Thank you for your comments!
@Ana, old is relative and I tried to do a contrast with the finger that the hand holds on to, the tiny hands look older than the actually older finger, old in young and young in old!

gotta catch the train now,....

Does your ego not have enough fast featured pictures yet? Congrats!
The billing for use Brandons fingers is on the way! ;)

Congratulations on the feature ChriZ. I really do like this image, but I have to say, it ticks me off a little when something low on relevance gets featured. Not your issue I know, but I just don't like that portion of WS scoring. I think if would be better if the relevance score was treated like a prerequisite to a feature. Only after the photo gets to a certain relevance rating should the overall be considered for feature.

Of course for all I know, the rest of you may have found this highly relevant and I'm ranting for nothing. Either way it's still a very nice image.

Someone stop him. He's gone MAD!

Congratulations, ChriZ. I can type that really fast now, from all the practice!

@kadenajack,
After long and serious observation and study of the rating system, I must thoroughly disagree with you. I think Relevance is the flakiest of the categories (but not the *only* flakey category).

I reserve my ticked off moments, first, for great photos that don't get featured because of weak ratings on relevance; second, for photos that get featured that I think are second-rate; and third, featured photos by photographers I'm personally jealous of for any number of petty, irrational reasons.

@mooch, confusing it is!

@zulu, thanks! Are those Brandon's fingers? ;)

@kadenajack, thanks for sharing your opinion, what's old what's young, guess I am just messing with the audience, you can get philosophical,... or not ;)
I used a processing technique of Diane Varner who's work I really admire. And she gave quite a interesting comment on my blog:
"Love the small fingers that have a "wise" feeling to them. I never thought about it until right now but.... perhaps the wrinkles of babies are "wisdom lines" from another time (yes, it's late while I'm writing this, hence my imagination!)."

I'm happy this is an image we can talk about!

@King, thanks mate! I'm thankful for every congratulation I get from you!

Thank you all, don't hesitate to bring in some thoughts!

@king. The funny thing is...this site really IS about relevance. Why else do we have themes?? Otherwise we could just post perfect photos and skip the themes all together!! : )

I rate each of the five categories VERY separately. None relating to the other. But I don't give a shot a 5 for relevance because it's pretty, well composted or has great quality. I really do try and rate that one as fairly as possible, according to the theme and/or theme description (of which we have none this time!!!)

If I get to bring in a thought as well, I think it is a lot about the impact here in WS, if an image awakes feelings, is striking, makes a strong impression, people tend to give higher ratings in every category.
What is interesting that it's not either relevant or not, it can be kind of in-between, semi relevant, or almost relevant, weird when you think about it, but I agree about giving this picture not a 5 in relevance but also in not giving it a 1.

I think it's good as it is, what I don't like too much though is the image quality category.

I don't mind saying, this displeases me having by no means hit the theme. Flakiest it is King

Mooch, don't you think the hands look old?
and again I have some trouble understanding what you are trying to tell me,... what do you mean with "Flakiest it is King" Corn Flakes?

"I agree about giving this picture not a 5 in relevance but also in not giving it a 1."

Hence my thoroughly explained 3 there. I figured I would neither help nor hurt the image's ratings overall with a 3.

"I think it's good as it is, what I don't like too much though is the image quality category. "

I did post something to the Google Group about that because I agree with you on Image Quality.

While I'm at it, I agree with Ana about Relevance. I think it's the most important of the things we rate. If it weren't, then there's no reason to have themes at all.

I liken this to entering a picture in a juried show. If the image is not relevant for the category, it doesn't even make the show, and thus never even gets rated.

I take that competition approach when I'm rating too. I often factor in the relevance in the other ratings. For instance in the Big theme, if I thought the composition hurt the image's relevance to the theme, I marked down for Composition as well as for Relevance.

Clearly this is all subjective, but I think many of King's ticked off moments are also due to the fact that we're not all rating by the same guidelines. In my opinion, the out of whack ones are Relevance and Image Quality.

