset, you can see detail in the shadowy areas but the color in the sky and the sun is not overexposed.You shoot that image in a single esposure you get to choose one or the other.Does the sky look right? or do the shadows?So, in order to actually portray what you see, you HAVE to use multiple exposures.So I just don't buy the "if you use photoshop it isn't what you saw" argument.Plus, if you use the camera / lightroom / whatever app's default processing, it isn't that you aren't processing an image, it is that you are accepting someone else's processing decisions.The maker of the camera decided what parameters to use when creating their jpegs.In photoshop you are just doing it yourself.Plus, the "I get it right in camera" argument just doesn't fly with me.Poor technique will kill a multiple exposure blend just as much as a single exposure shot, if not more.You still have to focus right, exposure correctly AND you have to use proper tripod technique to ensure the pixels line up.The only difference is you need to expose differently for different areas.
So, I am completely fine with most actions taken in PS.That said, there are many ways to increase the dynamic range of your photos.I must say I absolutely hate the look that tone mapping HDR programs produce.The muddy, fake look that results is distracting and unpleasing to me.However, by manually combining different exposures in photoshop using luminosity masks or other techniques you can produce a natural looking image that shows the true beauty of nature and gets around the limitations of our cameras.Again, some people love HDR's created by tone mapping, but it just isn't for me.I don't think it is "wrong", but just like I don't really like the weirdness in a Thomas Kincaid painting, I don't like the weird unnatural look of an HDR.All in personal taste.Of course their are exceptions where the HDR processing looks good to me, but in general I feel it is a processing method that is overused because it takes significantly less time than doing it by hand.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 8th, 2012 (12:26pm) PDT
On the button as usual Tom, LOL !!
Some valid points also Sten...though HDR is not always processed to look like a painting. Used skilfully you might never know the process had been used. It can actually be more like what your own eyes saw, which far outreach the capabilities of any camera meter / sensor.I must admit, I am not so keen on the "grunge" look though, with pretty "nuked" out colours ! Having said that, many DO enjoy that style...just see how many get voted on to the front page of 500 !! ( NOT that that is an accurate guage of how GOOD an image is, LOL ! )
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 8th, 2012 (12:09pm) PDT
When I shot film/slides there were things that you could do to alter the image in camera and B&H would lose a substantial share of its market if they eliminated the "refined" products that they offer.I used to like to travel "light" so that I wouldn't look like that I was out for a safari.You can create a Star filter and even select where the "stars" would appear by using nose grease and a currently useless item of a comb to make the cross hatching.I would carry around a tan stocking to create a sepia tone, a tissue to make vignettes or hair spray on the UV filter to create haze where I wanted it.Necessity is the Mother of Invention(great band title!) and Creativity her muse.Petroleum jelly smeared on a filter would create swirls and other effects.Could tell you about the cardboard towel roll that could be used to cone in on an area for one exposure and then overlay the double exposure....but to get on with the point.
Was all this "cheating" or "fakery"?Or was it economical forward thinking that lead photo houses like B&H and I have forgotten the names of the limited few out there who finally made glass filters, then came Colkin.....and now...it's in the machine called the computer.Well.....all that lightened my load.I don't even use a tripod except for night shots with long exposures. I still like to travel with as few items as possible...spare batteries and CF cards.It's hard enough to climb a hill any more and I don't want to be exhausted by the lack of pack animals or porters.Again, different genres have different needs.Studio lighting is NOT created in the camera whether in the studio or on the beach.If you attach a ND filter on your camera lens, where do you draw the line of being "pure"?If you use a polarizing filter to cut down reflections, is that cheating?It gets exhausting......so....I remain "impure" in my thoughts.
I can accept the designation as "photo art"....doesn't bother me at all.I have been "pure" but like Olivia Newton-John in "GREASE"....it's nice to get "down and dirty" at times. :)
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 8th, 2012 (11:43am) PDT
I don't think HDR is photography, so much as art based on a photograph.It has a lot of fans but I'm not one.Not to say I haven't seen well done HDR images and liked them, far from it, but it's not something I'd want to dabble with myself.For me, a photograph is a moment captured.Now and then you capture something you like but the shot will be a bit over/under exposed etc.With digital, you can tweak to make your image look a bit tidier.I guess that's processing.But it's very close to being exactly the same thing that you actually captured to your sensor.Whereas HDR isn't.It's several shots overlaid to a point where the picture looks more like a painting.
It's difficult to tell looking at a picture if it's a great shot or the result of substantial PS work, in some cases.IMHO, the latter is obviously cheating.What you're showing isn't something you actually captured, it's a rough approximation of what you shot polished and manipulated until it's no longer a 'photograph' at all.There's tweaking, which virtually everyone does - bit of straightening and the like.Then there's wholesale revamping, recolouring, adding assorted effects to enhance certain parts of an image...but each to their own.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 8th, 2012 (11:29am) PDT
Tom...I totally agree with all you say....you took the words right out of my mouth, especially with regard to Ansel Adams ! HDR was actually developed way back in the 1930's !! ( See here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging. )
Photography in MY opinion, is an ART form...and creativity is what it is all about....for me ! To use Photoshop really well takes as much skill, if not more, than actually getting it right in camera. No camera in reality actually captures what we see with our own eyes...it lies every time !! Mono images are certainly not WHAT we see....if using film, you would use different chemicals, processing times, and papers....dodge, burn, clone...and have many versions of the same shot. Photoshop is NOTHING new at all !
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 8th, 2012 (11:26am) PDT
Let me say one other thing.There may still be some folks with darkrooms and "wet processing" out there.I converted my darkroom to a carving studio when the EPA became too involved in how chemicals were to be disposed of....but in the "old" days of film....slide film was "what you shot, you got".That's what separated the men from the boys.The camera was all manual. To create double exposures was a heroic act.The "processing" began when that slide or that negative, either black and white or color, was then put in an enlarger and your paper was placed beneath it with a variety of choices there.Then you "enlarged", cropped, altered the hues and saturations, the exposure corrections, dodged and burned all by hand with the help of the enlarger and yes, even filters for the enlarger.
Digital photography and advanced cameras have made folks forget about all that stuff and many have never known it.Want a real experience, try using a glass "wet" negative for a Matthew Brady experience.Manipulation has always been there.The degree to which you do it is a matter of choice.There are experience photographers on this board who do it all in the camera using the implanted software to take it from camera to print.They are few and far between that have that level of expertise anymore.The iPhone culture has made everyone think that they are photographers.It is a title that only fits a few.....myself not included.I am still a novice, learning as I go along from others.....marveling at what others have done....and trying to create my own "signature".When I competed in Wildlife sculpture, it was not whether you carved the subject in its anatomical correctness, but whether you captured the "essence" of the subject....the ethereal qualities. Flawless presentation was a necessity...but artistic license was expected to get the blue ribbon or Best in Show.Even Cindy Crawford had a mole or "beauty" mark.I would have shopped it out if no one knew her. :)
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 8th, 2012 (10:40am) PDT
Denis, the preference is also "genre" driven.I couldn't agree more about "street" photography,portrait work for the most part and wildlife.When it comes to landscapes is where the photomanipulation comes in "handy".You look....you see a white out or grey sky....is it really so?...or is it that the human eye and brain dictate to you what you see?We can't "hear" a dog whistle frequency or the low frequency sounds of the elephant that travel for miles in the air while humans give them "supernatural" powers of communication because of their "focused" view of what frequencies we can hear.
With the camera and processing it is thesame thing.The data is all there in the pixels.HDR can help you to see the clouds.Hue and saturation can help you to see colors that we initially don't due to our own degree of color blindness as males or just plain not looking at it in a more discriminating fashion.
My point is that ALL the data that is currently available is right there in the camera until even better technology is developed......like Canon's new 100+K ISO.It is up to you to utilize that data as you see fit. There is nothing "unnatural" about it."Fake"?....so is the Miss Canada contestant with XY chromosomes.She's there regardless of "preference".
By nature I lean to the landscape and artistic ends of things.I have done Wildlife shows for years.I have been in the company of a flat work artist for over 40....my wife.The "painterly" appeals to me, whether in Art galleries or in my processing.I realize that it is not for everyone and we all have different visionsof what should be and how it should be.Jackson Pollock does not appeal to me....especially when sober...but he made his mark with his style.I can appreciate the abstractions as well as the reality.It's always "your" call.To me the taking of the picture is just the start of it. The canvas is prepared.....now take it from there to somewhere it has never been before.....that is the journey and like in Lord of the Rings....the journey is there....and back again.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:April 8th, 2012 (10:23am) PDT
(@TomShacochis) I am not saying using editing software is right or wrong. I am stating my personal opinion in that I prefer a more naturally feel to a photo. As I stated earlier, too much work in my opinion makes the picture look too busy or fake like. I personally wouldn't buy a print like that. Now having said that, art is always in the eye of the beholder which is why I choose the shots I like for display on this site. If others like them, great, if not that is their choice. At the end of the day,I feel good looking at my work.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 8th, 2012 (10:09am) PDT
I'm with - @sasastro - and - @Paradis Photography - on this subject, I enjoy the journey, the getting out there, using my eye, the best bit of photographic equipment available, to see and then record pictures. I do not and never will own Photoshop or any other major manipulation software, I only use a basic crop, lighten, darken package, in my opinion if you over process or start major manipulation then it ceases to become a photograph and becomes an image created by the particular photo editingsoftware with all it's effects and pixel manipulation. I'm afraid I'm of the post as taken school of thought, no substitute for correct exposing and composing in the viewfinder.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 8th, 2012 (9:31am) PDT
Your "eye"counts but your "vision" is the key to it all. Having tools available to you is helpful as in any trade. Having and knowing how to use a screwdriver rather than a butter knife for the job will get you farther...but the main difference isstated so well from Mr. Ansel Adams...you don't take a picture....you make a picture. I love it when "purists" use him as the icon of "purity" because he was a manipulator par excellence. He took great shots that no one else was looking for in the same scene....then...he MADE great pictures by controlling the data that his negative held....BIG negatives and BIG pictures. That's what I admire about him...he went out of bounds from the start.In his "Zone Theory"he used his humongous enlarger apparatus to dodge and burn....just like PhotoShop....to achieve extraordinary results in his pics.There should be room and tolerance in the world forboth "purity" and "artistry".The first people who hand tinted the medium of B&W were harshly criticized until color processing was invented...then the Kodachrome world exploded while the pioneers with their vision were no longer decried for their behavior....and were out of work.Use the tools at your disposal, whatever they are....and nowadays....unless you are using Hasselbad and above...all the cameras are miniature computers that do "in house" processing....or am I missing something about all those dials and the selections on my LCD screen?
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 8th, 2012 (9:23am) PDT
@Paradis Photography well said Denis, "the destination (result) shouldn't be the focus, the focus should be the journey" i's a beautiful quote and very true. Happy Easter to you
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:April 8th, 2012 (8:47am) PDT
See all the talk on the voting system. I choose not to vote as when I do I vote (always honestly using the I like it or I don't method) I always leave a comment. This has led to people voting very low on my photo's without comment. The reality for me is that I take photos for me, no one else but me. If you like it then it's a bonus, if you don't then that's your choice. The bottom line with regards to photography is that it's like life, the destination (result) shouldn't be the focus, the focus should be the journey. I get so much pleasure from being out there taking shots, good or bad, that what others think is irrelevant. On that note, have a Happy Easter all and enjoy your time with your loved ones.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:April 8th, 2012 (8:40am) PDT
@sasastro I am with you, I minimize the processing I do on my pictures. I find that too much photoshop makes any picture look busy and more frequently fake. My opinion only.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 8th, 2012 (8:27am) PDT
Just wondered if the owners and other members of this site prefer photos to be processed. Apart from a bit of sharpening, cropping, contrast or B&W I tend not to do much more, partly because I don't know my way around photoshop and partly because I upload what what I see and take with the camera.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 8th, 2012 (4:17am) PDT
thanks, Sas, they're beautiful (I left some for others to find)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 8th, 2012 (12:00am) PDT
*runs in, scatters Easter eggs around, runs out again*
(@mcmac) Ian McGregor said:April 7th, 2012 (7:35pm) PDT
Happy Easter everyone!
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 7th, 2012 (8:35am) PDT
I don't think that you can eliminate either the "buddy" thing or those who behave with ill intent.Eliminating the voting and going just for "favs" has its downside.We tend to tip over dominoes that are unforeseen consequences of our actions.People tend to congregate according to their biases no matter what.I try to be eclectic in my viewing...but I lean towards landscapes and let's say "street" or "wildlife" are selected less often though I may do some myself.Bias, discriminating choices, etc. can't be eliminated in my viewing but I will also not be adversely critical.I think skill level always needs to be taken into account.I competed in Wildlife Art sculpture for over twenty years.I started out in Novice and progressed to the "Open" class.
The judging was done on the basis of skill level and helpful comments without being derisive were always appreciated.I had also served as "judge" at times and frankly, hated it.The knife also cuts both ways as someone who has just put their feet in the water becomes an "expert" critic and will try to advance their cause at the expense of others.
I don't believe that there is any way to escape it.I just live with it....and like dancing.....I post like nobody's watching....though.... I hope they do.I still have a "move or two" in these old bones.:)
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:April 7th, 2012 (7:26am) PDT
@jnhPhotoGood idea.
(@jnhPhoto) John Harrison said:April 7th, 2012 (7:16am) PDT
I think the rating/voting system needs some work to be more accurate.Right now it seems much like a buddy system against the pic killers. Perhaps take the numbers out and rate by views and favorites only.I love the way the pics look on the site, the quality is excellent.
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:April 7th, 2012 (7:12am) PDT
I try to put my photography in perspective.A photo may move a thousand individuals over time....but musicians can inspire and emotionally affect thousands times ten in an instant.I do enjoy this site and the members on it.It may seem tumultuous at times....but in my travels...it is very "low key" and a pleasant experience. Happy Easter, everyone.I do appreciate those of you who stop by and view, leave comments, or both.I may not always say it....but I thank you for being here.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 7th, 2012 (6:32am) PDT
Have a great Easter everyone! And keep up the great work, I'm seeing a lot of really cool photos from a lot of people!
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:April 7th, 2012 (6:19am) PDT
@72dpi As always great job.In fact I have such a crush on you I will just have to kiss you.Hey quit running away from me.Get back here.What I lack in running I make up in charm....oh come on... :D
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 6th, 2012 (9:19am) PDT
Excellent work - @72dpi - On the money as usual.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 6th, 2012 (1:55am) PDT
Top job @72dpi !!
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 6th, 2012 (12:33am) PDT
I noticed that personal message spammer.Obviously doesn't understand that voting isn't something you're supposed to canvas for like you're a politician ;)He seems to have gone around hammering quite a few people.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 5th, 2012 (11:29pm) PDT
Thanks @72dpi - good one!
(@joshyboi) josh fuess said:April 5th, 2012 (10:59pm) PDT
I have a shithead who follows me from site to site, and not long after my works get hammered. I get emails stating all kinds of things. I took my stuff down and now slowly putting back up. I held who I think it is from voting and his bullshit comments. Only time will tell if I'm left alone to enjoy 72.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 5th, 2012 (10:24pm) PDT
Could it be? The end of @Me? (and all the other names he/she was using?!) Nice! Thanks 72dpi!
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):April 5th, 2012 (10:16pm) PDT
@Paul and others who received chat requests for votes - we have asked those members participating in such behavior to please leave the chat usage to collaboration, not spam.
@kate, that's the sweetest rant post we've ever seen :)
@Everyone - new logic in place where members with no content or active history are not allowed to participate in the Opinions forum. If you are unable to post to the forums please understand our decision here is to promote those who create accounts to use this Website as intended, and to participate in a constructive manner. Let's Make love, not war :) (Barry White music plays in background...)
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 5th, 2012 (5:33pm) PDT
There does appear to be a person messaging people through chat asking them to to vote on their images. They just chat messaged me. Upon review, it looks like most of their votes are 6's so I blocked them. Could be someone just trolling around, or, someone who is 6'ing people's photos if they don't go vote on theirs. Just a warning because I know this was talked about earlier.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 5th, 2012 (2:48pm) PDT
@Kate) Happy Easter to you too Kate, or if you prefer Happy Eostre ;-)
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:April 5th, 2012 (1:47pm) PDT
@photosecosse Thanks Kate...same to you and one and all !!!
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:April 5th, 2012 (1:40pm) PDT
No rant - Just wanted to wish everyone a very happy Easter.
Kate
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 5th, 2012 (1:25pm) PDT
Having looked around somewhat, I think I know who gave me most of the lower scores - I think it was someone who is an advocate of realistic voting scores.No problem whatsoever with that. So long as I know no one is just low voting (compared with what has become the norm on 72) for the sake of it, absolutely fine.Like I say, many of my pictures how have a slightly more sensible score than they did have previously ;)
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 5th, 2012 (9:38am) PDT
@Stentionhouse -Surely not you posting an unflattering snapHahahahahaha :DThere is no doubt there are some photographers who like to be top of every viewing criteria you can think of, mind you, to be fair I don't have to make my living doing it, have the pressure of selling pictures to pay the bills and rely on the exposure Top Rated or whatever gives, must be a bit of a wake-up call for a Pro when a Hobbyist gets into Top Rated in front of them.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 5th, 2012 (9:18am) PDT
@sasastro - far as I can see, none of my snaps that were sixed were in Top Rated.Very few of mine can ever have been said to 'threaten' anyone else's position.They never get much in the way of favs, so are rarely if ever going to be near the top of any lists.It looks like a personal vendetta - possibly by someone of whom I've posted an unflattering snap.Hahahahahaha :D
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 5th, 2012 (9:13am) PDT
@jaykay72 - I've said for a long time that there should be some kind of record as to who voted what - ideally no comment, no vote, though understand why some wouldn't like that.It would probably stop trolling in its tracks.And those who give honest lowish scores would, I think, be more likely to say why.I have seen people giving snaps poor scores because (in the case of one I saw - not mine) 'I don't like sculptures'.Hahahaha.So why bother looking at something you don't like?
I don't look back (in anger or otherwise lol) at stuff I've previously uploaded and would probably not have known I'd been comprehensively sixed had it not been pointed out to me.On the up side, it's given many of my snaps a more realistic score.So maybe two wrongs can make a right after all ;)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 5th, 2012 (9:11am) PDT
@jaykay72 that's a good idea John. I find it flattering that someone has taken the time and effortto go through my older uploads to vote them down. I guess my overall score was felt to be threatening to a few people. I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is (or my name where my votes are) - is anyone else?
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 5th, 2012 (8:52am) PDT
@StentionhouseWhy not reveal who voted what when you hover over the voting history bars on any particular photograph, at the moment it only gives totals, i.e: 5 votes of 10, 2 votes of 9 etc. Why not display voters names, after all, if you vote, have the balls to stand by your vote, also I agree, no comment, no vote. I think taking away the annonimity would stop a lot of the issues raised here. I'm like you though, I'm quite flattered someone feels threatened enough by my snaps to vote them off any top rated/most whatever view, they must have confused me with someone who gives a toss !
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 5th, 2012 (8:50am) PDT
@Stentionhouse It's very easy for someone to say "nice picture" and still vote a 6, I've seen it happen
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 5th, 2012 (8:41am) PDT
Someone has been very busy 6ing my pics today - I am flattered anyone thinks it's worth the time bothering with such nonsense ;)I still favour the no comment, no vote approach.That's the one (and probably only) way to stop the trolls because they never have the balls to show themselves.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 5th, 2012 (8:38am) PDT
I agree that it should be made known in the sign up process, and that a "grace period" could be granted for those who don't currently have any photos posted.I also agree that it would be unfortunate for your friend to get "whacked", as you call it.But also unfortunate is that, as is the case most of the time, in order to try and control the behavior of bad people some good people are inconvenienced.I don't how to keep these knuckleheads out.But this seems like a pretty good solution to me.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 5th, 2012 (8:26am) PDT
Hold on, now @shuggie and @timbutler54 ....I have a friend that I sent here, and he's all set up with his real name, etc, but is waiting until has has some fresh images that he's proud of before he posts anything.I'd hate for him and others like him to get whacked by a blanket policy.Maybe if this policy is made known to people in the sign-up process in the future...
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 5th, 2012 (8:22am) PDT
It seems that John and I have very similar tolerance levels for these types of people.I say lock em' down.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:April 5th, 2012 (7:22am) PDT
@shuggie I agree with you regarding the ghost accounts with no images but with one difference, no grace period, I cannot believe any genuine photographer would join a photo sharing website with no photos to share, even the newest beginer must have some images to upload, if you purchase a camera my guess is you go out and try it first and look at the images, not join a photo sharing website then think perhaps I may take some pictures with that new purchase, or I might just criticise the site/members/procedures/pictures then cut and run when found out, leaving said camera in the bubble wrap.
Sure have a one day period to allow new members to look around the site and then load up something, but if nothing appears delete their account automatically.Either put up or shut up. Still smiling :-)
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 5th, 2012 (7:19am) PDT
Just a little FYI:'Gene Lowing' followed me over on 500px a day or 2 ago.Made me chuckle...
And now, a day or two later?"INACTIVE".
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 5th, 2012 (7:09am) PDT
I also agree with Karl
And there's another problem, I know this has happened to at least one other as well as me. I keep getting a member (not on my snaplist) pinging via chat me asking me to vote on his photos. I find that almost as bad as the trolling. Wouldn't be so bad if it was a PM asking me to at least look but a ping asking me to vote is most intrusive IMO
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 5th, 2012 (5:49am) PDT
I also agree with Karl.
I'm sure the trolls willcontinue to climb in through the back window dressed in one or another oh-so-clever disguise, but at least it could be made more difficult for them.
Anytime someone swoops in here saying they are just exploring the site, then purports to speak for the masses, then engages the membership in ad hominem attacks, then acts like a wounded innocent when they are called on it - well, our troll antennae should be tingling at that point.
What is a little more disturbing is the fact that I started getting some hostile personal email from the previous (same) faceless one.If the same happens to anyone else I encourage them to email the administrators directly (info@72dpi.com).They do take such things seriously and will respond quickly.
(@Fengari) Kim Baudart said:April 5th, 2012 (3:40am) PDT
I agree wit Karl. It makes sense to encourage users to fully participate on this site. I do not understand how someone can form an opinion about a site without actually using it for what it is intended to be used for.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 5th, 2012 (1:23am) PDT
@72dpi - you will have noticed that the anonymous trouble-maker is back in yet another guise. Before things get out of hand AGAIN, and before members feel less and less inclined to smile when they click the "send" button, the problem of anonymous newcomers with no portfolios MUST be addressed.
REPEATED proposal (which was fully discussed in here a week or so back):
1.ALL users CURRENTLY on the site, but with no portfolios, are given a "period of grace" of 1 week to upload AT LEAST ONE IMAGE; if no images are uploaded before the expiry of said period, the account is deleted.
2. All subsequent NEW users are given a similar "period of grace" to upload AT LEAST ONE IMAGE; if no images are uploaded before the expiry of said period, the account is deleted.
3. The above grace period / minimum upload requirement / sanction ALSO applies to any user deleting all images in his/her portfolio.
I think that probably covers all bases. I would suggest that this is implemented ASAP to get the ball rolling - any tweaking of the grace period and/or minimum upload requirement can be done as, when and if necessary. Time to bite the bullet, I think!
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 4th, 2012 (11:47pm) PDT
@Stentionhouse - You're right, there does appear to be some new algorithms being put in place to determine what is considered top rated. My guess is it has something to do with comments, favs, and views, in addition to the numerical rating.
I hope the admins are able to track down @bobduffrense AKA @Me AKA @someothername AKA @someothername's IP address so it can be blocked. I have a strong inclination based on the way this cowardly person speaks, that they're a member on this site, have a portfolio up here, and are probably also quite active in discussions. I was taught at a young age to be up front and direct with people and not to act like a coward as many of these insecure trolls do, hiding behind their computer screens. But you gotta wonder, if they have so much time on their hands and feel so insecurely about themselves, why aren't they out learning how to take better photographs instead of letting their jealousy and personal insecurities drive them to trolling the forums of photo sites?
