[smigol]

I agree with the sentiments of the OP. It's why I rarely give a thumbs up on the PPG.

It's also why I rarely post to the PPG.

I also take the time to look at the EXIF information and description for grammar and shot details. If these are missing, then the photo gets a thumbs down.

[altopiet]

I also take the time to look at the EXIF information and description for grammar and shot details. If these are missing, then the photo gets a thumbs down.

I always thought that a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words. If you even consider grammar and shot details and EXIF information as important enough to disqualify an otherwise good photo, you discriminate against people, and do not consider the actual merit of the final image presented for judgement.

[smigol]

I always thought that a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words. If you even consider grammar and shot details and EXIF information as important enough to disqualify an otherwise good photo, you discriminate against people, and do not consider the actual merit of the final image presented for judgement.

I do consider the merits of the photo. Only if the image is compelling enough will I look at the large size, then the description.

Just like the OP, if people are not willing to provide details of the shot or give useless information (a single period for a description) then I'm disinterested.

It's a weighted scale, just like everything else in life. My interests lie in one direction, other peoples' interests lie in another.

[Pablom]

I do consider the merits of the photo. Only if the image is compelling enough will I look at the large size, then the description.

Just like the OP, if people are not willing to provide details of the shot or give useless information (a single period for a description) then I'm disinterested.

It's a weighted scale, just like everything else in life. My interests lie in one direction, other peoples' interests lie in another.

I tend to agree with altopiet here.

Not all images need a description or even a title.

[Mike L]

I'll preface my entire post with in my opinion, I don't expect everyone will agree with me but opinions are like back sides everyone has one but that doesn't mean everyone wants to listen to one.

I find it very hard to disagree with the OP, there are a lot of mediocre images in the PPG and even some very poor ones.

For many the PPG seems to be about quantity not quality, I often read posts announcing the number of shots that person now has in the PPG, many of which are slight variations in a "series" of the same pic or 95% are within the same category. I think each artist should be limited to an overall maximum of say 50 entries in the PPG, and also have a limit for the number of shots in a particular category. Instead of loading up Pentax's servers with 500 mediocre images "artists" will be forced to choose their best 50 images and cull the weakest images if they want to submit more. I don't think any gallery online or otherwise needs 1304 pages of landscapes or 463 pages of wildlife etc.

Below is the suggested voting criteria for the PPG

"Please vote based on the technical and artistic merits of each image. When reviewing images please consider composition, exposure, subject matter, lighting, focus and other image aspects.
Also, ask yourself the following questions when considering your vote:
Can you see this image in a traditional photo gallery or printed publication?
Does this image elicit an emotional response?
Is this image original?
Does this image offer a personal perspective of the subject and display the unique vision of the photographer?
Would this photo stop you if it were hanging in a gallery? "

I can see how photos in many of the categories you mention could qualify under the listed criteria, perhaps not the poor technical quality ones.

I hope the venting helped you feel better.

I find myself looking at the PPG acceptances thread on this forum and thinking "What?", "Really?", "Seriously?" a lot more than I think "Wow!". The PPG should be a gallery showcasing the quality of images which can be created using Pentax products online in lieu of a bricks and mortar gallery (which only a limited number of people could visit). If I wouldn't or I can't imagine anyone but the shooter hanging an image on a wall then I vote no. The criteria above are good guidelines if applied sensibly but a photo should tick more than just one box to be included, the more technical faults it has the more boxes it should tick. I think some PPG voters give everything the thumbs up in the hope that their own images will get thumbs up from like thinking PPG voters.

Right now in my possession I have the following books on the these famous photographers:

Ansel Adams at 100
Paris, Eugène Atget, 1857-1927
Looking at photographs; 100 pictures from the collection of the Museum of Modern Art,
The collection of Alfred Stieglitz
Robert Frank
Steichen,
Strand

All of these books are well made and put out by first rate sources.

If I had all the pictures in them as files on my drive and, without knowing the source, no more than 10 percent would end up
as keepers in my opinion.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on the posters to PPG.

Although a lot of the photos in your books might not be technically perfect the biggest redeemer most of them have is their originality or some sort of artistic pixie dust that sets them apart from technically correct but unoriginal, derivative or plain boring shots.

