| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2002 02:46:28 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by iban:
Sorry, but a 1 does not denote a total lack of technical, artistic and aesthetic skill, a 1 denotes "Very Bad" according to the rating system. To be very bad is one thing, to another person very bad is something completely different. Look at the statue of David. To one person it is a great work of art which shows the human body in it's purest form (a 10). To another person it's horribly distasteful and ugly (a 1).
Just my 00000010 cents.
We'll, if someone feels something is "very" bad there must be something so obvious that it gets a "very" bad versus a just "sorta" bad.
Even the most simple of folk can describe in a few words what about the photo they found "very" bad versus a "sorta" bad.
I don't dispute that there are wider ranges in taste than are even represented on this site. If a photo drove someone to such utter levels of horror and disgust that their very sense of human justice demands a 1 be placed on that photo then can't they grace us all with a few words to go along with their 1?
Something like "Dude, he..hehe, did your dog take that picture, hehe..heh" might even suffice. Seeing that "very bad" photo must have brought up visions of horror so grotesque that more time spent than a sentence might drive the person back into therapy so, just a brief few utterances will suffice.
I mean, even the statue of David deserves a "EWwwww, his thingy is so SMALL!!"
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/14/2002 2:46:53 PM. |
|
|
|
05/14/2002 02:58:22 PM · #27 |
Hokie, do u realize that this thread is going in circles?
|
|
|
|
05/14/2002 03:00:47 PM · #28 |
|
|
|
05/14/2002 03:04:47 PM · #29 |
I like hokie tho.. I'm not gonna give him anymore 1's... :))
|
|
|
|
05/14/2002 03:15:32 PM · #30 |
| I gave everyone 10's this time because it was obvious that not everyone was on the same page. Shucks, even I lost my bookmark on this one. |
|
|
|
05/14/2002 07:36:37 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I like hokie tho.. I'm not gonna give him anymore 1's... :))
I'm gonna hold you too this :-P
Actually, I've run out of energy on the topic and I think I've been giving it too much air time as it is.
Ratings aren't as interesting as discussions but discussions about ratings are sorta boring :-)
Let's talk about jmsetzler's favorite topic and one dear to my heart, nekkid chicks!!! |
|
|
|
05/14/2002 08:23:36 PM · #32 |
nekkid chicks can be fun to photograph.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2002 11:26:44 PM · #33 |
I was just shown this article by someone, and I thought this section is very appropriate here:
"Tyranny of the Twit. Here's how it works — Look at any great rock CD on Amazon. Almost none of them has five stars. Take Astral Weeks, Van Morrison's masterpiece, and perhaps the finest album of last 40 years. Four-and-one-half stars. Same with Revolver, recently voted the greatest rock album of all time. Let it Bleed? Four-and-a-half. Pet Sounds? Four-and-a-half. Also: Blonde on Blonde, Sweetheart of the Rodeo, Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Nevermind? Four-and-one-half each.
Even the great albums that do get five stars, such as Who's Next, only do so because the sheer number of five star reviewers overwhelms the handful of outright pans. But the contrary voices continue to grow. Give those albums time: one day their half-star will disappear too.
So what's going on? The Tyranny of the Twits. Let enough people post their reviews and you'll get fatuous teenagers who heard the record once and hated it, nihilists who take pleasure in attacking established icons, fanatics who give one star to anything that isn't Metallica, and just plain old, everyday tone-deaf morons.
There is actually a statistical theory of populations that suggests that everything converges towards the mean. It is for precisely that reason the Founding Fathers, in their prescient genius, gave us a republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately, the Internet, especially Web plebiscites, is truly democratic. So in the end, the ignorant, the obsessive and the perverse always carry the day."
|
|
|
|
05/14/2002 11:35:10 PM · #34 |
Lisae..I love you..will you marry me ..my wife will understand :-)
You have found my mantra...Long live the ignorant, obsessive and perverse. >:-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/14/2002 11:37:51 PM. |
|
|
|
05/14/2002 11:56:39 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Lisae..I love you..will you marry me ..my wife will understand :-)
You have found my mantra...Long live the ignorant, obsessive and perverse. >:-
Bah, my boyfriend isn't as understanding as your wife :) |
|
|
|
05/15/2002 12:21:16 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by lisae:
I was just shown this article by someone, and I thought this section is very appropriate here
My late night 2¢.
Looking at the list of CDs on Amazon, there isn't a single one which I would rate as a five-star CD. None of them are really my taste. It doesn't mean I'm "wrong", just that I would disagree with the majority of rock fans and the author of the article. Of course, I'm not likely to go ranking them on Amazon, since I know they are not to my taste.
I think valuable information is sometimes lost by ignoring those who disagree with the norm. I always read the bad reviews looking for information, even if it is the contrarian kind - "Hmm, this guy says the book is way too detailed, but I'm looking for a very detailed book, so this might be a good match for me."
