Now I am sure this will sound like a bitter rant, but I assure you it is not. I have had many pictures published, so I don't feel unlawfully treated.

 

That said, I remember when I first joined 1x around a year ago. Every single photo I saw on the front page was absolutely magical. It was emotional, intense, deep and visually aesthetic.

 

....But something has radically changed, and I don't understand what it is, but it has RAPIDLY degraded the QUALITY and emotion of the pictures that end up on the front page. A lot of the photos are below average, indisputable, both in terms of aesthetics and art. They are flat, ordinary, and cheap.

 

What is going on? Do we have some new curators who have a lot of friends that are just starting out with photography, and we are getting some biased votings? It sure feels like that.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I 100% understand that we all started somewhere, and there is no shame in being in the beginning of the journey towards becoming a great photographer. But they shouldn't be rewarded for below mediocre stuff, that's for the critique department to help them improve.

 

Anyone sharing the same experience?

I have a similar perception, not only in these days, but since a few weeks. I would not say the pictures are cheap. I am simply not inspired perceive them as constructed with the aim of being original by all means. True masters of the art don't need that.

 

I also see that some styles and photographers doing those styles are routinely published to an extent that it is simply boring.

 

The striking decline in quality not only affects the photos but also the activities and posts in the forum. No more high level discussions about the meaning and philosophy in our art or technical discussions offering a lot of insight and learning. Well, for the latter I am to blame myself as a discussion only takes places when one contributes oneself. But I am not to blame for the rejection my pictures ☻.

If that is true then I think it's up to us (the members) to change that, the curators can only choose from what is send to them.

 

But curators don't have to publish, do they? Unless there is the "need" to generate income for the site. I did not count but have the impression that the number of published pictures per day has increased with the number of curators.

I scrolled through a lot of the recently published photos right now and I see a lot of impressive stuff in there. Overall I am not as blown away as I used to be. I think that is because I have been looking through photos on this site for a few years, so I have become harder to impress.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

Just like you say such discussion depends on the members of the site. Feel free to open up a topic like that and invite some great 1x photographers to share their thoughts. By showing the way many others might follow you! A community like 1x is what the members make it.

 

Good light, Ralf

 

Yes, exactly, everything is new and fresh when you first join, but after a while you may experience a bit of photo fatigue after having watched a lot of fantastic photos. This means both that you are overwhelmed but also that your photographic eye has developed so you are not as impressed by certain types of photos anymore.

 

In reality, most subjects have already been photographed so if we would publish only 100% original photos we would publish close to 0 and then there would be no point of this site.

 

These kind of discussions have been started countless times here on 1x. Probably once a month or so. If you search the forum you will find another topic just like this started not too long ago. If the people starting these topics would be right that the quality is rapidly declining it would have already hit rock bottom a very long time ago.

 

In fact, the quality is much higher today than what it was in the beginning. Also, there is much greater diversity now, and we have opened up to many more different styles. We are no longer looking only for the perfect, but more for the artistic and genuine. "Bad quality" or an imperfect composition may in fact make a photo feel much more real and make it stronger. For example, some of the biggest photography masters work may look like snapshots to someone people.

 

If everyone would love every photo published on 1x, it would mean that the selection is completely uncontroversial, flat, too easy, lacks edge and is probably boring. Everyone can not like every photo published. However you are free to ignore any photos you don't like and enjoy the ones you love.

 

I can assure that the quality level of 1x is as high as ever and we are constantly working on making 1x even more exclusive and high quality as well as opening up to new edgy photography styles.

 

This comes down to personal preference, but only posting 1 photo each week or so actually doesn't sound that bad. It means quality before quantity, which is exactly what I liked about this page when I first heard about it: The exclusivity. Hunting the thrill of making a photo that will be published. Now, it doesn't feel amazing like that when it's among photos that don't seem that difficult to achieve, and has been done many times before.

 

That said, I appreciate you taking the time to address this issue, Ralf.

 

Regards, James

 

Quality before quantity is exactly what is 1x is about. Many other photo sites publish millions or thousands of photos every day, whereas on 1x only 25-50 photos are published every day. If we would only publish one photo every week, it would mean 99% of all photographers would be rejected, and I don't think many of our members would like that. However, in the Awarded section only 1 photo is published every day if you prefer a slower pace.

 

Some photos which look like they are easy to take may in fact prove to be extremely difficult to take when you try it out yourself. Part of the art is sometimes to make it look very natural and easy when in fact it's not.

Hello everybody

 

Do I understand correctly. I can have photos published in the 1x gallery only if I am a paying member?

If I don't have a membership my uploaded pictures (won't make to the front page even if they passed curation. Is this how it works?

Thank you for your help

trully

Oliver

Hi Oliver

 

Your images could be published if they make it through curation. Your limitation is the number that can be uploaded.

 

If you look through the recently published images, will find images from non-paying members.

 

al

Head Moderator

Thank you Al

I agree with James, I am afraid.

 

I have only three photos published, so I am far from being an accomplished photographer here. I hang out here to look at better pictures than the ones I can create myself, and to learn and improve.

 

1x is still the best photography site I know. When I look at pictures made by photographers I follow, the quality seems to be about the same, but looking at published photos, the quality seems to have deteriorated.

 

In a previous post, I wrote that I had reviewed photos in two categories, and that I noticed a deterioration in quality over the past nine months.

 

I won't repeat that argument, but rather propose a method of measuring perceived quality:

 

1. Construct a set of quality indicators (KPIs, if you are in business. Don't forget that KPIs have to be connected to a goal/strategy map to be really useful. Ignoring that is a common mistake.)

2. Use the data already on the site to track the quality indicators over time.

3. Present the results in a set of process behavior (process control) charts.

 

The charts will give you a pretty good indication of whether the quality is going up, down, or is remaining about the same. Because the KPIs are connected to a goal map, it will be easy to see if the KPIs are correlated to the overall goals of 1x as an organization.

 

The charts will tell you what is happening, but not why, or how to fix it, if it needs fixing. However, there are techniques for doing that too, once you have established a baseline.

 

Quality can be quantified, just like anything else. Sometimes directly, sometimes with proxy indicators.

 

Arguing about quality without defining and quantifying it is meaningless. The debate never ends, and becomes a substitute for action.

 

However, with definition, quantification, and measurement, it becomes possible to observe, to understand, decide, and act.

