Hey guys,

I've started posting photos again (I'm now up to four) but I just can't seem to get anything screened. I do not feel that my photos are, in fact, good enough, but have been filtered out due to bad luck or whatever. However, I do feel that they are reasonable. I think that when I get at least one published, I will sign up for an account. In the mean time, I'm battling with this one-upload-per-week limit. I have such a personal connection with each picture that my judgement gets clouded as to which are actually the best, from a stand alone perspective. I have no real experts to look through my brief portfolio in my life, so I was hoping some of you could have a look and tell me which, if any, of my portfolio shots might get screening approval.

This is a link to the artistic gallery on my own site, please have a gander. Pictures 4 and 11 were exhibited in the Sothebys office gallery locally and are for sale, so I have not posted them to this site. Other than that, anything goes, except for 7, 8, 10 and 27, which have already been rejected.

Vincible Photography Artistic Gallery

Thanks so much,

Jim Miller of Vincible Photography.

Morning Jim
I understand what you are saying. Here are my thoughts:

1) This site will only publish a 1X style of photography. You have to fit that style. This does not mean your work is inferior, it just doesn't fit here. This has been discussed many times on this forum before.
2) Your monochromatic work on your site is good - but to get an appreciation of what is accepted here, go to the work of "Andre du Plessis" on 1X and you will understand my comment.
3) I found it harsh initially when my images were discarded (and still is), but now learn from others with regard to the 1X style of photography. This is enriching in itself.
4) I cant help you with what will pass the screening process here, as I dont know myself.
5) I have expressed my feeling before about the membership fee. Some say it's the best bargain on the net, others feel differently. I am not going to dwell on that. The only advantage (IMO) of the fee you pay is that you can upload more images per week, which might get you depressed quicker, or not. :)

I hope this helps a bit. I am sure you will get a fair response from various members of this forum.
Kind regards
Hendrik

I quite like number 19...might want to consider posting that. ;-)
Just a word of advice though, don't take photos just to get published here, don't let it take up your life. It is purely a gallery and once you start concentrating on how to take photos to fit that gallery, you stop enjoying what you do.

I completely understand your frustration. I have submitted over 40 shots and have had 38 rejections in a row since 2 were published. The thing that drives me nutty is that some of the shots that are published are very similar to ones I have submitted myself. Its frustrating, but the community on this site is really solid and supportive. The photographers that are published are outstanding and the crits do help a great deal. I have learned a great deal from the feedback and now have better images because of it.

Of your images online, I liked image 18. You have some nice tones in that shot.

Thanks so much guys. Luckily, I'm pretty thick skinned (being an art student). I have no illusions as to my level of skill, or the requirements of this site. I think it's a bit of my style being different to the 1x vision and me not really having those 'magnum' shots to upload. Just as well I'm not particularly insecure about my work or approval. I'll keep trying, without changing my style. If 1x isn't accepting, it's not the end of the world :)

Thanks again to everyone for the input and support. I'll keep plugging and maybe I might just get something through :)

Cheers,

Jim

PS

Thanks for taking the time to look through my gallery as well! :D

I don't think that there is such a thing as a "1x look", we are just striving to publish all the beautiful and moving images that get submitted. You should definitely not try to adapt to what is perceived as being more easily published here, and instead keep following your vision.
Keep submitting, hang tight and don't take rejections personally.

I completely agree that as an artistic photographer, one should not inherently try and change one's approach or type of photography just to meet the needs of a specific audience (retail photographers may need to to sell their work to specific clients). However, I do strongly believe that we can add to/improve our own styles based on the opinions of others whose viewpoints we believe are credible. I don't see how rejections could not be taken personally, since (at least for me) the photographs we produce are coming from a very personal space. But I think that is all part of the learning process, and taking it personally shows that you care about what you're doing (again, at least for me).

James, you should continue to shoot and enjoy the process of photography for yourself (like me tell you this will suddenly make you realize you should). I, like you, feel that the quality of photographs published (and submitted - in screening) on this site is very high. That is why I (we) strive for inclusion here, and why we place great weight on the opinions of those who are part of this community of visionary photographers. I (as well should you), will keep posting at 1X, in anticipation that sometimes my path will cross that of the 1X community (although lately I seem to be diverging away from the 1X path - but that's OK).

I'm just photographing for fun, and that's how I see the submitting, screening, rejecting and publishing..: pretty much as a game actually. I don't get depressed with rejections, and I don't feel elated when one of my works does get published. I can laugh with reasons for rejection -yes, sometimes I think: they don't know what they're talking about ;o))-, and getting an image published is quite enjoyable -although I think that (some of) my images are not really worth it-, but I can see the relativity of it all. Maybe that's the way to go about it... ;o)

number 4 is stunning.

Hi James. Gosh - pictures of my home town! What a delight!
Once bitten:Twice shy. That unfortunately does not apply here...
The general standard of OE as an serious amateur gallery is quite something,
and sleep does not come easily until you have that mini-thumb that accompanies
your name.
Simply because you have to.....for others have done that.
I had a quick perusal at your private site, and shall be very keen
to discuss some of your individual images.
We can do that by OE mail.
Keep submitting.
Andre

#16 I think. The people diving into a swimming race....

But has to eliminate the cap from the bottom right!!

I kinda like #13 and #19. In 13, I like how the web is billowing, that makes for a lot of feeling in that shot. #19, I'm not sure why, but it looks balanced.

Added: and I think #5 has potential, but it looks odd right now, a bit not finished. I also like #21 a bit, but it also seems somewhat not quite there, can't put my finger on it.

I like #16 very much, just crop off the head in the bottom :-)

/Wulff

I like the diving shot but agree that the lower person needs cropping. Give it a go you dont know until you submit and if its rejected move on. My problem is I am getting reluctant to submit after having a bad run of rejections.....

Just do it....