I come down on the side of the nay-sayers here (no, not the horses, King).
First, let me say ChriZ, this is a beautiful image.
It has low relevance, but high impact, but the impact alone is not enough to save an image from the "also ran" pile for me.
If you can't be bothered putting up an image the is relevant to the theme then you get trashed on relevance from me, and that affects how I view the rest of the categories.
Play by the rules, or what's the point? You can push the envelope on all the other points, and on those that are not included in the evaluation process, but you can't just give the bird to the rules the we others try to stick by.
@ King - You did this in the last theme, I presume because you were as bored to tears as the rest of us were, fair enough but that image would have got 1 from me on relevance. Blizzard was cool, but I don't think she would approve of us dropping our standards even in a good cause!
@ everyone - if this had been an old person's finger the baby was holding, I think I may have fainted in ecstacy - that would just have been perfect. Alas, it was not to be, and thus the goal is not reached....
A pleasant evening to you all.

"I liken this to entering a picture in a juried show. If the image is not relevant for the category, it doesn't even make the show, and thus never even gets rated."
Can't do this! Once this site gets big and you have to avoid spammers, okay!
But since the person that posts the image feels it is relevant to a certain degree, I think it would be disrespectful to have it judged by someone!
Who will judge the images? you?

Relevance, I think we should leave it as it is, why make it stronger? It is important sure, but the mix is the important thing!
We don't want people writing "old" on a piece of paper and get featured!

I referred to:

After long and serious observation and study of the rating system, I must thoroughly disagree with you. I think Relevance is the flakiest of the categories (but not the *only* flakey category).

The majority of this image is a childs hand entwined in an older persons. It does not therefore say old, rather, and this has already been alluded to... young.

Might I add that when a client submits a remit to me, you can be sure that they don't say well, Tobias, looking at this image, and the fact it doesn't meet the criteria does not matter for I rate you highly as a photogrpaher and although it is what I asked for I must, once again, commend you for your stirling job, here's a few grand, spend it wisely.

All of what I say comes across as sour grapes and matters not, you are obviously producing something I cannot and I feel subsequently like King Herrod waiting for the sea to retreat before him. The voting system vexes me.

As for kadenjack and his giving images a 3 to not "hurt the ratings" kadenjack, if it doesn't fit it doesn't fit. There was a discussion on the last theme, "oh, you shouldn't give ones for an image". Why? Why are we partaking if we are not reflecting what we feel. It is like voting in an election and voting for the party you don't believe in because you don't want to affect their chances? I thought phillipes subsequent comment was wholly justified.

If we want to enter:

1 a competition of pretty pictures, then bye bye themes

2 if we widh to improve and actually undertake a constructive exercise then we will need to have the gumption to actually say what we feel.

I will never 3 an image that misses a remit, that goes against having the vote to begin with.

I'm going to have to take a few days out I am so angry at present I am spitting tacks.

Part of me cannot understand the demogrpahic of those involved. Intellect, background, age group. Why I am looking for validation from such people. I sell this work to people and companies who pay good money.

Also as an aside, now that there is a sponsorship deal or two for this site (generated via the heavy traffic generated by our work/input might I say) isn't it about time there was a token gesture in the form of some financial incentive? We make this site what it is, we're in a capitalist world, show me the money?

Relevance, I think we should leave it as it is, why make it stronger?

Say that to a client who wants you to promote apples and you come up with a great shot of an orange. By understanding the theme you are showing your skill as a photographer. Otherwise it would be (sorry, is) a free for all...

@psychodudu, it's the old within the young, the young within the old!
It does make an old impression, although you can clearly say that this is a hand of a baby!
But there's the point!
I think it would get boring around here if you wouldn't give some space around the theme.
If you can't see the relevance think what the photographer thought, if you still can't figure go ahead give it a 1, you can trash every image you don't find relevant if you want. But I'm not here to create a stock image library!

@mooch, this had a 3.43 in relevance!
If it were an orange instead of an apple it would not have gotten featured. So there's no problem with the rating system here at all.

psychodudu: Hear hear, you don't hit the remit, the other four categories should be null and void. I have said this before, it angers me when an irrelevant image, snakes into the featured.

3.43, not low enough

But I'm not here to create a stock image library!

No because catergorising your shots would be impossible, lol

Oh and to compare, my 400 year old building got.. 3.21 in relevance, that is how whack this site is

Another comment on my blog:
"Amazing photo! The baby's hands look so ancient rather than young!" by Fractal Myth

mooch, sorry for whatever I've done to you, but why are you getting personal?