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 4th, 2012 (11:30pm) PDT
Regarding prime 500mm (and longer) lenses, the whole cost issue aside, the physical size of them is pretty fearsome.Having seen someone using a 500 f4 locally recently, there is no way you'd be able to snap hand held with it - so even if I had several grand lying around going spare, I would certainly have to think twice about getting one as I never use a tripod and would find one too restrictive most of the places I go.Then again, I don't go anywhere that has the kind of fabulous wildlife you often see in the best nature snaps.If I did, no doubt I'd think about using three legs or at least a monopod.
For me, the (frequently maligned) Sigma low enders (50-500, 150-500, 170-500, 120-400) are worth looking at, as is the 400 5.6 Canon - all are under a thousand quid (only just in the case in the Canon, if you shop around).If I buy an £8000 500 f4, I'm also going to need a £3000 body to get the best out of it...and suddenly it's not a hobby any more lolAnd after all that, I can't just walk about with this set up as the 500 f4 is the size of a bazooka ;)However, the image quality, sharpness, AF speed, clarity and build is vastly superior to anything else out there.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 4th, 2012 (11:28pm) PDT
Thought it wouldn't be long before ME made a reappearance .. LOL
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 4th, 2012 (11:18pm) PDT
@Paul - to prove that the voting system does actually work, look at my own snaps.Currently I have at least 18 (I just did a quick check) rated 10.The number of those which are Top Rated - 0.So clearly the 10 score now means next to nothing by itself and some other factor/factors are coming into play, probably related to the number of favs and comments pictures get.
So, as I mentioned before, though a lot of people now give out 10s, the number who fav snaps and/or comment on them is still relatively low and only the very best shots will be Top Rated.Clearly the 72 people have developed some kind of new algorithm but haven't announced it, probably out of concern that those with a mind to will try to find a way to exploit it or find a way round it.Many people may now treat the 10 score almost as a 'like', but clearly most don't accompany that 10 with a fav vote.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 4th, 2012 (11:12pm) PDT
@Photobarx , Simon, thanks for the info. I think I'm going to try out the Better Beamer and see how it works. I finally found some comparison shots on the internet this evening of someone using it and it looks like it actually does make a big difference, especially with the eyes. I'll let you know how it turns out. The 500mm arrives tomorrow morning and I plan to take it out to the lake and get some test shots right away. I'll let you know how it performs but from what I've read, it is THE lens for wildlife photography. I've been saving up for it as well and finally decided to go for it as an early birthday present! It's the most expensive lens I've bought so it's always a nerve wracking experience before you hit that "Buy" button.
@sasastro , I agree, I view all of our discussions on here as just that: discussions. Since this thread began just over a month ago, look at all the awesome changes that have been implemented based on what all of us have talked about. I really think this site is going to continue to grow and the connections and acquaintances we've all made have been really helpful. It seems no matter how much we know, there are always new tips and techniques people are sharing that I have personally found really helpful.
(@Photobarx) Simon Barker said:April 4th, 2012 (10:50pm) PDT
@Paul, I haven't used one, but have only heard good things about them. I recently sat in on a Nik webinar that was being run by a bird/nature photographer called Maxis Gamez. He showed it in use with his big glass and swore by it.
By the way, the 500mm is my dream lens. I'm saving my pennies to be able to get one. Might take me a while, but I'll get there. Good for you on getting one, I'd love to hear what it's like. Cheers, Simon.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 4th, 2012 (10:40pm) PDT
@bobduffrense) BobD sounds very much like a member (possibly still here, possibly gone) calling himself @me me. He too had no photos here, came to this thread and complained about the site andthe people complaining about scoring (we're not, we're discussing.) If I recall rightly his too started with I 've come to check this place out, I've not uploaded any photosbut blah blah blah.
Best way to find out how this site works is to upload a photo imo. I happen to think it's a mighty fine website with a mighty fine group of members
(@Jarede) Jarede Schmetterer said:April 4th, 2012 (5:43pm) PDT
Maybe the voting system should be changed to an alphabet system - where a=very good in composition, color, subject, ect.......b= good in composition, color, subject, ect c= ok d= fair and only an A can be put through without comment.......any comment would address why the image was valued less than an A AND you can make your comment anonymous if you choose.The owner of the photograph would have the option of deleting any comments .
(@Fengari) Kim Baudart said:April 4th, 2012 (5:12pm) PDT
@bobduffrense : it only seems that way if you read these threads. I'm sure if you just post pictures here and do not put too much value in the rating numbers, the chance of abuse is very low. And if you don't want to be annoyed by the ratings you can turn voting off. I have found most people here very likeable. And if you do encounter someone abusive, there is also the possibility of blocking them from voting and commenting . The reason I am here voicing my opinion is not because I am unhappy with the site or encounter abuse all the time, but because I see real potential here for this site to become the only place I need to post my pictures to get the feedback I want. At the moment I'm here for the community feel, on another site for a numerical rating that feels 'right' and yet another to get well-founded critiques. It would be so much more convenient to find that all in one spot and I think this site has the potential of becoming that spot :)
(@Fengari) Kim Baudart said:April 4th, 2012 (4:37pm) PDT
@bobduffrense : as far as I know the voting system was here all along. I joined not very long ago and didn't get to see how well it worked before, but I really liked the voting system at that point. Ratings were diverse (the whole 1-10 scale was used) and I felt they actually reflected the quality of the pictures rather well. You could really tell by looking at the rating if a picture was generally considered poor, average, above average, good, great or sublime. Soon after there was a problem with people obviously downrating pictures just because they were scoring well. Pictures that had scores of 10s, 9s and 8s suddenly got 1s and 2s, which seriously influenced their voting average and of course annoyed these photographers a lot. 72dpi reacted by making comments on votes lower than 6 mandatory, and by revealing people's voting history. The downrating votes shifted from 1s and 2s to 6s, resulting in a vote of 6 being considered a 'bad' vote and honest people being hesitant to vote lower than 7. I've been away for a few weeks and it seems that by now the voting habits have become even narrower, with people only giving 9s, 10s and favs.
I think the call for a likes/views system is the result of that: it eliminates the possibility of serious abuse, and brings the number of times a picture has been viewed without a vote being cast into the picture to balance out the purely positive voting and give more diverse ratings again. After all, what's the use of having a 1-10 scale if people are only going to use the top 2 options?
Of course, wherever there's a rating a voting system there will be "gaming". That cannot be avoided, I'm sure. But 72dpi has given us the opportunity to voice our opinion, and they have been very responsive to those opinions already. These threads are about brainstorming to find a better system, developing a site that satisfies our 'needs', not about complaining. At least, for most people.
(@Fengari) Kim Baudart said:April 4th, 2012 (4:22pm) PDT
I guess it all depends on what we are looking for in a site like this. If it is primarily a place to share pictures and view those uploaded by others, then this site is doing a close to perfect job. It looks great and gives us a stylish showcase for our pictures, it provides us with a variety of ways to go exploring other people's work, and there's a bunch of features allowing to network and interact.
I'm looking for a bit more though.
First of all, I would like to let 'the people' judge my pictures. Every shot I post here is special to me. I love them because I think they look good, but also because they take me back to certain places and moments, bring back memories, or show something that means/meant a lot to me. I know these additional feelings about them make it hard for me to judge my own work critically.The same goes for my friends and family. They judge by content first, photographic quality later (if at all). I feel a need to have people who don't have the memories I have attached to the pictures to say what they think about my work, to be able to make a judgement more clearly based on the picture itself. That is where the ratings come in. I expect most people to like most of my pictures on some level, I wouldn't post them if I didn't. But is it just a nice picture/a very good picture/a great picture/simply superb? That is the difference I would like the ratings to make for me.
The second aspect is, I would like to learn from being here. Learn to be more critical of my own pictures and learn how to make them better, both while making the shot and in postprocessing.
When I first joined this site I had the feeling it offered both, but somehow it has changed. The site itself is still great, even better, but it seems people have become a bit afraid to be critical, and the ratings reflect that. I think that is a pity.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 4th, 2012 (12:51pm) PDT
@Fengari - I had the idea (probably not the best one I've ever had) of changing the voting to a 1-100 scale, on the basis that it's very difficult to be accurate with just 1-10.I think people would be far less likely to go around handing out 100 scores.Ideally no picture on the whole site would get near that as it would mean it was perfect in every way, which pretty much no picture is.
For myself, I'm not really bothered about critique.I know the vast majority of my pictures wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny by professionals but I snap because I enjoy it.Mostly I take shots on the street of everyday people and situations where catching a moment is more important than every technical detail being spot on.I usually know what could have been done to improve a shot - though I would have no objection to anyone offering advice.I just think, though, that sites like this are primarily a place to share pictures and view those uploaded by others.
That said, I think a dedicated critique area would be a nice addition to 72.People could mark shots to specifically request critique, if they so wish.Perhaps a technical help thread could be started for those seek more general help and advice.
For me, the vote thing has never been an issue.If I really like a picture, I tend to give it a 10.I have reached a stage where I mostly only vote for, and comment on, pictures I really like a lot - which I vote 10 and usually add as a fav.I don't think the Top Rated list means much - I find new pictures and snappers via Mosaic, and sometimes by then check out people who have commented on those shots and so on.Everything works fine as it is on 72 - the voting thing isn't as much of an issue as it might seem at first glance.
(@Fengari) Kim Baudart said:April 4th, 2012 (12:25pm) PDT
@Stentionhouse: I must admit I haven't really looked at the top rated section too closely lately as I had given up on trusting the rating system altogether. It seems they did find a way to let the best pictures rise to the top, as you say. (another 'way to go' to @72dpi!).
I still stand by my decision, though. Using the 1-10 scale as it was intended will give a much more accurate rating across the board. I would like to know from looking at the rating number how well a picture is received, without having to browse through the 'top rated' pages to see how the 'behind the scenes' algorithms affect the placement of the pictures. I have a picture rated at 10 at the moment.I like it and am happy it's being received well, but I know it's far from perfect and I would like to know how other people judge it. With only the people who really like it giving it a 10 and without people giving me their honest 8's, 7's, 6's or even lower if they think it deserves that, there's no way for me to know what the actual general idea about this picture is.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 4th, 2012 (12:00pm) PDT
I'm agree with you, @drdab99
I appreciate what I have here, and I'm learning something new every day.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 4th, 2012 (11:40am) PDT
I think the engagement score is highest when there are an equal number of comments and votes, and a certain percentage of favs, although I'm not sure what that percentage of fav's actually is.Since I opted out of having my images voted on I also do not vote on others' images either, but I comment more than I used to.When I started to not vote on other's images I actually had about an equal number of comments and votes (strictly by accident).Since then I have made over 400 additional comments (and no additional votes).My engagement score has dropped from around 115 to around 53 over a period of a few weeks.So even though I am more engaged that ever, my engagement score is dropping like a rock.
This doesn't bother me.I feel like Charlie in that even if the situation remains as is I'll continue to love and participate in this site.When I first joined I was more bothered by the voting system, but as time has gone on that initial concern has been replace by an appreciation of the community of photographers I am privileged to be a part of.I know things can always be improved and will always be debated, and that's part of the fun, too.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:April 4th, 2012 (11:36am) PDT
I have no idea why, but my engagement score has risen since I opted out of voting.I thinks the admins are trying to come up with ways for those who've opted out to get their work seen.By checking the mosaic and activity pages we can all expand beyond our snaplists.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:April 4th, 2012 (11:27am) PDT
I think the top rated list now takes into account the number of votes and the number of favs.So even though most people seem to vote 9 or 10 now, it's still the best snaps that tend to be up near the top (the ones that can be voted upon anyway).If 20 people give you a 10 and 15 people fav your snap, one or two 6 or 7 votes aren't going to knock the picture much.So the cream still rises to the top.I think the algorithm has been tweaked so that a fav is the main thing that counts - so the number you get is less important than it was.People hand out 10s like candy - but favs are much less common and that's a good thing.
The engagement figure I find baffling.Just when I think I understand it, it realise I don't at all.I hardly ever notice what mine is.
I've also noticed that on 72, unlike (for example) 500px, the majority of people whose pictures I comment on don't comment on mine (and presumably don't vote on mine either).I like that.It just seems a bit pointless if you can do the rounds commenting and giving out 10s and get the same back - IMHO, that's what makes the vote system redundant.
Every time one of my snaps is doing well on Top Rated, it gets voted down.Just enough to make sure it drops off the list.I find this quite amusing and have started watching Top Rated regularly since someone told me it was happening to my pics ;)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 4th, 2012 (11:12am) PDT
Just another note to all folks who have opted out of voting, you say the scores are meaningless especially when it comes to top rated photos.The only way we can show our appreciation of your photos is to fav them, which means of course they get more favs than they maybe would otherwise. Does that mean the view by most Favs is as meaningless?I note that the top 4 most faved are all from folk who have dropped out of voting
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 4th, 2012 (11:03am) PDT
Kim, to put it simply, what you are suggesting is called "Integrity". I want what you suggest to happen and take over here. Because of all the blatant action I took with one particular troll I'm trying to stay calm and lower profile.
I will watch and fervently hope your way is the way of the future here.
Charlie
(@Fengari) Kim Baudart said:April 4th, 2012 (10:37am) PDT
I've been thinking while reading through this thread about how to react to the issue of the voting system. The ratings as they are have lost all meaning to me with the current voting inflation. I'd rather have one person voting obviously low to downrate an image, than everybody voting either high or not at all. At least the voting trolls were recognisable and I still had the other votes to go on
The obvious reaction would be to do as many here have done, and withdraw both my pictures and my votes from the system. But then I realised there's nothing to be gained by that: as comments are all that matters to me at the moment (and I have a note with all my pictures asking for honest, critical comments), I can just as well leave my pictures open to voting and ignore the results.
Withdrawing might be good as a signal to the 72dpi crew that I dislike what is happening to the system, but, knowing how responsive they are to all other suggestions, I am starting to come to the conclusion that they have decided they do not want to change the system to something more simple and less prone to abuse.
Though I am still in favor of a system based on the number likes/faves vs. number of views, I do want the rating system to mean something on this site, so I think it is time for us critical users to step up, take responsibility for our own actions, and start using the system as it was intended again. So that's my resolution. From now on I will vote brutally honest again. If I think a picture deserves a 5, a 5 it will get. No more skipping pictures whenever my vote would be lower than a 9. Every vote, good or bad, will be accompanied by a fitting comment. I want people to comment and rate my pictures honestly, and the same is what they'll get from me.
I'm urging everyone here who has complained about the vote inflation to do the same. I realise I will not make an impact by myself, but maybe if we all do this together, we can start to turn the tide, and the pictures on the 'top rated' page will once again be the best.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 4th, 2012 (10:30am) PDT
@mezzoduomo No I don't but then who understands Flickr's Explore algorithm (not that I post there any more.) I also know what a big job it is updating a site like this and I have every admiration for the individual(s) who do so.
As for scoring I think it would be too big a job to change what was already in place. I guess you stalwarts who have been here since the beginning will have to accept that the site has evolved and now scores mean something different to what they did do. 10 is a like now (not necessarily a perfect photo,) 9 is either an "it's OK" or "Oi you, get of the top spot." 8, 7, and 6 seem usually to be"something not quite right here," or "I don't personally like it," or "just because you've annoyed me" (note: I don't bother with the latter 3 numbers any more.)
Personally I have no problem with folk scoring whatever on my photos, I would like feedback if the score is an 8, 7, or 6 (the new lows) so that I can learn more. I've had constructive feedback on a couple which was much appreciated, but other low scores have been done so without a comment.
And finally, I think it's this discussion that adds a little spice to this site ;-)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 4th, 2012 (10:14am) PDT
I didn't watch it but when it was noted by someone that their engagement score dropped by opting out of voting, I then checked and remember that mine was lower a week or so ago.
By the way I believe though Paul did in fact suggest only "like and fav" with no score, I think it was first suggested by Michael Friedman. I would prefer that as a way of moving toward eliminating or diminishing promotion by some of their or their friends photos. However this place is great and if it doesn't change I'll have no regrets.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:April 4th, 2012 (9:30am) PDT
To be very honest, I don't understand how it works, but I don't care about that.
I've already expressed so many times my opinion about this voting system....
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 4th, 2012 (9:11am) PDT
@mezzoduomo - In short, no. I vote on what I feel like voting on, I comment as I see appropriate, and I enjoy giving and receiving critiques. I could care less if my engagement score were 1 or 150. Incidentally, I believe it's in the 26 range, mainly because before commenting became a much requested thing, I would just vote. Now I usually leave comments when I vote but no, I don't pay attention to it.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 4th, 2012 (9:02am) PDT
I watch it but like I said, I don't understand it, how it's calculated or how it's used.Therefore I don't know if I have value for it or not?
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 4th, 2012 (8:52am) PDT
Anyone really understand, or watch, or value their Engagement Score?@Paul @shuggie @CharlieBaugh @timbutler54 @mauropasquero @sasastro @pandora @drdab99 ????Buehler?Anyone?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 4th, 2012 (8:27am) PDT
Given that the "acceptability" range of voting is becoming increasingly squeezed these days, I think we're getting closer to the suggestion that @Paul made some time back: no numerical voting, but simply Like and Fave. That said, however, conversion of existing scores to the "new" system will be challenging (i.e. virtually impossible).
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 4th, 2012 (8:10am) PDT
I sort of use a mix of this. I turn voting on for new images I post so they can get some visibility, then, after a week to two, I turn off the voting for those images as I upload new ones.
Personally, I don't worry about the engagement score. Mine is like 26 or something but I could care less. I vote on images I want to vote on, and once the focus went on commenting, I comment on every single image I rate now. Sometimes a lengthy comment, sometimes something more simple, sometimes a critique. But I'm never worried about my engagement score.
Honestly, I could care less what my ratings are, I simply turn on the voting to get views for those images. You get to a point when you know if your images are good or bad. And when you're actively selling prints, and teaching others how to take good photos, it becomes even less of an issue because you have built the self confidence you needed.
This is even more obvious now that most images are voted either an 8, 9, or 10, or skipped if the viewer feels it's worth less than that. We all do it. I used to be more honest with my voting back before the changes and if an image was bad, it got a 5, or if it was REALLY bad, it maybe got a 1 or 2. I don't vote on those at all now. Which is why I'm still a little baffled as to why so many people still want the voting system in place. Is it for the ego-boost you get when you see your images rated a 9.8? I don't get it. And knowing that most of these image's rating are artificially inflated by a couple of points just makes that rating even more trivial.
I will say though, I am very impressed with the way the admin has been building this site, listening to the community, and implementing requested changes and removing things that are unwanted. Few people realize the amount of work that goes into a site like this, especially when you don't have an office full of programmers working on it. We're trying to get bids for building our photography school's website at the moment and it's incredible the amount of time required and costs associated. A site like this could cost $50k to $100k to build and then countless more money to tweak it, fix errors, add to it, and maintain it. So I applaud him for doing such a fantastic job on it. The community has grown here. I've met a lot of great photographers, some who have even become personal friends now, even outside of the site. With some patience and cooperation on all of our parts, I think this will continue to grow as a major photo sharing site. Those of you who know the admin, know what he is capable of based on his past accomplishments. I have high hopes for this site.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 4th, 2012 (8:08am) PDT
Have I missed something - or does engagement score have some relevance regarding the display of images?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:April 4th, 2012 (7:55am) PDT
Wondering if some are thinking that by opting out of voting means not only that ones own photos don't get voted upon, but that you can't vote on others photos? My engagement score has risen since opting out. I vote on others images as I did before.I like the way the option works as it is now.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 4th, 2012 (5:01am) PDT
And to think I thought audiophiles were the only ones with this much drama.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:April 4th, 2012 (1:26am) PDT
I do agree with any word Pandora said !!! I had exactlty the same experience.
(@pandora) pandora said:April 4th, 2012 (1:19am) PDT
@drdab99: agree in all points including your proposal.
for the voting: i decided some time ago to take my pictures out of scoring because of all mentioned points down below. but then exactly that happened what dough said: the engagement score (whatever that is for...) hit the rock's bottom and no other people could see my images than the ones who had snapped my profile. that's the reason for me taking part in voting again but i admired the pause because it relativized scoring in my mind and i keep calm about it now :o) imho as long as the 72dpi-system depends on voting it's kind of selfunderestimation not to take part in it.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 3rd, 2012 (5:40pm) PDT
guess the administrators really want to encourage voting - hence the negative impact of not voting on one's engagement score, which has become as meaningless as voting IMHO.I appreciate the option of not voting, but it does mean that a new photo does not get seen on the New Photos page, which significantly decreases one's views.If you don't vote, then most views come from your SnapList.
It might be nice to consider having some sort of a juried pick of the week - a panel of administrators and/or members who would determine top picks in each category.The members could be kept secret and rotated periodically so as not to encourage a type of nepotism from developing (human nature being the devious beast that it is). This would not replace the current Most Views, Most Favs, etc, but could instead complement the ongoing system.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 3rd, 2012 (4:55pm) PDT
@CorrieWhite and @sasastro I couldn't agree more.
I plan to take all my images down from voting when I get home tonight. Too much aggravation and a 10 these days is almost meaningless.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 3rd, 2012 (2:57pm) PDT
I pulled everything down from voting a few weeks back, and I have since posted some new stuff, none of it open for voting.It was an experiment, but I'm sticking with it.I seldom vote on others' pictures anymore, but I comment probably more, and more frankly than before.I still refrain from commenting at all if the only thing I have to say is strongly critical.I'm much more satisfied with my overall 72dpi experience.I'm getting good comments, helpful constructive comments, and no consternation about votes given or received.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:April 3rd, 2012 (2:16pm) PDT
I did vote lower when I first joined but then all the hoo-ha started and it became that anything less than a 9 was to mark down. So nowadays I only vote a 9 or 10.I vote on pictures I like (nothing to do with getting votes in return, I just like to show the photographer that I appreciate their photo) if I don't like the photo or I think it shouldget less than a 9 or 10 then I don't vote. So there you go folks - a view from a self-confessed high voter. I just get a bit peed off that everyone thinks high voters do so because they want the vote reciprocated.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:April 3rd, 2012 (1:28pm) PDT
@CorrieWhite - I agree 100%!
(@CorrieWhite)  said:April 3rd, 2012 (12:49pm) PDT
I give very few votes anymore and I don't pay much attentionto them at all.It really doesn't have much meaning to me because of the way it's being used.
My rant for today - is people who spend the whole day commenting, faving and giving 10's just to get them in return regardless of the quality of the images.Do you really want to believe your pictures are top quality when they are mediocre and over processed.Just sayin'.
(@timbutler54) Tim Butler said:April 3rd, 2012 (12:48pm) PDT
I don't get the methodology for determining the Engagement Score at all.I'm still pretty much a "newbie" here so maybe I'll get it later.But for now I don't get it.It's not that big of a deal to me though because I'm here to share and learn.But if someone could explain it better I would sure appreciate it.Thanks for this site though.I like it.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:April 3rd, 2012 (10:30am) PDT
Michael, I did the same sharing your feelings and behavior. From timr to time, I switch on the voting system, to avoid to loose too much visibility, but then I switch it off again and I've more fun !
Doug has expressed very well his own experience, that is mine as well.
I think It is a pity not to have a section, or a window, dedicated to the " COMMENTS ONY " users.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:April 3rd, 2012 (5:11am) PDT
I really like the way @72dpi have arranged things today (Opinions tab, calendar, etc) Nice improvements!
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:April 3rd, 2012 (5:02am) PDT
That *is* ironic. Let's hope the adjust the algorithm to reflect the value of comments on photos or in Opinions. I should think they'd be worth far more than clicking on a button to vote.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:April 3rd, 2012 (4:18am) PDT
Same here, Michael.It's a much more enjoyable experience for me as well since I opted out of voting.Be prepared for your engagement score to plummet, if that means anything to you.Since I stopped voting a few weeks ago my engagement score has dropped precipitously, even though my actual engagement has increased by a lot.No big deal to me (I guess it's just due to whatever algorithm they use to calculate it) - it just seems ironic.