Nice work on your site James. I agree that you should submit 18 and 19 too, but suggest cropping some of the top off 19. 13 is great too, with some cropping to make it a vertical or square shot. I really like 4 as well, but think perhaps it isn't a 1x type photo.

come on Ian¡¡... i need to see some more of those G2 shots... keep on

I would try # 2.

Why worry what others think of your photography. It is, or should be a passion in your life, a life long passionate affair with light, camera, depth of field belonging only to you. Who cares what others think. If you get too into that mind set, your photography will suffer and go in reverse. Keep moving forward. If your photogrphy fits the niche here, you'll be published. If not, move to a niche your photography fits. Good luck.
Cheers,
Dave

#13 for me is beautiful - colours, light, lines, and form :)

Despite protests by Alexandre Buisse to the contrary, I do think there's an OE look (or collection of looks) - especially with landscapes and architecture. But that only reinforces what others have said - if your pic is rejected by OE, then it's not a sign that it is bad, only that it doesn't fit ON THIS SITE.

When I look at my gallery of rejected OE submissions, I see a pretty good collection of photos I was pleased with. Only one, however, has ever made it past screening and been accepted.

The question, then, is how much you want a photo to fit in on this site? And if it is accepted here, it's no automatic passport to success elsewhere.

I was everso pleased when I got my 1st photo accepted here. And no doubt I'll be delighted if/when I get another. But I don't let it rule my life and will continue to pursue what I enjoy.

Wishing you all the best,

Kim

I definately feel there is a certain look to landscapes as well, when I first joined and went through all the landscape pages a few things struck me: the rich colours but at the same time pastelly soft tones of many images and alot of images where imagination is left to the view as opposed to a specific subject. Many black and whites as well.
I was convinced that I wouldn't have a chance to get published as mine are very subject based with often bold colours which hardly leave anything to the imagination as to what they are.

Wouldn't mind a few tips how to do the others though...

How MINUTES do they take to screen a photo?

It varies Matteo, I've had ones rejected and accepted within about an hour and others nearly a week.

Rejection is not nice but I like this little excitement with screening. It's like waiting for the results of a competition. Or for the negatives/pictures to arrive from the laboratory. Digital age has made us all a little impatient...

Very well put David and Kim.

@Balazs

Yes it is kind of addictive... then again, I like casino's too! ;-)

Hi James
Your gallery shows that you have a personal style. And that's the most important at the end for you as a photographer.
I tend to agree with Geert: consider OE as kind of contest, between many other contests. Sometimes you are accepted, sometimes not...And in other contest it can be the reverse...
It's all so relative. An enjoy your photography

Thanks Octavio, I have tried but they just dont cut it. I really need to go through all my albums and negative and see if I have missed any good stuff and give it a go. Just recently my images have not even made it to members screening which makes rejection even more frustrating. I have a slide film in my Contax G2 I am trying to finish which I hope has some good shots on it. I also have 3 B&W films I recently shot with my Nikon FM2 that are waiting to go in the post...ahh the joy of film I just love the anticipation and the excitment of getting prints back which is totally lost with digital.

Being rejected by the crew screeners is not so bad, Ian. They usually don't say why, but in most cases it would be like "Read the f*****g manual!" - you know, the logo so popular in any helpdesk department :) If they reject, you have a good chance of having submitted a photo that doesn't fit into the philosophy of the site, and if you browse the forum topics and the FAQ you'll find the answer to the "why???" question.
This is not the case for all rejections, but at least explains some. Sometimes I wonder why they refused a photo but there are cases when I say, OK this photo is really not what they want, or my interpretation (title, comment) is not suitable for the crew. Talking about my experience only, of course.

Of course a photo can be also rejected because it's technically crap, but no self-respecting photograph would try his/her luck with that here.

Member screening is much more unpredictable.

Thanks Balazs,

I can see the kind of images that get published but the small matter of producing images that fit the mold is another matter. Its capturing something a little bit different and trying to be original thats tough.....At the moment this is what I am not getting. I dont think my images are technically bad its just they dont have the edge to get published.

That will be soon an issue for me too... I'm getting a feeling that most of the photographs I take don't belong here due to the subject, and since I'm not planning to change my motif preferences in the future... I fasten the seat belt and brace for rejections.

I think Balazs is absolutely right. I haven't got on photo accepted yet, out of 5 attempts, so I might stop and think about how to take a photo for OE instead of for me.

No need for that. Just stick around, build a nice Home Page in the meanwhile (OK, that might involve an upgrade), keep participating and watching, and through passive diffusion you will take both pictures for yourself and for OE.
Or am I maybe having the Friday Happies:)
In any event, if uploading to OE is a consideration, there is no other way, I think.

Very bad idea IMO. Shoot what you like and if you glean some wisdom for improvement, certainly use it. BUT, don't take photo's "for OE instead of for me", please!!

"Very bad idea IMO. Shoot what you like and if you glean some wisdom for improvement, certainly use it. BUT, don't take photo's "for OE instead of for me", please!!"

Indeed. If you follow the path of OE instead of ME, you will soon lose your own special vision, and trust me, nothing is worth that. I've had 2 photos published and 22 rejected. If I think something I shoot is OE worthy, then great, but I have to be satisfied I followed my own path to get there. What I shoot is not everyone's cup of tea, but I love what I do. Experiment, have fun, and if it doesn't get published, so what! Just HAVE FUN and love what you do. For you.

Bravo Patricia and Clyde... Look at it this way... If you only shot images for 1x but then altered that so that it can also get rated high on photo.net then tempered that with thoughts of getting a high thumb count on p.sig and then throw in changes to account for other sites you would end up shooting...

Nothing.

Shoot for yourself. I know that's hard to say. People want to be published here. That's what this place is about but if this place doesn't like your vision another site might. Look at the 1 year highest rated images on p.net. Photo.net is filled with pro shooters and some HUGELY respected ones. Of the 100 or so I looked through today I would guess 10 might get published here. That's probably high. And conversely none in that 100 looked anything like what's published here.