Really, I have trouble understanding you . Every day there are pictures that takes my breath away and I take full eyes .

I feel that this kind of discussing can bring only the disincentives to photographers.

 

Curators publish the proposed photographs . They must not publish anything ?

 

You think a photography website with 3 photos published is interesting?

You think it makes you want to come here ?

I don't think anyone would want to share photos in this kind of photography website.

 

1x is already very impressive for many photographers who dare not come here because the level is very high.

 

It may not always be of top quality. (but you are right, this is important too) There is also the emotion behind a photograph . Creativity , imagination .

No?

Compared to other communities I see a strong bias towards the architectural, technical, patterns- rhythm- & lines- type of pictures over pictures that are about originality, creativity, imagination and emotion (hope you see what I mean).

 

The first category is way overrated in my opinion and highly cliche because of the limited possibilities. I'm done with all those colourful, walls, doors, stairs, roads, signs & buildings in steep perspective against too dark skies.

 

Good afternoon,

 

When you look under the 'Photos' tab you can see 19 different tabs with different categories listed.

 

I have just looked through all of them and i can see newly featured photographs in each category!

 

In numbers you can say there are more photographs featured in for example 'Fine Art Nudes' or 'Landscapes' or Architecture' or 'Nature' or 'Abstract' then in 'Night' or 'Underwater' or 'Performance' but the amount of photographs submitted to first mentioned groups is far higher than to the latter groups so this is, i think, a good and logical explanation.

 

Also, just looking at the 1x frontpage and click 'Latest', all styles of photography are well represented.

 

If you click on 'Popular' you will see, i agree, more 'Architectal' photography displayed but this is because it is ..... popular!

 

I believe the quality of photography on 1x is very high and the reason most of us 'love' this site and on a daily basis have a look for inspiration or admiration!

 

Grtz, Nick

 

At the urging of a friend, I joined a local, well established camera club. It has been in existence for 80 years and

is very well managed and funded and the attendance for a weekly meeting was well over 100 people. Last night

was a competition for projected images. There was a panel of 5 judges, all of whom were "well credentialed “.

 

As a new member I was assigned the “b’ category and was competing with ‘a’ members who had earned that

designation by accumulated points over the years. There was also a ‘masters’ category in the competition.

 

The lights went out and I was astonished at the level and quality of work that was being projected. Of over 150

images I could not imagine one of them being in curation at 1x for more than an hour.

 

Long story short, I submitted 5 images and won a first place, 3 second places and a 6th. I am in no way an accomplished

or gifted photographer. My advantage is that I discovered 1x, 4 years ago and have access to the best work, not in this

country or in this city but world wide. It is amazing what I have learned from just observing what is published here and

also being able to compete. I cannot leave out DPC because that has also been an enormous learning tool.

 

I guess that before the internet clubs like this were lifelines for photographers. This particular one seems to be insular

with little or no internet reference. It was a revelation to me and has made me even more grateful that I have access

to the quality that is here. If 1x has a slump, it is because we are collectively in a slump. It takes time and work to

participate fully but after last night I am appreciative all over again.

Jane, your response had me fits! I also went along to a camera club...this is what I wrote about the experience... (Oh, and I was also admonished for bringing along my camera! I was the only photographer there with one...)

 

Photographic camera clubs have never really enjoyed a particular good reputation for being filled with young and vibrant people. But maybe that was then. Perhaps in this digital age, with more young people taking more pictures than ever before, it might be different. So more in hope than expectation, I went along to a local club one evening to find out. It turned out to be a weird time-warp experience...

 

Although there were actually two or three in their mid twenties and one or two in the mid-thirties, the majority attending the faded and dilapidated community building inside which the club held their meetings, made even me feel young. On the one hand that's good, on the other... Nevertheless they were warm and welcoming and I settled down to watch the guest speaker give his presentation.

 

Time warp time. I really, really, never expected to have to suffer the experience of watching an interminable slide show of holiday snaps ever again. Within seeing the first four of what would be nearly two hundred slides, I was desperate and looking to escape. But the doors were locked and guarded and it simply would be just too rude to walk out. So being English and not French, I just sat there, bum clenched and teeth gritted, as the presenter droned and stumbled his way through an astonishingly dour selection of fifteen-year-old slides from his holiday to Africa in the last century.

 

Slide after slide sprang onto the screen via an ancient slide projector as my spirit sank further and deeper, each faded slide showing not an inkling of photographic panache. Relentlessly the presenter mumbled and droned on, pointing out this or that bored looking animal with his trembling red laser-pointer. A member nearby promptly fell asleep, his gentle snoring punctuating the monotonous commentary. I don't think the poor presenter could hear him, but the sound cheered me up no end and rather than continue to be irritated, I began to smile. This actually was fun! I started to appreciate and enjoy what was a bizarre experience completely out of time. I even stayed after half time, enjoying a free cup of tea and a biscuit, and waited for the next instalment. I noticed nobody left. Had I come to a secret masochist meeting?

 

Can next weeks meeting beat this? I can't wait to find out! (Sadly, I gave up after another week)

 

Back to topic, I gave this answer to another similar thread some time back. I stand by it still.

 

1x has a certain style, the front page gallery reflects that and by default, it can only reflect what is submitted to it for curation. Each feeds upon itself and the resulting in-breeding (motif / stylistic repetition) is hard to avoid. And don't forget, photo-fashions come and go, and curators despite their best efforts, can never be immune to fashion.

 

So how to accept/publish that original image when it appears? The answer is curators must take a chance. And from time to time I think they do. Most obviously when an image's popularly is notably very unpopular. That's their job. Despite the howls of protest of the mainstream.

 

1x meanwhile has to do more to encourage better image diversity in its front-page acceptance so that new photographers can submit to curation images 'outside' the mainstream. That is the fundamental challenge to 1x future success and it must be recognised, otherwise accepted style will overcome real substance and lead to stagnation. Good light!

Peter, it sounds as if our camera clubs have the same ‘mo’ although on different continents.

Your experience sounds very familiar.

I wonder if most camera clubs are geriatric gatherings. All of my photography friends are cyber

related and I was hoping to find ‘real people’ but it felt as if I was in a time warp....

 

good light to you, too!

Jane

 

I agree with you that the standards are high, Nick. Probably that's the case because the curators can resist popularity as the main criterion for selection and take many more aspects and layers into consideration than the general public.