(@LovelyJubblyOz) LovelyJubblyOz said:April 2nd, 2012 (11:17pm) PDT
@Michael I'm with you Michael. I've done the same thing a while ago, and it is a great relief. Well said.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):April 2nd, 2012 (8:23pm) PDT
@bobduffrense - No, I ended up buying the 500mm f/4L IS instead of waiting for the Mark II to come out. I was able to talk myself into spending just over $6,000 on this lens but $10,500 was just too much no matter how much I tried convincing myself. Plus I know they'll go down in price after a couple years and maybe then I'll upgrade to the Mark II.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:April 2nd, 2012 (7:14pm) PDT
Well I've opted out of the voting and I'm not voting for others.Feels like a weight lifted - now I can fave the images I really like, comment honestly on the ones I like and just pass by the rest.No favors to repay and no trolls to worry about.Now I can concentrate more on my work which, I think, is what we all want to be doing.Like it or not, any voting system becomes a popularity contest and after being away for a while from 500 I realize how relieved I am from the pressure of commenting and voting for every image on my friends/snap list.I hope folks will still visit my gallery and criticize or praise to their heart's content!;^)
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:April 1st, 2012 (11:48pm) PDT
It's called "experience", Tom - no substitute for it!
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:April 1st, 2012 (1:07am) PDT
Tom, I do appreciate what you said. I take pictures for hobby and I post them here fore pure fun ! To me it is very important to receive honest comments and critques and understand other members point of view in order to learn more andto try to improve my skills. At the same time I'd like to exercisemy sense of critique being free to express my point view and exchange opinions: it is another way to learn about good photography !
Your comments are always first class and fully comprehensive: useres like you should be taken as an example !
Greetings.
Mauro
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:April 1st, 2012 (12:31am) PDT
What Barb said.
Tom, you left some lovely comments on my page and I'm truly grateful for your support and kind words. Users like you should be applauded.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 31st, 2012 (7:58pm) PDT
Can any of you wildlife/birding photographers out there chime on, given the choice, which of these two lenses you'd buy, given they were essentially the same price. I'm mainly going to be using this on a 1D Mk IV and on the 7D for bird photography:
Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS
or
Canon 500mm f/4.0L IS
I've been using the old trusty 400mm f/5.6L without IS but it's just a bit too slow, the non-IS sucks, and I'm ready to upgrade. But for the life of me, I can't decide between these two. The IQ on side-by-side tests is just so similar and the only real difference I can see is losing 1 f/stop for 100mm of reach.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 31st, 2012 (12:42pm) PDT
Tom...well spoken. You are one of a dying breed, a true Gentleman and I have great respect for you. A pleasure to have you on my "Snaplist".
(@TomShacochis) Tom Shacochis said:March 31st, 2012 (11:25am) PDT
I have no desire to be in the "Spotlight" as such but I wonder if it would be possible if you could add an editorial/administrative note as to why it was chosen.NOT to critique it but to help me understand what the merits of it are beyond my own appreciation of those shots.It would be a "learning" feature for me as to how and why it appeals to you.Again, this is not so that I might "compete" for a "spot"...but to learn.
I don't have much time to devote to these boards as I have a demanding full time job. When I "catch" up on weekends I am generally prone to hand out 9s and 10s to shots which may to some make my "motives" suspect but if I look at a photo and "like it", I'm automatically at a 9. If I love it, it's a 10 and if I really, really like it...it's a Fav on top.I'm not looking for "tit for tat".I'm not looking to be the "top rated" anything but do this as it my way of relieving the tensions of my work week by finding pleasure in the work of others and most of whom are far more talented than me.I like to learn things from others and if I vote at all, there is always a comment as to why I like the shot.
I competed in wildlife carving shows for years and have all the unedible accolades with ribbons that I could ever hope for my children to throw in the trash when I'm gone.You people have created a very RESPONSIVE site with a great group of collegial talented people.I commend you for it. There are the inevitable controversies experienced on every site and not just limited to photography as that is only one of my interests, but you seem to deal with them well. At this point in my life and with my level of "skill" or lack thereof, I'm here for the pleasure of it and I try to sit out the "wars", leaving that to those that are younger and have not drawn enough blood.I have no dog in the fights...my dog sits on its fat buttocks in the corner watching those with more hormones thrash it out.It is NOT apathy...but anemia from prior blood lettings.
One more thing...never take anything seriously that transpires on an electronic media site...as it has not changed the fate of the world...or the balance of power....one bit....even my remarks here...which may be just my "second to last" post on the opinion board.One can never be certain that there won't be "one more thing" to say...... :)
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:March 30th, 2012 (9:44pm) PDT
Barbara, thank you for the "whom."
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 30th, 2012 (4:31pm) PDT
Just what we need - an army of nameless/faceless zombie-trolls.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 30th, 2012 (1:19pm) PDT
Going back down the comments here...Charlie points out the fact that there are a lot of "new photographers" with no photos, no votes, no comments....and I would add to that...NO PROFILE !
Why would anyone want to join a site like this without posting anything ????
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 30th, 2012 (11:42am) PDT
DUH !!! I think the Dummy Spitting Troll went off to seek solace from....whom, I wonder ??? Probably sleeping in a cave someplace....
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 30th, 2012 (10:36am) PDT
Am I living in a dream world, or am I just getting old? When I popped in this morning, I could have sworn I saw the usual daily diatribe from @ME - and now I've popped back again and it's gone. Did I imagine it? Am I suffering from the onset of senility? Do I need to make an appointment with Specsavers?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 29th, 2012 (7:04pm) PDT
@Me; If you are so tired of these interactions then why do you keep logging in and resurrecting your identity?
Surely, if it annoys you so much then the easiest thing (for all of us?) would be just to not log in and therefore not read the material that annoys you so much. Why is it of such importance to you that your ID is deleted?
You're a total contradiction of yourself. @Me implies the first person yet you're the self-appointed champion of the masses.
My opinion is that you're addicted to conflict. That's why you just can't resist the urge to retort. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing per se but at least be honest and up front about it.
I look forward to reading your inevitable denial and re-assumption of victim status.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 29th, 2012 (4:09pm) PDT
Sorry, no time to comment as too busy picking up all these pesky olive branches.
Great to see!!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 29th, 2012 (3:05pm) PDT
Thank You Charlie. We can draw a line under all that now. A united front ! Trolls work by sowing the seeds of suspicion and doubt. To hell with them I say !!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 29th, 2012 (1:33pm) PDT
I'm glad Barbara. We do see more in common than not, and my apology to you and Karl for some doubts I had back then. All in all this, now, is a very amiable community of photographers.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 29th, 2012 (1:22pm) PDT
Hey 72dpi:Here's a mild RAVE for y'all.I like a tasteful nude as much as the next red-blooded geezer, (maybe more) but I'm glad there are none, or next-to-none here.I'm over on 500px as well as here, and I don't ever point any friends or acquaintances over to 500px, lest they see a bunch of not-so-tasteful nudes over there and get the wrong idea.I suppose this could change over time here at 72, but for now, I appreciate it.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 29th, 2012 (1:14pm) PDT
Charlie and Barbara...I agree.The administrators of this site have shown they can be trusted.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 29th, 2012 (1:06pm) PDT
Well Charlie...I agree with you. The management has listened ( democratically ) to our opinions on this subject for a long time now. The discussion on voting could go on into infinity. The management must now weigh up the Pro's and Cons, and make an "Executive" decision, and move forward, onward, and upwards !
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 29th, 2012 (11:03am) PDT
The word "democracy" might apply if we were voting on a voting system (or whatever) but we aren't. All we're doing is throwing ideas about so 72dpi can get an idea of how the membership is thinking. Every member (even a pathetic attention-seeker like our friend) has a right to post anything they want in this regard. If some members choose not to participate, that's not a lack of democracy - that either indicates apathy, or satisfaction with the status quo or, more likely, a lack of time to participate.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 29th, 2012 (10:32am) PDT
Decisions by members voting would be very far from democratic anyhow. Has anyone else noticed the huge number of "new photographers" with no photos, no votes, no comments? If this sneaky person got what she wanted (a vote), my guess is you would see those mysterious "new photographers" voting en mass in a way the mystery one wants. Who is the mystery one. I think I know.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:March 29th, 2012 (10:08am) PDT
@Doug: I only meant the forums were democratic, you have free choice to participate or not, may have mis-understood Charlie's statement, I get confused easily:-)) I agree with you, every organisation needs leadership, you can't run an organisation voting on every change, nothing would ever get resolved, however it does no harm to make that leadership aware of members feelings, good leadership, as we have here, listen to those views and then make informed decisions on how to act on them.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 29th, 2012 (9:46am) PDT
John - good points.The nameless/faceless one was implying that this debate about the voting system was being dominated by a bunch of loudmouths and was advocating a "democratic" polling of the membership.
Nonsense - I prefer democracy in my government (and I wish we had more of it), but websites, businesses, and organizations are not democratic entities, nor should they be.I co-own a small business and it would be chaos if we sought the employees permission prior to every business decision.
Websites, businesses, and organizations need a leader, or leaders at the top who take the opinion of the masses into account, but then act clearly and decisively according to what their vision dictates.I am confident the administrators of this site will do the same.
The nameless/faceless one was presenting a false equivalence and misusing the concept of democracy.
I propose that the nameless/faceless one be ignored.He/she is a troll.
Charlie, feel free to post, argue, rant, or fart as often as you want.That's what democracy is all about.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:March 29th, 2012 (9:14am) PDT
@ Charlie: Certainly not, the forums are open to all, some may participate, some not, freedom of choice in operation. Some members may have more time on their hands than others and human nature being as it is some take the easy option and leave it up to others to raise issues and rants. The forums are good and lively discussions as far as I can see, i don't often take part but I do read them regularly, it is up to the users to make sure the odd faceless/photoless individual does not derail that process by not rising to the bait. The opportunity is here, it's up to users to take it up. One small point, I prefered the Opinions link where it was, at the top of the page, maybe newer members may not find it so easy now it's on the footer.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 29th, 2012 (8:52am) PDT
Does anyone other than this "shy" person feel that the activity here is un-democratic? I'm reluctant to post, if those figures are accurate, but it seems to me all here have the opportunity say anything and as often as they want.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 29th, 2012 (4:53am) PDT
Well said, Doug!
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 29th, 2012 (4:22am) PDT
One should never argue with a troll.
They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Let's move on.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 29th, 2012 (2:21am) PDT
What Dayne said.
Plus, in response to the faceless wonder, I would like to see a poll on the voting system but it should be open only to real members. By real members I mean those who are prepared to submit photos and/or reveal their true identities.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 28th, 2012 (11:54pm) PDT
Ooh fame at last! I echo what Dayne said
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 28th, 2012 (10:39pm) PDT
@Me. I have a great suggestion that I am sure the whole user base would agree with. How about posting some photos, and revealing your real name instead of hiding behind some anonymous pseudonym?!? Then maybe we will take you seriously. Normally, democracies require a valid ID to participate!
This opinions page is open to all users. We are not stopping any legitimate users from participating in the discussions.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 28th, 2012 (2:26pm) PDT
The sound of silence.........?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 28th, 2012 (7:30am) PDT
Conflicted? Not quite the word I'd have chosen, Doug - but I can see what you mean. [I am, of course, smiling while I type this - ahem]
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 28th, 2012 (4:55am) PDT
It seems that Me is a little conflicted.Posts long, offensive holier-than-thou comments, then removes them when people are offended, along with a very polite comment. Odd.I think he/she took down the comments in reaction to a sarcastic reply I made, which I've also taken down (it was a little mean, but I was annoyed).
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 27th, 2012 (9:22pm) PDT
I think users who aren't prepared to show photos and who declare themselves as 'inactive' have absolutely no right to be expressing opinions about features of the site and/or about other users.
Just my opinion.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 27th, 2012 (2:48pm) PDT
Paul - I think that overall, what you suggest is the best solution yet, including the "critique requested" checkbox.Count me in as being in full agreement.You make a good point in highlighting the fact that the current issues with the voting system have come as a result of the growth of the site.
Mauro - I think that what you suggest would be much better than what we have now, but I think the "dislike" penalty would be unnecessary if we had a "critique requested" checkbox.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 27th, 2012 (11:54am) PDT
You all make very good points regarding the voting and I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been seeing the votes being artificially inflated through the flawed voting system. Back when this site first started, this problem didn't exist and the 1-10 voting system worked great. Obviously, as a site becomes more popular, problems like this will arise.
This is why I've been saying for over a month now, scrap the numerical voting system altogether and replace it with a simple "like" button. We don't need to have a "dislike" button (like a certain other website) as this has obviously been an abused button over there. The "like" button, combined with some sort of matrix that also weighs "favs" into the score, would create an accurate representation of the quality of the image and would be nearly impossible to be exploited by "trolls."
I've also suggested numerous times, adding a "critique requested" checkbox on the photo upload screen where the user can specifically mark their photo to let other users know they're requesting, and welcoming critiques. This would encourage community participation because users would be less wary to leave a critique and risk retribution because the critique was specifically asked for.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 27th, 2012 (6:47am) PDT
I haven't really noticed that with my images (1024 max side), Doug, but I have noticed it with a few other images.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 27th, 2012 (6:21am) PDT
Has anyone else noted that some, but not all, of the uploads appear a little soft?Sometimes the magnified view is significantly sharper.I upload everything at 1000 pixels for the longer axis, so I don't see why some should be not as sharp.My upload today is a good example.The magnified view on my monitor appears much sharper.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:March 27th, 2012 (1:35am) PDT
@Scott, I had the same experience as you , have a look to my gallery, I stareted posting photos here on feb 24 and nowadays there is an inflation of 10.
This is why I insist on two key words: TRANSPARECY ana SIMPLICITY, that goes along together.
TRANSPARENCY is self explanatory.
SIMPLICITY means that 10 votes are too many, we do not use them! The choice is actually limited,in an explicit way, to the highest notes only, waited to be rewarded by a correspondent high note, but to give anonimous random low notes, sometimes for retaliation reasons.
Not to mention the issue of multiple registrations...
Some days ago I proposed to create a simplier voting system where it would be possible to have, for instance, the following voting options:
- you like a photo, you vote and you can give one, two or, even, three points or stars.
- you are indifferent, you don't vote.
- you don't like a photo, you vote and withdraw one point or star (telling your reasons).
The rating will depend on the TOTAL of the points or stars you have received and not the AVERAGE.
BTW, I posted my shots on NPN for years and I aprreciated very, very much that website: I received a lot of helpful comments and constructives critiques that allowed me to understand many things and improve my skills.
But NPN is limited to nature photos only (of course!) while you here have a wider range of categories ( this is why I post here for instance street shots ) and then this web site... is free of charge!
(@jdebordphoto) John De Bord Photography said:March 26th, 2012 (7:57pm) PDT
NPN has been going downhill ever since they kicked all the free members out and made it a subscription only website
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 26th, 2012 (7:16pm) PDT
Charlie, I agree completely, NPN is great.However, the loss in traffic has decreased the utility of the site significantly.Maybe they will update the site's look and feel and users will return.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 26th, 2012 (6:38pm) PDT
I believe you mentioned that you thought Nature Photographers Net had a system you liked or words to that effect. I was a member until my big mouth got me dropped. That is a wonderful site and even more wonderful group of people. There is no score or voting of course only critique and of course "atta boys" and such. There has been a significant migration to the hot sites away from NPN but for genuine enjoyment of sharing photos I don't think it can be beat.
Charlie
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 26th, 2012 (6:26pm) PDT
@Charlie"Voting is a mess and it will be near impossible to make real."
You hit the nail on the head there.There are two problems with the voting system:
1.It is completely messed up right now, and needs to change
2.The transition from the current system to whatever new system exists will be very difficult.If you don't somehow scale today's scores the hordes of images that are 9.5+'s will always dominate the top rated images.Unless you let people change their votes.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 26th, 2012 (6:17pm) PDT
Not sure that is it exactly, Scott. I don't give 10's to get 10's but to give images that I think are very good the opportunity to get at least equal chance of recognition. And as to transparency making things worse, I can say that for myself I'd be embarrassed to give 10 (which I do) for images that I *honestly* think are 8 and 9 images.
Voting is a mess and it will be near impossible to make real.
Charlie
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 26th, 2012 (5:37pm) PDT
@MauroAt the moment I think the process of handing out 10's like candy is a bigger problem then the random low votes.When I joined 72dpi 3 weeks ago I though getting a 10 on an image meant my photo was really good and the voter loved the image, now I realize that most 10's handed out on this site are really just a request for the receiver of the 10 to go to the giver's gallery and give them a 10.It seems now that giving out anything other than a 10 is a major insult.This situation would only get worse if voting were made 100% transparent.I would honestly have more random 6's and fewer 10's.:)
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:March 26th, 2012 (3:55pm) PDT
Simon I understand your position and I agree with you about not to give names. The fact is that I saw, several times, in the "activity" section, people to give low votes only, IMHO absolutely random, without leaving any comment. Some of them, in the meantime, disappeared.
I believe, as I told before, that the voting system should be simplier and fully transparent.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 26th, 2012 (2:47pm) PDT
The other option to limit voting without commenting is to leverage the engagement score.Say users can't vote on images unless their engagement score is above X.Shoot, you could even make it so every photographer could set the min engagement score on a per image basis.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 26th, 2012 (2:37pm) PDT
I think 5 uploads, to strike a 'happy medium', and they need to be proper images, not just 'my cat (badly framed) in the back garden' :) - how 72dpi deems them 'proper' is something for them to worry about but other sites have managed it.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 26th, 2012 (2:34pm) PDT
Well said Simon, there has been enough mudslinging.
(@Photobarx) Simon Barker said:March 26th, 2012 (1:40pm) PDT
@mauro - Just wanted to say that I agree with you that it is important to comment when making a vote. There are suggestions below saying that a user of the site needs multiple photos uploaded before being able to vote. I also agree with this, but some will still vote with out making a comment. Mauro, you name a person in your comment who has given you a low vote. That person has voted 293 times, and made only 4 comments. He does have 45 photos in his gallery. Only 13 of his votes are 6. Most are 8(92) and 9(90). He's voted 10 41 times and 7 57 times.
Maybe this shows that it is important not to give names unless it is certain the person is being malicious.
Maybe it also shows why people are afraid to vote honestly for fear of retribution.
I'm not sure what the solution is.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 26th, 2012 (1:12pm) PDT
Oh and I meant to agree with Barbara as well.requiring 10 uploads might be too harsh of an initial requirement.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 26th, 2012 (1:11pm) PDT
I like the idea of not allowing participation until an image has been uploaded and possibly an auto account deletion.At the very least there should be a way for the user to delete their own account!(I don't think that is possible now)
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 26th, 2012 (1:03pm) PDT
Ah...it would seem the faceless wonder has vanished, their comment deleted...again.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:March 26th, 2012 (12:54pm) PDT
@72dpi - I opted for the voting system again andI've just received another low vote from a certain "MARIUS TURC" -Evil Action- without any comment or reason.
Another member with a great number of votes and no comments.
I'm going to switch off the voting system again but I'm considering, with great regret, to change web site as well...
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 26th, 2012 (11:37am) PDT
Total agreement with Karl. Doug, a little too stringent...it would put HONEST newcomers off ! We want this site to grow, and be friendly.
The "faceless wonder" seems alarmingly familiar to me............
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 26th, 2012 (7:48am) PDT
Karl,I like the concept, but I would make it even more stringent.I would require a minimum of 10 uploads and a week's "probation period" (would not actually call it that) before allowing full participation.Most truly interested photographers, even beginners, have a portfolio of at least 10 images they would be willing to share.Waiting one week is not over burdensome, either, IMO.I don't think most trolls would have the patience to abide by that.
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 26th, 2012 (7:37am) PDT
Karl, I'm in total agreement with that.I find it hard to believe that 72dpi have done nothing to prevent it before now!!
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 26th, 2012 (7:01am) PDT
@72dpi - a suggestion to deal with these infantile "faceless wonders" who turn up simply to stir up trouble, based on the fact that this is first and foremost a photo-sharing site: no participation (voting, commenting, posting in the forum threads) of any sort allowed on the site until a minimum of one photograph is uploaded; a maximum period of 1 week allowed to start uploading, failing which the account is automatically deleted; if all photographs in an account are deleted, then a week's grace is given to start uploading again, failing which the account is deleted.
Anybody want to comment on that?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 25th, 2012 (10:10pm) PDT
@72dpi - please see Dave Cox's post below and please refer to my last email communication with you.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 25th, 2012 (9:41pm) PDT
Yes Dave, I think we are already full of them.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 25th, 2012 (9:20pm) PDT
@72dpi, is there any way for you to see if there are multiple users joining from the same IP address? I believe this site is open/susceptible to the mystery pseudonym plague so well documented for that other site.
Pitiful.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 25th, 2012 (8:37pm) PDT
I have to smile at your comments "miss ogginy". I just found out today that I was banned from 500px for "harassment". There is no appeal allowed and they will not explain what I did that was harassment. I did ask many questions of a few posters there and they were questions that I'm sure made those posters uncomfortable. But HARASSMENT? Not to my way of thinking.
I was a paying member and there is no refund. Please, all, think carefully before you pay money to join that... that...
Charlie
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 25th, 2012 (3:45pm) PDT
Doug, I agree. I only leave voting turned on for 1 day or so, just so my images show up in the "new unrated photos" section. Otherwise they just get lost in the gallery and no one sees them unless they specifically visit your gallery. After a day though, I turn off voting on the image.
And yes, I agree with you about the gear issue. I have some really great shots that were taken on very inexpensive gear and know many photographers who produce AMAZING images using a camera and lens that costs under $1k total. I just think you should buy what you can afford, that's all. There are features the pro level cameras have that the entry level cameras do not. Everything from low light noise handling to weather sealing, etc. People who brag about their gear in an effort to condescend someone with less expensive gear, that I have a huge problem with and trust me, those "photographers" are everywhere!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 25th, 2012 (3:07pm) PDT
This really is a splendid site and I think it will come around as it has already improved greatly.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 25th, 2012 (3:01pm) PDT
Charlie, I agree with you completely.The current voting has so many problems.I find it to be a much more pleasant experience here since I have disabled voting.If the administrators can come up with some solutions I'm willing to try it again.
Barbara, that is a good idea.This page is not all ranting - except for some days :)
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 25th, 2012 (2:26pm) PDT
My only thought is that creators of these sites get lots of traffic because of voting since they all use some form or other of scoring and voting.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 25th, 2012 (2:23pm) PDT
Voting causes strange behavior and trying to understand the human psychology of voting and scoring is beyond me. I can only say that opting out of it has brought more pleasure for me here at 72dpi. I just looked in at 500px and it is amazing how the back scratching goes on day after day with almost identical remarks on each photo.
(@mauropasquero) mauro pasquero said:March 25th, 2012 (1:01pm) PDT
I've just seen a certain "BILL WUESTENHOEFER" , who has a very poor gallery, 2304 votes, 16 comments, downgrading on purpose the major part the TOP RATED PHOTOS.
How is it possible to accept such a behavior !?
Thank you.
Mauro
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 25th, 2012 (12:55pm) PDT
Management...Just wondering...it was suggested to me...should this place now be re-named ... Open Discussion?? It would present a much more user friendly image to newcomers ?
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 25th, 2012 (12:02pm) PDT
Paul, don't take this as a criticism of you.You seem like a good guy, and no one should hate on anyone else just because they have nicer things - in any area of life.You can always find others with nicer things and life's too short for that.And I certainly wasn't implying that anyone with a $10,000 camera-lens combo is automatically NOT a good photographer because the equipment somehow disables the necessity for talent.What I was saying is that there is gear snobbery (not you) which consciously or subconsciously upgrades or downgrades an image based on the camera it was taken with.I have seen many up to 13x19 prints taken with Canon 5D Mark II's and a prime lens versus those taken with a Canon Digital Rebel and a lesser lens (and I'm not talking about just my own work).When processed equally well (a big caveat) the print quality (to my eye) is indistinguishable at a normal viewing distance.