I think what we are going to see more of on the web are people self-segmenting into semi-private groups with similar tastes and looking for references, credentials, or some other form of reputation ranking when they read what someone else has written. A good or bad review by someone with similar tastes is going to carry a lot more weight than one by someone who is dissimilar.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2002 06:10:57 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Bah, my boyfriend isn't as understanding as your wife :)
Ha!.....:-)
|
|
|
|
05/15/2002 06:35:31 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
My late night 2¢.
Looking at the list of CDs on Amazon, there isn't a single one which I would rate as a five-star CD. None of them are really my taste. It doesn't mean I'm "wrong", just that I would disagree with the majority of rock fans and the author of the article. Of course, I'm not likely to go ranking them on Amazon, since I know they are not to my taste.
I think valuable information is sometimes lost by ignoring those who disagree with the norm. I always read the bad reviews looking for information, even if it is the contrarian kind - "Hmm, this guy says the book is way too detailed, but I'm looking for a very detailed book, so this might be a good match for me."
I think what we are going to see more of on the web are people self-segmenting into semi-private groups with similar tastes and looking for references, credentials, or some other form of reputation ranking when they read what someone else has written. A good or bad review by someone with similar tastes is going to carry a lot more weight than one by someone who is dissimilar.
Amphian...I think what lisae may have been getting at is exactly what you're saying in a way. The people that vote have their own agenda, taste, etc.
I disagree with your statement that "valuable information is lost when people ignore people who disagree with the norm" in one respect. When they don't give any information in the first place in their disagreement. And don't give me this "if they disagree that's information enough" BS. Simply stating a score is only the start, setting the field. It does nothing to inform anyone of what the difference is.
And as far as credentials go. Depends on what level of opinion you are trying to get and how much trouble (money, time,) you are going to go through.
In a way credentials are demanded everyday in one form or another. The web especially. I think that is why so many people love to go to these point and click voting/polling sites. It's the one area of the world in their life where someone doesn't ask them for credentials or demand more than a simple "click", regardless of their authority to make that kind of decision in real life.
You go meet a girl for the first time, she is checking your "credentials" out before she even utters a word
:-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/15/2002 6:36:50 AM. |
|
|
|
05/15/2002 10:04:32 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I disagree with your statement that "valuable information is lost when people ignore people who disagree with the norm" in one respect. When they don't give any information in the first place in their disagreement. And don't give me this "if they disagree that's information enough" BS. Simply stating a score is only the start, setting the field. It does nothing to inform anyone of what the difference is.
The same is true of someone who agrees without giving any information. Saying only, "This book is fabulous - buy it!" gives as little information as saying only, "This book sucks - don't buy it!". Of course, nobody minds the first kind of comment on their own work!
Numeric rankings are a quick an easy way to get lots of feedback. They tell you what the general consensus is. Specific suggestions are more helpful, but require more time on the part of the writer. In a system where there are both kinds of feedback, I usually weed out selections using the overall score (I'm not likely to bother to look at a book with one star.), but I read the comments on a book I'm thinking of buying.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2002 10:59:34 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Amphian:
The same is true of someone who agrees without giving any information. Saying only, "This book is fabulous - buy it!" gives as little information as saying only, "This book sucks - don't buy it!". Of course, nobody minds the first kind of comment on their own work!
Numeric rankings are a quick an easy way to get lots of feedback.....
I agree that generic comments are less helpful than more specific comments. I think that goes without saying.
Yes, numeric rankings are a quick and easy way to get feedback. That is, on part, what is so screwed up about society nowadays.
Exit polls, opinion polls, blah, blah, blah.
People are so desperate to take meaningless temperature readings as often as possible that long term thought process are absolutely shot in America.
Take a look at a site called LongBets.org.
They address this very topic, encouraging the developement of long term thinking to fight against this 30 second sound bite mentality we seem to have perfected in America and infecting the rest of the world with.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2002 12:17:40 PM · #41 |
Take a look at a site called LongBets.org.
Very interesting site. Which wager would you place/take?
|
|
|
|
05/15/2002 12:36:25 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by conceptgraphics:
Very interesting site. Which wager would you place/take?
Well, depends. I love seeing the phone companies get stuck. They have absolutely screwed the consumer for years and I would love to see a few of them go under but 2007 is a little close. Maybe in 2010. So that bet looks interesting.
