|
joe
Aug 9, 2004, 4:36 PM
Post #1 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 897
|
when did this site all of a sudden become boringscenicsandlandscapes.com?
"hey, look at this photo of this dead tree i saw!"
"here's a photo of this nice meadow with no rockclimbing anywhere near it! yay!"
anyone heard of photo.net?
:roll:
PFT!
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 9, 2004, 4:45 PM
Post #2 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I suppose it behooves you to take some climbing pictures yourself. Easy solution it is. Or you could vote all of the good climbing pictures higher. Any number of things.
Tool.
|
|
|
|
|
bilias
Aug 9, 2004, 4:45 PM
Post #3 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 104
|
don't look at them if they piss you off.
|
|
|
|
|
chimp-chimp
Deleted
Aug 9, 2004, 4:51 PM
Post #4 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
You're not the only one who would like to see more photos of rock climbers. I'm right there with you. But, there's no reason to be a dick about it. The landscape photos, especially those on the first couple pages, are stunning. Great photos. But, I don't view them or even rate them because I just don't care to see them. It's been a long time since there's been a high-rated photo of a climber. I'm counting on you, orangeoverhang!
|
|
|
|
|
duracellbunny
Aug 9, 2004, 5:37 PM
Post #5 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2002
Posts: 255
|
I second what Chimp-Chimp said. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 9, 2004, 5:48 PM
Post #6 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
This is why non-climbing shots are supposed to be low quality. :?
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Aug 9, 2004, 5:59 PM
Post #7 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
??? What's your motivation when you go climbing OUTDOOR? Just pulling on crimps and underclings, making hard moves, or being OUTSIDE enjoying the nature, watching this small uncommon buterfly which is on a leaf, waiting to be warmed before it keeps on migrating further north, or looking at this mountaineous slope once devastated by a forest fire and now experimenting a rebirth?
That's why I go climbing and hiking and mountaineering, and yes a dead tree can be fantastic, if you have the eyes to see it.
Now, if you want to only see climbers, select boulder, sport, or INDOOR, select Rank, select Descending, and you will see great climbing pictures by climbnow1, orangeoverhang, melekzek...
But don't deny us the pleasure to look at beautiful landscapes (and I exclude here the Sunsets and My dog at the crags photos...).
just my 2 €cents
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Aug 9, 2004, 6:23 PM
Post #8 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I think that most of us would prefer to see a majority of great rock climbing photos with only the occasional landscape shot thrown in to the mix. However, great rock climbing photos aren't easy to take. You need to dedicate yourself to the art of climbing photography rather than simply taking a few photos while climbing. Most of us throw a camera in our pack and head out to climb, hoping that we might get one or two nice shots in between routes or while hanging out at belay. Given this approach, it's not surprsing that landscape shots taken on the approach or descent hike are often the best shots we take home.
The solution is easy. If you happened to have a bunch of fantastic climbing shots that will bump off all of the nice landscape shot on the site why don't you submit them?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Aug 9, 2004, 6:41 PM
Post #9 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
In reply to: The solution is easy. If you happened to have a bunch of fantastic climbing shots that will bump off all of the nice landscape shot on the site why don't you submit them?
He does, and he should.
http://www.pbase.com/creamstyle
Actually many of these used to be on this site; I'm sorry that Joe removed them.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 9, 2004, 7:02 PM
Post #10 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: The solution is easy. If you happened to have a bunch of fantastic climbing shots that will bump off all of the nice landscape shot on the site why don't you submit them?
Ummm, if Joe were anyone else, I might not say this...
but the shots he did submit were fucking amazing. and they were all hard climbs. actually Edge linked to a bunch of them, but my favorite (the black-and-white wide shot of the new line next to Ruby's Cafe) is not there. Doh.
We need better incentives (um, hello, the fucking calendar!? what happened to that?) for people to continue submitting ass-kicking shots. I'm convinced of this. Maybe it's an issue of legalese, maybe it's an issue of reducing the obstacles for advertisers and stock agencies to contact the photographers. I don't know. But there used to be more hardcore climbing shots on here. If it's an issue of presentation -- slide-show style layouts, etc. -- I can solve that in a hurry. If it's something else, it may take more work. But I am interested in fixing this. Landscapes are fine, but not when they crowd out the shots that make the site distinctive.
|
|
|
|
|
victoriaclimber
Aug 9, 2004, 7:06 PM
Post #11 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 41
|
why don't you try posting some pictures if the ones on the site are no good. I know my pics suck because I've got no votes, but whatever...
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 9, 2004, 7:10 PM
Post #12 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: I second what Chimp-Chimp said. :wink:
oh yeah? well i second what joe said.
landscapes are more interesting with a climber in them.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 9, 2004, 7:30 PM
Post #13 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: I suppose it behooves you to take some climbing pictures yourself. Easy solution it is. Or you could vote all of the good climbing pictures higher. Any number of things. Tool.
(joe, can I have yer autograph? sign my lens hood, pleeeze? in silver sharpie pen)
I don't know why joe/pinscar removed his photos from this site. They were some of the best here, better than most of the popular photogs' work, and certainly my #1 inspiration for shooting hard trad climbing at the Forks (since the Creek is way far away from me).
It would be brazen of me to assume I can put myself in the same category as, or speak for, users like joe, akornylak, or spike, but they are three damn skilled photogs who don't submit here anymore. I don't know why they don't, but if I could wager a guess, I'd say professionals take their work too seriously to put it here. If climbing photography is your livelihood, would you really look to rockclimbing.com to showcase it? I wouldn't. (and I don't)
|
|
|
|
|
mbg
Aug 9, 2004, 7:33 PM
Post #14 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372
|
IMHO, the front page pic should strictly be limited to photos of people actually climbing OR of climbable features. Sometimes I log on and think the site has turned into slacklining.com overnight. Slacklining is a fun offshoot of climbing but climbing it is not. Call me a crumudgeon, but I just don't get that excited over pics of someone doing a back flip off 30' of webbing in their suburban backyard. I feel the same about pics of tropical sunsets; they may be nice photos, but I already subscribe to National Geographic.