Now, I think it's true that those with more expensive equipment are ON AVERAGE better photographers because on average they have more experience, practice, and motivation.And they are on average better at processing their work.
At sizes over 13x19 a Digital Rebel cannot keep up with a 5D Mark III.And for low light and extremely fast action shots at any size the Digital Rebel comes in a poor second.But at smaller sizes and for internet viewing, especially for shots taken with a tripod and with the camera operated manually, the gear really doesn't matter.But to some (again, not you) online and at some galleries, there is a built in prejudice against "prosumer" equipment which negates a lot of quality work getting noticed.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 25th, 2012 (8:42am) PDT
@Denis, Ya, I agree. I usually open mine to voting for the first day just so they can appear there and then turn off voting the next day.
(@Paradis Photography) Denis Paradis said:March 25th, 2012 (8:11am) PDT
Not liking that for my shots to get on to the new photo page that I have to leave it open to voting.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 25th, 2012 (7:37am) PDT
While it's true you don't need top of the line gear to get great shots, it certainly does help and I think you should use what you're able to afford. But to say that gear doesn't matter, only the photographer behind the camera does, is quite disingenuous. Of course this is the position taken on most photo sharing sites as others have pointed out.
I started out with a little Kodak point-and-shoot as a child back in the early 80's and slowly worked my way up from there. It wasn't until I started a successful business as an adult that I was able to afford the top of the line gear. Now I shoot with the Canon 5D Mark III which is an amazing camera and the only reason i upgraded to it was because I could sell my 5D II and 7D as this camera combines the best of both of them. So, get what you can afford is the point I'm trying to make. But also, don't hate on the people who have better gear than you saying they're not good photographers because they're using the best gear instead of their artistic brain... chances are, they're using both.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 25th, 2012 (5:52am) PDT
Further to what Scott said about printing and resolution, here's a useful article which deals with just that - from a "real-like" standpoint: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/print_viewing_distance.html
If the subject matter contains a fair bit of detail, I've been able to stretch a Canon 450D print (12Mpx) to A3 size (approx 16" x 11") at around 250dpi on high gloss paper with no noticeable loss of quality. If there are bare areas (sky and suchlike) I can see a bit of "grain" in bright light if I look closely - but I doubt it would be noticeable by the average exhibition viewer at a typical viewing distance in average lighting - particularly if it were under glass. If I were to print on pearl or textured paper, I doubt if the "grain" would be noticeable at all. With the 7D, I can print directly to A3 at 300dpi and would be quite confident in stretching it to A2 (approx 23" x 16") at around 220dpi even on high-gloss paper. In fact, a 7D image of mine was recently printed at 30" x 20" on canvas and I was hard-pushed to see any loss of detail whatsoever. I grant you that a difference in quality would be noticeable if a stretched print at 200dpi or 220dpi were compared to an un-stretched print at 300dpi, but that won't generally be the case in a exhibition or in a gallery.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 25th, 2012 (12:50am) PDT
I'm an odd breed in that I use a Pentax K-7. I have a variety of lenses. For street shots I usually use either a Pentax 18 mm-135 mm or a Tamron 18-200mm and for nature shots I use a Pentax 55-300.
The good thing about Pentax is that most of the older film lenses fit the SLR's. I have two 2nd hand primes, 28mm and 50mm. I'm still getting to grips with these though, the picture "I'm not up to mischief nan..." was taken with the 50mm
I also have various other bits of kit including a 2xconvertor, external flash and a Manfrotto monopod - but I mostly shoot hand held
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 25th, 2012 (12:14am) PDT
Canon EOS 7D, Canon 17-85 zoom (my main workhorse), Canon 70-300 zoom (occasionally used, but not much), Sigma 10-20 zoom (as good as the Canon equivalent, but £200 cheaper). I thought about upgrading to a 5D MkII recently (more to do with the full-frame sensor than the pixels) but decided against it - big cash outlay (lenses would need replacing as well) with no significant benefits.
Following on from what Scott said, my conversations with my photographic buddies are rarely about gear - in fact, they're rarely about photography at all I'm glad to say!
(@Leifr) Leif Rasmussen said:March 24th, 2012 (7:03pm) PDT
Back in my film days I choose Nikon because the network of photographers I worked with used Nikon and we shared resources, later it was Hasselbad for the same reason. And when I went digital it was Canon because their lens inventory was the largest out there. That is no longer the case, Nikon has pretty much caught up.My Son uses Sony because his film camera was Minolta and Minolta lenses are compatible with Sony. Once an investment is made your locked in unless you want to take a loss and start over. The difference between camera systems is much like the difference between chocolate and vanilla, a personal preference.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 24th, 2012 (5:05pm) PDT
I use my aforementioned Canon Rebel (xSI) and Tamron 90mm macro.I have never loved another lens like I love my Tamron macro.I had a Sigma 105mm macro, which is a good lens, but it cannot compare to the Tamron.I do all of my "serious" macro and floral images with it.I always use a tripod and shoot manual with a remote trigger when I do my macro work.
I have an older Digital Rebel that I pair with my Sigma 10-20 (agree with you about this lens, Dave - very nice) for wide angle images.I tend to go through phases when I get a little tired of macro, and then I go to the other extreme and shoot a lot of wide angle for a while, but I always gravitate back to macro.
Since I've gotten my Canon G11, my other lenses (55mm, 17-40mm, 70-300mm) are mostly gathering dust - I love that camera.And my newest baby is the Canon sx40 - I'm blown away by this one - incredible zoom range (24-840mm!!!) and, for the class of camera that it is, it gives amazing image quality.It is a blast.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 24th, 2012 (3:55pm) PDT
This is a great thread! To continue it, what gear is everyone using?
I'm currently shooting with a Sony A77 and mostly use a Sigma 10-20mm lens but have various other lenses for macro, portraits, etc. Most of my lenses are second hand.
The Sigma 10-20 is great - good colours and pin sharp - but it can be a bit soft at the edges and max aperture is only f/4. I don't miss stabilisation in the lens because the camera has it.
I bought into the Sony system when I started because my first camera was a second hand A330 but have often thought about downgrading ;) to a Canikon but for most of the reasons already listed in this discussion I've never bothered. I also quite like the 'uniqueness' of Sony, since everyone round near me uses a 5dii.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 24th, 2012 (1:26pm) PDT
@Karl Well said!Pretty much everyone I have run in to whose first question is "What do you shoot with?"and wants to talk about gear gear gear has a pretty lame portfolio.Amusingly enough, with the people I hang out with who are really in to photography in a hard core way we talk about camera bags and tripods more than lenses and cameras. :)
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 24th, 2012 (1:25pm) PDT
Good point, Charlie - that's one scenario where you need as many pixels as you can get.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 24th, 2012 (1:23pm) PDT
@Sten, professional spend money on the good equipment because they do print larger images in general.Things that look good on the web will look like crap in a large print.Plus that extra 5% of time where you can get the shot does matter when it is your livelihood.Most of my landscapes are shot using a 17-40L I picked up used for $450 bucks.Not cheap, but definitely not an expensive lens either.There have been a handful of times - maybe 2 or 3 - in the last year where I wished I had the 16-35L because it would have made a shot I was taken marginally better.But those margins just aren't worth an extra $1000 bucks PLUS having to buy all the 82mm filters.(All of my current lenses are 77mm so I can keep one set of filters for everything.)My most expensive lens is my 100-400L.Now I actually got this lens for free (long story there), but I can let you know that it + the 5dii doesn't focus well in low light either.It often hunts for a focus point and I get sick of it and switch to manual focus.Low light focusing with long lenses is just painful.
I am not saying better gear isn't better, just that when viewing a 900x600 pixel jpeg on the internet, you really can't see the improvement for most photos.
@CharlieYou bring up a good point.Having an expensive camera with good resolution will in general allow you to crop more and still get a usable image.That flexibility can't be ignored.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 24th, 2012 (1:20pm) PDT
I don't think I've ever come across a customer who was in the slightest bit interested in what gear I used. Even picture editors are not particularly interested - all they demand is the necessary pixels to enable printing at full-page size (max A4 or thereabouts) and that usually means 12Mp upwards - which covers just about everything from mobile phones upward these days. Sure, there's a bit of "gear snobbery" around (as Dave and Doug alluded to) but, in my experience, that mostly comes from people whose portfolios suggest that their best course of action would be to ask for their money back!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 24th, 2012 (1:06pm) PDT
All talk I believe has been about full frame. When severely cropping as often in bird work, what are your thought's about quality equipment then?
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 24th, 2012 (1:01pm) PDT
I'm glad now I didn't lash out on a 1Dx and 70-200 2.8 MKII ;)I have an relatively inexpensive long lens (Sigma 150-500).It does a decent job in good light but is virtually useless when the light is poor, unless you're snapping something very close.A 500 f4 is vastly superior but there's no way I'd spend over 4 grand (that's pounds) on a lens.The 150-500 is generally considered to be poor, and my main snapping lens, an 18-200 3.5-5.6 is also not exactly over burdened with positive reviews (distortion at 18-24mm is the highest of any lens...bar none) but I've snapped a few reasonable pictures with it even so.
Being that cheapish DSLRs do such a great job...why do you never seen professionals walking about with them? ;)
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 24th, 2012 (12:51pm) PDT
I agree with this thread. As Barbara said it's what you do with the camera that counts. In fact, I have that in my profile text on this site. Some of my favourite shots were taken with a point-and-shoot, and still to this day using an almost 10-year old Canon Rebel. There are some things you cannot do with a point-and-shoot, but you can still take good photos. Some of the quality photos that some people get from iphones is another example of this.
I like Karl's comment on crap still being crap regardless of how many pixels. I use that same analogy to explain why I have no desire to buy an HDTV.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 24th, 2012 (12:42pm) PDT
How quickly you become constrained by the quality of your gear is completely dependent on the type of photography you do.
For landscapes you really don't care about frame rates or autofocus systems and you almost never shoot at f 2.8 or even f / 4 - almost all of my landscapes are f/8 to f/16.I have more at f/22 than at f/4.Image quality is all that matters (and in some cases - low light or high wind for example - ISO performance).And at web sizes, that image quality just isn't needed or even possible to see.Becoming gear constrained at web sizes or moderate print sizes is very difficult with landscape photography.Once you are making 20" by 30" prints then you will really see the difference in the quality of the gear.But at web sizes a cropped sensor dSLR and a cheap wide angle lens are going to produce the same results as a 5dii with a $2000 prime about 95% of the time.
Now for wildlife or sports, the auto focus system and the frame rates make a big big difference as do f 2.8 lenses.Plus you need those long lenses, which tend to be very pricey.AND image stabilization really helps, which adds to the cost yet again.So for this stuff I will agree, a hobbyist on a budget can become gear constrained very very quickly and is at a disadvantage to the pros or more well off hobbyists.That said my best shots are my whale photos and those were taken at f/7.1 and ISO 250 using the 5dii's crappy auto focus system.Yes the 5dii is a great camera, but it does have a pretty lame auto focus system that today's cheaper cameras surpass quite easily.
Pretty much good gear just widens the set of conditions you can successfully shoot under.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 24th, 2012 (12:03pm) PDT
Well, it OUGHT to be...but I have seen some horrendous results coming from a Canon 1Ds mk whatever, with "L" series lenses...because the photographer had no sense of composition, or best time of day to shoot,and messed up at the processing stage. I often use manual focus, since autofocus can mess up in low light.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 24th, 2012 (11:26am) PDT
Obviously it's entirely possible to take excellent snaps with inexpensive gear.But if you have half a clue what you're doing, it's considerably easier getting decent shots when you have outstanding high ISO performance, 10+fps, virtually instant AF and large aperture lenses ;)
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 24th, 2012 (11:25am) PDT
Just getting my neb in here again...the first pics I sold were taken on a secondhand Ricoh KR10 Super, which cost just a hundred quid WITH the lens around 1989!! To this day, one of my best sellers, a pic of Eilean Donan Castle, was taken on that wee camera, which passed on to my Sister around twelve years ago...it is still working ! Until eighteen months ago, the main part of my kit was secondhand. A shot taken with a high end camera and top lens, might be technically perfect....but the ART comes from the 12 inches behind it ! I have a cheapo Olympus Camedia compact that the other half has commandeered, and it takes a beautiful pic. Think I will upload a few from it just to demonstrate ! Hope everyone is having a great weekend !
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:March 24th, 2012 (7:10am) PDT
These are great points!I am so happy to know that I am not the only one who feels this way.This contrast reminds me of Windows Vs. Mac.Not a debate I am trying to start :DTwo close friends were comparing photos of the same subject.One had a Nikon D3000.The other had the latest Nikon (I think he said he paid 5,000) for it and no one could tell the difference, other than a slight difference in capturing the subject.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 24th, 2012 (6:48am) PDT
We have all had the comment "Wow - great shot - you must have a very good camera!" at some point or other. Try this for a response next time you hear it: "If I came round to your house for dinner, how would you feel if I said to your wife: 'Wow - great meal - you must have a very good set of pots and pans!'?"
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 24th, 2012 (4:13am) PDT
Hey Doug, I absolutely concur with your comments 100%
I have a good example of 'gear snobbery' too. Have you ever submitted anything to 1x.com ??
I submitted the same image to that site twice, the first time with the correct camera listed (Sony A33) and the second time with a 'made up' camera listed (Nikon D700). The second one was accepted and the first rejected.
I had learned, in the meantime, that one of the judges, K*n R*ckw*ll, won't even consider accepting any images shot with Sony gear. Crazy!!
By the way, I edited the EXIF data after it was accepted and put the correct gear details back into the EXIF :)
Cheers,
Dave.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 24th, 2012 (4:03am) PDT
I agree with all that you say about equipment versus skill, and everyone with any expertise would also agree with you, at least to the point of giving it lip service (and I am not suggesting that any of you don't truly believe what you say), but here is one of my "rants":
There is a bias toward those with expensive equipment on most photo sites and definitely a bias in play when it comes to having work published.The only time I have been published in "serious" photography publications (Lenswork, BW Magazine) the type of equipment did not have to be specified.Any time I've had to specify my equipment (for a publication or paid-entry contest, my work has been rejected.I am tempted to lie when I digitally submit something, because, as Scott notes, it is impossible on a monitor to tell the difference between my Digital Rebel with Tamron 90mm macro lens and someone else's $10,000 combo, but I have refrained from lying because I figure it would eventually bite me in the butt.When properly processed (something else I've taken great pains to learn), my prints look fine at up to 13x19.
You may have read this article in Luminous Landscape:(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml) .It is a comparison of 13x19 print quality between a $40,000 Hasselblad and a $500 Canon G10.Here is the conclusion:
"In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance."
This dramatically supports what you all are saying.But in the real world of impressionable human beings (ie, all of us) there is an attitude of more expensive gear equals more "serious" photographer, equals better quality work.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 24th, 2012 (3:21am) PDT
Spot on Dave, Scott and Barb - all have hit the nail on the head: crap will always be crap, no matter how many pixels are involved.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 24th, 2012 (2:53am) PDT
I'm with you Scott & Barbara.
I know a guy who lives on the surf coast in Victoria, Australia who sells large volumes of posters, postcards and other tourist stuff who take 60% of his photos with an old Canon P&S.
Buy me a workshop full of top class woodworking equipment and it won't make me a world class carpenter!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 24th, 2012 (2:27am) PDT
Barbara is right!When looking at web image sizing the image quality of high end sensors and lenses is imperceptible from a decent point and shoot.With large prints, there is a difference, but for what we show here there isn't a big difference.
I will completely admit that high iso performance does help you stop motion in low light conditions that you just can't do without good gear.But other than that, mediocre gear will produce a well composed, sharp image just as well as an $8000 camera.One of the guys I shoot with on a regular basis has one of canon's first dslr's, it is literally like 8 years old.He also has a 20 year old manual focus lens.He produces great work.On the flip side, some of the worst pictures I have ever seen are produced by I guy I know who has $10,000 in equipment.Crappy photographer, crappy shot.Good photographer, good shot.Gear only helps in the edge cases.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 24th, 2012 (2:15am) PDT
Sten....it ain't WHAT you got, it's the way you use it...said with a huge grin !
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 24th, 2012 (12:34am) PDT
The performance and considerable expense of decent equipment underlines the huge gulf between pro and semi-pro snappers, and the rest of us with our cheap and cheerful gear ;)
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 24th, 2012 (12:05am) PDT
For all you Canon users out there, specifically those of you currently using the 5D or the 5D Mark II: If you're thinking of upgrading, you gotta get the 5D Mark III. I got one a couple days ago and have been playing around with it. HUGE improvements all around over the 5D Mark II. I have never seen as high of an ISO quality as with this camera. We were doing some test shots at 25,600 ISO with literally no visible grain in normal lighting conditions. In low light, zero grain even at 10,000 ISO. Absolutely amazing camera.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 23rd, 2012 (10:07pm) PDT
@LeifI am assuming you are talking about your tunnel view shot.It currently is rated at 9.59.So all of the other 9.6 shots between 9.60 and 9.649 are above yours.If you click on the second page you will see your shot pretty near the top.The last shot on the first page of top rated is currently a 9.60.
Hope this helps!Oh and I love the shot!
(@Leifr) Leif Rasmussen said:March 23rd, 2012 (10:01pm) PDT
@ 72 dpi I'm very confused by the selection process for top rated imaged. I have an image that has a 9.6 Rating with 13 favs, 62 views, and 20 comments but is not on the all time list. The last 9.6 image has 9 favs 45 views 21 comments. What is wrong with this "picture". and I'm still smiling.
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:March 23rd, 2012 (7:30pm) PDT
Oh gosh I forgot to say that I am current working towards my Ph.D and may not be able to post as many comments as I would like.I am certainly not trying to avoid or appear rude.Well my latest paper is calling my name, and I have tried my best to ignore the calling.Be safe family
Kev
(@Kevinmatthewcurrie) Kevin Currie said:March 23rd, 2012 (7:24pm) PDT
I suppose my comment is not so much of a rant but an observation.At one point there was someone who was voting every photo as a 6.Normally this would not bother me.However, after seeing this voting practice continue, I started to realize that the person who committed these acts were simple trying to make themselves feel better at the expense of others.I see the voting as a way to offer support and even a way to better way to improve our work/passion.I know I have received some amazing suggestion, which I have taken and applied to my other photos.Once this "6" person stops acting childish we can continue to improve our craft, art, or hobby knowing only geniune suggestions are being made.I am really enjoying spending time with my 72dpi family I am looking forward to seeing and sharing more with you all.Thank you for allow me to rant with a smile.Yea I'm smiling since I choose my family carefully :D
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 23rd, 2012 (11:55am) PDT
Because of the possibility of getting banned from this group, I want to say how much I appreciate the friendship and decency that many of you have extended to me.
I have been banned from 500px, for what reason I have not been told. My guess is that the "pros" have gotten to me. By the "pros" I am specifically guessing that it is "Hasifluer Wagabigit and his close companion Carol. I have posted many questions to each of them since before they stomped out of 500px, and here, and now that they are back at 500px in good standing. Neither of them has responded in any way here, there or by email. I know I have been a real thorn in their side (openly) they do not work that way only underhandedly.
500px I can do without. I happen to like it, but can live without it. 72dpi I would really miss, however, I have assumed as open as the leadership here at 72dpi has been, that I would have heard from them by now if I have exceeded some
standard. I strongly suspect a campaign has been underway by various people to have me banned here also.
Sorry if I've rambled.
I hope I'll see you later.
Charlie Baugh
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 23rd, 2012 (11:24am) PDT
Thank You Scott and Sten...a good debate !
I do donate some of my work to Charities and good causes, and many locals here benefit from my work ( free ) on their websites, advertising for the tourist trade.
It is the fact that someone takes my work without asking first..which is plain bad manners...and if they claim to be the creator, an absolute insult.
Cheers, and have a great weekend !
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 23rd, 2012 (11:10am) PDT
I'm not a commercial snapper.I won't lose anything from people using my pictures.If I made a living taking pictures, I would probably calling for the immediate jailing of copyright abusing vermin lolThe fact of the matter is, it really doesn't make much difference to me what happens to my pictures.As far as I'm concerned, anyone could use them for any reasonable purpose.But I can understand a professional having an entirely different outlook.
I'm not necessarily condoning using other people's intellectual property without permission, just accepting that there is very little you can do about it.However, I rest safe in the knowledge that no one is likely to be beating a path to my snaps to rip them off ;)
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 23rd, 2012 (10:30am) PDT
Sten,I think you and I might be using the phrase public domain differently.If something is in the public domain it means the original creator has given up or lost all intellectual property rights to the work.If putting something on the internet caused it to become truly public domain the internet would be a ghost town compared to what it is today.You would very likely not be able to buy music via digital downloads, software would all still require discs to be sent in the mail, and most of the best photographers would not post their work.
By posting my pictures online I am definitely not giving up my rights to the image.Obviously image theft happens and is the cost of doing business.To me it is akin to running a grocery store.If you have a store, you know there is going to be shop lifting of small items.You accept this, but you don't condone it.If you happen to catch someone stealing a candy bar once you probably don't call the cops, but you also don't pat him on the back and say "oh because it fit in your pocket you can just have it".
People downloading your image and using them as wallpapers on their phone is the candy bar theft in my world.I am not putting a security guard at the end of aisle because it doesn't make sense.Those people will never be paying customers, and policing it costs more than you could possibly make off of them.However, if someone comes in, takes a case of wine off the shelf, then stands outside my entrance and tries to sell it for 50% of my price, they are going to hear from me.Sobasically, I agree that worrying about things like pintrest is probably a bigger headache than it is worth.But if a corporation uses your images in a marketing campaign or if some site is selling prints of your work for $200 bucks a pop, that is just wrong.It is theft plain and simple.To condone it just because it was easy for them is just not something I am willing to do.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 23rd, 2012 (9:19am) PDT
To elaborate, the most viewed by critique would serve two purposes, no point in trolling to get pages off the view by pages as every critique has the potential to get a photo up there. Also we all learn from the critiques so I think the suggestion below is a win win situation
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 23rd, 2012 (9:18am) PDT
I've left the following suggestion in Flux capacitor thread but I'm not sure how many will read it there.
I've had an idea re 72dpi scoring what if the numbers were to be replaced by favourite, like and critique options? If critique was selected a little comment box could open up that was headed critique?
Top photographers/photos could be those with a combination of most likes and favourites, could even go as far as as have a view by critique option.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 22nd, 2012 (11:34pm) PDT
When I used Flickr, everything of mine was CC.People used my snaps for non-commercial (and occasionally commercial) purposes all the time (googling for my pictures became a hobby in itself lol).All my stuff on Picasa/Google+ is also CC.I'm a realist - if your pictures are online, there's a reasonable chance someone will find one/more and use them.If there was anything I didn't want used, I wouldn't upload it.
I concede that my attitude to copyright is probably different from that of most snappers.IMHO, the world is far too litigious.Really, the only instances I would object to my photos being used is if they were being used to promote something objectionable (like the Conservative party, racist propaganda, spam), or if someone passed a snap off as their own and got plaudits for it (if everyone hated the pic they stole, I hereby transfer sole rights to that person :D).
So many great pictures, especially nature and wildlife photos, are ruined by huge ugly watermarks.If you're that bothered about the possibility of theft, don't upload.That would be my advice.
Photoshop isn't public domain but a quick search of certain sites would quickly source cracked copies of PS.Not saying it's right but it happens.The internet has made just about everything public domain, whether or not the copyright owners agree with that or not.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 22nd, 2012 (9:19pm) PDT
Sten, as a follow up - you can download a trial of Photoshop from Adobe, but that doesn't give you the right to use it past the trial period.Adobe put photoshop online, but definitely not in to the public domain.Putting an image up for viewing is in essence the same thing.You are putting your creation up for free viewing, but not to use in anyway you haven't licensed them to do.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 22nd, 2012 (9:11pm) PDT
Sten, online is definitely not public domain!I am a nobody and even I have had my images ripped off.It can be quite frustrating to see someone else making money off of your effort.That said, there are a growing number of photographers who release their images under creative commons non commercial licensing.This allows people to download or use your photos so long as they are not commercial entities.So bloggers can use your image on a post so long as they provide credit, but companies can't steal your image and use it on their website.Under this licensing people on pintrest are not breaking your copyright either.This group of people basically looks at this sort of use as free advertising.I am not sure I agree with them, but it is a valid point of view.Pretty much no working photographer I know would sit back and ignore someone selling their work as their own.