"Oh and to compare, my 400 year old building got.. 3.21 in relevance, that is how whack this site is"

You shouldn't take ratings too serious

maybe not serious... personal I guess ;)

You engaged me, unfortunately when I am not best pleased. Therefore the wrath I feel at present is gushing out here. I don't happen to agree with the premise that relevance has no place, I feel it should be brought to the fore, the only way Ido this is by 1ing the entire image, as psychodudu mentioned. I don't agree that this image merits a 3.4. I don't agree that we should give and image a 3 "so as not to hurt it". That I really cannot fathom. It isn't personal more a frustration about the way this rating system works. I think that this is very much my problem and I fully realise that I do not have to take part, which, I am considering.

Let's have "Negative Space II" and see if we can all agree on what is relevant and what is not.

I don't care about ratings because the ratings are neither reliable nor, in many cases, valid and, as a statistician, that gives me the heebie jeebies. Unless the rating system is valid and reliable, it makes no sense to put more weight on one invalid and unreliable category than on another invalid and unreliable category.

If you post a photo that pleases me and makes a nod toward relevance, you will get high marks. If not, not. I'm not in the habit of revealing what marks I assign. The fact that I often write, "high marks" is a sign, I think, that I love to look at photographs, am not too hard to please and like to help other photographers get their share of featured images.

I have my approach toward ratings, you have yours. For my part, I am deeply impressed with the work that most of you post on WeeklyShot. It makes me proud to be a part of what's going on in this group photo blog.

No way, King, are you sitting on the fence here ;)

How about making a site where only you rate images? Since you can do this best!

*raisingmyhand*

honestly mooch, I really like your photographs and your contributions, but after all you just said here, I have to ask you, what are you doing here? You want money? You aren't happy? You can't take crits? And then you tell everyone that you are making o so much money with your photography!

I tell you, I have not made a cent with my photography. But I am passionate in what I do! And I won't stop posting my oh so irrelevant images just because a guy like you tells me to!

Cheers

No, I agree and I do not wish to offend further. Just a bit cheesed off about the rating system at present. I like your work and give you props.

Also, granted, not everyone sees everything the same. One thing I will say is that, I am not the only one echoing these thoughts, I am perhaps just banging the drum harder.

Very cool shot. The baby's hand does somehow look old, and the shot speaks of the relativity of age...nice.

nice to have things cooled off a bit!

Craig, thanks for the comment, glad you you read my thoughts about it!

@mooch.
No, not fence sitting. I didn't rate this photo. I don't particularly like it. I'm uncomfortable with the look of the baby's skin--why does it look so old? As Andrew (psychodudu) pointed out, if the adult's hand looked very old, that would help, but, paradoxically, it would also push it toward being a cliche.

Nor do I find the light, the point of focus or depth of field to be particularly pleasing.

There's my opinion about this photo. My earlier comments were about the rating system and how I approach rating photos. This was just my forum, which is one of the things I like about WeeklyShot--sharing ideas.

Well, King. I am talked out. Think I might head off to bed.

ChriZ, you're a good old boy and the fact that people like your images and this one got featured is a credit. Perhaps I should aspire to your level of work rather than whine on.

Onward...

Just to very quickly weigh in on the relevance weighting, since it seems to be hacking so many people off at the moment. I agree with the sentiment that in a theme based site, relevance should probably be weighted more heavily than other categories.

I also however agree with King that this would be essentially impossible give the nature of trying to interpret certain themes. Apples and Oranges? Certainly, that's pretty obvious. If this theme was "apples" and a picture of an orange got featured because it rated highly in all other categories except relevance, that would seem a bit daft, regardless of the quality of the image.

Given how woolly most of our themes are though (even those that seem pretty straightforward at first), you couldn't possibly justify weighting something that's not perfectly clear cut.

@King, thanks for sharing your opinion!
The wrinkles on the babies skin are normal. Freshly born. I did bring em out a bit in post though!

mooch, same here! Thanks!

ChriZ,
I would have simply remained silent, but Mooch more or less asked my opinion, so I gave it. It wasn't a value judgment on the feature-worthiness of the image, but it was my honest opinion.

I'm not shy about offering criticism when motivated, but this shot was already Featured, it's a striking image and you are a very good photographer without getting any tips from me.

King, I hope you will share your opinion in the future, and won't hesitate to post criticism and tips on my images!
It's my goal to improve, a star or those "relevant ratings" can tell me little but some words can tell me a lot more!
As long as it's constructive I'm always happy!

I love this shot. I find at times people are so limited in their thinking on topics instead of being open to interpretation. IMHO a babies hand next to an adults depicts age in a beautiful original way. The topic is not who can put the most aged subject in the photo.
ChrisZ beautiful work, congrats on the feature.