So is 1x better than Photo.net? Heck no, it's just different.

Dont' sweat it. Just shoot. If I had shot my images for this place or any of the others I've mentioned I wouldn't be where I am today. My images go over ok on photography sites but they do really well in the real world. ;-)

Stay true, shoot for yourself and remember that the joy of photography isn't in the laurels you get but the enjoyment of just doing it. If I was told I could never show another image to anyone I'd still do it. I just love this crap more than I can explain...

Ok, Dave off soapbox now...

"I just love this crap more than I can explain..."

That pretty much sums it up!! :-)))))

well, my first submition here on 1X was POW (Photo of Week) in photo.net in October 6 of 2008 and just published in 1X in few minutes.

see : http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00R5AG

There are thousands of milions of photos on photo.net that is impossible to associate to that site a "style", so, every photo there can be a potencial 1X photo or a potencial rejection on 1X.

Photo.net have 90% of crap ! 1X have ... more or less .... hummmm ... 20% ? :-))))

And photo.net have a problem, is a EGO container, i make you a coment, you make me, i give you a vote of 7, you give me a 7 !

Weel, 1X is the best thing in all Internet, ever if screeners are very very very bad guys and girls, realy evil people :))))))))

But the guilt of all this are certainly from Ralf and Jacob ! :)))

So, after this post, i never have one more photo published here .... :((((

I totally agree. There's image quality (more or less :)), making being published an achievement. There's community, there's feedback. What else would the online photographer want?


My theory is that OE being so diverse and international, with so many screening members with completely different visual languages, means that photographs which have a common denominator to suit the general taste are easy to publish. Take a shot of a "nice" motif, make it technically as flawless as possible (properly sharp, nice tones and so on), include a message that's as easy to understand as the plot of a porn movie, and it will be published. In other words, OE taste is mainstream. This is not necessarily bad, not bad at all. It makes us struggle to make our own visual language easier to understand for others and improve the quality of our work. As to me, OE is stimulating both ways.
Unfortunately, aligning site preferences to the mainstream also means that experimental and intellectually too abstract photos have a hard time on OE. But for such artists, feedback is even more important than publication - after all, they can publish their works anywhere else on the net if they want - and useful feedback in Critique can be even better than a published photo (after which not much feedback is given in the comments anyway). And to be honest, I don't really know any other place on the (English) net where useful feedback could be expected, and not just the wow-nice-shot style compliments.

And the same when you compare with other sites. Any photo site has his merits and flaws. The difference and the benefit of 1X is that the screening process here eliminiates most of the 'crap' images. For the other sites you have to go to filtering processes to see only the good work.
A lot of the 1X members (including photo screeners) are active on different sites. I assume they do this for the variety in vision it gives...

1X has the benefit of not being a site where you have to buildup your 'fanbase' as it were, like many sites. On those, I get the impression that you have to vote on a lot of pics to get any votes on yours, and that the more you are seen to be active, the more feedback you will get etc. 1x is simply about whether your picture is considered to be the right standard, it doesn't matter how many people follow your work, or how many comments you make. You can be a shy or just grumpy person who never leaves feedback and still be judged in exactly the same way as everybody else. I feel I spend enough time on the bleedin net without keeping everybody happy on flickr, AL, photonet etc ;-) let alone all this facebook and twitter stuff. . .
I also like the challenge of trying to get a photo published here. No other site has that either.
And this is a 45 reject and none published guy speaking ;-)
Jon

This site has some 'great' photos, nevertheless, IMHO, the screeners are 'only' people (I guess amateur photographers) with taste as anybody else. I think it can even be 'harmful' to (feel frustrated and therefore) try (maybe even subconsciously) to suite their taste. Though it would be an honour for me to be published here, I guess that this is not the main reason why I am taking photographs. I haven't been published here (nor I care if I won't), but I can say that in general I do not like screeners' work (look at my fav list), I am not saying that their work is not 'good' just that their taste is not the same as mine, though they have selected some (to me) great photos (and I thank them for that). :)

I find myself wishing there was an equally good, juried site around that had a different set of values and tastes to 1x. Then we could all post our non 1x images somewhere that wasn't a 'nice shot' mutual backslapping sort of place.
Jon

I was thinking about this 'problem' and it looks to me as if there isn't a solution. I guess there are many 'good' tastes which look similar but are actually not the same (say, give two people with a 'good' taste 100 photos to judge, 50 of which are obvious 'snapshots', now what an obvious 'snapshot' is can also be arguable, but most likely both people would agree that there are 50ish 'snapshots'). I am starting to think that it is not the ability to spot 'snapshots' what matters, but rather that fine line enabling us to spot subtle differences with a deeper meaning. Not everybody has the same taste in 'art', nor everybody can agree on what an 'art' piece is, and actually it appears that there is not an acceptable definition of art either.

Flickr is interesting photosite, I think, though it seems to be true that popularity there in principle does not reflect the 'quality' of work (say if you are an attractive lady who takes decent self-portraits you have a good chance to become popular), but as everybody can post an image the images range from obvious 'snapshots' to works of 'art'. Flickr has introduced something what is called 'interestingness' (the formula how to assign an interestingness numerical value to a photo is I think kept as a secret) which can be regarded as a sort of taste on its own and which to some extend makes easier to find 'good' works. I wrote a computer program (used Flickr.Net API library) which can do various Flickr searches (http://www.flickr.com/groups/api/discuss/72157607748240503/) and currently I am using it to display 500 most interesting Flickr photos for the day http://www.jurjevic.org.uk/photography/flickr/fliter/1.htm. The problem with Flickr is that (due to a sheer number of photos) it is difficult to find what you like, but then everything is accepted, so something what on 1x might have been filtered out would have been present on Flickr. Here is my current list of favourites on Flickr http://www.jurjevic.org.uk/photography/flickr/fliter/20.htm which reflects my taste (though some of the photos there are a result of a friendship and maybe some personal stuff which has noting to do with 'objective' criticism), I think that some photos in my 1x favourites list are better (in some sense) but the Flickr one also has (to me) great images (there might be a lot of 'great' images on Flickr which I failed to find yet), looks like my Flickr favourite list contain more diverse work, most likely because my taste is more 'open' (is 'wider') than that of 1x screeners.

