Changes are afoot!

[gstark]

Or at hand, if you prefer.

The first of a couple of enhancements we have in mind has just been put into place.

As you know, some members feel a need to strut their stuff, but as a general rule, this forum is not where that should happen - your images more correctly should reside in your own personal gallery.

So, when you update your gallery, you now have a place to tell us about it.

But there's a catch ... and here's where the fun begins.

As the gallery owner, you are NOT permitted to post any of your images. Just the link to the gallery. Of course, you're free to tell us something about the gallery, but the mods will delete any images that you post from your own gallery.

However .... visitors to your gallery are welcome to post one or two images each from your gallery, along with comments as to why they fancy (or perhaps don't fancy) the images being linked to.

Critiques of images are NOT permitted in this section, and images posted in this section will not be considered for PotW, unless, of course, the same image gets posted by the author in another, eligible section.

You need to note that this section's posts are excluded from the "Recent Posts" listings on the front page. That means that you should look directly for posts here. Please let me know how this aspect (excluding it from recent posts) works for you. In some ways it's not as convenient, but .... Also note that threads in this section will expire after 14 days without any posts.

And ... a great start for the early posters there.


Many thanks to Peter (Stubbsy) for this excellent suggestion.

Challenge 17 - Landmark/Icon

A slight variation on the norm for our next competition. The use of Post Processing is usually restricted somewhat to maintain the emphasis on the photography.

But without wishing to lose that emphasis, this competition will have no restrictions on post processing. None!

And the subject is one we can all embrace - whether it is local landmark such as that church on the hill in your suburb, the water tower in the main street, or the old wharf through to the MCG or the Opera House or the Storey Bridge (or Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower).

Just make sure the title has the name of the landmark and the (general) location.

The usual rules of anonymity apply, even though the title may give clues, this is about having fun and participating, and of course, letting your post processing run free if you want to.

No prizes, this is for the glory.

I give you......

Landmark/Icon
A well known landmark, could be local to your area or capital city or state, or anywhere in the world. Image title must identify the landmark and the location, e.g. Opera House, Sydney.

No restriction on post processing.

Entries accepted from August 20 through to September 20


"Sydney Life In Photos" Competition and Exhibition

620 images were entered from 366 artists who photographed original and contemporary statements about Sydney Life. Twenty-six images have been selected to express the landscape, community and eccentricities of Sydney Life for the city’s favourite annual photographic exhibition in Hyde Park.

Matt K is one of the 26 finalists in this event and you shall have to come to Hyde Park Sydney to see his entry/photograph (bed sheet size!!) from 2 – 21 October 2007.

The press release for this event is here.

[ATJ]

Gary,

I'm confused by this (but then I'm easily confused). What galleries are we talking about? All the images I post are on my site first. Does that mean I can't post them? Even for comment?

[gstark]

Gary,

I'm confused by this (but then I'm easily confused). What galleries are we talking about? All the images I post are on my site first. Does that mean I can't post them? Even for comment?

Your site is, effectively, your gallery. That's where your images live.

And your site may contain just the one gallery, or it might contain several of them, depending upon how it's organised.

Consider this against this and this. Each of these is a distinct gallery, in and of itself, yet the first of them is also a "master" gallery, linking at some point to the others.

Any of those would be appropriate in the new section (and as I do new things, I might link the new sub-galleries in that new section) but I am ineligible to post any images from those in this new section.

But if I were to seek a critique on any of those images (and boy, do I need some ), then the individual images could still be posted as per the present, with a direct link to the specific images.


....

So ...

Any images for which you want critique ... no change at all.

And if you have, for instance, recently done something for which you have (or are in the process of posting) a whole heap of images from, but you want to share that something, rather than have the images critiqued, then you would would post a link to that gallery where that whole heap of images resides.

And if there were images in there for which you wished to have a critique ... do both!

But remember that in the gallery section, you can only post the link to the gallery, but not any images: that's for your visitors to select and post the links from.

Does that help?

[ATJ]

Does that help?

Yes, Gary. It is clear to me now. Thanks.

[stubbsy]

Or to put it more simply...

