How do you rate photos?

[Nick R.]

When I check out photos in the gallery, before I'll comment on any particular photo I like, I see what kind of info the poster has provided. If he/she hasn't left any details of what he used, I'll refrain from leaving a comment. I figure if they can't be bothered why should I.

I also don't comment on digital photos. It may be a great photo, but this is an rf site and I feel they don't belong. (but I don't mind them being in the W/NW threads --an inconsistency, maybe).
And because there are so many photos nowadays, I only comment on those that really stand out, IMO. There are a lot of other photos of which I'd like to comment on some aspect, but they're swamped by all of the entries.

I'm wondering what criteria, if any besides gut feeling, other people use when commenting.

 

[ywenz]

Even if the digital shots are from the RD-1?

I'll comment on the photo if it is outstanding. So what if they didn't provide info on equipment. Since when has that become necessary for displaying art?

 

[Oh Two]

I too, want to know how the photograph was made.

How a piece was made has always been a part of art. As a professional painter I scumble, paint en grasille, direct, with a glaze, or with impasto. As a photographer a trump is to shoot hand held with a long exposure with a lens that 'drew' a beautiful bokeh on a tightly grained film. Why should this information be kept as unnecessary drivel? Art for art's sake is for the intellectually effete critic, not for those who practice the craft.

Comparing this site with PhotoSig (mostly digital hobbyists) I find that there are more seriously dedicated folks here (rangefinders are indeed backward), but I still find that many don't edit what they post sufficiently. Therefore, it's hard to fairly comment because it's difficult to wade through it all.

Aesthic commentry is best served if it refers to a particular style or historical precedent beyond simple opinion, and I choose to comment only on full frame shots that demonstrate skill matched with luck (the racer's edge).

Although most of what is posted is just vanity, there are many shots that are examples of skilled craftsmen with a very good and well trained eye.

I wish there were some way to have a blue ribbon club, but for the life of me I can't think of any standard that would be fair to any sensibilities other than my own.

 

[Nick R.]

Even if the digital shots are from the RD-1?

I'll comment on the photo if it is outstanding. So what if they didn't provide info on equipment. Since when has that become necessary for displaying art?

Sorry, forgot about the RD-1. I'll gladly comment on those shots.

As far as equipment goes, that's my criteria for what I believe is a gear and methodology oriented site.

On pnet, I let the photo do the talking.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

As far as equipment goes, that's my criteria for what I believe is a gear and methodology oriented site.

I wholeheartedly agree. If they don't provide technical info, no biggie, but to me it is very valuable to see the technical info to understand what the photographer had to deal with to come up with the picture.

It's like food: you don't have to put the recipe on the table, but I'd hate it when somebody would say "so what what ingredients I used?!" if I asked for the recipe if I really liked what I just had. Kind of rude. It's all in the delivery, I guess.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Fizzled. And some complain that there's too much "gear talk"...

 

[Nick R.]

It is what it is. lol