That bet about moon tickets available over the counter by 2020 is total easy money. Heck, they can't even get us from point a to point b via normal airline traffic :-)
Besides, what is at the moon that is intereting enough to justify regualr visits there. I would rather pay for regualr visits to Hawaii that I could afford :-)
|
|
|
|
05/16/2002 01:44:33 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Besides, what is at the moon that is intereting enough to justify regualr visits there. I would rather pay for regualr visits to Hawaii that I could afford :-)
I'd love to see Earth rise or set over the horizon :)
|
|
|
|
05/18/2002 08:33:38 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Amphian:
They address this very topic, encouraging the developement of long term thinking to fight against this 30 second sound bite mentality we seem to have perfected in America and infecting the rest of the world with.
one of my best friends is a successful film photographer, here in DC. she's spent years honing her craft, learning her darkroom skills, and building her reputation for quality.
she thinks that the digital camera craze is just another part of the 'mcdonald's instant gratification' culture.
do we, as digital camera-terians, agree? Discuss.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/18/2002 8:34:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2002 09:03:34 AM · #45 |
I don't know if it much matters. The thing about McDonald'sization is that it's an irresistable force. Anyone in the field, except maybe a handful of fine art folk, will be digital sooner than later. I think what really scares a lot of pros is what digital has done to the learning curve. There are a lot more competent photographers, as a result, and the step from there to good gets shorter and shorter. The jump to great / professional is, IMO, a whole other thing, but having a lot of good amatures around is already having an effect on some photography markets like stock.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2002 09:04:08 AM · #46 |
I got into digital photography because it was too expensive to buy film and process it. I needed something that I could see, if it wasn't good, and it usually wasn't, I could delete and try again. So yea, it's instant gratification, but I am becoming a better photographer and understand how my film camera works now, so I think the ends justifies the means.
Should we start a new thread with this? It doesn't match the subject, not that it matters to me at all. :-) |
|
|
|
05/18/2002 09:54:11 AM · #47 |
sure, we could start a new thread, but i dont think it really matters.
2 me the 2 advantages of digital photography are what both of you have identified:
a) extremely accelerated learning curve due to instantaneous feedback on the cause and effect of altering certain settings or conditions.
and b) complementing a, the nominal costs of experimentation after the initial investment in equipment. or as karmat said, you don't have to buy fillum.
a and b combine to create much lower barriers of entry to this field which has traditionally been a rather esoteric domain.
i think there will be more good photographers now than ever before, but making something widely available still doesn't make everyone good at it, any more than the easy supply of pencils makes everyone good at drawing.
cream will rise to the top, esp in the professional space. but as competition increases, i think pure photo skills will be less important than superlative shmoozing skills. "i'm not the only competent photographer in town but ill make you feel like a million bucks"
Originally posted by karmat:
I got into digital photography because it was too expensive to buy film and process it. I needed something that I could see, if it wasn't good, and it usually wasn't, I could delete and try again. So yea, it's instant gratification, but I am becoming a better photographer and understand how my film camera works now, so I think the ends justifies the means.
Should we start a new thread with this? It doesn't match the subject, not that it matters to me at all. :-)
|
|
|
|
05/18/2002 10:08:11 AM · #48 |
Digital photography is the next evolution of image capture...period...end of story.
Any photographer who thinks otherwise has a very short memory or do not know their craft very well.
I agree with irae in that digital photography has erased barriers to photography for the amatuer/semi-pro. Thank God!!!!!!!!!!
I am educated in marketing/communication so I have always had to deal with photographers in my different career paths and learn some rudimentary skills myself so I could help visualize my needs. One of the great barriers to a person like me who often finds himself in need of photographs is not being able to have the time to take an image from concept to completion by myself.
Somewhere along the way I had to involve a lab and that meant time which meant I was better off getting a photographer just to take the photo and run with it to the end. Even if that photographer was not SIGNIFICANTLY better than me in creating the image I needed his sole purpose tasking, his time to screw with the image editing to a degree.
This forced me to deal with a lot of Semi-Pros who either could not understand directions, were notorious for not meeting deadlines or just did not give a rip about my meager assignment.
Well, adios to those clowns...and good riddance!!!!
Those are probably the people who will get hurt the most..the small shop who made a living at taking mediocre pictures and holding the public hostage.
The true professionals that have a professional eye, an understanding of how to workflow in a deadline and still bring something more to the table than technology will always make a living. And I have a feeling that living will include the use of digital :-) |
|
|
|
05/18/2002 10:32:28 AM · #49 |
I believe that digital photography will eventually replace film for a lot of things. Not everything, but most things...
I see great advantages in digital photogrpahy, especially for the novice photographer. There is a very low cost (after the camera purchase) to learn the art.
The problem I see with digital photography, if it's a problem at all, is that certain aspects of the photography art will be lost. With a film camera, the framing and composition must be done completely with the camera. The film dark room has its limits as to what can be done with post processing.
A photographer who learns the skill with a film camera can move to digital very easily. One who learns with the digital camera and post processing tools like Photoshop will find it discouraging to shoot film...
|
|
|
|
05/18/2002 12:20:43 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
With a film camera, the framing and composition must be done completely with the camera.
Um... no way. The resolution advantage that film offers makes cropping much easier with film, at least when making enlargements off the negative. With digital you lose detail pretty quickly when you start to crop, but you can take a pretty small portion of a 35mm neg and make a very good large print. If you're shooting slides or chromes you're stuck with framing and composing in camera, but that's a pretty tiny fraction of total film exposures.
|
|