 

If we had a category "sunsets" or "dramatic skies" that would probably be the largest and most popular category by far, as we can see in many communities. Fortunately that's not the case!

 

Architecture has a lot in common with sunsets: it requires very little creativity: it's mainly the work of the architect, hardly the work of the photographer (like a sunset is created by nature).

 

Originality is also close to zero: it all boils down to blocks, curves, repetition, colours, perspective, symmetry and that's about it. (clouds, sun rays, reflection, silhouettes, shades of orange in the case of a sunset). If you have seen 10 of them, you've seen them all. The variety is very limited and there are little opportunities to widen the scope.

 

Take a look at the architecture category: how many stairs do you see? Or geometric buildings in steep perspective against a dark sky? Or patterns of colourful blocks?

Certainly there are beautiful pictures, but to me it's like chocolate: the more you swallow the less you enjoy the next one.

 

To make it even worse, we alway see the same buildings over and over and over and.....

 

Probably someone will come forward now and ask "how about portraits then; that's all about faces". That's true, except for one thing: portraits (and many other categories) are not limited to the mere registration of the face. There are more layers like expression, emotions, body language, situation, narrative, symbolism, metaphor, mystery. These pictures can have a meaning, make sense, trigger imagination. They can have a much richer content than architecture!

 

So, despite its popularity, in my opinion architecture should undergo the same restrictions as sunsets, macro, long exposures (milky water), HDR, the lonely boat on the lake, jetty disappearing in the mist and other clichés.

 

Alright Tom,

 

I can see i shot myself in the foot mentioning the word 'popular' ...

 

Architecture photography to many of us is a great challenge, looking for the pattern, the angle, the perspective and we spend a great deal of time thinking, searching and perfecting our technique. That is what makes it popular!

 

Sorry, i don't agree with you that architecture doesn't require creativity; good work always requires creativity!

 

We can agree, i hope, that all of us would love to create unique and original images from time to time or even only once in a lifetime. We probably all do our best to achieve just that.

 

In the end it all boils down to taste and opinion. You mention portraits; i love portraits myself but not everybody does. The same is true for architecture, nature, landscapes; some love it, some are bored to tears by it.

 

I think there is a place for all styles and each categorie will have its own followers.

 

Grtz, Nick

 

 

In my limited US photo club experience, judging in them is very much PSA (Photographic Society of America) oriented. That means, on average, very classical rules and a lot of those rules. Don't you dare to make your photo too complex or not too bring up those details in those shadows. The average members age assessment, I agree with it. The explanation could be that when you are young you live your real life, when you are in your 30s and 40s you are too busy bringing up your relatively late children, and when you are 50+, especially retired at 65, then you finally have time and desire for your very own serious hobbies, photography being one of them...

 

-Anna

1x is still the best site!

 

Our job a curator would be more pleasant, if we saw all strong images, the once with a + point and this in all sections.

Upload only the best of your images. Those who have a soul, mood, impact, creativity, tells a strong story, has a great POV...even edgy, creative onces or welcome. Try to make the difference!

 

I'm also members of a photo club, with only 11 members from all ages.

As artistic responsible in this club, I try and insist that only the best will be exposed at the annual exhibition. We all curate the shown images and suggest improvement if needed.

Some bring very interesting work, are very critical on there own work, others (the minority) can't and will never learn, miss the passion.

 

This make that our annual exhibition has a lot success with a lot of visitors and response, they come see what we did "special" this year, not only with the photo's, but also for the special presentation.

 

It's all about passion, vision and ages doesn't matter.

 

P.S.: Concerning PSA/FIAP, once you master the rules, they can be broken in an intelligent way!

 

Best, Ben

 

i am not a professional photographer but a simple amateur and my photo gallery is rather poor published, but recently i see the same thing that says “james allen stewart”, a lack of quality on some pictures of some authors, and this sincerely is disappointing, in struggling as much success to make a photo worthy to be published and find reports on the homepage or individual photos that do not transmit anything even a sympathetic laugh leaves me incredulous

I'm perfectly okay with James Allen Stewert, recently (about two years) on the home page often see photographs that do not seem that excited and really poor. I do not understand the reason for this turnaround. Until a few years ago every time I looked at the home saw only images exciting and images rarely insufficient, but now often I remain incredulous towards some absurd choices. I do not care if this is the policy of the site or if the editors are new or just friends of friends, what interests me is to see the home page full of beautiful photographs, this is no longer so, in fact, sometimes the pictures special I observe in the Critique.

 

Dear Ralf, no one questions the 'quantity' of photographs on the home page, but the 'quality' of some photographs (about 1, 2 each day, making the proportions are lots) that are systematically proposals (not all days thankfully) to the whole world. I have heard many of my Italian friends that both members and non-members too have had this disappointment. regards

 

I think it's very disrespectful to all the incredibly talented and dedicated photographers here on 1x to say that their published photos are not beautiful.

 

On the contrary, I think the front page is very beautiful, I hardly know of another place with so skilled photographers as 1x. There is no change in policy, however we try to be as open as possible to many different styles of photography. Some people do not appreciate certain styles, so it's only natural that not everybody will like everything. The alternative is to publish only "perfect" photos but these are boring in the long run and not what you will find in photo galleries and museums.

Everyone should take pictures as he or she pleases, Nick. No problem with that.

 

There are differences between architecture, sunsets (one dimensional) and other more complicated categories of photography though. The first category is all very concrete, physical, visible, tangible etc. All it requires is technical skills to reproduce reality in a picture (in the most beautiful way that is).

 

Other categories of photography (especially if people are the subject) convey more than just visible information. They can raise questions, make us feel happy or uncomfortable, remind us of the past, require an interpretation, tell a story, send a message etc. The visual language of this kind of pictures is richer and more complicated and also partly depends on the background of the viewer.

 

We all understand (and feel) that a baby's hand on a parents arm is not a picture about limbs.

 

The differences between categories are similar to the differences between a detective story and work of literature. Or the differences between a three chord pop song and a symphony.

 

Now, what bothers me is that I got the strong impression that new fresh original creative work is rejected during curation in favour of yet another staircase. My best guess is that there must be several architecture/landscape/abstract adepts among the curators.

 

Going back to the question of topic starter James Allen Stewart: "Anyone sharing the same experience?". The answer is YES, I got a similar impression.