As for watermarks, I don't add them, but have considered creating and using one.The only real reason to do so is that in the US if someone removes the copyright notice on the photo it becomes a willful infringement and subject to steeper penalties.However,I hate the large watermarks people put over important parts of an image.It makes looking at the image distracting and unenjoyable.In my opinion if you want to use a watermark make it as discreet and unobtrusive as possible.
(@cahyman)  said:March 22nd, 2012 (8:24pm) PDT
I would encourage ALL of you to look up the source of "Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs."
It's a very old English expression that simply means don’t give needless assistance or presume to offer advice to an expert.
I wish you all well.
Carol
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 22nd, 2012 (4:12pm) PDT
Charlie, you're a foul mouthed, childish bully.
The sooner 72dpi do something about the complaints about you, the better.
Go crawl back into your hole you Neanderthal.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 22nd, 2012 (3:12pm) PDT
Sten, You don't seem at all anal retentive.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 22nd, 2012 (2:29pm) PDT
The only reason I upload resized images is because of the time it takes to upload at full size (I got into this habit when I used to upload anything from 10-100 snaps in a day, often of events such as carnivals).I would never watermark a photo.But then no one is likely to want to steal anything of mine and if they did - if it's online, it public domain, IMHO.If anyone actually managed to pass one of my pictures off as my own and made money from it - good luck to them. lol
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 22nd, 2012 (2:17pm) PDT
Having had so many images stolen from Flickr, I now only upload low res images, at 72dpi, sRGB, and no more than 900px on the long side, plus a watermark. I have often seen my work being sold with someone else claiming it as their own, ( several times and sites ) and for sale as downloads for iPhones, even at that low res...!!! Pixdaus and Pinterest are particularly bad for people violating copyright.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 22nd, 2012 (1:18pm) PDT
@RomanValid point :)
(@nylife) Roman Kruglov said:March 22nd, 2012 (12:54pm) PDT
Thank you both, i realize that and i usually reduce it, but why say 10mb is allowed when it wont accept 8mb file :)
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 22nd, 2012 (12:46pm) PDT
I always upload a reduced size version of my pictures.Usually 50%.That takes them from about 8Mb down to 300Kb-1Mb.You can resize with no loss of quality using various progs.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 22nd, 2012 (10:32am) PDT
Roman, every photo I upload here is around 400-500KB.For web sizing there isn't a real big need to go with the high res image.Plus it is much kinder to their storage requirements.:)Other places I post I will actually post 200KB images or less constantly, but here when I do that some of the processing done makes the image appear soft.I have found that a high quality jpeg that is 900px across the long side works well.
(@nylife) Roman Kruglov said:March 22nd, 2012 (9:08am) PDT
Another Rant, fix the upload, you pick the picture and it shows as 8.6mb, when you hit upload it tells you no photo found meaning its too large, so i have to go and reduce it size even more, this is not a first time this happens
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 22nd, 2012 (8:00am) PDT
So... not so much a rant, but did you hear, Adobe just announced this morning, the new Photoshop CS6? You can download the beta to play around with until the final release comes out, apparently sometime before June. There's a download link on my site if anyone's interested in playing around with it: http://www.paulkomarek.com/photoshop-cs6-beta-now-available/
(@nylife) Roman Kruglov said:March 21st, 2012 (9:17pm) PDT
Ranting ---- every vote should go together with a comment, regardless if its 10 or lower, if you vote 10 it should say why, if you vote 7 you should explain why
(@DustinGent) Dustin Gent said:March 21st, 2012 (6:18pm) PDT
The BEST website for critiques is photosig.com. You guys should check it out. Their system works pretty well. It isn't perfect - but it DOES NOT allow for the mindless comments that help no one to learn; which I am sure most people strive to improve.
About photosig - and again, it isn't perfect. They have a free and paid memberships. I am not saying one is better than the other. I have a free membership, and have had one for the last 10 years. With a free membership, you are allowed 1 upload per every THREE days. In order to temporarily increase the limit, one has to leave critiques. The first THREE critiques, when rated helpful (can be rated helpful by the photographer who was critiqued, or simply by other people) get 3 points from the first person who rated it helpful. Then it you gain a point for the same critique when rated helpful.
If you critique a photo that has 4 or 50 comments/critiques previously, youget the standard 1 point every time it is rated helpful. You can also get UNHELPFUL votes, thus you loose a point.The critiques/comments (whatever you want to call them) HAVE to be at least 15 words. They have a "conforming system", and they explain it on their site. You can see if your comment conforms before submitting it.
The paid membership gets 3 photo uploads per every 3 days, and you can increase this by commenting the same way as the free membership. Way back when (probably once DSLRs got popular and more affordable..2005-2006), people left the usual "nice shot" and it was "conforming'. They changed that to combat the spam of these said comments. The site has died off a bit, butI recently posted a shot there. There is an etiquette, or rather an unsaid comment to posting photo ratio - 3:1 I think.
In any case, if anyone is interested on how this works, you should checkout photosig.com and read on this. I like this site! :)
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 21st, 2012 (4:46pm) PDT
@72dpi- One other feature I would love would be for people to mention you in a comment on a photo and have it cause that person to get a notification.For example, if I leave a critique on someone's photo I would love to know if they respond to my critique.The only way I can get notified of that response is if they leave it on my message boards.That makes no sense.The conversation about an image should be contained to the comments on that image.This would really help the usability of the site in many ways.
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:March 21st, 2012 (3:40pm) PDT
I too would like to be able to post a revised image. Someone gently suggested, for example, that one of my photos would look better as a square crop, and I think that's a great suggestion.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 21st, 2012 (3:37pm) PDT
Thanks John but I'm still confused "Fauna or fauna is all of the animal life of any particular region or time" I think I'll have to head off to that bar and have a drink ;-)
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 21st, 2012 (1:35pm) PDT
Flora & Fauna is normally considered plant life.Wildlife and animals are normally photos of animals or maybe the local bar scene, depending on your age and point of view.... :))))))))
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 21st, 2012 (1:24pm) PDT
I have a question, can someone tell me what the difference is between flora and fauna and wildlife and animals please? Sorry if I sound a bit thick for asking ----> :)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 21st, 2012 (12:06pm) PDT
I smiled when I saw that virtual streaker, rumour has it that he was wearing stockings and suspenders as well as those clown shoes
(@CorrieWhite)  said:March 21st, 2012 (11:06am) PDT
@72dpi - Thank you.It's been getting pretty juvenile here with all the mudslinging.You lose sight of important issues.
@Scott - I really want this feature as well.Supposedly it is in the works.I have had to delete a couple right away because I notice some issues on the black background that I wouldn't normally elsewhere.
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 21st, 2012 (11:01am) PDT
And I was smiling as I banged my head on my desk....:)~
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 21st, 2012 (10:54am) PDT
I'll ask her not to slurp.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 21st, 2012 (10:51am) PDT
But is it ok if I go back to teaching my grandmother to suck eggs? :)~
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 21st, 2012 (10:50am) PDT
First, there was a virtual streaker here, I am pretty sure he was smiling too....
Second, the rest of us were smiling because it was only a virtual streaking....
As a reward for smiling, can you add a feature for me?I would love to be able to reupload images here.Sometimes I note a minor issue with an image after posting and I want to reupload.Right now you have to delete and reupload the image if it is important to you, thus losing comments and such.It would be nice to just replace the image.
(@72dpi) 72dpi said (72dpi Admin):March 21st, 2012 (10:29am) PDT
@Everyone: With the exception of Scott MIller (thank you Scott!) you are all breaking the one and only rule of this forum...
"No one is allowed to post here unless you are smiling when you click 'submit'". Ok, we'll agree the button says "Comment" but honestly, don't make us take the toys out of the sandbox! :)
:)   <---That is a smile
:)~  <---That is a smile with a stuck out tongue
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 21st, 2012 (7:18am) PDT
Huh?
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 21st, 2012 (3:15am) PDT
•Ranting, venting your frustrations, or being cruel to other members. Harassment, abuse, impersonation and/or intimidation of our members WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
Above I have pasted the Terms of WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED on this site, as laid down by management.
I note with much interest CHARLIE that you have deleted MANY of your previous comments in the various sections of "Opinions"...and you accuse others of being devious and lying ??
A lot of your comments are in fact, of a libelous nature!!
MY APOLOGIES TO ALL OTHERS ON THIS SITE FOR SUCH BAD BEHAVIOUR, BUT I WILL NOT STAND BEING BULLIED. I DO NOT INTEND TO ADD ANY MORE TO THIS THREAD . Unless of course, it actually relates to photography and not one man's personal vendetta.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 21st, 2012 (3:08am) PDT
Charlie,
A two-part post for reasons of clarity and space:
Earlier you said: “There was no big deal about a dislike vote on 500px except for one loud mouth and his benefiting followers, IMO”. Apart from the fact that the dislike button (or, more precisely, the abuse of such by trolls) was well known to be one of the biggest sources of public and private discontent on 500px, I’m interested in your reference to the “one loudmouth” and even more interested in your reference to “his benefitting followers”.
In order to give those parties the opportunity of a response, perhaps you would be good enough to specify, IN PUBLIC, and with the appropriate EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT, the identity of the “loudmouth” to whom you are referring and the identities of those you consider to be his “benefitting followers”.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 21st, 2012 (2:43am) PDT
Second post:
You (Charlie) asked me the following question earlier:
"The campaign about ‘dislike’ on 500px was a team effort, wouldn't you say Karl?”
Whilst the question itself is fairly easily answered, I can’t quite see the reasoning behind it in the context of what was being discussed at the time, namely the rights and wrongs of the current voting system on 72dpi. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain, in as DIRECT terms as possible, the reason behind your question so that I may answer it in a way that is relevant to the ongoing discussion.
At the same time, I think it would be beneficial for all concerned if you were to explain, in as DIRECT terms as possible, the reasoning for your further question: “And what do you think Barbara?" since Barbara, although having made an astute observation earlier about the rating system on Flickr, had not mentioned 500px at all at that stage.
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 20th, 2012 (8:34pm) PDT
OK,,, what gives with my comment totals going down?Are people deleting pictures?Accounts?Or flat deleting my comments to make my "Engagement Score" to go down??For whatever good that does....Am banging my head on the desk......
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (6:27pm) PDT
KMA Carol. You think your friends should be able to lie and I may not respond?
KMA
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (6:26pm) PDT
Is Charlie's grandma on here?
(@cahyman)  said:March 20th, 2012 (6:22pm) PDT
Charlie, please stop teaching your Grandmother how to suck eggs!Consider spending your time on photography instead!After all that's what this and other sites are about.Learning, sharing, creating, producing, not inciting a riot.
This site and this page happen to be open to the public to read.What in the world must they think about this site?
John, it has nothing to do with making trolls happy.Gene, I, and many others have had countless conversations about ignoring this nonsense, but enough is ENOUGH!!!
Take a good hard look at your behavior and consider growing up and behave as though you are in public.You are!
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (6:16pm) PDT
Charlie said '....OH MAN, WHO CARES?!?
Just let it go and let's help fix the site issues.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (5:35pm) PDT
Barbara said "...AFTER CHARLIE BAUGHhad a go at you for casting low votes...and then forgot about it !"
I did not say you cast low votes. I apologized after you explained. That is hardly "forgot about it"
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (5:10pm) PDT
It would be good to see a view from 72dpi on all this.
Impartiality is a definite advantage in this instance.....
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 20th, 2012 (4:50pm) PDT
Wow.... all this infighting is making all the trolls very happy...As for Mr. Gene, and his minions of trolls...and I am not saying anyone on here is part of that....I caught him and one of his buddies in Live Activity low balling a couple of my photos...blocked them both, and it quit.However, I have also quit putting new photos up, until all this arguing and bickering quits, and the POWERS that be make a decision on how this will work.I want to grow as a photographer, not argue with people that love the same thing I do, (playing with a camera).
I bet I have taken 300 pictures this week so far?How many have you all taken that are arguing back and forth?
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (4:48pm) PDT
Interrobang?!
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 20th, 2012 (4:17pm) PDT
@sas Sorry it took me a while to respond!Oh wait it was only 3 hours ago, it just seems like a while ago after reading the battle that ensued while I was taking a nap!
I was referring to some technically bad images, not ones that are not my cup of tea.Photos that are out of focus, have poor compostions, clear processing artifacts, or are simply boring shots that can be seen by the thousands on the internet seem to filter up to the very top of the top rated images now.Granted they usually drop very quickly once they get there, but really should out of focus landscape shots ever be in the top 5?The first 2 - 5 spots in top rated right now are pretty much reserved for shots with under 20 to 30 views, and two or three votes. Again, they don't last long, but they get there in the first place because people just vote everything a 10 hoping that people will turn around and do the same for them.The specific shot that made me cry still has over a 9.6 rating, but is no longer right at the top.(I am also sad to admit that I accidentally voted a 9 on that image.In a misclick while scrolling I voted when I didn't even mean to!I am officially part of the problem....)
There are also plenty of photos in the top that aren't my cup of tea, but are technically excellent.I would never have tried Corrie White's water drop shots, but they are technically amazing photos and are quite interesting to look at.I also really don't like the muddy look of tone mapped HDR shots, and think that Photomatix was created by the devil.:)But there are plenty of well composed well seen HDR's here.I realize that while I don't like them, others do and that is fine.I usually just refrain from voting on those as it seems a bit unfair to the artist.I however have voted quite positively to a couple of Karl's HDRs (Waterglass and Misty Skeletons) because despite their HDRness they are still awesome.
So yes, I am distinguishing between "not in my interest" (landscapes and wildlife) and genuinely bad or mediocre photos.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (3:33pm) PDT
@Jubbly, I always also find that argument amusing - that HDR or manipulated photos aren't real.
So, do some people's eyes see in black and white? Or in sepia? Or remove blow-out's?
I'm not having a personal dig at anyone here, just making an observation. Cameras rarely (probably never) see exactly what the human eye does. Otherwise every single image would be at 35mm focal length and f/11 (or similar) with pretty unamazing colour. The whole reason to use a camera (for me) is to resolve that extra detail and capture a certain feeling or moment.
I don't know why people have to dislike things just because they don't like them. Apathy or ambivalence is a perfectly acceptable human emotion IMHO.
Peace out!
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:March 20th, 2012 (3:20pm) PDT
Barbara, just FYI, I don't have a high Affection score in 500px, and I can still see the "I do not like this photo" button, though I would not use it as a test to see if it's functional for me. Just because I may not like a photo, I don't want to bring down its score since others may like it and see something in it that I'm missing.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 20th, 2012 (3:02pm) PDT
did I just see someone nekkid run in in here?
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (2:54pm) PDT
Charlie - I have no idea what the disagreement with Barbara is about.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (2:42pm) PDT
Dayne could respond and clear up who is telling the truth.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 20th, 2012 (2:42pm) PDT
*bursts into the forum naked but for a pair of orange & purple clown shoes*
Stop talking about scores and take some pictures!Go on :D
*runs out of forum again, tripping over clown shoes on way*
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (2:41pm) PDT
Then be a liar.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 20th, 2012 (2:40pm) PDT
Well said indeed Jubbly
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (2:35pm) PDT
Barbara. That explains it. I have a measly 3 affection. No friends, you see :^(
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (2:32pm) PDT
Go suck a lemon Charlie..it might sweeten you up !!! You are just an obsessive bully .
Dayne...you have to have a certain score in Affection to have the "Privilege" of the Dislike button.
(@LovelyJubblyOz) LovelyJubblyOz said:March 20th, 2012 (2:30pm) PDT
Oh dear. I've been quietly following all that has been said on this forum for some time now, without making comment. In all of the hullabaloo one thing seems to be getting missed. The photography.
What is so important about scoring points? Is the pleasure of producing pictures for others to see no longer important?
There seems to be a division between two groups around which this point scoring phenomena revolves. On the one hand there are the newer intake of street photographers, then there are the photo manipulators (no insult intended by that name) who like to manipulate/photoshop their pictures. It seems to me that never the twain shall meet.
I doubt that either group will ever accept that the other is "real" photography, so why make it such a big issue? In doing so it encourages stirrers, and once stirred they get to sit back and watch you tear each other to pieces with accusations and insults. Can we not just forget the scoring, move on and find a happy medium in which we can se each others pictures and either admire them, or ignore them?
To that end I am going to disable the scoring on my own pictures. If you want to make a comment on them, or give an honest opinion, that's fine, but for crying out loud, before a 10 becomes the only acceptable score please consider what you're doing to this excellent, innovative photo home that we have in 72dpi. These guys are trying their hardest to accommodate everybody's needs. Why not try and help them?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (2:13pm) PDT
Where did I say that there is not a dislike button on 500px? I said that your friend Gene Lowinger ie: Gene Lowing doesn't mind that there still is that button. I use it for photos I don't like and do it openly with remarks as to what I don't like. That *IS* what YOUR friend said he wished people would do, but then got pissed when I did exactly that.
Until you apologize. You are a LIAR Barbara.
Charlie
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (2:12pm) PDT
Not there on my account. Never has been either. Anyway, it's irrelevant as I have no intention of using it.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (2:08pm) PDT
No Dayne...it is right under the LIKE button, as " I don't like this photo"....and there has been an interface problem for ten or more days, as in, when you click on LIKE, the vote goes down on some sites! They know about it, and it has been raised in ""support""....still waiting for the fix.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (2:03pm) PDT
Funny, I don't see dislike on 500px. Maybe I need to pay to "Awesome" to get that?
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (1:59pm) PDT
Thank You Dave for your wise observations. Indeed, there are better things to do than respond to attention seekers.
Actually, Charlie knows full well that the Dislike button remains on 500px...he has an account on there after all.....of course he would not use that option himself..would he ??
Trolls come in many forms..and as sas says, some folk are here just to bring this wonderful site DOWN....and the country they represent.
Plus...there are "those" that have double identities, and send strange e-mails to some of us on the fly.........just to get a reaction because "things" have gone too quiet ??
I too am off to look at and prep photos for publication...
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (1:57pm) PDT
Now who is telling fibs? I DID NOT say Dayne was casting low votes. I pointed out that he was voting multiple times within a single minute without comment. THAT IS ALL I SAID. And it was the truth. I did think it possible that he was being deceptive but he explained and I APOLOGIZED openly here.
Now Barbara you said something that is blatantly NOT TRUE. Will you apologize?
Charlie
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (1:57pm) PDT
When I said "Me and Charlie" below, I meant me = Dayne Reast. I was not referring to Me the mysterious user who Charlie has rightfully suggested is up to no good.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (1:51pm) PDT
Well, Dave, I don't think I accused you of anything. If you felt that some of the things I've said hit you wrong you will have to figure why they did. If you felt that the things I said hurt friends of yours that is possible. I said things as I wished and if anyone thinks I have been unfair or untruthful about them, tell me exactly what is bothering you and if I'm wrong, I will apologize.
Charlie
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (1:49pm) PDT
Barbara. Apology accepted. After all, I had been complaining about honest voting, so I did partially fit that description.
Me and Charlie made our peace in separate messages, and Charlie was honourable in admitting his mistake in public (in plain english as well!)
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (1:45pm) PDT
Dayne...my profuse apologies. NO, you are not one of the two I have blocked on this site. I blocked you a while back AFTER CHARLIE BAUGHhad a go at you for casting low votes...and then forgot about it ! Again, my apologies, I only hope you forgive me.
Charlie has spectacular skills in casting aspersions...
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 20th, 2012 (1:44pm) PDT
crybabies, now that sounds like a familiar accusation. I have a proposal for the mods. Every few days you should flush this forum and let folk start again with their rants, I have a feeling that some folks are just using it to bring this site's reputation down which is a darn shame. I'm off to look at photos now, it's much more fun.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (1:29pm) PDT
Barbara - I seem to blocked from voting/commenting on your photos. Am I one of the two you imply complain about honesty and then are not honest themselves? Or are you blocking me because I admitted trying to vote honestly?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (1:29pm) PDT
I'm not getting dragged into a tit-for-tat but you know full well what I'm talking about.
'team efforts', 'loud mouth', 'benefitting followers', etc.
I have no affiliation to those people other than as fellow users of this site but I find it a bit offensive when someone (i.e. you) chooses to use this forum as a means to launch underhanded or covert attacks on others. And why you had to drag the whole Gene Lowinger thing up again God only knows.
I'm not perfect by any means but at least (I hope) I've addressed my issues honestly and openly.
I'm not taking part in this discussion any more because it's frankly nothing to do with me.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (1:20pm) PDT
What are you talking about? What do you not understand? What is wrong with my English? What are the insinuations that you allude to?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (1:13pm) PDT
Charlie, I just wish you could speak in plain English rather than insinuations. If you have an issue with someone then address it directly with that person rather than through generalisations or veiled references.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (1:01pm) PDT
What do you have questions about Dave? I am man enough for those who care. Are you man enough to say what bothered you about what I said?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (12:48pm) PDT
And interestingly the dislike does not seem to be bothering GENE LOWINGER since his return as GENE LOWING.
Sorry that you can't take views counter to your own Barbara. I do speak as directly as I know how. Does that bother you a lot?
Charlie
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (12:44pm) PDT
@Charlie, you've got the 'passive aggressive' thing down tap. I can read an underhand message in almost every post you leave.
Are you man enough to put your accusations into plain speaking?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (12:40pm) PDT
From your post Barbara, I think my English was understood by you quite well.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 20th, 2012 (12:36pm) PDT
Sal Ubriti joined today and has no photos. Seems to me that he/she has made a value judgement based on very little knowledge of this site
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (12:29pm) PDT
Sal Ubriti, Could you please clarify your comment? Who are you talking about? And do you have an example?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (12:28pm) PDT
@Sal, I don't know if you're referring to me but I made one mistake and voted a 7 as a retaliatory gesture and admitted it. Wow! Crime of the century! I could 'out' several on here who use underhand tactics but I won't stoop that low.
If you want to have a go at me then be man enough to do it directly.
Of course, if you weren't referring to me then I apologise but your point seems pretty obvious to me.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 20th, 2012 (12:25pm) PDT
Thanks for your response Paul, I'm not expert enough to know what is technically bad though I do of course know when a photo is really bad and I know what I like. You also make a point re photographs on this site inspiring you (and I hope others) to try something new. This is what a photo sharing community is all about in my opinion.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (12:24pm) PDT
Yes Sal...and I have two of them blocked...there are ONLY two that I block on the whole site...
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (12:23pm) PDT
Human nature is a weird thing. "Live activity" is honesty and openness for all to see. I can't see any reason to not like that UNLESS someone wants do do sneaky things.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (12:21pm) PDT
SAS, I think Scott is speaking about photos that are bad on a technical level, not on a personal taste level. I vote the same way. There's been a lot of strange photos on here that are totally not the type of photography I like, but I vote on them based on their technical qualities, not on the subject matter or style of photography it is. I would hope all of us are voting like that. In fact, some of the strange photos have actually inspired me to try some new areas of photography I previously had zero interest in, specifically macro photography. So someone's strange (yet well executed) macro shot just made Canon some money after I went and bought the 100mm f/2.8L IS and the corresponding macro ring flash to play around with!
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (12:17pm) PDT
Explain yourself in plain English Charlie...let's hear it. It might be noted that all day long there has been a sensible and dignified discussion about various sites and their voting / rating system with many valid points on all sides. Then you arrive and attempt to turn everything around, and cause a row. Shame on you man. Nothing much to do in Oregon ?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (12:17pm) PDT
@Charlie. I assume you're having a dig at someone here but actually, the Dislike hasn't been removed from 500px (only from the iPad version I think). It's still there but now called 'I don't like this photo'.