Let's say I've just returned from a visit to the local car show. On my web site (SmugMug in my case) I've uploaded all my best images into a gallery called Newcastle Car Show. In the new Gallery Updates section I make a post saying here is a gallery of shots from Newcastle Car show and provide a link to the gallery. I may also tell you something about the event. That's it for me.

Others who view that gallery can then go to that post and say gee Stubbsy I really like these two shots... and embed the images into the post.

Of course independently of that I may pick some images from the car show and post them in Image Reviews and Critiques for people to provide critique on. Does that make any more sense?

To see this all in action look at Keith's post in the new section HERE and my response.

[phillipb]

What I Like I can enjoy looking at some photos without necessarily feeling bad that I haven't posted a reply or comment.

What I don't like I'm gonna have to pull my finger out and create a gallery of my own.

[macka]

You say critiquing is not allowed, but critiquing is already happening in there.

I see people saying they like an image because of its sharpness, the separation between background and subject, or because it has great leading lines.

As photographers, many of us find it difficult to look at and respond to an image without critiquing it on some level. This is a good thing and should not be discouraged. It is carries less weight to say you like something if you are not able to say why.

[gstark]

As photographers, many of us find it difficult to look at and respond to an image without critiquing it on some level. This is a good thing and should not be discouraged. It is carries less weight to say you like something if you are not able to say why.

Saying what you appreciate in an image isn't necessarily, critiquing. Not for me, at any rate. I see a big difference in saying "I like this because of x and y" and "I think that you need to do A and B in order to make this image better".

Contrast your observations of what's happening thus far (to which I don't object) with suggesting ways to improve the image - exposure compensation, different background or angle of view, lighting changes, etc.

Minor comments I don't have an issue with (and I'm sure the other mods will chime in with their PoV), but wholesale suggestions for how to improve the image are a different matter.

[phillipb]

I agree Gary, if anything it's the critique section that has too many "Nice shot" type of replies without offering any suggestions on ways to improve it.

[gstark]

Phillip,

That's what I'm afraid of.

[ATJ]

Phillip,

I agree, too.

[stubbsy]

For me a critique is more technical and less visceral. So if I look at an image and it grabs me or repels me or evokes a response of some kind and I say so then to me that's not really a critique (it doesn't analyse in any depth why the image evokes that response). So the visceral stuff "I like this image because it has pretty colours" or even the slightly technical "This shows great use of DOF" are fine in the new section since for me they just aren't a critique.

Critiques, if done properly, also point out flaws or suggest ways for future improvement. So saying"I think this image could be much better if you cloned xxxx" or "I think you need to fix the white balance" are most definitely critiques and not what should be said in the gallery updates area.

And yes it's not a black and white thing.

To put it simply I see the new section as an area where you let others pick what appeals to them from your work so the more time challenged don't have to browse your entire gallery. It's a showcase of the best of your work as chosen by your peers.

[ATJ]

And yes it's not a black and white thing.

B&W doesn't generally appeal to me so I think you could improve your image with colour... oh, wait, can I make that comment in this section?

[Glen]

Kris, good points. I am with Gary and Peter on this one, I view a critique as pointing out ways the viewer believed the image could be improved, whereas this is more of a display section which highlights galleries and what viewers may like within that gallery.

[gstark]

Let me add a different perspective to this ...

This section permits you, if you so desire, to choose your very own "PotW" from each of the galleries posted.

A veritable personal PotG, if you will.

[macka]

I think I'm missing the point, but I guess I just don't feel the need to post images that aren't for critique.

[gstark]

I just don't feel the need to post images that aren't for critique.

For me, that probably is the point.

[Oz_Beachside]

I like the seperation into the two categories, but, PLEASE, can we dumb it down a little...

Can we use words that Homer's like me can easily understand?

Like folder names (or thread groups, or whatever they are called) like;
"For sharing" and, "For Critique".

if I am one of the offenders causing this, please, someone tell me... I love sharing, receiving critique, and providing critique from my perspective, and I dont want this good ship a rockin..

[MCWB]

But there's a catch ... and here's where the fun begins.

As the gallery owner, you are NOT permitted to post any of your images. Just the link to the gallery. Of course, you're free to tell us something about the gallery, but the mods will delete any images that you post from your own gallery.

Nice one, I like the intent of this section. Excellent!