 

Dear Ralf, I did not write at all that some pictures on the home page are not beautiful. If you read carefully, I wrote that a long time there are some pictures on the home page that does not excite you and make the site 'poor'. This does not mean having little respect for photographers to 1X. This is my thinking and not just mine. Regards

 

 

I had the same impression, some pictures with all respect to the author, I do not think they are up to the reputation and popularity of 1x.

Regards

Curation is a black box now. One or two lines from the curators about their motivation to publish a photo would probably clarify a lot.

I'm fairly sure that I've made my point, and I'm also fairly sure that if the curators read all of this, they will have thought about it and brought it into consideration :) So in a way, it was what I wanted.

 

Now all I can pray is to not see another black&white winding staircase shot from below. Please, for the love of everything :D I will admit right now that that was what ticked me off in the beginning. The EXACT image has been done so many times before, and since 1x is a place with talented, experienced photographers we have all seen this so many times before, so it becomes boring and unoriginal (which it is).

 

That said, I hope everyone will do their best to produce images that will inspire, and be critical towards your own work :)

 

Regards, James.

 

Dear James considered your reference I can not help it that pictures that represent you, in my humble opinion, does not mean anything, such as photo reportage made the sea which highlights the belly of men.

regards

 

Everything means nothing, dear Fabio :) It's all about finding purpose in the stuff that you care about.

 

Hello everybody and specially the curators team,

 

I agree with Tom.

 

After years of regular visits on 1x.com, I decided to join this wonderful community in early 2015.

The quality of the photos published was a big motivating factor but not the only one.

By posting on 1x I really thought I could finally exchange and obtain critical and constructive advices on my photos.

In nine months I submitted 25 photos to curation and I've only got one comment of a curator, and especially not a single comment from the team of curators who decides whether or not to publish a photo.

I do not pretend to believe that I produce pictures that deserve to be published, but I'm really disappointed that I never got any comment, any advice that would allow me to progress, and why not, one day see my efforts rewarded with one of my photographs published. I think I am not alone in this case.

 

9 months later I am really disappointed, especially since as others have already said, I sometimes have the impression of seeing the same style photos published, notably on the part of some who make still pictures of the same style. This is so true that sometimes when I vote for curation just by seeing the picture I already know who made it.

 

I really think it would be very rewarding to know the technical and artistic reasons for a curator to publish or not publish a photo.

 

Regards, JAC

 

Hi JAC.....

 

The Curators do not comment or give advice of images going through the curation process. (You can find this information I believe in the FAQ's) As I'm sure you can appreciate, the crew members of 1x are volunteers. Time is limited, as most have jobs, family, hobbies, etc. The Curators would have to spend hours and hours on the web-site if part of their role was to give feedback on the hundred's of images going through the curation process daily. With that said, I did have a look at your portfolio and it appears you forwarded three of your images to the Critique Section. This is the best way to receive valuable feedback from fellow photographers and the senior critique crew.

 

*Darlene*

 

 

Hi, Tom,

 

for a better understanding of curators' decisions it can be helpful to read the interviews that are available in the "MORE"-section under "CREW". There you'll find portraits of the 14 curators who at the moment decide about publishing or rejection of submitted images. Each interview reveals some informations and backgrounds of the high skills of the curators and many of their stunning photos are presented. So you can be sure that they are able to ensure the high standards of the 1X-gallery.

 

Cheers,

Hans-Martin

 

 

First I must admit I'm quite fond of any kind of architectural photography. The way some photographers make their choice too let us see a building from another point of view, I have great respect for.

But, you're right! ... The last weeks or even months are repeatedly similar pictures published with little differences among them. Doors, Windows, then color, then in black and white and with less quality. And Indeed, often the same photographers.

 

Then you wonder,......why?

 

Hello Hans-Martin & Darlene,

 

That's the usual "have faith" type of argument. I'm not a believer though, not in the religious sense and even less in the real world. I prefer facts, arguments and a comprehensible explanation!

 

It's obvious that the curation process and the reason why a picture is chosen over similar images must be kept in the dark, no matter what it takes. Unfortunately 1X is quite unique in this!

Anyone questioning curation is invariably gagged with the advice to send pictures to Critique. That's an answer to a different question however!

 

Moreover, the critique section is not very useful to me. First of all I'm not a native speaker and have difficulties to express the subtleties that matter to me (how about members from other non-english speaking countries?)

Secondly: most critique has a technical nature where I prefer to discuss the more imaginative aspects of pictures.

Finally: I already receive feedback on my pictures from other sources that are easier and quicker to communicate with.

 

Note that I'm not asking to discuss why images are rejected. On the contrary, I'm curious why particular images are published! I agree, for many publications it's quite obvious what makes them stand apart from the mass. For a significant (maybe growing) amount of publications it's not however. Browsing through the latest publications it's easy to find pictures that we have seen slightly different a thousand times before, just like pictures that are trivial and exchangeable and often captured from the exact same spot (colourful lockers, repeating rooftops, winding stairs, animals from the zoo, pointless nudity, the lonely X on the empty Y, long exposures invariably with fading clouds & milky water etc etc)

 

With the limited number of publications, it's hard to believe that there is no time to mention the distinctive qualities that make a picture stand out from the crowd. This would be a simple but great improvement to the gallery. Interviews with the curators (as suggested) are no substitute, as they are not related to specific images.

Without such a clarification it's sometimes hard to understand why mediocre and cliche pictures (in my opinion) are chosen over much better ones of the same kind. I'm really curious if and why the curators see things differently.

 

As the average acceptance rate is about 5%, it's also hard to understand why some photographers have an acceptance rate of 50% or higher. This is even harder to understand if their pictures show little variation and look quite mediocre to me. By publishing 50% or more, in fact the curators are saying "this photographer is ten times better than average, but we refuse to explain why". This is really annoying and makes no sense either: on the one hand 1X constantly emphasizes the importance of education, on the other hand it refuses to do the obvious.

 

Cheers,

Tom Baetsen.

With 300-500 photos uploaded every day and 14 curators, it's unfortunately impossible for the curators to comment on every image. They are already spending hours every day curating images on a completely voluntary basis.

 

If you want additional feedback on your photos, send them to critique.

 

Well....expand the curator team . Would you like to become an important leading site in the field of photography. Ask for more volunteer curators. Do not hide behind the limitations of he own site and crew.