And in my opinion, there were far more than one 'group' who wanted 'Dislike' removed. I posted a 'Dislike is killing this site' and it got straight onto the Leaderboard with 100's of Faves until the admin took it down. I posted the image off my own back not because I was a sheep-like follower of another user.
Anyway, IMHO, a 'Dislike' function here would be the worst addition possible.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 20th, 2012 (12:14pm) PDT
Just a thought, is this more about voting or who gets in the top lists? As long as people take time to look at my photos I'm happy, comments and votes are a bonus. And @ Scott, which are the downright bad photos you speak of? Are they bad technically or bad because they are not your cup of tea? Just asking.
One thing 500px managed to do was promote their site as one that folk only uploaded their best photos to, maybe we should be out there doing the same for this site. Let's blog, tweet or whatever about how this is the best site for the best photos on the web. It'll be a way to thank the folk at 72dpi for giving us this fine site and giving us a chance to have our say.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 20th, 2012 (12:09pm) PDT
@Scott. I'll second your comments! Wish I'd never seen that damn Live Activity feed! LOL
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 20th, 2012 (11:55am) PDT
The live activity thing is also big.Being able to see who gave you that 7 opens up the retaliation thing and makes people scared to vote down another photo, since in essence, you are voting down your own as well.There are a number of users here now just going around giving a 10 to every photo they see in order to incite reciprocity.That is why there are some downright bad photos in the top lists.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (11:31am) PDT
Actually, I should add that the only change in the system was forcing comments for low votes. It is ironic that a change intended to fight trolls actually had an adverse affect for normal users.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (11:31am) PDT
Karl, the old system was essentially the same as it is now except that you weren't forced to leave a comment when you voted a photo poorly, nor was there live tracking of everyone's actions for all site members to watch. Essentially, there was more honest voting taking place and to get your image rated a 9, or even a high 8, it had to be AMAZING. The top rated photos under the old system were unquestionably amazing. Now it seems, almost anything that is uploaded is rated an 8 if it's decent, a 9 if it's good, and a 10 if it's great. With everything being rated so similarly now, there is no way to sort the "okay" from the "great."
The site owners have been doing a great job of incorporating our feedback which is why I think everyone is so active on these forums because we know they are. I think that's great. And that's what I'd like to see; more community participation.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (11:20am) PDT
The campaign about "dislike" on 500px was a team effort, wouldn't you say Karl? And what do you think Barbara?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (11:18am) PDT
There was no big deal about a dislike vote on 500px except for one loud mouth and his benefiting followers, IMO.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 20th, 2012 (11:18am) PDT
I agree with Dayne that comparing photos scored under the old system vs the new is not quite fair.Any time you change systems you are going to have images that are positively impacted and those that are negatively impacted.Really that example shows the impact of the change of requiring a comment to score a 5 or lower but not requiring a comment above.If we removed the voting system now and replaced with with just a like / fav there would be a bunch of high quality images that drop in popularity on a massive scale.(And a lot of mediocre to poor images that are put in their proper place!)
However, I also agree with Paul that the current voting system is broken.In general my vote (seems ironic to vote on removing voting) would be for the normalized voting scale.I like the more granular level of feedback that such a system provides.It also makes it harder for gangs of people to team up and make each others photos more prevalent.(If the gang always votes a 10 on each others photos, their 10's become increasingly meaningless)
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (11:09am) PDT
Karl - I was never on 500px when they had the dislike. I have only seen the like/fav right now, and it does not work for me.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (11:07am) PDT
Karl. The old system was essentially the same as now. The difference is the more people voted honestly before. It is the users who have changed, not the system.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (11:05am) PDT
Paul. I realize there is an anomaly between the older photos vs more recent. So, I don't consider that an absolute fair comparison in my mind. But, looking at the recent photos, there is some differentiation in the rating that is not be there with favs right now, even with the compressed voting.
As I have said before, the problem is not the voting scheme, but how it being used (or misused). That is why I have suggested a normalized scoring scheme to make it stronger against misuse. Ultimately, the decision is down to the site owners. Both methods have pros and cons, but I would hate to admit defeat to the trolls and the voting scheme dropped.
Anyway, thanks for your comments on my photo.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 20th, 2012 (11:01am) PDT
Incidentally, Paul - for the benefit of comparatively recent incomers like myself, could you give us a brief summary of what the old system was?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 20th, 2012 (10:52am) PDT
I think that Dayne's point is very valid, in that many peoples' opinions on rating systems are coloured by their experiences on other sites - the most notable and recent being 500px. The problem with 500px, though, was not the Like/Fave aspect of the system, but the Like/Fave/Dislike aspect - which provided a "negative" region (the Dislike) which the trolls discovered they could exploit for their own benefit - in just the same way as they are currently exploiting the 1-5 region of our voting system. A pure Like/Fave system as proposed by Paul might work (providing Like/Fave were both used to provide a distinction between a simple Like and a "strong" Like - in the way that Dayne suggests) since it effectively removes the "negative" troll-vulnerable zone but leaves voters with the opportunity to express their distaste for an image by simply not voting.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (10:41am) PDT
Thanks, Dayne. Actually, I'm glad you posted because I'd like to use your portfolio to illustrate an example if you don't mind. Specifically, I want to talk about your Joshua Tree Sunset photo which I really like, and just favourited. (Orange and red skies are my absolute favorites. You should check out Jorge Maia's "Imagine" photograph which is also a beautiful red sky photo.)
Anyway, your photo is rated a 6.6, actually it's rated a 6.8 now that I voted it an 8, which is what it is in my opinion... a solid 8, not a 6.6. If you removed the troll votes where it was rated a 2 for no reason, it would probably average out to be a high 7, say 7.8 maybe. Now, just to illustrate a point here, with the new numerical voting system now in place, if you were to delete that photo and re-upload it, it would immediately be rated a 9 and probably hold that rating.
So what does this mean? It means that all of the decent photos are now being lumped into votes ranging from 8 to 10. With that being the case, how is there a differentiation between "very good, good and less good"? Unfortunately, there is not.
Because you're one of the original people to join this site, your photos have fallen victim to the new numerical voting system as all of the new people joining and uploading photos are only voting on a 6-10 scale. Since your photos were more accurately rated with the previous system, now they appear to be lower than out-of-focus pics of people's children, or underexposed shots with bad lighting. Clearly, your photos are not in this category, and certainly not below it. But, that's exactly what they are with the current numerical voting system, and that's been my main point the whole time.
A system is needed that combats such a problem. Leaving it the way it is only makes the ratings meaningless for any useful purpose other than to stoke ones ego.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 20th, 2012 (10:04am) PDT
I have answered why I like the voting in other posts. Basically, it provides more differentiation between very good, good and less good.
If you go for the like/fav scheme, it essentially is the same as 500px and that has not worked for me. I know this may be sacrilege to some users here, but I also have some photos on 500px. Sadly, I don't have any friends there, and received very few likes/favs, and so the rating there ends up having no value. Also, interestingly, it is not the same photos that have been liked over there. If you are not amongst the favs, them you do not get any meaningful rating feedback, which is useless for us average amateur users.
I think the voting scheme here, even with its issues, provides a better indication of the relative merits of ones photos, and that is what I want to see for my photos. I don't care about whether they get onto the top-rated page. Over here, my better photos have risen to the top of my gallery (based on average rating and comments). That does not appear to be the case for the like/fav scheme used at 500px. Also, I would not have been able to reliably judge my better photos from the number of favs on this site either.
However, I do accept that the fav scheme does work best at highlighting the exceptional photos. The top-rated page and most-fav page do not show the same photos, but those on most-fav are the best in my opinion.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (9:50am) PDT
LOL, ya, I think so!;-)
Actually, I won't really have a response for them because I don't think one is needed and I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions. In this case, this is simply a personal curiosity/observation to see what some of the responses may be. But, as I said in my last post, although I think I know the answer already... perhaps not. Perhaps there's some other reason why such a numerical system, even though they know it's artificially inflated, is important to them. Just a curiosity... Just an observation...
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (9:39am) PDT
I think there is an answer of sorts in Karl's ballet.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 20th, 2012 (9:25am) PDT
Let me pose an aporetic question in return, Paul: if someone replies honestly as to why a numerical system is important to them (for the reasons we all suspect MIGHT be the case), what is your response likely to be?
Now a supplementary question, equally aporetic: do you think they might be reluctant to give you an honest reply because they suspect they know what your response MIGHT be?
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (8:50am) PDT
I agree Charlie, I just want to hear some of the reasons why such a system is so important to some people. It's sort of an aporetic question in that I think the answer is pretty clear, but perhaps not.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 20th, 2012 (8:47am) PDT
Paul, what you say is absolutely true, but I don't think the "truncated bell curve" can be directly linked to the 1-10 voting system per se. If we had a 1-5 system, it would be truncated at 3 instead of 6 - and so on. Human nature being what it is, any voting system, whether numerical or qualitative, which is perceived to have a "positive" and "negative" region, will always suffer a degree of truncation at the perceived boundary between the two - simply because of the natural human reluctance (trolls excepted here) to be, or to appear to be, critical. Most people will express their negative feelings by simply not voting. This being the case, your proposal of a simple ranking system based on Faves and/or Likes might just work. The only possible danger I can see is that to which Barbara alluded - the Flickr scenario, where popularity depends more on the size of one's fan-base than on the inherent quality of one's images - but the only way to find out if that hold true is to suck it and see. If it works, it works - if it doesn't, it doesn't, and we'll have to go back to the drawing board.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 20th, 2012 (8:29am) PDT
"""For those who still want a numerical voting system, can you explain why, given that ratings from such a system have proven to be inaccurate? I'm just curious why such a system is so important to some people even though statistically it has been proven to be inaccurate on here."""
Nice try, Paul. The entire problem is honesty and good luck in getting it with you very good question.
Charlie
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 20th, 2012 (6:51am) PDT
I think Sal Ubriti sums it up nicely, below. I challenge anyone to find a member who signed up after Feb. 24th who has given even a single vote below 6. The reason I say the Feb. 24th date is because that's when the new scoring system was implemented. What was once a nice bell curve of votes, is now a 6-10 system.
Anyone with an understanding of math can see how this new voting system DRASTICALLY affects the accuracy of the scoring. When you take a 1-10 voting system and essentially force users to vote 6-10 or else be retaliated against, you create a system which causes confusion and is completely inaccurate.
And for those who say the retaliation won't occur, please read the posts below where an active member of this site makes a sincere apology for doing just that. (Sorry to put you on the spot, just trying to illustrate my point.)
Now some people don't care that the inaccuracy of the voting system has boosted their scores as long as their scores are high. But how does it really make you feel that your artificially high rating is NOT an indication of the true quality of your work?
I'm not going to elaborate on my suggestions again because you can find them in almost every comment thread. They haven't changed at all in several weeks. In a nutshell, remove voting, add a like button, have best photos ranked by number of favs, not number of likes (this would need a scoring algorithm developed so photos receiving the most favs on a 'per day' average are at the top of the list, not just the photos that have been posted the longest.) Also, add a "critique requested" option on the upload screen (this ensures no feelings are hurt and encourages participation.)
For those who still want a numerical voting system, can you explain why, given that ratings from such a system have proven to be inaccurate? I'm just curious why such a system is so important to some people even though statistically it has been proven to be inaccurate on here.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 20th, 2012 (4:31am) PDT
Not a rant, just an observation:
"Photography website voting systems",religion, and politics all seem to be topics guaranteed to trigger discordant discussion among people who are equally well-meaning.We are all passionate about our photography.It is an expression of who we are, how we feel, and how we see the world.Sometimes we post an image we are not quite sure about in order to gauge it's impact, and sometimes we post something that we are bursting at the seams with pride about and we can't wait to show it to our peers.And then we react poorly if it is not met with the same love that we feel for it.When I say "we", I include myself (especially myself).Some of us have a thicker skin than others, but I would venture to say that none of us have REALLY thick skins, or we wouldn't be artists in the first place.
I was firmly in the NO 1-10 scoring system camp, only likes and faves, as proposed by Paul and Dave below, but Barbara's observation about what goes on at Flickr gives me pause.Individual trolls are bad enough, but roving bands of trolls is really depressing to think about.
I've come to the conclusion that there is NO solution.I'll just see what the administrators come up with and abide by it.I'm not saying this whole discussion has been a waste of time - far from it.It has opened my eyes to lines of reasoning that I had never considered.It has been a very worthwhile exercise.
I don't post images for a living, I do it for the love of it.So I can afford to step away from the debate.I'll just continue to post my photos and enjoy yours (most of the participants on this page are in my SnapList "family").At the end of the day, for me, that is what this site is all about.
I hope this doesn't come across as holier-than-thou, or appear that I think I'm above all of this.I'm not.In fact I was vociferously in the middle of the troll-pursuit posse a couple of weeks ago.I was very worked up about it.But, honestly, I have come to enjoy the cyber-comraderie and the breathtaking beauty of this site.I have never been this much of a participant in a website before.And the rating system, whatever it is or will be, is just not that important to me anymore.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 20th, 2012 (2:50am) PDT
Well said, Scott. No voting system is ever going to be perfectly troll proof and no voting system will ever please all of the people all of the time. Even if the voting system is removed completely, there will still be moans and groans from those who think it should've been retained.
What is encouraging, though, is the constant efforts of 72dpi to work WITH the users to find a "least worst" solution - and that, if you like, is the glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. It makes such a welcome change from the "Oh no it isn't" attitude of 500px and the "don't give a toss, as long as everybody keeps paying their $25 every year" approach of Flickr.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 20th, 2012 (2:47am) PDT
Here's a revolutionary idea...why not split 72dpi into two sections....one for those of us who prefer the voting system, and another section for those that just want the site to be an imitation of Flickr ?
Flickr has a system whereby getting a large number of Faves within a short space of time puts you on "Explore", their front page....and it is trolled up to the hilt. Groups form where they all work together to fave and comment each other. It was common knowledge that if you posted to certain groups you could hit Explore every time ! Conversely...you could be kept out by the same system. The result was that images that should not even have left the camera were TOP rated.
72dpi is one of the best now....because admin LISTEN and act on our requests. A real breath of fresh air !!! They have a hard task sorting this out...!!!
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 20th, 2012 (2:05am) PDT
@Ubriti for the most part things here work well, and the nice thing is that the site admins are actively trying to figure out the best voting model possible and are engaging the community to work through it.
Like all public photo sites that rank things, there are some ratings trolls, and a bit of "if you rate me highly I will rate you highly" going on.But they are trying to come up with a way to improve it.Honestly, I haven't seen a single photo site with any form of ranking that hasn't resorted back to this.I would give it a bit before you throw in the towel.Sites like 500px are too far gone to be saved, but 72dpi is trying pretty hard to figure out something that actually works.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 19th, 2012 (11:07pm) PDT
I can only apologise again Scott. I'm embarrassed and guilty of taking myself way too seriously.
I'm going to just ignore voting now and go back to enjoying taking photos!!
Apologies to everyone else too. First and last time I'll be doing that!!
Dave (red faced and looking for a corner to hide in).
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (10:43pm) PDT
The really funny thing is that the first image I ever marked as a Favorite here is one of yours!
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (10:41pm) PDT
Don't sweat it Dave, I disappeared for 20 minutes, it was a valid assumption to make.It just happened to be wrong in this case.:)And you are correct, the fact that you felt the need to react that way over an 8 out of 10 does in fact show that the current voting system is pretty useless.:)
As for the retaliation, I promise never to get real upset about a number assigned to a picture of mine by a single person on the internet.Go ahead and rate all of my images a 1!
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 19th, 2012 (10:38pm) PDT
To put it into context (and this in no way excuses or condones my subsequent actions), I had 7 votes of 10 on the image and then received that anonymous vote of 8.
I just reacted badly and too hastily. Not good.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 19th, 2012 (10:19pm) PDT
And I reacted badly for which I sincerely apologise.
If anything it serves to illustrate the flaws of the current system.
Again, sorry.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (10:17pm) PDT
Dave, I am sorry if you are upset I voted an 8 on an image of yours.You will note that I have given out a number of high scores to your images in the past.I honestly intended to comment with my critique as well, but I am playing around on this site during compile cycles of the code I am writing for work.So I didn't finish typing it up before I got back to work for a bit.When I came back to complete it during the next build of the software, you had given me a retaliatory 7 and blocked me from commenting.Sorry if I offended you, I was attempting to provide more meaningful information with my votes and comments as per this discussion and somehow offended you in the process.
It was not my intention, and I am sorry you assumed the worst.I think I may just give up on sites like this altogether, this is exactly the kind of thing I try to avoid, and that I never run in to on the other sites I use.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 19th, 2012 (10:04pm) PDT
@Scott. I think any such problem with my system would be far less harmful than the insidious anonymous low vote (i.e. without an accompanying comment). Wouldn't you agree?
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (10:00pm) PDT
As a continuation what do you (Dave Cox) and Paul think about normalizing everyone's scores?Some people are more critical than others, so basically you make a 10 from someone with an average rating of a 6 or a 7 mean more than someone who's average rating is a 9.9.Correspondingly, if someone usually gives things an 8 or a 9, a score of a 3 would have a greater negative impact than a troll whose average score is a 3.
I would suggest implementing this so if you vote your average it has very little overall impact on the rating of the image, and the further away from your average you vote, the greater impact it has.This would incent people to vote what they think.Having your average rating you give out be a 5 would allow you to give strong positive and negative feedback on an image.With such a system you could even make votes anonymous so that people don't feel bad voting.This is still a gameable system, but much less so than most others.(All systems CAN be games)
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (9:53pm) PDT
@Dave CoxIn your scenario being added to something like the 'spotlight' would actually be harmful to your score.Anything that features your image would drastically increase the number of views by people that don't feel like voting on every image, and therefore reducing its rating.(Being at the top of the ratings would have a similar impact, but only enough to knock you down until there are a sufficient number of things above you - so not a big deal).You also obviously couldn't include non member views in the divisor.
I am not saying the solution can't work, there are just some kinks to work out.
As for the most faves tab in its current form - I would definitely not expect them to be the same as the top rated.Most faves / most viewed are going to be highly correlated as they are based on totals.Therefore older pictures are much more likely to be there.Top Rated is for the average score, and therefore something with few ratings and views are much more likely to be near the top.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 19th, 2012 (8:49pm) PDT
Exactly Dave. I've been saying the same thing for weeks now. Hopefully more people will get on board this idea and maybe we'll see some of it implemented. It really is the only logical solution at this point as holes can be blown in almost any other option.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 19th, 2012 (8:43pm) PDT
If you have Like (5 points) and Fave (10 points) but no 'Dislike' and the rating is just points divided by views - then all photos will be rated and ranked and the trolls' effect is almost zero.
For example, an image with 10 likes, 2 Faves and 20 views would score 70/20 = 3.50
One troll 'view' would only take that score down to 70/21= 3.33
A bonus of this calculation is that an image getting a Fave from every view would still get a rating of 10. The perfect image you could say and again a troll view would be almost negligible after 10 views.
I don't think you can ever eliminate trolls but you can at least try to lessen their impact.
Just having 'totals' for Faves plus likes is OK but it favours those users with huge Snaplists.
Let's face it, this scoring system is almost today's situation - 9 or 10 or no vote.
Everybody's happy!! Surely? ;)
Interesting point to note (for me anyway) is looking at the 'Most Faves' tab, the photos aren't the same as the 'Top Rated' - I would have expected them to be the same. I'm sure this tells us something about the current set-up but I'm not sure what exactly!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@LazzatPhoto) Lazzat said:March 19th, 2012 (7:16pm) PDT
I want the VOTING button back! Please!!! I understand comments are always great to receive, but we are not that society any more that stops and thinks for too long what to say. At this information age, the faster is better...
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 19th, 2012 (5:37pm) PDT
@Scott - In theory, that's true but when the voting system compresses all of the photos into a vote range of 8 to 10, how do you find the best photos? You can't. Now there's talk from members wanting a completely anonymous voting system which would only exacerbate the current problems. But some people gotta have that 10 vote to feel good about their work, even if their work is being rated the same as other photos that clearly are not in the same league. To me, I don't see the point with that other than for people to stroke their own egos. I dunno, just my 2 cents.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (5:08pm) PDT
@Paul Komarek - but if you just go to the like / fav model, what is better about this site than, say, google plus?gPlus's photo display is pretty awesome (as is 72dpi's), but it runs faster, has a larger community, and has more "social" features for building a community and having discussions.The one differentiating factor here now is that this is a dedicated photo sharing site where photos are rated and you have the ability to find the "best" photos.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (5:05pm) PDT
@Dayne Reast - I love the normalized voting concept.make 5 - 7 be the average and scale a users vote accordingly.Would fix most of the problems.If a user never varies their vote at all (all one number) it really has no value and should be weighted down heavily.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 19th, 2012 (4:52pm) PDT
Barbara, some of us who are "AGAINST" voting joined this site when it was first launched last year, way before everyone from 500px flooded over here, and way before there were any problems with the voting system. This site is essentially the evolution of the original "Photo of the Day" section of Aperture Academy in California. As one would expect, once the big influx of people on the site occurred, so did the problems with voting.
Back then, photos that were a 10 now, were an 8, and images that are a 6 now, were a 2. The reason I have given for my desire to see the voting system removed is it no longer is accurate as every decent photo on the site is now lumped into an 8 to 10 rating. How do you differentiate the good from the great? You don't. You can't.
That's why I've suggested a simple "like" system and the top photographs would be determined by the number of "favorites" it has, not by its score, views, or likes. Adding a "critique requested" option during upload allows the photographer to publicly request a critique, encouraging community participation and ensuring that if we leave a critique, it has been asked for and therefore shouldn't hurt someone's feelings.
I think my solution is pretty simple and would alleviate the troll problem altogether. In addition, it would encourage community participation and organically build the site through word of mouth.
I think if you want a valid scoring of your photography, you should submit your work to such organizations as the PPA and have it judged through peer review by a panel of vetted photography professionals.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 19th, 2012 (4:46pm) PDT
Phew! that was a long one from me. I actually hit the limit on number of characters, and even had to edit out some of what I wanted to say!
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 19th, 2012 (4:43pm) PDT
Again, let me be the devil's advocate here! I see a lot of contradiction in many of these opinions.
We all say we really want comments, but how many of the comments given truly say anything constructive that you didn't know about your photos? Be honest and look at both the comments you make, and the comments on your photos, and nearly all of them are just variations on "excellent", "great work", "nice composition", "nice colours", blah, blah, blah (no offence to anyone who has said that to my own photos). I do the same myself when feeling the need to comment, but not knowing what to say! How many of them actually say "this is good, but it could be improved by doing this", which is what many of us imply we want to allow us to learn?
So, do comments really achieve anything? It really isn't much different from everyone only ever voting 9 or 10.
On the other hand, in my opinion, the voting has the potential to give a finer differentiation of your photo's quality. Personally, I am not really concerned with the competition and whether I get on the top-rated page. I just want to get feedback on the relative merit of my photos.
The problem is that the voting system is abused. So, you just have to make that stronger. I have said this before, and someone else suggested it a long time ago, you need to normalize the scoring.
So, for example, if someone (A) always votes 9-10, a 9 vote from them is not that good. Whereas, if someone else (B) always votes 5-9, then a 9 vote from that person has much more value.
To do that, you just scale the votes by the some arbitrary reference point value divided by the average vote given by the voter.
There are a few benefits to this. First of all, it combats the trolls who always vote low (or the anti-trolls who always vote 10), or even use false accounts to pump up their own score. It makes the score much harder to decode who voted what. The actual rating because a little more mysterious (much like the 500px scoring, which I am sure no-one understands!). Hence, retaliation is less likely to happen, thus freeing us up to vote more honestly. I can feel that relief already.
Maybe you also add something for the number of favourites also. Add an extra percentage to the scaling perhaps.
I am sure this is not perfect, and that there is probably some way around it. But, I think it is probably harder to abuse, and better than the current voting scheme.