I have one question though, do threads like this one seem to be more appropriate for the new Gallery section? If so, is a 1 image limit appropriate in such cases? Sorry to single Wendell's thread out but it's the most recent; just to clarify, I have no problem with such threads, in fact I believe they contribute a great deal to this site and community.

[gstark]

But there's a catch ... and here's where the fun begins.

As the gallery owner, you are NOT permitted to post any of your images. Just the link to the gallery. Of course, you're free to tell us something about the gallery, but the mods will delete any images that you post from your own gallery.

Nice one, I like the intent of this section. Excellent!

I have one question though, do threads like this one seem to be more appropriate for the new Gallery section? If so, is a 1 image limit appropriate in such cases? Sorry to single Wendell's thread out but it's the most recent; just to clarify, I have no problem with such threads, in fact I believe they contribute a great deal to this site and community.

Excellent question, and I would have to say yes, and yes.

I think in an instance such as this, the OP would need - should - contact one of the mods and clarify the position where they want to include an image in their starter post.

Remember that, where somebody feels they have a reason to bend some of the rules, a quick check with any of the mods will clarify the situation, and this always has been, and always will be, a course of action available to members.

[Onyx]

I like the idea and so far, the execution. Thanks admins, mods and members for taking steps in continually advancing this great online community.

What it will achieve, from my point of view, is encouraging individuals to regularly update/maintain our personal galleries, and also secondly to encourage our fellow DSLRusers members to visit/view each other's galleries, increasing traffic and exposure.

Going on what Philip said, I think there should be like a minimum 100 characters per reply in the critique section to get rid of the meaningless congratulatory posts. Granted, most other forums out there are inundated with those meaninglessly dull "nice shot" style responses to images posted, but I'd like to think this place is better/different to the rest.

As I see it, this new galleries section was created to address some of the issues of the critiques section - ie. it was pretty much used/abused for any which purpose each individual member sees fit instead of abiding by the guidelines setforth by the forum admins, so with the opening of the new section, let's enforce the critiques section and get it back to an section for critiques.

Also, could we perhaps cull threads that are older than 365 days?! There are many outdated threads that have become meaningless due to age. eg. all those threads in the for sale, bargains, general discussion, information, etc. sections that are pointing to URLs for ebay auction items that are long since gone.

[owen]

Just a minor technical point Gary... despite it being in the members only section, I can get there when not logged in, unlike the others in that section.

Cheers,
Owen.

[gstark]

Owen,

Glad you chimed in.

I think that some of the members' forums are available to be viewed by the public - logged in or otherwise - and that is fine.

It's just that members are the only only ones permitted to post or respond.

But why am I glad you chimed in, you may well ask? Good question, and I'm glad you asked.

The second of our new features is actually your fault: Please take a bow.

On Sunday last you posted an image, and asked others to have their way with it. That was fun for those who joined in, and so we're going to be introducing something like as a regular event, on one Sunday every month.

Final logistics are still to be worked out, but here's the basics:

One of the mods will make a post, opening the "challenge" around 4pm on the nominated Sunday. All members will be welcome to meet this challenge, which close at around 9 or 10 pm that same night. Another mod (or myself) will look at the entries, and determine a winner for that day's challenge.

A prize will probably be on offer, and the scope of the challenge .... hasn't yet been defined. It may be a quick "shoot this", or it may be a PP exercise, or ....

But it will be short and sharp - 6 hours, max, on a Sunday afternoon/evening.

STay tooned for further details as we iron out the remaining details.

[olrac]

I like that Idea of the challenge Gary,

Gallery is also a great initiative.

Just one question though....


Lets just say I had a new website and I wanted it "Critiqued" by my fellow members would a post to this effect go in gallery or critique section or neither for that matter?

[gstark]

Lets just say I had a new website and I wanted it "Critiqued" by my fellow members would a post to this effect go in gallery or critique section or neither for that matter?

Carlo,

Another good question.

But I'll give you a couple of points to digest on this one.

First of all, we're a photographic site, not a website critique site.

The fact that others have made posts asking for a critique of their websites, and nobody here has taken down the posts in question, doesn't mean that the posts were appropriate. I think it's fair to say that we're far more tolerant about a number of things than perhaps we should, or maybe could, be.