It is almost paradoxical that a group of screeners can select pieces of work I like very much (that for all photos they select I would say are 'good') and yet that there are very few photos in their portfolio which would drag my attention (some I regards as 'snapshots', most as 'objectively' good, but very few 'resonate' with something in me, there are even some in which I see nothing more than a 'serious' technical mistake).

Maybe everything could be surmised in:
"De gustibus non est disputandum." -

How I see 'art' and what is important in a photo:
"Art is the lie that makes us realize the truth." - Pablo Picasso
"Nullum simile est idem." -

I know I have been a more than present voice in the rejection debate & at times I think back to those occasions I am uncomfortable with my point of view at that time. I have persevered here & now realise that much of my negative feelings about my own work & the rejections received here were unfounded & driven & based upon some inert belief that how dare they reject my work. This was a false reality my work is not bad at all but it will not always meet with acclaim & recognition & thats life. It is for me to deal with. And I can do this in a number of ways either positively or negatively.

Its about choice & I chose to accept that my work will not always be received by all as being unusual or outstanding enough to make the pages of this site. The truth is I can only take whatever I see. Often like all of us in my street style of shooting the light & environment with which I have to work makes life just that bit more difficult. Distractions are a key reason I will often reject work myself. Movement impacting on focus & overall sharpness is another & then composition. Keeping context & presenting a subject in an uncluttered environment is not easy. Low light shooting without artificial help from fixed lights will impact the overall feel & as this summer proves lack of even harsh sunlight leaves images flat & dull even if the subject may be interesting if its not illuminated in such a way as to lift it inside the frame it rarely works.

What I have discovered is that by stepping outside of my inherent omnipotence the "no one can tell me how" attitude & into a space where I am open to advice criticism & support I am able to not only be receptive to learning but also be freer to be more creative & to accept that we are all different with different tastes & different ways of seeing.

And it is not about experience! I know many who have far more technical knowledge than me but still do not have the eye. And I know many who have only just picked up a camera who have an amazing eye & a natural talent for making wonderful images. There is room for everyone whether with a one off or stunningly rich & full portfolio as after all its about images. About images that move us that stir in us emotions that stand out that embody something special.

If those of you & I am included here struggle to understand why your work is consistently getting rejected step back & ask yourself why instead of fighting against the reality. Check out other pieces & pay close attention to why you think an image has been accepted rather than bad mouthing its choice. Look we cannot like everything but if we open our minds to receive everything in a non judgmental way we open up our hearts to understand where others are coming from. And if we can do this we free up positive energy to focus on getting better pictures on getting work that will be received by this community.

As JBA says this site is unique many others are predicated off a culture that does not encourage learning simply because its even more confusing seeing out of focus "pretty" snaps getting multiple votes. Thats cannot be uplifting especially if your work is sharp focused & its only fault is that you don't play the clicking game that others do just to see the votes role in.

I have lost count of my rejections its been months since I got an image accepted but I refuse to let my negative mind influence my emotional balance to the extent where I am angry & dysfunctional about my work. I want to enjoy what I do & intend to. I encourage you to think twice about getting on your soap box about rejections. Over time you will get something published if you take that rejection & respond to it rather than react to it.

Success & creativity are not bedfellows. They sleep in separate rooms. Often in different houses!

Well said Robert. Our offerings crossed in the ether!

@Gerard
What profound wisdom you have communicated here.
Thank you.

"You must never be satisfied with success and you should never be discouraged by failure. Failure can be sad, but the greatest sadness is not to try and fail, but to fail to try." Richard Nixon

Balazs, I guess that the Porsche driver was a Hungarian visiting England... ;) ...well, I see no point in pleasing others and 'cheating' yourself... unless photography is your living...

Balazs: Although I prefer Hillbilly wisdom, it's always good to get a little Nixon wisdom first thing in the morning...

To Robert and Gerard: Your statements above are well thought out and well said, I commend you for the time and care to write them. But this is what I have referred to as "over thinking" in some other posts. Life is complex and yet simple at the same time. So is art. I find it much more satisfying to just be simple about it. If you like it, shoot it. Develop it, if you like it, post/print it. If others like it: bonus!!

Cheers Clyde why use 100 when you can use a 20! I get that & it fits for me! This Hill Billy he is sure some succinct philosopher! amen!

I am new here. I am scared and didn't dare to ask for a long time, but now I can't wait any more. What does "Hillbilly" mean? A collection of Hillary and Bill Clinton aphorisms maybe? :)) I'm clueless and it hurts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly

I grew up in Buchanan, VA a short drive from West Virginia and deep in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. I am proud to call myself a Virginia Hillbilly.
And, NO definitely nothing to do w/ the Clintons...

And BTW, you don't look like a guy to be afraid...

Cheers, thanks for asking, wouldn't want you to go on thinking I might be one of those Liberal lovers!!

Thanks Clyde. Now I know what hillbilly means and it's a better, dryer, more comfortable experience.

Robert what do you mean by your remark
I guess you mean violet? as in colour...