 

This is just my humble opinion

To all of the amazing photographers here,

 

Having been a member of 1x since 2011, I've seen a lot here. Too many awesome works to get awed from. Too many inspirations.

talking about the published photographs here, I think we all have seen so many aesthetic and appealing photos here that our expectancy has increased by leaps and bounds. Having said this, 1x was and always be like an art gallery. Like a curator decides what has to be shown on wall in real gallery, I think it is only appropriate that some decisions have to be left to them , without discussions.

 

I have been a part of many other social networks as well , but no social site opened a forum as effective as the critiq one and some years later the learning forum.

Probably most of the editing nuances and many helpful tips from the cream of photographers around the globe can be found here.

The learning forum has probably opened a good window for all to have a peek into the styles and approach of how the published photos in past got into the gallery as well.

this is always been my opinion that its best not to think about what happens with the artworks... coz thats how it is.. in art 2+2 for some can be 4 for some it can be 6, there are no definite answers.. i guess even the curators would go through the same phenomena.. ..

 

regards,

Swapnil

 

Sigh.....

 

Concerns and suggestions are simply denied without reading (as demonstrated)

Talking to the wall is more rewarding.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

1x is, by a wide margin, the best photography site I know. Still, if the purpose is to foster better photographers, improving the feedback is a necessity.

 

As has been pointed out, sending photos to critique is not a substitute for having curator feedback.

 

Here are some suggestions that might be useful:

 

* Provide feedback for only a sample of images. 23 photos would be enough to give you a fairly good statistical sampling. (I suggest you use a sample size calculator to fine tune the sample size: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm )

 

* Make the feedback short. 1-3 sentences. That would mean on average 2.5 sentences per day (23*1.5/14) for each curator. This is not an overwhelming workload.

 

* Optimize the curation process. In almost any process, there are a lot of things that can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary. I suggest you have a look at the TOC process of ongoing improvement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints#The_five_focusing_steps). There are plenty of other methods, if you prefer something else.

 

It is likely that the net effect is reduced workload for the curators, and increased quality of the photos submitted to the curation process.

 

The results of doing things like this can sometimes bring ridiculous performance improvements. At a company where I worked on improving a documentation process, we could measure both quality and lead time. We managed to improve the quality by 300%, while reducing lead time by 87%. That is exceptional, of course, but in every case I have seen the past fifteen years, implementing improvement processes have been well worth it.

Worth pointing out that once you have built a library of photos with curator feedback, you can reduce the sample size. All you need to do is to provide sufficient samples to keep up with current trends, and overall quality improvements.

 

That means 2.5 sentences per day per curator is a temporary top load, that can be reduced after awhile.

I could not agree more Henrik!

 

Optimizing the process can both reduce workload and improve quality as well as reduce the risk of patterns evolving, all at the same time!

 

A two step curation process e.g., can also drastically reduce workload for the curators. Selected members from different categories could make a preselection for the curators and reduce the amount of submissions to 25% (as an example). After that curators could make the final selection and clarify their choices.

 

This will make the curator's job much more diverse and more rewarding as they can share their skills, knowledge and experience with less experienced members.

Hello,

 

Thank you Henrik and Tom, I couldn't have said it better.

I fully agree with your suggestions and I hope that the 1X founders, crew members and especially the curators will hear them.

It would be a win-win improvement for the 1X comunity

 

Regards, JAC

Hello

 

reading this thread I see so many creative solutions to try to solve issues that are of concern to you - I am impressed how many skilled people for 1x to learn from.

 

Nevertheless, I am puzzled by this idea from many of you, that most things can be quantified and thereby raising quality of photography.

 

My knowledge tells me that quality in art work can not be measured and quantified like you suggest in this detailed manner. Art is not math.

 

If I see an art work, photograph or whatever, I cannot always explain why I like it, I just do, and maybe after a while when I watched it many times, maybe some words come to my mind.

 

I guess it is the same with the curators that they don't always are able to articulate why they think an image is good.

 

So what I am saying, is that it is not a good idea to try to quantify art work. It is a matter of taste and preferences, I think. There are no short cuts to learn how to take great photographs in master class. You may always study the pictures of true masters of photography and get inspired, this would be a better way to learn I think than try to scrutinize and quantify photographs posted to 1x.

 

Even if the curators had time to comment each photo that was posted for curation and published, what help would it be for other photographers to develop their own style? If you want to copy what others do, you would learn a lot, but we don't want to do that, do we ?

 

Mette

 

Hello Mette,

 

I realize I am going a little bit off-topic now, but you raise some very good questions, so I'll do my best to answer:

 

Mathematics and art have a very close relationship. The relationship may not always be obvious, but it is there. In general it is easier to see the relationship for mathematicians than it is for artists.

 

As an example, M.C. Eschers paintings have an obvious mathematical basis. Here is a short video clip you might find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcc56fRtrKU

 

In photography, we do a lot of things that can be expressed mathematically. for example, there are mathematical relationships between the light in a scene, sensor properties, exposure time, aperture, and ISO.

 

When we postprocess a photo in Photoshop, everything we do is done by applying mathematical trransformations to the picture.

 

Rules of composition, like the golden ratio, and the rule of thirds, can be expressed mathematically.

 

So art can be expressed with mathematics. Mathematics has esthetic ideals, mathematical relationships can be "beautiful" or "elegant", so you can view mathematics itself as a form of art.

 

However, whether photography can be expressed mathematically or not, does not really matter.

 

You can still apply mathematics in various ways to see if 1x is achieving its goals or not. And, we can still apply mathematics to improve the curation process.

 

Here is an example of a thing that can be done to measure the curation process: A stated goal of 1x is to increase the diversity of the photos on the site. It is difficult to measure that directly, but we can easily find a proxy variable that gives us an indication of whether the curation process increases diversity or not:

 

When we upload photos we tag them with keywords used by the 1x search engine.

 

It would be easy to analyze those keywords and construct a frequency table for all uploaded photos. It would be just as easy to construct a keyword frequency table for curated photos.

 

Then, one can compare the frequency tables to see if the frequency distributions are different.

 

If the curators are working towards diversity, the frequency distribution curve for gallery photos will be less steep than the curve for uploaded photos.

 

If the curators are reducing diversity, the curve for gallery photos will be steeper than the curve for uploaded photos.