There have been a number of things that we discuss in the mods section, and some things that I may raise personally in off-line discussions with various people. Often it's deemed best to just not rock the boat, or perhaps to not draw attention to something that seems as if it may be contentious.

Remembering that I'm only speaking personally, does it help if I say to you that I don't think I've ever looked at any such site that's asked here for such a critique?

Now, hypothetically speaking (of course), if such a thing were to be asked here, I would probably suggest that it gets asked in the computers section.

...

Now, let me draw a different picture of this question (or answer) for you.

How many people here are actually qualified to pass judgement on a website's appearance? I know what I like, and importantly, I also know what i do not like. And when it comes to websites, I don't like Flash. Ask Geoff about that.

I know a lot of people think it's cool, trendy, blah blah blah .... bt that's only a part of the reason I don't like it. I do think it's too resource intensive, and it probably gets in the way of what a website's supposed to do.

Or what I think it's supposed to do.

And there's the key.

"what I think"

It's your call as to how much value you might put in that, and it bothers me not if that's zero, or whatever ...

So ... everybody has different tastes and values, and so in this case you need to judge who, of the people that might offer their opinions, is giving you data that you find to be valuable. It may be that none of the opinions offered have been offered by people whose values you respect, and so then, where does that leave you?

Perhaps .... just perhaps ..... that's a question that's best handled by PM to a couple of individuals whose opinions you know you can trust?

Sorry for the length of this response ... but you asked.

[owen]

Challenge sounds great.... but I didn't mean to make more work for you mods!

[sirhc55]

First of all, we're a photographic site, not a website critique site.

If this is a photographic site why do we have sections on humour, nerds, IT etc - I believe it is more than appropriate for forum members to ask critique on their websites. This is considering that the majority of the websites are photo oriented.

How many people here are actually qualified to pass judgement on a website's appearance?

How many are qualified to make photographic judgments?

So ... everybody has different tastes and values, and so in this case you need to judge who, of the people that might offer their opinions, is giving you data that you find to be valuable. It may be that none of the opinions offered have been offered by people whose values you respect, and so then, where does that leave you?

This would apply to photo critique as well.

All of us on this forum have, in the past, objected to the ”lifting” of images from our websites (photo) - it would appear now that this forum is advocating the posting of photo’s from an individuals website without their approval.

If you wish to make this work without a judicial inquiry then, I would with respect, advocate for permission being given in the first instance by the individual.

[phillipb]

What it will achieve, from my point of view, is encouraging individuals to regularly update/maintain our personal galleries, and also secondly to encourage our fellow DSLRusers members to visit/view each other's galleries, increasing traffic and exposure.

I guess you're right mate, not being an IT guy, I've been stuffing around all night creating a web page in Windows Live Spaces

[gstark]

First of all, we're a photographic site, not a website critique site.

If this is a photographic site why do we have sections on humour, nerds, IT etc - I believe it is more than appropriate for forum members to ask critique on their websites. This is considering that the majority of the websites are photo oriented.

I couldn't agree more. We also have a (I believe) fairly hands off approach to things here, which is why we let a lot of things (that should have been pinged) go through.

How many people here are actually qualified to pass judgement on a website's appearance?

How many are qualified to make photographic judgments?

I didn't want to make that connection in my post, but yes ....

So ... everybody has different tastes and values, and so in this case you need to judge who, of the people that might offer their opinions, is giving you data that you find to be valuable. It may be that none of the opinions offered have been offered by people whose values you respect, and so then, where does that leave you?

This would apply to photo critique as well.

All of us on this forum have, in the past, objected to the ”lifting” of images from our websites (photo) - it would appear now that this forum is advocating the posting of photo’s from an individuals website without their approval.

Well, no.

We are not suggesting nor endorsing the lifting of any images, simply the hotlinking to images already posted in those galleries.

By posting their gallery site, in this new section, they are implicitly accepting that others may post a direct link to their images contained in their gallery.

If you wish to make this work without a judicial inquiry then, I would with respect, advocate for permission being given in the first instance by the individual.

Please read the section description. It clearly states, I believe, that there is an expectation that images from a member's gallery may be included in posts made by others within this section. By virtue of a member making their gallery post in this section, surely they are giving that permission?

[olrac]

Gary my question is well answered, now if you all could please review my website