There is plenty of room in sub-albums on RC.com for photos not explicitly of climbing, the front page should actually reflect what this site is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Aug 9, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #15 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
In reply to: I suppose it behooves you to take some climbing pictures yourself. Easy solution it is. Or you could vote all of the good climbing pictures higher. Any number of things. Tool.
Dude, Watch who you are calling a tool. I mean look at your profile pic. puuuleese.
I agree with Joe but oh well. Most of my pics aren't of climbing and they have all been bombed hahaha bomb away muther feckers I know I do hahahhaha
Peace out beeotch
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Aug 9, 2004, 8:06 PM
Post #16 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Write some code so only the "hard core" pictures make it to the front page and not the artistic or profile.
Let everyone still post any picture they feel is realtive to their own individualism and tells the viewing audiance what they want to about themselves. Pictures other than "me on another wall" are what make users of this site part of a community that has character. It'll get stale otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Aug 9, 2004, 8:10 PM
Post #17 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
In reply to: Maybe it's an issue of legalese, maybe it's an issue of reducing the obstacles for advertisers and stock agencies to contact the photographers. I don't know. But there used to be more hardcore climbing shots on here. If it's an issue of presentation -- slide-show style layouts, etc. -- I can solve that in a hurry. If it's something else, it may take more work. But I am interested in fixing this.
If Joe's work is as outstanding as people suggest then woudn't it be much more helpful to the site if he simply explained why he removed his photos. Simply pulling your photos and then bitchin and moaning about how people vote regarding landscapes seems sort of petty and pointless to me. Tim has generously offered to try to address or fix any obstacles. I'd suggest taking him up on that offer.
In reply to: I'd say professionals take their work too seriously to put it here. If climbing photography is your livelihood, would you really look to rockclimbing.com to showcase it? I wouldn't. (and I don't)
Would a true "professional" log on to RC.com simply to ridicule someone else's photo of a dead tree? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 9, 2004, 8:32 PM
Post #18 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Perhaps we wouldn't all have used the same language as joe. But I think I see what he's trying to say. Maybe it makes him sound like a meanie-poo-poo head, but real photo editors can be every bit as, um, humbling, and they're quite professional. I consider the source as much as the words.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Aug 9, 2004, 8:35 PM
Post #19 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
In reply to: Write some code so only the "hard core" pictures make it to the front page and not the artistic or profile.
In fact, the basic premisses to do this are already available. Each photo is divided into categories. Allow Alpine / Big wall / Bouldering / Ice / Indoor / Sport / Trad pictures to be on the front page. Refuse Artistic / Profile / Slacklining / Topo / Unrated pictures (however, they still can be rated high, and be amongst the top photos).
You only need your photo admins to make sure all photos are submitted in the right category, and write a little extra code.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 9, 2004, 9:28 PM
Post #21 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
No cover-all restrictions please. If the front page photo selection is to be changed, let's go all out and make it customizable like we've been talking about for so long. No use blowing man-hours on restricting the selection only to make it customizable after a while. Just work on the individual customization of at the very least what pics we see on the front page, and that will be an awesome improvement.
But yeah, I didn't think the selection should have been expanded in the first place months ago, you probably recall. ;) :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Aug 9, 2004, 9:38 PM
Post #23 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
In reply to: In reply to: You only need your photo admins to make sure all photos are submitted in the right category, and write a little extra code. Oh, is that all?
I know it's still no 5-minutes job, but you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 9, 2004, 9:44 PM
Post #24 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
In reply to: In reply to: No cover-all restrictions please. If the front page photo selection is to be changed, let's go all out and make it customizable like we've been talking about for so long. Feel free -- you've got developer access. Until search and the routesdb are fixed for good, I can't commit to anything else. You or Dan could learn a hell of a lot from this if you want to attack it. I'll post more to the CVS list and I'll try to jump on AIM tonight. Don't forget, however, that the defaults will be what most people see. Most people use IE and many still search with MSN. If we don't make wise choices regarding what goes on the FP, we will project a rather pale impression onto the average guest and the default-embracing member, and the vanishingly small minority who actually manipulate their profile settings are the only ones who will notice the changes. I am a huge proponent of the 'low lying fruit first' philosophy.
Haha, I'm gonna need some serious help and time, but that's not a bad idea. ;) I'll see about it. I gotta learn php sooner or later. May as well be sooner.
But yeah, if you want to change the front page pics, take the minimum rating back up to where it used to be. Unless I'm badly mistaken, that's fairly easy.... :?
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 9, 2004, 10:08 PM
Post #25 of 67
(7035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: But yeah, if you want to change the front page pics, take the minimum rating back up to where it used to be. Unless I'm badly mistaken, that's fairly easy.... :?
I don't know if that's "the point" though. I think what's being expressed here is the types/subjects of photos appearing on the FP, not so much the scores attached to them. Boobies, vaginal slot canyons, lizards, oozing wounds, girls with sandwiches, stick figure sketches done in MS paint, lone peaks, or sunsets are always going to be popular with some, lame to others, but end up highly-rated despite it all. Bumping the minimum rating back up might put fewer "etcetera" photos on the FP, but they won't disappear. For people who are in favor of them "disappearing" comes the customization idea.
...which I wouldn't help develop, but FWIW, I would very likely use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