[Rondec]

Well, I have a bunch of photos accepted in PPG and probably quite a few aren't up to the high levels indicated by the OP. I will say that as long as it is a public voting forum that puts the photos in, it will have a different standard than a gallery juried by folks who have more training and experience in such areas. In the "old days," I think that the Pentax officials who were overseeing PPG tried to weed out the riff raff and reviewed all of the photos prior to letting them go in after the voting was done, but now, I think most everything that gets a certain percentage of votes just goes in.

The biggest improvement over time has been limiting the number of photos you could up load to 5 per week. There used to be people who would get back from their trip to Italy who would upload 50 or 60 photos to be posted on -- most of them really similar to each other and most really bad. Now, you can't do that.

I guess the final point I would make is that it is hard for me to vote on styles of photography that just don't interest me. Street photography, to me, just isn't particularly interesting or compelling, but obviously there are plenty of people who enjoy it a lot. On the other hand, unlike the OP, I really do enjoy a well done macro shot or, bird photography, probably because I have tried my hand at it and find it really hard. So there you have it, there will always be photographs accepted that don't click with me, but as long as they are well conceived and shot, I won't quibble too much.

[mecrox]

For myself, I think the idea is to be as encouraging as one can. The internet can be unforgiving (on the internet, no one knows you lack social skills until you start typing) and for some folks just submitting a picture can be intimidating let alone having it judged.

It's easy to put the brakes on quantity of submissions - just limit them to X per week per person, perhaps even to just one capture per week. Then no one could complain that numerous submissions are rocking aesthetic standards.

I expect any online gallery could also have a "pre-gallery", one where submissions can be viewed "in the lobby" before they are accepted or rejected. That might keep up the page hits if that matters which all too often it probably does. There is a narrow line between trying to show the best a collective or community can achieve and an "advertorial" site where judges are in danger of becoming unpaid enablers for the brand-promotion boys..

I suspect a gallery is more interesting if it has only a very small number of judges - maybe 3-4, idiosyncratic, mysterious, anonymous. They might accept 20 submissions in a week then none at all for six months. It's entirely up to them. Too many judges, accountability, explanations and busy voting systems just shake everything down to an LCD of received opinion, a machine for mediocrity - not always but usually, I think. As I said, encouragement is what matters most for me.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 02-14-2013 at 06:20 AM.

[Tippon]

As I said, encouragement is what matters most for me.

Personally, I prefer constructive criticism. I uploaded a photo that I liked, and it was declined, but the feedback was helpful in identifying why it didn't get in

[ivanvernon]

I have lately re-ignited my activity on PPG. Been doing quite a lot of voting and also (by accident I guess) had a few of my pictures accepted there. There are fantastic pictures that are submitted there and some true talent. But also lots and lots of pictures that make me wonder: Why bother? What were they thinking? So I'll vent a little about what very easily gets my "Thumb Down". Of course, these are just my purely subjective and perhaps flawed opinions.

- Technically and artistically poor pictures of of the photographer's loved ones. Of course the photographer likes those pictures, they do after all present somebody close to them and perhaps raise lots of fond memories. But one should not mix those warm feelings with the merits of the picture.

- The cuteness factor. Hell, yes - everybody likes small children and fluffy animals! But cuteness in itself does not make a photograph interesting or worth submitting. There has to be some real idea behind it or some other picture element.

- Pictures of art. Often we see beautiful images of sculptures and other works of art. Beautiful, yes. But is the beauty in the photograph or the original work of art? Most often the latter. In my opinion, a photograph presenting a piece of art must go well beyond that and add another layer of content to be worth it.

- Insect and flower macros. Yes, we all love when the difficult macro shoots with the brand new and shiny lens are successful. Macro shooting is often pretty demanding. And flowers are beautiful by nature, insects intriguing and strange. But after a few they all look the same. Yawn, yadda-yadda. Yeah, nice macro - next! Again I think there should be some extra element or extraordinary technical skill to be interesting. And there rarely is.

- Birds. Much the same as the macro rant above. Birds are beautiful, they are often far and fast and getting a technically good picture isn't easy. I probably couldn't shoot most of the bird pictures that people submit there. But are they interesting? Mostly not IMO. You've managed to get a good picture of that bluetit or magpie? Great, congrats! But is it really worth submitting?

- Bad technique and/or post processing. Sometimes a picture is very strong despite its technical flaws and every now and then the imperfections add to the effect. But mostly it's just bad, bad, bad. Focus off, exposure off, composition off.


So that's more or less it. Sorry about this, but just needed to vent a little. And I'm not saying I'm a better photographer, probably well below the average PPG photographer in skills, but this is how I see it.