I see myself violet when i see a photo with that violet people ... or vivid orange people, but is my personal taste, but i admit there are people who like it, and what can we do about ? They say it´s artistic or "style" ... about this "style" i think there are outthere lot´s of photographers who thinks orange or violet people is a personal "style" ... and about that i have no words :)))

How's it going Robert?
I'm doing the best I can. After all, I am human (and just a man) :-)
In fact, with any luck, I'll get to be your personal screener if I can get Jacob and Ralf to buy in. :-))) So be careful who's hand you bite.

"In fact, with any luck, I'll get to be your personal screener if I can get Jacob and Ralf to buy in. :-))) So be careful who's hand you bite."

Are you saying on certain screeners only screen certain photographers?

Lastly, I saw an image with an obvious fake shadow :
http://1x.com/v2/#photos/street/26751/ (look at the shadows of the bins close to the one of the man)

A portrait with cloning artefacts :
http://1x.com/v2/#photos/portrait/26753/ (on the right of his head)

And blue/violet children :-)

But I can imagine some screeners were on holidays so the ones who were there had a lot of works while visits were still inscreasing, I can understand those mistakes.
;-)

Yeah yeah Julien, I screwed this one. This is what happened: I worked on it at night and because I was tired or just stupid didn't notice the artifacts. After putting it into screening I didn't open it until got the good news message. I open it, and oupsss there was the artifact. I tried to make an improved version immediately but as it was bright daylight, and the freaking sun was shining directly to my screen, I could barely see a thing. I did what I could anyway and uploaded the new version. Looked alright. Then when I was back to my office and opened the pic on a shadowed screen, I saw that the artifacts were less visible but still there. But at that time the comments were coming already and were positive. Nobody, not even you mentioned the artifacts as a grave flaw. So I didn't bother with it any more, even though I wished I could kick my own ass. But please don't mention this in the same post with a fake shadow. Even in my first reply to the first comment I made it clear that the artifacts are my mistake.
And you know what? I have a lot of perfectly nice, technically sound photos rejected. Instead, one gets published with a flaw. Thus the balance is restored...

Discussed at length in crew.


Discussed at length in crew.

If we were to only publish perfection in every ones view of perfection then this site would have about 100-200 pics published. If you can not see beyond a minor technical fault to see the deeper meaning and intent of an image, I suggest that you broaden your horizons. Furthermore, I would leave the glass house before hurling rocks!

all the best
mal

No. I was just playing with Robert. I'm sorry if I misled you. It was all in fun.

I think you publish zero ... and a great master of photography say onetime that a perfect photo will be very boring ... :)

About the photo of Balasz, i see everywhere lots of simple photos of faces without artifacts with no interess and Balasz make a real portrait with some artifacts ... but if i was a screener and see that imperfection, i ask Balasz to upload a improved version and published it imediatly. But i understend that takes time and you already spend a lot, so no problem with artifacts.

What artifacts?

Isn't artifacts that stuff that writers with fine art degrees write about other peoples paintings?

And what's with macro shots with good visible banding/compression artefacts in bg, or landscapes with good visible sensor spots in the clear sky (all published here more than once)? These flaws are often "killing" the beauty of the intended impression of the image.
What "deeper meaning" am I not able to see here? I'm open to let my horizon to be broadened here.

Peter

Since when have you been appointed judge & jury?

Robert you seem to have a really high opinion of yourself & a low one of others!

On what grounds have you the right to say that Jerry isn't qualified to be on crew? Go & take your bitterness out on a wall.

You have no right, by anything you do or say, to demean a human being in his own eyes. What matters is not what you think of him; it is what he thinks of himself. To undermine a man's self-respect is cruel & the actions of a man who is doesn't know himself enough to realise the same imperfections exist in all of us. We don't need you to judge others only accept others.

Robert

Its good enough for you to use it as a vehicle for your work! & my comment to you is about your attack of an individual who does not deserve to be spoken of the way you are. If you have a beef about the quality here take it up directly with Jacob & Ralf & then if you don't like it go elsewhere but do not publicly bad mouth someone who is giving up his time for free & who is as fallible as you are in arriving at what is or what isn't a world class photo.

When you use the word "fact" be careful to consider what this implies. A fact is uncontrovertible as distinguished from opinion. Your fact is your opinion. And by the way it says I think "...some of the best photos in the world"

I think it was kant that said "if man makes himself a worm he cannot complain if he is trodden on"

I am sure you mean well!

Yes I saw your first comments, no problem with that, I know that you noticed it after submitting it, we're all do mistakes ;-)
That was not about you but about screening.

Does anyone see b/w people in life?

It sounds good for marketing and googling purposes but we all know there is no such thing.
Probably the three best photographs are: any photo of your parents after they died; any photo of the love of your life; and any photo of your child.



Lots of, but we're not allowed to call them that, and in any case most people I see are grey...

Only those with black & white eyes but then not everything is black & white since I guess some who are colour blind may have that misfortune. It is said some animals do! though in reality most of us see in colour but then have the ability to transform what we see into a multitude of different finishes to represent what we want others to see. If they don't see what we see then they see differently & thats OK. One persons violet is another persons problem only if that person chooses to transform someone else's view on life into their crusade to tell everyone else the only way to see is the way they see!

Did anyone say photography is all about representing the reality?

Perfection doesn't exist, so I agree with you.
Did you really discuss about these flaws at length ? What does length mean for you ?
When I see an image of blue children published, which is so obvious and strange, sometimes I wonder if you look at images carefully. (about publishing but also rejection). Did you really discuss about it ? "Hum...crew, is the "blue children flaw" a good reason for not publishing this image ?" Who said no ?
I think you're just overloaded of images and screeners who don't know anything about photography.
At the beginning, screening process was here to help you decide, but now, I don't think it does a good job, these statistics don't mean anything.
You make the final decision but at the same time screening statistics are more and more important for you because you have more and more work.
But how many screeners have published images or know something about photography ?

To mix statistics and art is something weird.