 

If the diversity of curated photos is similar to the diversity of uploaded photos, the curves will have similar shape.

 

A single measure won't tell the full story, but a system of measures like this can give a pretty good picture of what is happening on the site.

 

If one starts by building a map of the goals and objectives of 1x, then links the goals to measurements, either direct, or by proxy, and finally to behaviors designed to increase or reduce measures, one can build a pretty accurate picture of whether 1x is on track or not.

 

What does not work, is relying exclusively on human judgement. The human brain is notoriously unreliable, because it has built-in biases towards certain types of results. Our perception of reality is often very different from reality itself, because our brains take shortcuts when thinking.

 

Here is a list of known biases of the human brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

It is a wonder we can get anything done. :-)

 

What Tom Baetzen, J-A Chazal, and I talked about, is just a way of reducing the errors we are all prone to make, because of the way our brains work.

 

It is fairly easy to do. The difficult bit is usually getting people enthused about giving it a try. :-)

 

True words, Mette!

 

One can quantify many things and read a trend in it and use it in your photography as an inspiration or as copy-catting. So far so good, but the unanswered question is, what is a good photo? A question that should be answered before you can even start to think about sampling and quantifying.

 

I once had a conversation with a - in my eyes - brilliant photographer, who was constantly asking herself whether the images she had been taken were photos or illustrations.

 

Many images are indeed beautiful illustrations. You can admire them, but they do not make you think, they don't raise questions, they don't make you wonder or is telling you something - not necessarily a story. In short, does the photo communicate with you, or in this case with me. And sometimes it can take quite a while before it starts speaking...

 

However, a photo that speaks to me, may be deaf to some one else. An image that is breathtaking for me, may be a boring one for you. It is not only a matter of taste, but also a matter of your and my idea of photography and broader speaking, of art. It is an a never ending discussion.

 

 

Dear Henrik,

 

Thank you for the explanation, fine that you go a bit off-topic, not that much..

 

I understand better what you mean now when you explained it so well, but still I see it a bit different than you. What you call "errors we are all prone to make", I would call "natural differences or variations", "interesting diversity" or something like that.

 

The statistics you suggest to do, analyzing diversity, I think would probably reveal that the pictures on the front page would match the taste of the curators. No wonder the curators are biased, they have their own taste, which is natural, we see the world differently... What to do about it? Get more curators with a different taste than the curators already there ? - They would be biased too, because people have their own taste and preference and art isn't math ...

 

What would be the point in doing this analysis even if fairly easy to do? To find out mathematically what we already know ? Maybe this is the reason sometimes when people are not enthused about giving it a try... why use time and energy to scrutinize the obvious.. but I may be wrong in my reflections, I have been wrong before... once or twice.. :-)

 

We can just agree upon that we disagree in this matter - all fine with me Henrik ! You think that quality in art can be quantified, I think it cannot.

 

I know math is a powerful tool of course, but math and statistics do not create art, people do. Interesting how somebody mix math and art as in your link-example, but if everybody did it, I think art will lose a lot of power. Math is about logic, patterns and numbers, and art I associate with fantasy, emotions and beauty that is not matematical and logical in essence - even if we to some degree always think matematical and can analyze a picture using math. The rule of 3rd etc is math but it is such a minor element of the expression in a picture I think. Math is just a minor tool to help us in a limited sense. I guess a mathematician/statistican would disagree with me... maybe because she or he would be biased.. ? :-)

 

Best wishes

 

Mette

 

 

Dear Susanne,

 

thank you for your comment, I enjoyed reading it.

 

Interesting your example about the distiction between an illustration and a photograph. I think this photographer you mentioned have a great point in doing this distinction. Maybe this is what differ a really good photograph from just a normal one. An illustration does not move your feelings so much, it is more just a print of reality, while a really good photograph touches your feelings and make a deeper impression on you.

 

But of course, since taste is so different, for some the illustrative photographs make deeper impression and they consider this the "real art"... you are right Susanne, neverending discussion this :-)

 

Best regards

 

Mette

 

 

""Quality . . . you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile? Obviously some things are better than others . . . but what's the betterness? . . . So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it? ...Robert Pirsig""

 

I think the curators do a very good job and do seem to publish wonderful images, to me, this is the very best Photography website.

The immense response says enough, I think.

1X is a great and inspiring site for me, at least a bunch of photographers.

 

But I don't like the prefence of the "inner circle".

It's the problem with all sites:

if you know someone, you are willing to favorite the picture.

 

Allhough I appreciate good comments,

I really don't care, for most of the time it doesn't help me taking better pictures.

Especially the responses to the awarded pictures bothers me:

hardly a critical note, just congrats. Thats makes no sense for me.

 

I hope that this beautiful site really can help to make better pictures.

Loek

 

I guess we all process things very differently, Loek.

I find there is a direct cause and effect between having access to outstanding photography and becoming a better photographer.

Having the quality and the diversity of much of the work that is published here can be a learning tool as can the tutorials that

share details of how superb photographs were accomplished.

If the ‘inner circle’ refers to the people who write congratulations for published work that they appreciate, then it is probably something that

we should all be doing to support and strengthen a community that we care about.

Hello Henrik, Mette & Susanne & others,

 

First of all: some of us would appreciate some more input from the curators. They are considered to have the most knowledge, the highest skills and the most experience and certainly the most influence but they remain invisible behind their Y/N decisions. That makes for a nice gallery, but little sharing of expertise! Everytime the excuse is that they cannot discuss every single submission in detail. No one asked for that however, so no need to keep repeating this.

 

Good to hear your opinions and funny how different they are!

Mette says that great pictures and art cannot be manufactured at will by understanding how it's done. I agree, and this is not what I meant to say. Further she says: it's a matter of taste & preferences. That's also true, but it's a bit of a knockdown argument. Taste & preferences are not part of our genes! They change over time and are the outcome of a process; there is certainly something to learn and understand here!

 

I agree with Henrik that optimizing the curation process can free up time for the high priests of 1X to enlighten us with their expertise instead of spending all their time making Y/N decisions. I don't think however that producing a piece of art can be understood completely.

 

I feel closest to Susanne as she accepts that there must be "something" that makes the difference between a good and an outstanding picture. It's hard to define, but we all know it's there because outstanding pictures are significantly higher appreciated than average. Let's give it a try.