Makes me want to give up taking photos!

[crossmr]

The internet can be unforgiving

really? Do you honestly think so?
I've seen no evidence of that when it comes to online communities. The vast majority of them are of the care bear nature where no matter what kind of crappy stuff you upload everyone sits around and cuddles telling each other how wonderful their composition and use of colors was.

Any photography/art community I've seen always includes a bunch of users who spend their time posting the same overly positive comments on every single thing uploaded or created, often in a vain attempt to draw attention to themselves either directly by asking people to look at their pages or simply by becoming social butterflies.

The opposite involves communities where gangs of users basically terrorize the site ripping into all comers, but those sites are very rare compared to the first. I really haven't found anything that is any kind of happy in between.

You know a place where people might actually post honest constructive feedback in a helpful manner.

[Ash]

Makes me want to give up taking photos!

It's rather challenging to get better at taking them.
Create art out of the simple scene in front of you, and push the boundaries at each opportunity.

[TaoMaas]

I also take the time to look at the EXIF information and description for grammar and shot details. If these are missing, then the photo gets a thumbs down.

This is why the general public shouldn't be allowed to vote on the PPG.

[TaoMaas]

For many the PPG seems to be about quantity not quality, I often read posts announcing the number of shots that person now has in the PPG, many of which are slight variations in a "series" of the same pic...

That's my biggest beef with the PPG...multiple entries of what is essentially the same shot. It makes me think that the photographer didn't really have a specific vision. It's called "editing", folks...learn it.

[TenZ.NL]

It may be in the nature of forums like this that as the number of people involved grows, the more mediocre material you get.
I may get a reputation of an elitist by saying this, but you do have a point!

I agree with PePe here, as the userbase grows and more and more people find their way to the PPG, quality goes down. Maybe our own vision is more sophisticated due to the fact that most of us here are way more serious about photography than the average PPG user.

The PPG isn`t what it used to be but so are we and that`s why I look at it differently nowadays. It used to be hard to get pictures accepted but not anymore . The real challence now is the Premiere Gallery and other collections, acceptences in those are even more difficult than they used to be. It takes weeks to see a few new shots in those galleries.

- Insect and flower macros. Yes, we all love when the difficult macro shoots with the brand new and shiny lens are successful. Macro shooting is often pretty demanding. And flowers are beautiful by nature, insects intriguing and strange. But after a few they all look the same. Yawn, yadda-yadda. Yeah, nice macro - next! Again I think there should be some extra element or extraordinary technical skill to be interesting. And there rarely is.

- Birds. Much the same as the macro rant above. Birds are beautiful, they are often far and fast and getting a technically good picture isn't easy. I probably couldn't shoot most of the bird pictures that people submit there. But are they interesting? Mostly not IMO. You've managed to get a good picture of that bluetit or magpie? Great, congrats! But is it really worth submitting?

That`s really a matter of personnal taste (it all is), I happen to love macrophotography (which was the main reason to buy a DSLR) and birdshooting.

[mecrox]

really? Do you honestly think so?
I've seen no evidence of that when it comes to online communities. The vast majority of them are of the care bear nature where no matter what kind of crappy stuff you upload everyone sits around and cuddles telling each other how wonderful their composition and use of colors was.

Any photography/art community I've seen always includes a bunch of users who spend their time posting the same overly positive comments on every single thing uploaded or created, often in a vain attempt to draw attention to themselves either directly by asking people to look at their pages or simply by becoming social butterflies.

The opposite involves communities where gangs of users basically terrorize the site ripping into all comers, but those sites are very rare compared to the first. I really haven't found anything that is any kind of happy in between.

You know a place where people might actually post honest constructive feedback in a helpful manner.

Yes I do. I am very picky about any internet sites I visit. Whether it's spam, trolling, rumours, rows or endless lolcat videos, they are not for me. I do like this forum and I like the forum on Luminous Landscape too. Alternatively, you could always consider joining a local photography club and start to analyse photographs in company with some like-minded folks. This is the best way, I think. Where I live, there are some astoundingly accomplished photographers, some professional, whose views are so valuable. If you do the whole thing by keyboard you can never be sure whether the person at the other end is OK or a heavily medicated loony. Depending on where one lives, there are also sometimes galleries which put on seminars and lectures by really impressive people. Online has it's place and can be something of a window on the world, but nothing beats a real event.