80% of people like Star Wars but how many of them like a movie of Woody Allen or Spike Lee. (I don't like Star Wars lol)
Another example, people vote for their favourite singer in the American Idole TV show, but how many winners of this show make a career. (I don't like American Idole either lol)

Robert is a old school photographer, a guy that prefer do all work with camera. Me too, i think same way, so i understend Robert very well when they talk about "amateurism" of some images in front page. But i love some works i see here in 1X made with photoshop, i think they are not at at all "amateur" work, but the end of a very hard work from the artist. There are superb works made by photoshop, and there are the "violet" people, made in some minutes with photoshop, we must see the diference. There are people who don´t know use a camera and do all work with photosohp, but in the two cases produce terrible works and superb works.

And i accept it, maybe Robert likes very much 1X, or ever too much and don´t like to see that, so Robert, bee cool :)

You know and i know that "violet" people are produced by people that discover the "magic" of photoshop recently, and in 1 or 2 or less year when they look for his works, they ask "whatt a hell, it´s me who do this ???"

About black and white, yes, i know a lot of black and white people, but b&w is not a simply representation of life in b&w, it´s the oldest discipline in photography, the only one before 40´s, and for best results, the most important is the photographer learns to see life in black and white, BUT in color photography it´s same importance the photographer learn to see life in color. Then, the imagination and criativity do the rest of work ... with excelent or less excelent results, depends of the point of view ...

Generalisations are misplaced since they are meaningless. Some may be less or more experienced than others & statistically that is immaterial!

People like you Julien will never be contented while they take everything that they see wrong with this world as a personal affront to their own sensibilities. Get over it is it that big a deal? Take what life is offering you & learn from it stop fighting it!

I enjoy some Woody Allen & most Spike Lee movies & I admire people who put their talent out there & George Lucas is a gifted human being who is richer than you for doing what he does. Just an aside if you get my drift?

I didn't want to say that all the screeners don't know anything about photography, I didn't speak well ;-)

In this case, I'm a bit surprised that screeners didn't notice the blue children because here it is an obvious flaw or mistake and not something to make it looks good.


Thanx dad but I don't fight against such minor things and I'm happy in life, I just ask some questions and discuss, that's it.


Yes, George Lucas is richer than me and maybe one of the richest film director, so what ? Does it mean he is the best ? Does it mean I have to like all his films ?
(btw my aim in life is not to have a lot of money even if it's nice.)
Fortunately, people have different tastes, if a lot of people like a film, it doesn't mean that it is obviously good, and inversely. (Difference is a richness).
I mean, IMO, to make statistics with the votes of everybody to know if something is worth publishing is not the best way to judge art.

'The best' does not exist because it's the one who's watching who judges of best - good - worse. There are many watchers in this little world so there are many or few best - good - worse. The beauty in life is about taste and that's it for me. Keep on making pictures and if you like them yourself you've created beauty or the sublime.

When we have great passion for what we do (especially, it seems, in the field of arts) we can sometimes find ourselves on the path of our own vision that has been shaded around the edges in such a way that we cannot see beyond our own vision of what art really is. And who is to judge anybody's art but the artists themselves. Only time will validate any judgements that have been made by anybody of something that has been created by human.
I doubt that anyone feels that they have a lock on perfection and is flawless. I suspect that deep inside, the striving for perfection in the art that we make, and the judgements of others (which can be multiplied many fold by the judgement of oneself) has more to do with our shadow side and what we worry might be revealed about ourselves. Our flaws we wish to hide.
If we allow ourselves to become more transparent and let these little imperfections in our human nature show themselves to others, then we have given permission to others to do the same. And in so doing, we have bridged a gap (between individuals, borders, and anything else that makes us separate) and created an opportunity to expand the portfolio of the human soul (represented by art) based from a much more diverse range of perspectives.
I am humbled to know that others considered my "judgements" to be worthy of being a screener regardless of the flaws that "I" possess. Be they obvious or not.

Jerry, may I dare to ask what is your definition of art (if you have one)? Thanks.

Robert. I don't think art can necessarily be defined. At least I haven't tried to pigeonhole a definition for myself.
Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your question.

Jerry, actually this is exactly what I think. Thanks. :)

Jerry 3 hrs ago your words were genius & this ain't no back slapping corporate function! Wish I said that!! :)

I do. Art is the manifestation of the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth.

A brief statement such as the preceding is one thing, but explicating and soundly defending it, point by point, is another thing.

And, yes, there is such a thing as bad art. Good art is art that I like.

Oh, never mind! I take it all back.

Thank goodness I thought I was going to have to jump in here...

Good definition. And also the defense statement.
Thank you King.

I'm sure Hillbilly wisdom is just as profound?

King, thanks for your 'definition' of art, but with all due respect I think that taste is all there is, otherwise one would be able to objectively judge what is 'good' and what is 'bad' photo, which IMHO is impossible, I think that all one can say is for me this photo is 'good', claiming that this photo is good (in some absolute sense) just because one thinks is 'good' is in my view 'pretentious'... hope you are not offended by my opinion... thanks ...P.S. the closest definition of art which expresses what I feel about it is: "Art is the lie that makes us realize the truth." - Pablo Picasso ...of course, even having no 'clear' understanding of what art is, I can decidedly tell which photos I like (my list of favourites here on 1x reflects my current taste)...

It's unavoidable, but a good percentage of comments in this thread are about how to manage unhappiness (the unhappiness caused by dallying in photo forums, yes, but all unhappiness is one family).

Let's try to leave the issue of unhappiness aside for a moment, agreed?

I come from a land of very wide paddocks and lots of sheep. Get into Orwellian mode, right? My plot reaches a scene where in the middle of a very wide paddock with a lot of sheep a gate has been erected. Nothing but two posts and a barrier. A sign has been put on the gate: 'Good Sheep Only!' The gate is operated by two dogs (dogs do the expert job of arranging mobs of sheep in my country, nipping ankles, jumping on backs, snapping and yapping). Some sheep come up to the gate. The dogs let some of these sheep through, others no. As sheep do, others follow up to the gate. Again, the 'good' sheep the dogs let through, others no. Whether let through the gate by the dogs, or not, beyond the gate all the sheep mingle without distinction.