I must admit, I normally find King to be very much diplomatic in his actual critique preferring to argue about a subject other than a person image. This latest post was refreshing, not becuase it was critical of ChriZ but because it provided insight.

The old tiger is still yet to shed its claws.

I love this shot. I find at times people are so limited in their thinking on topics instead of being open to interpretation. IMHO a babies hand next to an adults depicts age in a beautiful original way. The topic is not who can put the most aged subject in the photo.
ChrisZ beautiful work, congrats on the feature.

@ mooch - I think we are in agreement on the subject of Relevance. Just to clarify my rating for this image, I gave it the 3, because I honestly was afraid I was missing something. I liked the image in all the other categories and I thought, "surely this is relevant in some way and I'm just too dense to get it." Had the topic been apples and this been a picture of an orange, I would not have hesitated to 1 it. I've done it before, I'll do it again. I gave the diplomatic 3 only because I thought perhaps I wasn't getting it.

kyla, thank you very much, I'm happy you see it the same way I do.

I think many of you are entirely (deliberately) missing the point. If you want the freedom to interpret themes in a radical way, go and do your thang in Vazaar. This here WS is, should be, a little stricter than that, (one of the reasons why Brandon has spread his creative wings a little I suspect - to our benefit). This site lends itself to competition, and competitive thinking, hence rules, hence stick to the rules. Rules are there to be bent, sure, I know fullwell how it feels not to have an image featured, because people don't take the time to look at an image they don't think fits in. ChriZ hasn't wilfully broken any rules, but he is a bit of an inovator, we've seen and enjoyed that. However, when you start getting a bunch of feedback that is negative, and is to do with relevance, you should be willing to accept that perhaps you missed the point. Not that it matters, there's enough people out there that gave you the points to get a feature, so who cares, right!? I'm sure we've all put out images that we were sure filled all the requirements for the theme, only to find that 95% of WS disagreed. Tough luck, isn't it. I hate it probably more than most. Still, people have to be allowed to vote how they wish, harshly if need be, in relation to images that they feel do not swing it in the relevance category. Otherwise there would be chaos, anarchy I tell you!
@ mooch - release the pressure safety-valve, dude! It's just not worth it. I go there now and again, and it's a waste of energy!
@ kadenajack - you shouldn't disregard your initial reaction, because you're afraid you missed something, what you see first is all important. Careful study is ok, but then you vote accordingly, you musn't vote a certain way because you're afraid of not towing the WS company line...lol! It's up to the photographer to ellicit the correct reaction from you.

@Andrew (psychodudu)...well stated. I will take argument only with your statement:
"I'm sure we've all put out images that we were sure filled all the requirements for the theme, only to find that 95% of WS disagreed."

We cannot determine the percent of agreement among WS participants from the paltry few ratings averages and the few people who choose, of their own volition, to comment on one of our images.

We are mainly in the dark, grasping onto the only evidence we see, while the bulk of the evidence is hidden, withheld, ephemeral, transitory or silent.

"when you start getting a bunch of feedback that is negative, and is to do with relevance, you should be willing to accept that perhaps you missed the point"

Go count my friend, I already stated that this might not be the most relevant image, but it is relevant in my and many others opinion.

We should stop ripping apart images with the relevance sword and just focus on giving helpful constructive critiques and improve our selves.
You can still give 1 in relevance and also share why you did so, but why getting personal and/or aggressive just because someone gave you an apple instead of a banana.

I can't think that I've been personal or aggressive in any way here, Chris. Perhaps you're referring to someone else...
I feel I have been quite restrained....hehe...somewhat unusual for me.
And all I will say to your last comment about the banana is watch you don't slip on the skin....

I was talking about us! Everyone...
With you not meaning you. =)
The only thing I addressed directly to you was the "go count" phrase.

No banana anywhere, I got an apple, so no worries, there's not a reason for me to slip.

Oh as an aside, I have deleted all images and requested removal from Vazaar. That annoys me even more than WS. The voting system is like going to the opticians. Is it better with the left or the right? Also, anonymity is far more preferable, removing one opportunity for bias.

Psychodudu: I think the problem with me is that my decisions are black and white. It's either right or wrong. I get incandescent when I cannot understand, nay, comprehend how an irrelevant image got featured.

