The story -

For the last month I have been watching this mare, foal watch as we call it, waking every couple of hours in the night to check on her. Today put her 3 weeks past her due date and at 3AM this morning she had this colt. I had my camera and just took some snaps, I figured I would just post the best one because it truly is a scene from my life at the moment.

I've named him Finn, as in Huckleberry.

now that is truly amazing. wow. Hello Finn!

Craig, there was a heat lamp above right so that is the red aura you see and as for the transparency I had my flash on "Slow" mode so the shutter stayed open longer than the flash creating a bit of movement. It wasn't ideal but I have not had near enough sleep this week to be particular. :-)

I'm so glad I helped push this to the front page. I knew it was going to be a good day.

Nice - hat trick!

Well that was a surprise, I really wasn't expecting to get featured with this image, so thank you all.

you're not the only one surprised. right now there are 112 responses to this theme, 54 of which have been featured. isn't the point of weeklyshot's featured photo system to display the best of a theme. at a 48% featured rate i think this site is failing pretty bad. who's at fault here? the algorithm or users not voting critically and honestly.

the other two photos in this theme that mtmartini posted were pretty good, this one however shouldn't have been featured imho. the slow sync flash creates this really disorienting effect like when you watch a 3d movie without the glasses. sure it's a tender moment and that's nice, but when i look at this photo all i can see are the missed opportunities for a truly beautiful photo.

@schmee, and with all respect for your opinion:

I have never thought that the point of WeeklyShot's featured photo system was to display the best of a theme. The home page simply presents those with an overall rating that crosses a certain threshold in Overall ratings--approximately 3.64 in my calculations--with no rating category having any more weight than any other. That average is composed of ratings by at least (and usually only) 13 members, each of whom has their own biases. In no way does the system feature the "best" photos, whatever that may mean to you.

The fact that 54 of 112 responses were featured just means that the raters were, in general, either less discriminating or more more pleased by the entries in this theme vis-a-vis some other themes.

Slow-sync flash can be used to great effect, although it was probably an accident in this case. That little flaw in no way counts for more than the moment that is captured here. The theme isn't "Beautiful Photos that Represent Scenes from Our Life"...it's just "Scenes From Our Life."

King, eloquently worded. And with one bad eye to boot.

"best" here is not a subjective term that is unique to the individual. this is the reason we require 13 votes to get a rating. so that not a single person's opinion is so heavily weighted as to cheat the system. we have 5 criteria that should be voted on objectively and those that excel are considered best. that's why we post and grade anonymously, so that personal bias is removed and the image can be judged honestly.

re the use of slow sync flash being a "little flaw in no way counts for more than the moment that is captured here": sure, but if you want to grade the moment captured then give it a good mark under impact, and if you want to grade the use of slow sync flash being a flaw, then you mark low on technique. this is why we have the different criteria, because while an imagine may excel on some points, it might also fall flat on others. the photos that are featured should be those photos that excel on all fronts. it's those photos that are "best" cause they go above the average. with 48% featured, the integrity of the site is lost.

Weeklyshot.org: we aim for around average.

also, this theme is flawed cause relevance means nothing.

schmee...lighten up, dude! :>)

The argument over the meaning of the various rating categories is very old news. I don't know if you participate in the WeeklyShot Google group, but this topic has been beaten to death over there.

Featured images are simply those that cross a threshold of "Overall Average" rating of approximately 3.64. If that is too low, complain to Brandon. There is no quota. Sometimes a small percentage of shots are featured, sometimes a large percentage of shots are featured (as in this case).

When people like a photo, they tend to rate it higher in all categories. When people dislike a photo, they tend to rate it lower in all categories. One may not like it, but that's the way it is. All of the rating categories are highly correlated--I've done the statistics. The majority of raters do not consider each of the rating categories independently from each of the others, even if THEY THINK THEY DO.

I love this photo. It makes me smile and feel warm all over. I gave it straight fives. I don't have to defend my ratings, nor does anyone else. That's just the way it is.

I gave it 5's too. I liked the slow sync and the red glow. This picture was a great start to my day.

I'm going to have to go with schmee no this issue. I dont participate in the google group so I haven't heard this argument before, but what's the point of having different rating categories if they're not utilized properly? I for one rate each category objectivly for every photo.. I mean, that's the point isn't it?