The dogs and their gate create a micro-paddock in which momentarily, for those sheep who enter it, some, previously equal sheep, become more equal than others! More equal, that is, in the judgment of the dogs, and being a dog judgment, it cannot easily be communicated to the sheep. However, the outcome for the sheep who participated is that some of them are momentarily and inexplicably happier than others.

Everyone who contributes to any photo forum will be made unhappy. How to handle that is not an appropriate topic for a photo forum. Clearly, this is a case where avoidance is better than cure.

I suggest don't air the unhappiness you experience in this forum. It is self-caused. You see the gate, you see the dogs, you know you will never really know why the dogs let some through the gate and not others. You choose to follow the sheep going up to the gate, or you look past it.

End of Orwellian scene... and to a little more subtlety...

In my view, the quintessence of living for us humans is communicating imagination. It is dead easy to know when and where that works and when and where it doesn't. No fancy philosophising is necessary. Good critique, on the other hand, is integral to the communication-imagination process that is our natural element. The communication-imagination endeavour, including critiquing, is predicated on relationships.

My suggestion then is to do the quantum trick of both going through the gate and not going through it. The way to do that is to make your communication of imagination exclusively in the context of relationships, rather than gates, but still fronting up to the gates, because in the context of relationships, it is gates which can facilitate critique.

Come here to grow - you know if you do or don't. Leave if you don't.

brose, are you (in some sense) unhappy, and if you are may I ask why? Thanks.

Excellent commentary, Brose.

The trick, then, is to be one of the dogs rather than one of the sheep.

Woof!

So you agree with me. :>)

Eii ... please include my goats in story :)

By the way, in the village where i´m making the "Rural Moments" photo-documentary, the old people all the time tells to visitors the story "The goat that have killed the wolf" :)

I thought my comment might catch your attention, Robert. :>)

Just old and tired ones! And who's hearing is becoming as poor as their eye sight, listening to bleating sheep.

Robert, I can only smile, inexplicably, at this! ;)

I would guess so... BTW gave you a few favs, looks like even here on 1x (only 'good' photos so smaller number) some 'good' photos remain hidden (from my sight)...

that is 'good', I would guess...

Shepherd dogs are actually smart sheep who think, if you can't beat them join them.

Thanks, Robert! Why not post a link with your profile where we can see some of your work with that 5D of yours?

Each to his own!

But in my case, I think I'll pass on the option to become an accessory to the gate. On the other hand, give me a relationship I can grow in and I'm like a kitten with a ball of wool!

Too often theories of aesthetics become prosthetics to keep our egos' upper lips stiff, when they should be like scientific theories, which are necessarily tentative, and should always be constructed with the ultimate motive of personal growth. Relationships is where both good theories and personal growth have a chance.

See my definition of art, above. You keep agreeing with me, Brose!

As I mentioned to Robert above, why not post a link in your profile to some of your images? Some of my favorite images are not published on 1X and I assume that the same may be true of you.

Wow, King, I am honoured that you've expressed some interest in my photo 'work' (I'm an 'absolute' amateur)... http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert-jurjevic/

Perhaps... You should know, though, that for me the mind is a figurehead, an executive whose image is used for product identification, and the body is the soul where all spirituality resides. The reason why most portraits fail, for me. They are fooled by the mind into not seeing the body, where all that is, is to be seen.

I am not yet 2yr old in photography age. All I have is juvenilia, and an embarrassment! Let's see if a little later I can take a few more steps, with a little help from my friends! ;)

I liked the sheep story, but you lost me here. . .

So full length portraits are somehow truer than head shots? You may be right but I don't really see why.
Jon

Full lenght or half lenght or head shots are equaly good, if is not a simple "face photo" and are realy portraits ... :)

So you are a dualist? Mind separate from body? If the body is the soul, your soul is mortal. As an atheist, I don't care too much about the second question, but I consider mind to be a construct, in reality a function of the brain, which is the sine qua non of the body.

Don't dualists get up at dawn and shoot at each other?.......

Isn't it ironic that dualist, duelist and dummy all begin with "d"?

lol

There is some fine work there, Robert. I am also not surprised in the least that you have eclectic tastes, that you are a chess expert, a bit of a romantic and either knowledgeable about or interested in physics.

some of my fav words start with"d", dunce, dummy, dysfunctional, dopey, dangerous,, disgusting, deranged, deluded, I've been called most of them to.

You forgot demented.

Seeing someone is rather tricky, don't you think? Because of that, photographing someone is also tricky. As distinct from seeing and photographing an object or a (more or less representative) representation of someone. In other words, how to see the body (including the face, of course), the body which for me is the person, when we normally relate through personality, which is the identity or brand stuck on the body by the mind? For me, a person, including myself (looking at myself), is never fully visible, and therefore never definable. So, where does that leave portraiture? Disclaimer: I am smiling as I write this, so it must be a kind of game ;)

Unless we define "seeing" and what is meant by "someone" ( which would be tricky and probably not worth the effort ) it is impossible to agree or disagree with any conviction. You have an interesting and amusingly put, take on the mind/body thing. What is your view on the chicken/egg thing? it seems to be a similar conundrum ;-)
Jon

Yes, I think - once again! - we are agreeing for the most part. I don't think I know anything about 'mortality', however, to be able to talk about it sensibly, and I suspect that what once has been is outside of time, which (time) covers, like personality, a great deal of mystery. But here, we are talking photography, so when you say photography is about spiritual progress I wonder exactly what you mean, when for me progress is impossible if the body doesn't travel too. I agree that photography is of value when we make personal progress through it. That brings me, speaking personally, back to relationships, and I think that photography is important in that context if it can bring me closer to knowing what the body's environment is, it's niche, and what it itself is, this thing which has personality. This is the way we set up relationships with non-human things. For example, think of what bird photographers do, so passionately - they reveal the bird in such a way that a relationship with it becomes possible, importantly a relationship which benefits the bird and us. I hope you might just be able to glimpse with these inadequate clues how I see photography (along with all other art) as being essential for us.