 

The basics of photography are quite comprehensible and tangible. This includes all the things we can buy (equipment); understand (knowledge) & practice (skills). This is the quantifiable part in Mette's words. All basic elements have a name, can be learned, demonstrated, discussed, tested & controlled by buttons. We are talking here about sharpness, shutterspeed, resolution, crop, colours, rule of thirds etc. This is wat all amateurs are talking about (including the 1X critique section), what most magazines are filled with and advertising is all about. Mastering this part allows us to produce quality pictures and most people are satisfied with this.

 

Oustanding pictures need more than this. As Susanne names it, such pictures must be able to "communicate" with a large audience. Simple one-dimensional "illustrations" or registrations are usually not sufficient. The picture should additionally be aesthetically pleasing, emotionally moving, meaningful, surprising, mysterious, attractive, cinematic, narrative etc.

 

Such multi-dimensional images are more complicated and difficult to comprehend as now we are entering the "soft" world of feelings, emotions, imagination, fantasy, aesthetics. A world where perception, interpretation and appreciation largely depend on the viewer's background.

So, all these "soft" qualities are volatile. We often don't exactly understand what we feel, have no name for it so just like Mette says "I cannot always explain why I like it, I just do, and maybe after a while when I watched it many times, maybe some words come to my mind"

 

Now that's exactly where the CURATORS can guide us and show us what is going on in a picture by naming and explaining the multiple facets. They can make us aware of elements that are not obvious at first sight, but still are felt by most viewers. Think of symbolism, metaphors, suggestion, illusion, mysticism, mood, drama, narrative etc. Curators can do this by pointing out the distinctive features why an image has made it to the gallery.

 

And NO, this is noth math but raising awareness; this are not recipes but developing vision; both stimulating creativity and originality!

 

And NO, the curators don't need to discuss every single picture submitted to curation (so this will not induce a lot of additional work)

 

And NO, the critique section is suitable for basic knowledge, not for understanding the curators' choices. We would like the high priests themselves to clarify their choices.

 

Have a nice day

Tom.

Thank you Tom!

 

I do agree with your points.

 

There is a conflation of very different things in this thread.

 

I agree that we cannot define the process of creating art mathematically, but no one has proposed that we should do that. It is a strawman argument.

 

What is feasible, is that curators provide feedback. They won't have to provide feedback for every photo. As I showed earlier, if they write an average of 2.5 sentences per day, that will be enough.

 

At the curator level of competence, articulating why they choose the way they do, is easy, and can be done very quickly.

 

Also, while we can't define the process of creating art mathematically, it is very likely it is possible to improve the curation process. Those are two different things. They are not causally dependent. Again, a strawman argument was used to argue against improvement.

 

I have worked with process and organization improvement for more than fifteen years, so I have spent a lot of time doing the things I have proposed in this thread. (I have also written a book on the subject, and last week I was ranked the 49th most inspiring project manager in the world by the American company TimeCamp, partially because I work with, and try to increase awareness of, statistical methods and practical applications of systems thinking.)

 

As of yesterday evening, I am working on building a quality improvement system for another photography organization. It is an organization I am heavily invested in, and it is work I ought to have done a long time ago, so I am very grateful to everyone in this thread. You gave me the impetus to get going. :-)

 

I won't argue the case for improvement in this thread again, not because of lack of interest, but because I'll be busy doing the work.

 

I will continue to follow this thread, even though I won't be active in it. Difficult to stay away, because this is a matter of great interest to me. :-)

 

Anyone interested in process and quality improvement, and in particular how it relates to photography, is more than welcome to contact me via private message.

 

The above is the central thesis. I think this will help to shift a portion of the overly technical approach ("bit more this, a little less that") to the "soft" / psychological / emotional level which is important (imho) for exceptional pictures but is underexposed now.

 

You're right, I noticed the strawman arguments (although I did not know the term). When these logical fallacies occur I always wonder what's on people's minds: didn't they get the point or are they afraid of change and unwilling to accept the conclusion in the first place?

 

Responding with "send to critique, curators cannot discuss all submissions" looks like a standard text fragment to effectively silence people while completely ignoring what they bring to the table ;). It's not a valid argument in the current discussion.

 

Have a nice day,

Tom

I do a lot of criticism on this site. I did not like the current policy,

I did not like the moderators (they read my mail and even could afford to remove part of my correspondence with someone),

I did not like the curators (I think they have a stop-list with my name)

I did not like the founder, because he did not listen to the voice of the people.

But times are changing, and changing the team, together with the founder.

I see change and they are for the better.

And this site is the best of all what I know.

and another member of our site:

 

Not a photographer takes a picture.

 

Photographer pushes the button, and when he does, defines God.

 

And God is Love.

 

And all the wonderful moments of life we leave on the film, thanks to the love that is stored within us.

 

The more love, the more we see and feel deeply that surrounds us.

 

Alexander Lapin.

 

 

Love saves us even from ourselves ...

 

Asuncion Salmeron

Hi, to give further credence to the post I would, with respect to authors, to place some links of photos that I honestly don't think should be on the homepage of 1 x considering the beauty of the pictures posted as usual. Unfortunately I noticed that some users have been posting pictures, which I called "homepage", not users are "pro" or "plus", so I'm led to believe it's just a business? This my outlet is due to the fact that I was proud to be part of this site, but now I see belittle the work of many photographers who despite efforts are not published photos that definitely deserves the HOME.

 

I'm sorry but I think 1 x is losing credibility.

 

https://1x.com/photo/

 

https://1x.com/photo/

https://1x.com/photo/

 

ecc...ecc...ecc...ecc...!!!

 

thank you

Hi Fabrizio,

 

How would you feel if your images were published, you were happy about it, and then you read in the forum that your images don't deserve to be on the frontpage? You hit someone in the face by saying something like that. It's rude.

 

 

you think I'm rude because I tell the truth?

who is honest intellectually understand what I wrote and I am sure will think like me.

No, I think you are being rude because you are telling YOUR truth.

You can't think for someone else, we are not the same, if we were then our images would be the same as well.

 

 

but have you seen the pictures of the link I posted? do you have photos that deserve the homepage on 1x?

 

or should we be hypocrites and rate pretend nothing...

 

good day

 

Hi Fabrizio,

Thank you for your Forum post, however it is against 1x policy to criticize or discuss someone else's photo without their written permission. Therefore, your links in the above post have been deleted.