The other issue is how you get your photos seen. The best way to do that is not via being on the top-rated screen. You need to comment a lot, and add people to your snaplist, and hope that this triggers people to look at your work. After all, when someone comments on my photos, I always take a look at theirs. So, essentially, you build up this community of friends, which is another thing that I think we all want to see from this. So again this helps combat the trolls, since you now have this community of people voting and commenting whose opinion we trust.
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (4:40pm) PDT
@Barbara Jones - I actually really like google plus.I have pretty much cut out all other photo sharing sites other than NaturePhotographers.net and gPlus.NPN is the best place to go on the net for an honest critique by talented people.However you have to pay to join.And google plus is just completely different than 72dpi.It isn't a photo sharing site, although its photo capabilities are pretty awesome, and the membership is massive.I really have just used it to meet people in my area who shoot things I shoot.It has been a ton of fun.
I am still undecided about 72dpi.I joined because a friend suggested that the people who run the site listen to feedback and fix things quickly, and boy is that right.So I have some hope that they will figure out a solution to these problems that have plagued all of the big photo sites to date.I never got in to flickr or 500px because of the you scratch my back I scratch yours thing.I am not actively trying to make a professional career with my photography, so I don't NEED the exposure, and therefore I only go to sites that I enjoy using.I am here keeping my fingers crossed!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (4:36pm) PDT
If that was a gentle suggestion that I move on, I'll decline.
Like, I think everyone else, I like these people and whatever they decide I will live with. Actually by opting out of voting I'm rather content. Just voicing my opinion of what I think, just like you and others.
Charlie
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 19th, 2012 (4:04pm) PDT
Well Charlie, I joined a week after you did...and got a 6 on my first upload !! So strategy was already an "issue". Google+ is a social sharing site for those that don't want the voting system as is Facebook. ( I hate Facebook ! )
Scott, you have some good points.
A "Critique Corner" is a fantastic idea for those that do want to improve their skills. My Thanks to all concerned in this discussion for being so civil !
(@scottmiller) Scott Miller said:March 19th, 2012 (3:34pm) PDT
The issue is that this is the internet.There really is no way to stop people from gaming any rating system for their own gain.You want to split the 'top dog' pages by category of user?People will just claim to be a different category of user.Or they will give people in other categories honest scores and downgrade all of the people in their own.Ultimately it is very hard to keep photo sharing sites from being a 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' community as they get bigger.In my opinion, once you have a sufficiently high number of viewers the chosen voting system becomes irrelevant.Once you have enough people looking at your photos that every one has over a hundred votes, then that one troll rating you a 3 really has next to no impact.Plus the impact will be felt by all pretty evenly.The ratings troll is only a problem when the number of viewers on an image is relatively small (as they are now) or if trolls can create multiple accounts easily.The bigger long term issue in my mind is how to give different people a chance to have their photos scene at all.Once you have thousands of photos coming in per day, new members really will get lost in the shuffle.
The only places I have seen that maintain a consisten quality are those that are paid communities.And really, it has nothing to do with the money, the need to pay just keeps membership low, so everyone has a chance to see EVERY other picture posted.So there is no need to game the system to get your image viewed.It will get viewed, and commented on if it is good.There is also no need to rate images.When there are only 20 a day, you don't need that mechanism to filter out the good ones.
My thoughts ended up being more fatalistic than I meant them to be.:)Oh well, they are still my thoughts.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (3:31pm) PDT
And Barbara you must certainly know that the problem of scoring conflicts were not present when many joined.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (3:29pm) PDT
Hasn't there been a suggestion of just a "like" and "Fav" choice offered. If someone chooses not to like, there is no reason IMO to have a specific "dislike" choice. In simple terms if you choose not to "like" you have in effect voted otherwise.
Charlie
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 19th, 2012 (3:21pm) PDT
I am left wondering why those members that are AGAINST voting joined this site in the first place ?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 19th, 2012 (3:19pm) PDT
None of us want to be downgraded by somebody who wants to step on us to get up, Charlie - in that, I think we're all in agreement. All I was suggesting was to provide a level playing field for all those who want to be "competitive" so that the pro's don't get it all their own way, and the happy snappers get their chance to be in the limelight. Those who don't want to be "competitive" don't have to be - they can always remove their images from the voting system, and nobody is forcing them to vote on other people's images. I agree with you about simplifying the voting system, because it's largely meaningless at the moment for the reasons that Paul stated. Whether it should be simplified to a simple Like/Dislike system (with a Dislike being implicitly a "failure to Like" rather than a negative, and troll-vulnerable, vote), I don't know. Intuitively, I would think not because there a various standards of "liking" an image - you really need to distinguish between "I like it" and "I like it a lot".
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (2:55pm) PDT
Why do I always not quite agree, Karl. "Top dog" is not what most of us want to be. We want to, not be, downgraded by some who do want to be top dog. I will admit that it would be accelerating to find myself at the top, but the way scoring is being done now, I'd feel guilty that it was not honest.
As to the classification of posters by the various names, ie: happy snapper to pro, Do they really mean anything, or anything much. I doubt the management wants to make adjustment after adjustment to scoring and would like to do this right the next change.
Please consider the simplest scoring and what Paul suggests is about that.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 19th, 2012 (2:08pm) PDT
Not guilty at al Karl, sometimes the simplest idea is the solution and that could well work.
Apologies to all too for my earlier rant too but sometimes I just have to get things off my (less than well endowed) chest
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 19th, 2012 (1:54pm) PDT
Before this becomes a battlefield with the "pros" and "amateurs" lined up against each other in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and suspicion, let me suggest that this "top dog" problem (which is essentially what this all boils down to) could be easily solved by having a separate "top dog" page for each classification of member - then everybody is in with a fair and equal chance of becoming a "top dog" of some sort. Or am I guilty of looking at things too simplistically?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (1:22pm) PDT
What type of site will this be? Paul asked that question, perhaps worded differently.
Is it to be a business?
Is it to be photography as a "very serious" past time?
Most of us are not here to "pay the bills"
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 19th, 2012 (1:08pm) PDT
I think Barbara is to be commended for her honesty re her thoughts on the financial aspect. Being a hobbyist that aspect hadn't crossed my mind and given this is a site for all levels of photographers maybe the pros can have their own section (or even site ie 72dpi.pros) and leave the rest of us to just enjoy looking, commenting and scoring each others photos without worrying that we will be give a lower vote for daring to step on the pros toes.
(@Paul) Paul Komarek said (72dpi Admin):March 19th, 2012 (1:01pm) PDT
Oh boy. Must.... not.... type.... ugh, I can't help it. Another long post:
I think Barbara presents a very good example in that she too is afraid to even vote an 8 on an image because that's only 'average" in the new 6-10 voting system. She also makes a good point that if you remove the voting, it could just become another Flikr (or 500px I suppose.) But that's not necessarily a bad thing considering that removing the voting would result in more community participation and more accurate representation of an image's quality.
So therein lies the question the site admins need to make a decision on... what TYPE of site will this be?
Having an anonymous 1-10 voting system as there was originally, should, in theory be the most accurate, and when there were a smaller number of users on the site, that was exactly the case. Of course when more people start using the site, you get some "trolls" who mess with the system. With the changes that were made to combat such things, came a system where everyone's afraid to vote a photo less than 6 and so they simply skip the bad photos and vote the average ones an 8 or 9, and the great ones a 10. This compresses all of the photos into votes ranging from 8 to 10. How do you differentiate the good from the great? You don't. You can't.
Removing the voting, implementing a "like" button, and having the best photos determined by the most "favorites" it has, not the most likes which could be abused as well, would solve nearly all of the problems. Combine that with a "Request Critique" button and voila, community participation.
Now I know some people don't like this idea because they think that the score their photo receives is indicative of how great of a photographer they are and they don't want to lose that. But if all of the decent photos are lumped into votes ranging from 8-10, how is that a true indication of your skill? I understand everyone's frustration in wanting the "perfect system" but I don't think that's really possible with this venue. The perfect system would be submitting your photos to an organization like the Professional Photographers of America and having it judged by vetted peers in the photography industry, not by a mix of beginners, amateurs, semi-pros and pros.
So I say, let's just have fun here. Remove the voting, implement a simple like system, encourage critiques, and ultimately create a cool site with high community participation. If you want to know the true level of your skills, submit your photos to a peer reviewed contest at PPA or similar organization where you're somewhat guaranteed to get an accurate score.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 19th, 2012 (12:54pm) PDT
I must be naive because it never crossed my mind that there could be a financial motive.But I still can't see how being at the top of a list in any way enhances the likelihood of someone buying a photo.If I was an editor, I would presumably know the kind of thing I might want to buy and the score a picture was given by (predominately amateur) snappers on a photo sharing site would be unlikely to sway me at all, one way or the other.
The thing I like about being a for fun snapper is that there is no competition or pressure, except that which I put on myself.I would never snap commercially or professionally, even if I suddenly woke up on morning instilled with the ability to do so.For me, it would kill the enjoyment of taking pictures.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:March 19th, 2012 (12:53pm) PDT
I'd like to point out that, the way it's working now, voting is hardly anonymous in many cases.If a photo has 0 votes and you want to vote and comment then it is obvious what your vote is.Similarly, if a photo has a 10 and you want to vote anything lower and comment your vote is known.Any one who keeps an eye on their ratings, even if there are many votes, could figure out who's voting what, and with 'live view' that can be monitored as well. Most of us have neither the time nor the inclination to do that - but we could!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (12:45pm) PDT
Anyway thanks for being candid. It adds, at least, to understanding why some thing are as they are.
Charlie
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 19th, 2012 (12:43pm) PDT
Barb, without making a value judgement of what you say I've thought that this is a cause of some conflict between pro's and amateurs. Most of us want honest judging and some others want top, or close to top ratings = conflict.
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 19th, 2012 (12:32pm) PDT
Typo, missed an "i" out....
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 19th, 2012 (12:31pm) PDT
Stention...the reason many of us want to be Top Rated, apart from a thing called pride,is so that our work gets a high profile and goes on to be published someplace. Many picture editors watch these sites. We all have bills to pay, and every penny counts ! This is a very competitve business, I am afraid !
I suppose I will now be seen as a tactical voter ? Frankly, I am now afraid to vote an "8" even !!! If you remove the voting, then we become just like Flickr...ugh !! No easy answers....
(@itsmarkb) Mark Robert Bein said:March 19th, 2012 (11:13am) PDT
Still would like to see a comment thread, so one can respond to another from a comment left. Rather then have to go to the persons page who made the comment and leave a general remark on there front page,which I rearly see. So many other site can do this, why not you guys?
(@itsmarkb) Mark Robert Bein said:March 19th, 2012 (11:05am) PDT
Besides all the squabbling about voting! Hears a thought regarding renewed visibility of one's already voted on photos.
I find it frustrating that once a pic is voted on it gets lost among all the thousands of other voted pic's. There should be a means able to reinstate / refresh photos for review. Lets say, if someone else views another persons pic on the site, that pic goes into a most recanted view drop down. Or say I chose to edit something on one of my photos. Then that photo would be placed back to the top of the most resent view file. Just thinking ?
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 19th, 2012 (10:12am) PDT
I would consider tactical voting against my pictures to be a compliment.Though I do find it hilarious that anyone cares enough about their position on a top list to deliberately downrate the score of other pictures in an attempt to remain high up.I really don't care less what score anyone gives my photos but I understand that many do and that it annoys them.
I still think that voters should be visible - but maybe with the option for uploaders to turn off the function, if they don't want to know who voted for their pictures or what score they gave.You can't comment anonymously - why should voting be different?Some people comment but don't vote.Some vote but don't comment.Would be interesting to see the stats, I think.
(@Joanot) Joanot said:March 19th, 2012 (2:28am) PDT
The vote shouldn't be anonymous, we will go into a war of
absurd. There are people who are dedicated to giving 6 points to propel their photos and that is not right. Anonymous calls not to vote the net!!!!do something
Think?
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 19th, 2012 (12:16am) PDT
Charlie, leaving aside artificially high or low scores it could just be that some people have some photos that are better than others. Take me for instance, I've been taking street snaps for a couple of years now, this year I started trying my hand at nature photography. Stands to reason that the genre I've been doing longest will be better than the one I've just started. Just a thought. (It's going to get even worse when I start being random ;-) )
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 18th, 2012 (4:41pm) PDT
Would somebody PLEASE explain to me how posters listed on the "Top Photographers" list with a score of 10, have some photos with scores less than 10? Some of the posters that are listed with scores in the high 9's has equally good scores but have been marked down slightly. I'm feeling more and more that scoring is defunct.
Charlie
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 18th, 2012 (4:34pm) PDT
I understand. Retribution is part of that kind of activity.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 18th, 2012 (4:22pm) PDT
Hey Charlie, I don't want to out them on here for fear of retribution (and I don't think it's fair to not give them chance to explain and/or apologise) but both are on the 'Top Rated Photographers' page....
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 18th, 2012 (3:59pm) PDT
You're very welcome Charlie, I like to keep things fragrant
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 18th, 2012 (3:43pm) PDT
Thank you.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 18th, 2012 (3:40pm) PDT
Ah I get you Charlie *sprays air freshener*
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 18th, 2012 (3:32pm) PDT
Hey Dave, Clues?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 18th, 2012 (3:16pm) PDT
I identified 2 tactical voters today who leave great comments in combination with crap scores. The Live Activity feed is great!!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 18th, 2012 (3:11pm) PDT
Silent, But, Deadly. In answer to Doug's last sentence.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 18th, 2012 (3:00pm) PDT
SBD????
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 18th, 2012 (2:30pm) PDT
SBD.................
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 18th, 2012 (2:24pm) PDT
When I were a lad, an engagement score was something you were rewarded with after promising to marry a girl.I can only assume anyone attempting to make theirs as big as possible is labouring under the misapprehension that something similar will come their way here.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 18th, 2012 (2:10pm) PDT
Well, Dave.I'm a mess.My Engagement score has been dropping all day, and I'm a nervous wreck.I think the administrators are messing with me because I complained about those stupid bugs yesterday.I really can't stand it.I may be forced to quit the site if they don't get the Engagement scoring travesty sorted out - it's not fair to us who initially write a very engaging sentence, and then some troll comes along and pastes several paragraphs right afterward. I definitely have to amp up my comment verbiage.Have you ever read War and Peace?And does running on and on like this on the Rant page help to make us more Engagement score-worthy?Holy cow! I just ran out of space on in the comment box and it's automatically expanding down.Administrators! YOU ARE AWESOME!!Anyway, I better go now - THERE! the box did it again!!This is so cool!!But I really have to go now.After all, the length of this post may not jack up my Engagement score, and if I don't leave soon, Charlie may come in and start farting again.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 18th, 2012 (1:15pm) PDT
@Doug, don't waste your time. I'm a man and, as my missus always assures me, men don't read manuals/instructions!
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 18th, 2012 (10:08am) PDT
Re: Freaking weather.Lots of snow in Arizona today as well, but only cold rain and sleet in my town.
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 18th, 2012 (9:21am) PDT
Heck, did I miss the engagement score boat?????rotflmao...
My rant for this morning.... FREAKING WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!There are inches of snow on the west side of Washington state.. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIt is spring time.. time for green and good light and hiking time without needing to dress like it is elk season...
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 18th, 2012 (8:46am) PDT
and on another subject entirely, it's Mothering Sunday here in the UK so Happy Mother's day to all mum's everywhere
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 18th, 2012 (5:47am) PDT
Dave, next time I comment on one of your images I'm going to paste the entire instruction manual for my new camera into your comment box.That ought to send my Engagement score through the roof, because, you know, it's all about the Engagement score.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 18th, 2012 (2:51am) PDT
Sacrebleu!
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 18th, 2012 (1:57am) PDT
My annoyance of today is people who put the same cut & pasted comment on every image they visit, irrespective of the score they give. The particular serial offender I've noticed puts about 6 lines of text to fool the system into giving him 'Engagement' score credits.
(the offending comments are in French by the way!)
Cheers,
Dave.
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 17th, 2012 (4:25pm) PDT
All the bugs have migrated to the Bugs Site, you can barely see to type now for the critters LOL
(@CorrieWhite)  said:March 17th, 2012 (4:16pm) PDT
Oh, man!The bugs are gone :-(
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 17th, 2012 (1:49pm) PDT
anyone else notice that this site seems slow tonight? Lots of whirly thingamajigs.....
(@Leifr) Leif Rasmussen said:March 17th, 2012 (1:28pm) PDT
I think they are Ticks. Beware of Virtual Lime disease, there is virtually no cure.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 17th, 2012 (1:16pm) PDT
Do you think that bigger screens get more bugs?
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 17th, 2012 (12:54pm) PDT
I have broken my monitor trying to squash the little bugs on the screen........
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 17th, 2012 (12:26pm) PDT
Did I mention that I suffer from short term memory loss?
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 17th, 2012 (12:26pm) PDT
Another reason I don't talk to myself is short term memory loss - by the time I've replied, I've forgotten what .. er .. the .. er .......
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 17th, 2012 (10:45am) PDT
It appears that there is now such desperation *it* will try anything.
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 17th, 2012 (10:13am) PDT
Charlie, How nice but I somehow don't think "ME" meant it!!I wonder if he/she knows that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit LOL
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 17th, 2012 (10:07am) PDT
Yeh, Kate he said he liked your photos and he liked mine too. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha..........
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 17th, 2012 (10:02am) PDT
Charlie, I totally missed the thread this morning but heard my name had been mentioned!! Pleased to know I made such an impact on him/her LOL
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 17th, 2012 (9:22am) PDT
I wonder if it really makes a difference if I am at Starbucks on my laptop, or at home using my calibrated monitor and I make comments about peoples photos??????Should it?
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 17th, 2012 (9:00am) PDT
Funny thing is I can't remember any of the drivel that he/she spouted. Is that an indication of it's importance?
Charlie
(@itsmarkb) Mark Robert Bein said:March 17th, 2012 (8:25am) PDT
I see Bugs!
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:March 17th, 2012 (6:39am) PDT
Bugs? What bugs? Heh-heh.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 17th, 2012 (6:22am) PDT
@sas:I also noticed the 'impotence' on display in that particular post.The grammer cop in me always enjoyed his writing style.:-)
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 17th, 2012 (5:57am) PDT
What bugs? Dude, you're delusional ;)
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 17th, 2012 (5:39am) PDT
Dave, do you also tend to repeat yourself? Dave, do you also tend to repeat yourself?
And, what's up with all these damn bugs crawling around here? I thought they were supposed to be on the bug report page. Uh - everyone else sees them too...right?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 17th, 2012 (4:13am) PDT
Haha, Karl, it's a running joke here in Oz (well, in my half English household anyway!) - there is a vitamin company called Sanitarium.
In answer to the question do I ever argue with myself - of course I do. No you don't.
So that cleared that one up then.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 17th, 2012 (3:40am) PDT
... or even at the state sanatorium, Dave. (or is your spel chekker, like mine, compleetly ficked?)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 17th, 2012 (3:31am) PDT
@ Chris, I asked because I wasn't sure even if there was an etiquette, I've had feedback both by PM and here. It is I time issue I agree (and to reiterate it's nothing to do with you pat my back and I'll pat yours.) I like your idea, it seems the most efficient to me so it's the one I'm going to take on board. Thanks for the feedback.
@Dave do you have a split personality? If so, when you argue with yourself who wins?
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 17th, 2012 (3:12am) PDT
Conflicted. I am certainly that! Add to that my mental problems (see Karl's post) and I think I'll soon be joining 'Me' and 'Buck' at the state sanitarium.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@ChrisO) Chris Oliphant said:March 17th, 2012 (2:35am) PDT
Hmmmm - reading these comments with interest. I'm with Dave re: the thanking for comments etc. my time is limited, and I've taken the view( it works for me in relation to time management,) that instead of going to each individuals portfolio and thanking them for votes/ comments/ adding to raves/ snap lists etc , I'm simply adding a ' thanks for all visits and comments" to my own portfolio page every once in a while. I don't see this as me being discourteous to all who have voted etc, I simply think if I visited every one individually, by the time I had done that I would have precious little time for viewing uploads and commenting. I choose to utilise my time here, looking at, and commenting/voting on others work. I'm truly gratefulfor comments and visits to my portfolio, and I certainly don't want to appear rude by not thanking those who do visit. It's horses for courses, and for me , a "broad" thank you on my own portfolio page to allthose who visit is my way of handling it.
I honestly didn't realise, until I read this thread, that it was a contentious issue for some members. I assumed , rightly or wrongly, that there is no set etiquette re: thanking people, so have always done it in a matter that utilises my time spent on site efficiently.
Thanks for your time in reading my two cents worth :-)
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 17th, 2012 (2:29am) PDT
Big lens as penis extension Doug? Could inject some fun into the proceedings......
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 17th, 2012 (2:22am) PDT
Sas, how about I re-register and act like I'm John Wayne with a camera?That would restore some of the ambience that this thread has been missing.What do you say, pilgrim?
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 17th, 2012 (2:07am) PDT
I propose that all posts in here are unable to be edited or deleted, especially as a certain pro snapper who has now departed made a Freudian slip in a response to me, I believe the word desired was importance, the word originally posted was impotence. It certainly made me smile but was edited out soon after.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 17th, 2012 (1:59am) PDT
Charlie may enjoy farting (who doesn't), but he was referring to a comment which was later deleted.The way the thread now reads it appears that poor Dave is pretty conflicted with himself.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 17th, 2012 (1:47am) PDT
@ Dave Cox I agree re the door thing, and also when you hold the door open for one and what feels like hundreds also walk in.
PS was a post deleted or did Charlie just feel like coming in and farting? *sprays air freshener*
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 17th, 2012 (1:08am) PDT
I never talk to myself, Dave - largely because I'm partially deaf in one ear and I have to keep asking myself to repeat what I'm saying ....
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 16th, 2012 (7:37pm) PDT
Actually, I do talk to myself quite regularly and can also be self righteous on occasion ;)
I'll leave the comment as a testament to @Me and his anonymous, puerile pontificating.
Cheers,
Dave.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 16th, 2012 (7:18pm) PDT
What an ass. Must be very lonely.
Charlie
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 16th, 2012 (7:15pm) PDT
Charlie, it looks like Me removed his/her comments.So now it appears that you are responding to Dave, and Dave is calling his own previous post "self-righteous crap".Hilarious.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 16th, 2012 (6:46pm) PDT
Glad I'm not the only one, Doug and Dave.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 16th, 2012 (6:43pm) PDT
Thanks, Dave, but Charlie is the one who said it better.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 16th, 2012 (6:41pm) PDT
Well said Doug. I can't remember ever reading such self righteous crap before.
Dave.
(@drdab99) Doug Benner said:March 16th, 2012 (6:38pm) PDT
Charlie, actually that was masterful.The perfect response to someone who is both anonymous and oh so very self-important.According to the administrators, we are supposed to be smiling when we click "submit".I am laughing out loud.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 16th, 2012 (5:48pm) PDT
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
Phhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrt.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 16th, 2012 (4:16pm) PDT
@Sas,
At the risk of repeating myself, I have never argued the point for not replying to comments. I merely said I often didn't have time.
All comments are, of course, gratefully received but I don't think users should gain extra kudos/points/congratulations for going and answering every single comment or thanking every single addition to a Snaplist. I have to say that a tiny percentage of the comments I've left have been reciprocated and I don't want or expect them to be.
Maybe I should add a comment to my bio explaining this?
As I've said before, if users have the time to do this then that's great - I'm all for it. But equally if they don't have the time to do it is it really that bad? It's not like walking through a door that someone's held open for you and not saying thanks is it? Or is it? I don't know!! And that really does piss me off!! What I do know is if every user reciprocated every comments then people's 'walls' would be 10 pages long of "Thanks for your comments on 'XXX'" comments. Is that really what we want?
Cheers,
Dave.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 16th, 2012 (2:29pm) PDT
Karl that made me smile :D
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 16th, 2012 (2:29pm) PDT
@Karl - Good one on the curtains. At least she had a comment, which is more than I can come up with sometimes ;^)
I like stormy black and white to match my mood!
(@PhotosEcosse) Barbara Jones said:March 16th, 2012 (2:17pm) PDT
Karl...What happens when she changes the curtains ?...