As for rating, this still needs to be addressed. If the image is not considered relevant to the theme; the question then has to be, what use/relevance are the four other criteria?

I still have to address kadenjack's statement and subsequent justification. Tjis isn't persoanl, just the way I see it (black and white ;D) You are the viewer of these images, trust your judgement. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Never mind if you're missing anything or otherwise. If you scratch your head, give an image the attention it deserves yet still fail to make the association with the theme, then fair enough. No one is going to accost you and say, oh my, you voted me a one on this, however could you do this to me. There'll probably want to mind you.

Isn't this great?
When you sit back and reflect a little, after the incandescent flame has subsided, it's actually quite cool how we slug it out a little, and then move on. What happened with Thelma was extremely unfortunate, and I was dismayed to see what went on in that debate, *and* some of the things that were said. That sort of thing mustn't be allowed to happen again, we are ALL OF US, bigger than that.
All's well that end's well then. One less moaner in Vazaar (just kidding mooch), and a whole weekend of snapping to look forward to. Groove on my friends.
Have a good weekend all, and congrats on your feature Chriz, it certainly won't be the last.

psychodudu: "What happened with Thelma was extremely unfortunate, and I was dismayed to see what went on in that debate, *and* some of the things that were said. That sort of thing mustn't be allowed to happen again"

Ellaborate on that, what sort of thing?

Vazaar, heh heh, I couldn't fight my battles on two fronts, so I had to bow out to prevent an anuerysm.

I think I meant aneurysm.

Nah , you know. People say things in the heat of the moment that perhaps in a spoken debate (face to face in the same room)you wouldn't normally say. I think that debate just got totally out of control. Not all the folks at WS have as good a grasp of the english language as they like to think, either, which cause terrible problems as tempers begin to flare. Anyway, best let sleeping dogs lie.

@ mooch & psychodudu - You know what? You're right. I should have given the picture a one for relevance. The wrinkly little fingers with long fingernails had me wondering if maybe I was not looking at a baby's hand, but instead at the hand of an old "little person". My instincts were right and I should have scored accordingly.

I guess I was trying to be a little more careful because on more than one occasion lately, a little information I picked up in the comments after rating and commenting has enlightened my perception of an image I had just rated low. However, you're right. The burden of proof if you will, is squarely on the shoulders of the photographer. We see what we see when we rate, so the photographer must make his image clear to us.

kadenajack:

Yeah, you either get it or you don't. I think Brandon has posted a reply in google group to someone saying (I paraphrase, inaccurately) "i'd like to know about the person/image so as to make an informed decision". The very way in which WS is configured has purposefully denied that. In fact, I am not doing this justice and cannot cut and paste it all in:

http://groups.google.com/group/weeklyshot/browse_thread/thread/23a0d530035c8d81

Draw your own conclusion. I think Brandon has said what I have been trying to say in regard to not quite getting an image "Let the Photos Speak for Themselves"

I have tried to submit replies on the google forum via both "reply" and "reply to author" and keep getting an error message? Sorry to spam here but does anyone know quite why? Could you help? Cheers.

@ Mooch that was me in groups posting about image titles and that's not what I said. I have submitted and seen photos where the context would have been useful in the form of a title. Not that I want to know about the photographer just the photo itself.

I have at times rated and commented on a photo only to find out after reading the comments and replies from the photographer which gave the photo deeper meaning, impact, and context. However at that point, it's too late the rating is done.

Also I think it's challenging to come up with a clever concise 3 or 4 word title for an image.

Of course I really don't see what that thread on groups has to do with this particular discussion on this photo.

@ mooch - I see a couple of your messages in google groups. Did you get it figured out?

kadenjack, ha ha ha. Yes, it was something to do with my login. I logged out (having gotten an error message with no explanation) and logged back in. It was all plain sailing after that. Must have been something to do with the auto log-in.

CaptureDis (see hwat I did there): I pasted the entire thread in. I still stand by what I said, if the image cannot convey what you wish then perhaps another is more suitable. It is not like we are limited by our medium, now is it? I got the Brandon gist right though, anonymity is the key.

CaptureThis: Is it only me, or on that thread I pasted:

http://groups.google.com/group/weeklyshot/browse_thread/thread/23a0d530035c8d81

You're not in there at all? Are you not confusing it with some other.

And yes, it is relevant to this thread

mooch...I'm Laurie, Laurie is me. We are one in the same. :-) I started the thread.