The Forum is a place for friendly, civil and polite exchanges of opinion.

This is not negotiable.

Thank you in advance for your understanding.

Leigh

1x Head Moderator

 

 

Hi Leigh, regardless of whether that policy 1x does not want criticism without the consent of the authors, I think you will realize that there is truth in what I wrote ....

 

thank you

 

I don't know if I have photo's that belong on the homepage, but the curators decided that some of my images did belong there.

I do know that since there is so much negativity about published images I'm sometimes afraid that one of my images will be published, and ends up here in a link posted by someone, telling how awful it is.

 

I'm a bit insecure about myself, my images. I once changed my hair, and I was very happy about it. I worked in a bookstore, and one of the customers said to me, o my god, I really don't like your new hairstyle, it's ugly, I can't get used to it.

That customer really hurt my feelings, and suddenly I hated my new hairstyle too.

 

I think that you don't always have to say what you think.

 

I like your thought Leonie, but I think the critical need also to grow "photographically" all of us, is a way to confront and try to learn more and more.

if we do not say what we think, in this world, now there is nothing left.

 

Hi

But when creativity is 'awarded' with a link in the forum and negative comments then you will achieve the opposite

These seem like endless topics - what is wrong with 1x? why is my photo not published? my photo is better than your photo. give me scientific mathematical proof why my photo should not be published blah blah blah.

 

I'm still not entirely sure what purpose the member curation serves. The votes do not count. There are hardly any comments from members (thanks to the comment voting system). No feedback from curators (due to time constraints). I understand the reasons for all these limitations. But if nothing matters why have it at all? All it seems to do is create confusion, animosity and hurt feelings. Here's an idea - maybe 1x should get rid of the member curation system altogether. All images should be considered in curation the moment they are uploaded. Curators can select images themselves and publish the ones which they like. No sending to curation. No waiting in the publish queue ... and getting rejected ... followed by immediate shameful deletion of file ... and the sulking and temper tantrums that inevitably follows. Hows that?

 

Make 1x a peaceful and supportive community.

I share the impression of Fabrizio and several others who expressed themselves in this post that the quality of 1x frontpage pictures has been slightly but constantly in decline for several months now compared to 1x's own ambition explicitly stated in the FAQ. The pictures in the removed links could be seen as examples for this decline.

 

In order to satisfy the need to grow photographically which I am feeling more and more, 1x must grow in quality, diversity, innovation or sublimity as well. But one can construct a house only with the bricks one has at hand, so I think we should not blame the curators but more ourselves. It is no proof of originality when one submits pictures that resemble to already published pictures in the hope to get on the frontpage too. Well, for several regularly published photographers such hope gets fulfilled more often than it should in my opinion.

 

Although it will never come true, 1x should have a place where for some specially chosen published pictures curators give their reasoning in a few words. This would be a highly appreciated opportunity for those aspiring to grow photographically. Why not adding the curator's choice category with this.

You sould not feel that getting published here helps you grow as a photographer. Because getting published here does not automaticly means you are a good photographer and not getting published does not mean you're a bad one.

 

It's Nice for exposure. To get your work to a lot of eyes but you can do that several ways.

 

If you want to grow tecnically read, take courses, practice and so on. Artisticly please stay true to yourself because if you shoot what you think other people like you will never be great...

 

I think you did not understand Patricia. It is probably because English is not my native language. I don't think to grow when I am published but I would be interested to learn what a curator as a master in his or her art sees in a picture I probably missed.

 

That is just my point. People say quality is going down yet you value the opinion of 'the curator' so much that you want to know what your photo is missing. Who says your photo is missing anything. They can value it tecnically. Like over exposure or bad clooning or bad composition but artistically it is a matter of taste. I've been active here a few years. And now i'm back after yet another few years. I see photo's getting published now that would not have made it earlier and the other way around. It is a matter of taste, time, mood whatever the reason.

 

You won't grow from an opinion of one person. You will have better luck in the critique section. Not that they know it all but you will get more opinions and you can think about them and play with it.

 

Sorry if I miss understand you again.

I am not talking (or writing) about my own pictures. But it is okay

In our curator team we have very good street photographers, who look at those images in a different way, then curators with an artistic background.

 

We see more and more those "snapshots(?)" images in photo museums, were the artistic component is vague!

 

As a single image it's not always easy to understand, to get the message, but as a series it tells mostly a strong story.

 

Many young photographers, with a photo school education, make those kind of images. This are not images I will put on my wall, it's just an other photographic vision on reality.

 

With the diversity of curators we have diversity on the front page.

We open for the other opinions!

 

P.S.: If somebody can't appreciate, it just pass at the next image.

 

Best, Ben

 

I fully agree with Ben Goossens, that there is a different vision.

Curators like family, we do not choose, they are given to us from above :-).

I think for myself, I found the explanation of the problem. Photo is a reflection of our spiritual inner world. Sometimes consciousness, sometimes unconscious.

I looked at the work of our curators. Except for 2-3 people, their creativity, their spiritual world is not in contact with mine. And it was naive of me to expect from them understanding and support. If you have a different situation, if their creativity, their spiritual world, their world view are close to you, but your shots not publish , look for a problem in itself. And you will find solace in your soul :-)

 

 

 

 

Thomas you understand what I meant....

I have previously written my thoughts. The curators of 1X are perfection and do not have the absolute truth about the photograph. They too can make mistakes or do photography with a different eye from mine. But when an item is multiplied when an item becomes a shared message, it means that a problem of vision and choice exists. I do not think you can solve everything by creating a page where the editors explain their choices (each would remain of their own ideas about) rather recommend new collaborations, a rhythmic parts, to avoid stagnation.

Regards

 

I regret to note that 1x is proving a web page like all the others, I thought it was of a high quality and not only with regard to the photographs published.

I found that they are not even accepted the criticism to the curators who take revenge perhaps not posting pictures that according to many (considering percentages during curation) are great photographs.

 

Keep up the good compliments .....

 

If a very similar photo has already been published it doesn't matter how high the score is on the second, third or forth or more similar photo. We don't want to see the exact same motifs over and over again on the front page even though certain types of motifs always get very high scores. If we would publish all photos with high scores we would see the exact same photos over and over again every day. This has already been explained and discussed several times. Topic closed.