Metaphor is important and useful when discussing art. My use of the word "spiritual" was meant metaphorically for the essence of self. I didn't say that photography is about spiritual progress, I said that art involves nurturing spiritual growth, that is, encouraging and supporting our essential growth as human beings.

I think the chicken, and one other bird, have the scoop on how the egg came to exist! I cannot throw too much light on that, personally!

As for 'seeing' and 'someone', I believe no knickers need to be knotted. The commonly understood meanings will do just fine. When you look at a photo of yourself, what do you see?

King Douglas: "... encouraging and supporting our essential growth as human beings."

The devil is in knowing how that happens, practically, and through photography! Are there any photographs here on 1x which have done this for you?

Of course, just as I could give you examples from music, poetry, cinema and other art forms. Are you immune to being moved by those things or so habituated to beauty and truth that you no longer notice it? I trust not.

The definition of art that I provided, "Art is the manifestation of the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth," calls for a complex defense that is not appropriate within this thread. As I said when I presented my definition,

Surely you can agree with that.

Sure, and that's why I am restricting myself to photography here.

In any case, I think we both have made a point which is clear enough for the purposes of this thread. We both suggest that the 'gate' is defensible if it helps all who go, or try to go, through it grow as photographers - that it is best used that way, or not used at all.

a very interesting thought, King, though I'm struggling to understand who am I (in philosophical sense), if I'm material quality (probably risen from complexity), what separates me from the rest of material (surrounding air, chair I'm sitting on, etc.), it could be a sort of functionality (material arranged in blood vessels, nerves, etc. with functionality), but then what or who is the centre in that functional material which can be called myself... may I ask in what sense the mind (which according to you is a construct in reality) is an essential ingredient of the body... thanks.

Thanks a lot King, this is definitely an encouragement for me... I am a weaker chess player... I have interest in physics...

I think my sentence may have been a bit complicated.

The mind is a human construct, an emergent quality related to brain functions and the fact that humans have a sense of self (e.g., consciousness, we are aware of our existence and eventual death), unlike most animals.
The mind, per se, is not essential to the body.
The brain is essential to the body. Without the brain (including the brain stem), the body dies.

Though I can understand that there might exist some sort of material 'soul' (say in a form of some known or unknown quantum field) and that I am actually a 'material', I am still puzzled with the fact that my sensation of myself from 'within' myself (of course, this is ambiguous, as I have no clue who I am) is so qualitatively different from anything I can imagine rationally about material world (which includes me), like I 'feel' entirely different 'world' from within (say sensation of seeing, who is seeing the picture, I can understand that there is a centre in the brain for picture processing, but 'who' is having that visual sensation as felt from within).

Answering this question (which I am well aware may be impossible) may help understand (to some extent) how taste (in photography) works, say first there is a set of 'pixels' sent to our brain, then our perceptive apparatus analyses those pixels giving them some meaning (this my range from a simple recognition of what is on the image to a 'miraculous' chain of 'soul' actions which makes us eventually say, I love this woman, I like this atmosphere, I feel divine, this is a masterpiece, I whish I was there, etc.).

Although the question has been answered already in so many ways, I will add my * opinion*.
The screening process is simply an opinion based on a standard.
I use that process to my advantage when I come to this site in that I KNOW I wont have to waste time browsing thru a bunch of crap to find inspiration and unwritten answers.
I KNOW I will find intelligent, thought provoking dialogue, rather than pointless rhetoric.
I dont come here to be published. And I certainly dont have any intention of abandoning my personal vision in order to develop 1x style in order to have the opportunity to be published.
If I where to do that, and if I were to be published, it would be an empty and valueless victory as I would be a stranger being published. It would not be my style or vision.
That being said, I regard being published here as a VERY secondary priority, when compared to the value of the inspiration and conversation that is even more so, the bulk of the attraction of this site.

Ian

With you on that Ian. Though I still submit an image every now and then to test the water ;-)

I third Ian's post and second JBA's comment.

One X is very helpful and challenging for the improvement and understanding of my own photography. Getting an image published is nice, getting rejected isn't but that is not the main target for me.

Aye, there is a lot to be taken and given here - much more past publishing. You can view this is a learning experience; if your main goal is to be published on this site, pay attention and learn - I think you can catch on :) Otherwise, give only what you want to (bend only as much as you are willing) and learn from a great community. Maybe you will find enough to further add on to your expertise level :)

I have just joined oneX and tried to read most of above where a lot of opinions are expressed.

The crew is constantly asking members to be what they are and not to alter their way in order to get published.

I think the same is true for the crew, whom should try not to alter their ways in order to keep oneX as it is, at all times, though this will be a very tough job as time goes by, for many various reasons.

I look forward to see what will become of oneX in twenty - thirty years, as far as the selection criteria goes........

we should all accept the fact that oneX can not exist without its crew as well as its members. what oneX is doing should not be catagorised as a rat race to get published, and getting published should not be considered as an endorsement ! ! the selection criteria is what makes oneX unique.

it may of course be better if oneX explained the reasons of rejection so the members can better understand to become more of an oneX students/soldiers, that I do not thing it is the purpose.

It is very simple ; I have paid a membership fee just to support oneX so that it can continue the work and I will do so in future. this does not mean I like everthing about oneX, nor agree with all the published work, but oneX is a place where I get the opportunity to see how other eyes see......

so keep up the good work people ......