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 16th, 2012 (2:11pm) PDT
Regarding Dayne's and Sten's comments about liking/disliking, I was once asked to provide a framed print (quite a large and profitable one as it happened) of an image that I didn't regard as one of my best. Out of curiosity, I asked the purchaser (a lady) why she chose that particular one and not one of the others. She told me that while she loved all the others, none of them quite matched her curtains to the extent that this one did. There are a million and one reasons why people like particular images - but I'd not come across this one before!
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 16th, 2012 (12:46pm) PDT
have to say I agree with both Stentionhouse and with Dayne
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 16th, 2012 (11:17am) PDT
I agree with Stention on the liking of photos. Sometimes, it is difficult to know what to say (for both good, very good, and even bad), but you want to show your appreciation. And that is why I personally do not like being forced to comment. Voting allows you to show you like the photo, even if they do not quite make your favourites. But, the key is we have to be honest, not politically correct nor deceptive.
To me photography is an art, and so it's power is the emotional connection you get. Different people make that connection in very different ways, both pro and amateur, technical or otherwise. Often times, one just cannot put your finger on what you like - you just do! Also, photos do not have to be technically good to make that connection. That is why I disagree with some of the suggestions of different ratings for different skill levels made by a certain pro who thought he was better than us all.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 16th, 2012 (9:47am) PDT
Regarding critique, maybe there should be an additional section where people can submit pictures specifically to be commented upon in depth, for those who want such feedback and for those who are happy to give it.
Can't speak for anyone else but I usually know what's wrong with pictures I take.I can see if something is a bit overexposed or the composition isn't as good as it could be.But I've seen something in the picture that I like and hope others will see that too.
For me, the number of comments/faves/views and to a lesser extent the score speak for themselves.Often it's difficult to say exactly why you like a picture - you just do.Other times an image is so clearly exceptional for whatever reason that there really isn't much to say beyond 'outstanding shot' or whatever.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 16th, 2012 (9:21am) PDT
Now then Josh, I think you've read my mind. My next post (this one now) was going to be to suggest a place (or an additional bouquets title to this thread) to post things that please us rather than things that annoy us. For instance one thing that pleases me is that the admins here really do listen to their members.
(@joshyboi) josh fuess said:March 16th, 2012 (9:08am) PDT
WOW, I just read a whole bunch.. Comedy at 3am lol. We humans find the worst in everything and best in nothing it seems.
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:March 16th, 2012 (8:30am) PDT
I think you have it right Sas, it's just plain good manners and decency to show appreciation for peoples time and effort to make comments and critiques on your work. I was always brought up to say please and thank you, I don't see why here should be any different, just decency and civility. Personally I feel no obligation whatever to reciprocate comments if I have recieved favourable ones from anyone.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 16th, 2012 (8:16am) PDT
Not a rant but a query about etiquette, it differs from place to place. Now if I have time I like to thank people if they have taken time to look and to comment on my photos. It has noting to do with 'you pat my back and I'll pat yours' but everything to do with manners. Now if it's not the done thing here then I'll happily refrain. But if it is the done thing then where do I leave my thanks? On the image or on someone's gallery wall?
Your views welcome please. Thank you.
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 16th, 2012 (6:31am) PDT
I'm going to launch a personal experiment, in the interest of my own personal growth and maturity.I'm very pleased and humbled by the votes I have received so far, but I'm going to disable voting on all my existing photos and explicitly ask for feedback on them from everyone who sees this message in the 'Rant and Rave' section.I will also send a similar message to everyone on my Snaplist. I promise that I will not defend my images or dispute or debate the feedback, and I *will not* retaliate in any way, now or ever.I look forward to helpful, honest feedback given in good faith and good humor!
Next week I will be away from 72dpi, travelling to Seattle with my family for spring break.I hope to return with some great images to share here, and I'll decide later whether to include them in voting or not.Thanks for your support in this experiment!
(@CorrieWhite)  said:March 16th, 2012 (3:55am) PDT
I agree.Voting doesn't have as much meaning anymore.Critique isn't very welcome.
(@Leifr) Leif Rasmussen said:March 16th, 2012 (1:15am) PDT
@ Dave and Dayne,
I'm give you both a 10 for that. LOL
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 16th, 2012 (12:14am) PDT
@Dayne,
Yes, it's completely ridiculous, given that 10 is perfection!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 15th, 2012 (11:25pm) PDT
I just made the mistake of looking at the top-rated view. 80 photos with the perfect 10 score. Incredible!!!
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 15th, 2012 (7:27pm) PDT
That is to bad.. I think you are one of the valuable people on this site...to learn from.Again, your wildlife photography is amazing...
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (7:25pm) PDT
@ John Poyner
If you want to learn photography from me, your the only one that does ....... but to tell you the truth no one else here now wants anything to do with me so I took the right steps to make that happen ..... I'm out of here
Have fun
"BUCK"
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 15th, 2012 (7:17pm) PDT
@ Buck, First of all, thank you for your service to our country.My hat is off to you and I offer my handshake.
I put down that I am a hobbyist because I have never had any formal training or someone that would help me get better.I take photos and then compare them to other's photos and try to figure out what I did right and wrong.If your comment about teaching anyone how to take better pictures is an offer, I volunteer.I think you take amazing pictures, and would like to learn from you.Since my first love is Wildlife.
@ everyone, I think this whole voting and commenting issue has everyone a bit wound up.I know I have spoken my mind quite liberally here.I am going to do my best to not say another thing about it, until the powers that be implement something to try and then give them my thoughts.I am here to learn, and meet and network with other photographers.Not argue with people.
Finally, Buck, I apologize if what I said was out of line.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 15th, 2012 (7:13pm) PDT
That should "over inflated".
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 15th, 2012 (7:11pm) PDT
Cut the BS Buck. What if I say you need to get off this site because you have an elevated opinion of yourself.
Charlie
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (6:53pm) PDT
@Kate Thomas .... no ........ you need to get off this site because you are not good enough ....... go to flickr ..... they'll like you there
"BUCK"
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 15th, 2012 (6:48pm) PDT
BUCK..
OMG Just get off that pedestal you've put yourself on.For Christ sake who the hell do you think you are..And NO I will not keep my nose out. I am part of this site, just as you are,and YES I have read the dribble you've written.YOU have to earn respect like everyone else and as far as I'm concerned you've not managed that just yet!!!Set up your own web site Buck because you are FAR TOO GOOD FOR TIS SITE!!
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (6:29pm) PDT
@ Kate Thomas
I'd rather you just keep your nose out of anything I say ...... because you just haven't read anything that I wrote, ..... if you had you would have read that I don't have anything against hobbyist or amateurs.... I just would like to be able to have them say something other than "CUTE", "PRETTY", I feel like sometimes I'm in kiddy land..... my god ..... grow up and give some respect to the photographers that are on here and that have some great images that need to be critiqued with some dignity. Stop this class warfare that's going on. Even some hobbyists and amateurs on here have some really good work that get no respect ........ because everyone is into this I'll get back at you mentality ..... or this voting freud thats going on
"BUCK"
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 15th, 2012 (6:05pm) PDT
BUCK..
What I said was - "The pictures you had to take must have been horrific"That is not patronising, I really meant, It must have been horrific, and I am not judging - YOU ARE.You PATRONISE AMATEURS/HOBBYIST/HAPPY SNAPPERS.I repeat, this site is for everyone interested in photography - NOT JUST FOR BUCK SHRECK, PRO PHOTOGRAPHER...
(@MimEisenberg) Mim Eisenberg said:March 15th, 2012 (5:48pm) PDT
As Rodney King said long ago, "Can't we all just get along?" C'mon, people. Play nice.
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (5:47pm) PDT
@Jeff Morley.........
I didn't blow a gasket ..... if you would have read ... I said.... No disrespect jeff
"BUCK"
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 15th, 2012 (5:44pm) PDT
Don't blow a gasket, Buck.I was trying to be nice.Sorry.
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (5:39pm) PDT
@ Jeff Morley .......
No disrespect jeff .... but It was my choice not yours to make ... and it's not yours to tell me what I should or shouldn't put up ...... if you want to put something like that up go for it, but please do not even suggest what you would do if you was me .... cause your not me.
"BUCK"
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 15th, 2012 (5:33pm) PDT
Hey BUCK.First of all, thanks for your service.Second, you might want to take a fresh look at the bio on your website.It leaves out your Marine Corps service, the Stars & Stripes duty and the formal photography education you mention below.If I had that kind of experience in my background, I'd at least consider including it in my website bio.
(@Michael) Michael D. Friedman said:March 15th, 2012 (5:31pm) PDT
I think it would be nice if everyone took a deep breath and calmed down, PLEASE.It's one thing to have friendly disagreements, and another to get personal and nasty.enough said
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (5:31pm) PDT
@ Kate .....
How dare you patronize .... and how dare you sit there on your high horse and tell me what you think I went through .... you know dick .....and you certainly know nothing of what I just wrote .... all you want to do is be the judge of me and that does not fly with me. And no you shouldn't butt in .... keep your dirty nose out of it.
"BUCK"
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 15th, 2012 (5:18pm) PDT
BUCK..
I know your comment is directed at John Poyner so forgive me for butting in.
My late husband served in the armed forces for 24yrs. In that time he too saw his fair share of death and destruction - but that did not suddenly turn him into a FIELD Marshal, or even down to a GENERAL.What I'm trying to say is that despite the horrendous pictures you had to take whilst serving in Viet Nam - and God knows they must have been horrific - it did not suddenly turn you into a PRO photographer despite what you say.You started at the bottom so please stop slating HOBBYISTS/AMATEURS/HAPPY SNAPPERS.This site is for everyone interested inphotography - not just for BUCK SHRECK
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (4:26pm) PDT
@ John Poyner .......
First off John .......I started photography while I was in the Marines in Viet Nam ..... I was handed a camera in the field and was told to take pictures and to report to Stars and stripes headquarters........ So no I was not a hobbyist..... I was a photo journalist ....... but I will assure you sir by the time I got back to the states and went to collage for photography, I would be able to call myself more than an advanced-ameture if there even is such a title ....... for me hobbyist are just picture takers that have no idea or will to become photographers .... they are just picture takers .... that's all .....
I would like to be able to teach anyone on 72 to be able to take images that they could be proud of, plus so that I could be able to give a good critique to and future more, for them to be able to give me a critique that means something other than "cute". If you or others are reading into my comments they you might think I am against hobbyists ..... I assure you that I am not, but I will tell you this ...... I have seen a few very good photo sites go down the tubes because of the same reason of whats going on here on 72 ..... and I just don't want 72 to go that way.
"BUCK"
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 15th, 2012 (3:58pm) PDT
Wonderfully put Jeff
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 15th, 2012 (3:54pm) PDT
As an acknowledged amateur photographer, I feel very fortunate.I say this because there are certain photographs that give me a rush of excitement and emotion, and I revel in it.Some of my own photos cause this, and many, many photos on this site cause the same feelings.I love wandering around this and other sites because I am continually seeing photographs that stir something in me.I'm happy to say that I don't first react to the technical perfection or lack thereof, nor does the commercial potential of an image ever enter my mind.I guess I'd say I feel like I did in Little League baseball when I was 10 years old:I'm having fun, I want to improve, and its exciting.I hope I never lose my enthusiasm and sense of wonder for this art and craft we call photography.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 15th, 2012 (3:09pm) PDT
Me too.
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 15th, 2012 (3:09pm) PDT
@ Charlie... never been much for finesse...Always been the bull in a china closet type person.Never known any other way.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 15th, 2012 (3:00pm) PDT
I know your frustration John, Maybe I'd word it slightly different but you're saying much how I feel.
Charlie
(@BearConceptions) John Poyner said:March 15th, 2012 (2:52pm) PDT
@ Buck...Wow man, and here I thought I gave a pretty good comment/review of your "Early to Rise, Early to Rut" photo...I guess I need to just give up since I am a HOBBYIST, take my photos down, forget ever giving anyone any comments that may be considered constructive, and limit my vocabulary to cute, nice, wow, and maybe add in a few awesomes here and there...Since the only ones in your mind that can give great comments or reviews are the "pros" on here.That is the tone that is coming across in your posts.
My question is this???Were you not once an amateur?A hobbyist?Or did you go buy a DSLR and instantly sell your pictures for hundreds or thousands of dollars, without any growing pains, learning curve, or doing things that were not "professional" quality?
Ithink you take great photographs, exceptional ones.But even you started somewhere.
Dang, I should get off here .... not in a great mood, and class warfare is bad enough in politics... even worse in something like this...
As for Mr. Gene..... well, my blocking him and his trolls I found have stopped the 6's for now...how long it lasts is another matter...
As for my RANT,why do I have to suffer financially for the stubborn stupidity of the idiot politicians in this country...Personally, all those politicians need to take about a 300% pay cut and have to pay for their own fuel costs so they can understand why this economy is going down the tubes.I bet they would be jumping on the do what it takes to fix this without raising taxes bandwagon......
*commence bashing head against wall....
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 15th, 2012 (2:21pm) PDT
Nice to see I'm not a specified target today, though I suspect I'm now ranked amongst all amateurs/hobbyists.
Oh and well said Stentionhouse *round of applause*
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 15th, 2012 (1:40pm) PDT
@Karl:Always seems odd to me that the cyclists are riding for their "health", yet putting life and limb in grave danger by being on the road with cars and trucks!
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 15th, 2012 (1:36pm) PDT
My rant for the day? Cyclists who cycle 4-abreast, at 10mph, in front of a queue of cars full of drivers struggling to convince themselves that murder is not a sensible option. Oh yes - and people who come up to me when I'm working with a camera set up on a tripod and ask "Are you taking photographs?" End of rant - more tomorrow.
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 15th, 2012 (12:30pm) PDT
STENTION HOUSE -Wish I'd thought of saying that!!
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 15th, 2012 (12:15pm) PDT
Regarding scores, I generally only comment and vote on pictures I like a lot.There are numerous excellent photos on this site but not all that many I come across that really catch my eye (I don't have a huge amount of time to sift as thoroughly as I'd like).So, when I vote it's normally for pictures I consider to be excellent (9) or outstanding (10).
Then again, I have a very small brain and limited vocabulary, being an amateur snapper, which obviously limits my ability to process information and turn it into actions such as giving some pictures an 8 and making comments such as 'I find you photograph mildly pleasing on a very basic, look at the pretty colours level.But your composition could be better and your pink orchids would certainly be significantly enhanced if you snapped them using a 50mm 1.4 lens in the late afternoon sunshine through a polarizing filter, rather than with a cheap and nasty kit lens at midday.'
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (12:05pm) PDT
@ Jeff Morley, Kate Thomas ..... look who's being a prickly mouth now ........
"BUCK"
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 15th, 2012 (11:56am) PDT
BUCK
Do you ever have anything decent to say about Amateurs/Hobbyists?If someone wants to say "cute" in a comment then that's up to them. If they want to vote 10's then it's their choice but they don't expect to get snide remarks just because they vote/comment different to you!!
Kate
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 15th, 2012 (11:52am) PDT
Ok, "BUCK", you're right.That tab sucks, and the only redeeming aspect of 72dpi is the opinion of "Pro" photographers.Give it a rest, man!
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 15th, 2012 (11:06am) PDT
@ Jeff Morley ..... All I see is 3 different 'Hobbyist" going at it voting and commenting ..... voting seems to be a lot of 10's and commenting seems to be a lot of "nice shot, cute "Ect. .... Just saying
"BUCK"
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 15th, 2012 (10:54am) PDT
@ Gevork:The Live Activity tab is a good way to see a large number of the shots that are grabbing attention, irrespective of the vote.
(@Stentionhouse) Stention House said:March 15th, 2012 (10:51am) PDT
Two things vigorously twist my melon.Well, dozens do but two in particular which are snapping related.One is twigs and branches - almost always in the way when you try to snap a bird.Another is people deliberately walking through shots.
I suggest cutting down all trees.Or least stripping every tree of its branches, so it's just basically a log still rooted in the ground; and the introduction of a new law that makes it legal for snappers to taser people who walk through their shots.I'm currently working on a grip with built in 10,000 volt surge system.I just hope I don't get the shutter and taser buttons mixed up.Again... ;)
(@photodoc) Gevork Mosesi said:March 15th, 2012 (9:51am) PDT
Once a photo has been voted on, it falls of the new list. I understand that. Unless the people who know you and have you in their snaplist, there is no other way to get more exposure. the photos get on the top list based on algorithm. if you dont meet that "qualifications", your photo will no longer be visible to the general public.
I see this as a flaw, because I have no way of seeing others' work unless I know them and I have them in my snaplist. I believe there should be a general category, where photos are just listed as a chronological order, not based on any votes, so that people can still view them, and vote on them as they wish. What this is really promoting is a popularity contest, where the more people you know, the more visibility you can get. I just think there has to be a fair way to get your photosto be visible. Before this occurred, I was getting a fair amount of exposure, and just in the past few days, nada!!!
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 15th, 2012 (8:56am) PDT
Karl, while I said ignore him I didn't suggest that we "sweep his activity under the rug", which IMO it would be if we stop talking about it and only send emails to management. Management has developed a definitely open way for us to express our feeling about activity here and our open posting, I THINK, is having a good effect.
Why have you on numerous occasions suggesting we quiet down and "chill"? I don't see ranting here (other than mine :-)). And I see real benefit from exposing the troll constantly.
Charlie
(@jaykay72) John Kortland said:March 15th, 2012 (7:40am) PDT
Getting back to the main reason for this thread I hate those sachets of ketchup and sugar you get everywhere, you can never get them open and when you do it goes all over you grrrrrr ! Also, why do people stop and have a conversation right in the midde of the supermarket entrance, or worse, block the aisle with their trollies (USA = Carts) while talking, and another thing, why is it the micro second you press the shutter some tourist appears right in your line of sight and then has the cheek to ask you to take a picture of them with their camera ? ? ? Rant mode deactivated.
Re Me or whoever they are today : I agree with Karl, don't fall into the trap of letting one sad character influence proceedings.
(@shuggie) Karl Williams said:March 15th, 2012 (6:52am) PDT
Hey, c'mon guys - let's chill out on the @ME issue before it starts to take over.
Yes, I know a lot of people (including me) are getting thoroughly irritated with the incessant personal sniping - but it's not as if we're dealing with a hashish-maddened, wife-beating and child-killing Genghis Khan on a rape-and-pillage mission here. All we're dealing with is some insignificant attention-seeker who can only get attention by posting inflammatory comments, by flouncing off the site (with a suitably dramatic announcement) when nobody pays much attention to the comments, and by returning 5 minutes later with another dramatic announcement (presumably for the benefit of those who hadn't even noticed the previous departure) and another inflammatory post. Occasionally, that individual will pluck up enough courage to send a personal message (suitably anonymous of course - courage has its limits you know!) to somebody with a "Yah Boo" accusation of something or other, but that's about as far as it goes.
In the latter case, the best thing to do is to copy the message to 72dpi (info@72dpi) with a request for them to take the appropriate action; in all other cases, the best course of action is to do what Charlie has suggested in his own inimitable way (nice one, Charlie!) - turn your back and ignore him/her, however great the provocation might be to do otherwise (Reminder to self: this applies particularly to you, boy!). He (or she) will soon get fed up and leave us alone.
(@davercox) Dave Cox said:March 15th, 2012 (3:10am) PDT
Does anyone think people might be taking this whole issue just a tad too seriously?
If a grown man's idea of fun lies in impersonating people (some of the opposite sex) on the Internet then just leave him to it! He sounds like a complete fruitcake but hounding him off the site would remove a great source of amusement.
What a pantomime!!
Cheers,
Dave.
(@cedge) chris edge said:March 15th, 2012 (2:19am) PDT
If anyone is interested, GENE LOWINGER, in his own words, "has snuck through the back door" at 500px and now calls himself Gene Lowing. LOL.
(@Kate) Kate Thomas said:March 15th, 2012 (1:41am) PDT
ME
I've received your private maessage and haven't a damn clue what your're talking about.WHAT 7 MESSAGES HAVE I POSTED???????????????????????????????
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (11:03pm) PDT
It is nothing Buck. Just the whining of a lost soul who has had his hat handed to him twice that I know of.
Ignore him.
Charlie
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 14th, 2012 (10:35pm) PDT
Hmmmmm ......... Now is the question ..... what to do .... what to do about it ..... This is not good
"BUCK"
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (10:13pm) PDT
The same, Buck.
Charlie
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 14th, 2012 (10:09pm) PDT
@ Carrie ......

Is this the same Gene Lowinger, that use to play for the Bill Monrow Blue grass back in the day, that turned Street photographer???? ...... If it is..... and only if it is, ..... then he's the one that made trouble on 500px ..... and I'm only saying if that's the same Gene Lowinger ........ I also have a pic of him too ..... but I'm just wondering .........
"BUCK"
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (10:08pm) PDT
Anyone who is interested might look at the "New Photographers" listing and notice a lot of new members with "0" photos and not votes or comments. Is this strange? Will they have some co-ordinated mission sometime?
Am I becoming paranoid? Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha.
Charlie
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (10:00pm) PDT
Or just delusion.
charlie
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (10:00pm) PDT
Yep, I think it may well be the whimp himself. He said a few posts back "Third:While I have removed my photo's from this site and indicated so on my "page",..."
It is certainly not slander to say that activity like this *could* to be alcohol or drug related.
Charlie
(@CorrieWhite)  said:March 14th, 2012 (9:24pm) PDT
@Charlie.I'll lay bets it's Gene Lowinger.He had a lot to say at the beginning, but his name is gone now.Seems he can't stop.
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (8:52pm) PDT
I don't talk to walls and am not interested in talking to someone who wishes to stand behind one. You make innuendo claims of slander and other things I'm unsure of and only if you state who you are and talk straight will I continue with you. Otherwise, I'm done with you.
Charlie
(@CharlieBaugh) Charlie Baugh said:March 14th, 2012 (7:24pm) PDT
It might be helpful if you said who you are talking to and about.
Also who you are and what is your name?
Charlie
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 14th, 2012 (3:14pm) PDT
@SAS ......
I am not going to keep playing tennis with you ma'm ...... since I looked up who you are, I have to keep my mouth shut, for I was taught better by my own mother not to argue with my elders and especially women ..... so please except my apologies , for I will not ban tie with you anymore.
"BUCK"
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 14th, 2012 (3:08pm) PDT
If you like rants and raves, you will find this one amusing.
http://genelowinger.blogspot.com/2012/03/photosharing-trolls-and-such.html
For reference, this was a certain person who appeared to have been very deceptive and abusing the 72DPI system using pseduonyms to inflate his own ratings, although you would not know that from his blog post.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 14th, 2012 (3:05pm) PDT
@BUck - please post an example and a link of what you consider crybabying - let's see if others agree or not
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 14th, 2012 (2:58pm) PDT
@SAS like I said before .... your opinion
"BUCK"
(@mezzoduomo) Jeff Morley said:March 14th, 2012 (2:16pm) PDT
RANT ON:My local bookseller (only one remains) has every single photography magazine on the shelf.That is, every one dedicated to gear, gear reviews, and gear advertisements.Of all the titles that might showcase great images, well-curated and tastefully displayed, there are none on the shelf.RANT OFF.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 14th, 2012 (1:41pm) PDT
No Buck, you would call it so, I beg to differ
(@Photobuck) Buck Shreck said:March 14th, 2012 (1:17pm) PDT
@ SAS ...... Your right.... I would not call a man or a woman a crybaby ..... just crybabies I call crybabies and if anyone would like to look at the sort of things you wrote about .... they to would call it crybabying ..........
"BUCK"
(@DayneReast) Dayne Reast said:March 14th, 2012 (12:35pm) PDT
This is so funny! Make a place for ranting and raving, and no-one has much to say. When there is something to discuss (such as the voting), there is so much ranting and raving. Human nature, I guess.
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 14th, 2012 (11:44am) PDT
iphones (and all other mobiles with a camera) are phones not cameras
(@sasastro) sas astro said:March 14th, 2012 (11:03am) PDT