As for giving this photo 5s all across? That's just nonsense. No offense to Tracy the Photographer, but I feel that this photo is the average run of the mill stuff you'd find on flickr. Tender moment - sure. Inspiring - if you thing so, fine... but done techinically well - no way. Poor composition, lighting and flash work.

Maybe brandon's new site Vazaar addresses the concerns about the scoring algorithm and overwhelming # of featured shots. But if you're here just to praise everyone's photo and show off all of your photos I recommend taking a walk on over to flickr and joining some themed groups there. I really thought this site was about honest critiquing, not a fun-loving wankfest.

I'm going to have to go with schmee no this issue. I dont participate in the google group so I haven't heard this argument before, but what's the point of having different rating categories if they're not utilized properly? I for one rate each category objectivly for every photo.. I mean, that's the point isn't it?

As for giving this photo 5s all across? That's just nonsense. No offense to Tracy the Photographer, but I feel that this photo is the average run of the mill stuff you'd find on flickr. Tender moment - sure. Inspiring - if you thing so, fine... but done techinically well - no way. Poor composition, lighting and flash work.

Maybe brandon's new site Vazaar addresses the concerns about the scoring algorithm and overwhelming # of featured shots. But if you're here just to praise everyone's photo and show off all of your photos I recommend taking a walk on over to flickr and joining some themed groups there. I really thought this site was about honest critiquing, not a fun-loving wankfest.

I'm going to have to go with schmee no this issue. I dont participate in the google group so I haven't heard this argument before, but what's the point of having different rating categories if they're not utilized properly? I for one rate each category objectivly for every photo.. I mean, that's the point isn't it?

As for giving this photo 5s all across? That's just nonsense. No offense to Tracy the Photographer, but I feel that this photo is the average run of the mill stuff you'd find on flickr. Tender moment - sure. Inspiring - if you thing so, fine... but done techinically well - no way. Poor composition, lighting and flash work.

Maybe brandon's new site Vazaar addresses the concerns about the scoring algorithm and overwhelming # of featured shots. But if you're here just to praise everyone's photo and show off all of your photos I recommend taking a walk on over to flickr and joining some themed groups there. I really thought this site was about honest critiquing, not a fun-loving wankfest.

Yeah apparently when I hit refresh it posted again.. then again .. sorry :-/

As much as I lovelovelovelove LOVE this photograph, I didn't give it all 5's either. I don't believe in it at all..unless everything about the photograph is perfect. 5,5,4,3,5. I have never agreed with those that give out all 5's because they love the content, nor do I agree with those that give something all 1's because they don't think it's relevant. But we all rate differently. Regardless, this shot did deserve to be featured, much more so than a lot of the others that seemed to have just wandered up to the featured page.

@captain_jim1,

I'm hurt.

I suggest you participate in the W.S. Google Group, the appropriate venue for this discussion. Query the archives first. This topic is old news.

I would argue that you are incapable of rating each category objectively for every photo. People can't do that. Humans rate subjectively, although some strive for some degree of objectivity. Data (Star Trek) is pretty capable of judging objectively, though.

This is a BIG insult, captain_jim1: "But if you're here just to praise everyone's photo and show off all of your photos I recommend taking a walk on over to flickr and joining some themed groups there. I really thought this site was about honest critiquing, not a fun-loving wankfest."

In fact, it's downright rude and I would like an apology. If you re not inclined to apologize, may I just say f**k you, too. No offense intended, of course.

@Ana. Okay, that's cool.

Ratings can't be policed. Not one person can be considered the norm and two highly experienced, excellent photographers are likely to disagree on one category or another. I can argue pretty effectively that this image deserves fives across, not so far from your 5,5,4,3,5. However, I'm not going to waste my time on that because no one has to reveal or explain or justify their ratings. No one.

Without getting involved in the merit of Tracy's photo (which certainly deserved to feature more than shtos of urine flowing into a dirty toilet, to cite just one example), I think Schmee does make a valid point about the number of features this theme. I too was wondering why the percentage was so high (not that I minded getting featured myself mind you).

Usually the percentage is around 20%, and I assumed that that was built into the algorithm. It is not correct that as soon as you get over approximately 3.6, with reasonable scores in relevance and impact, that you feature. By way of example, in the "Self-Portrait 3" theme my last shot failed to feature with a score of over 3.8 and lots of comments, while my first shot in the theme featured with a lower score.

So it suggests that something changed in the algorithm this time around, in addition to the fact that a lot of shots were scoring high in this theme - my last shot again had a score of over 3.84 but hung there for a day before finally featuring. So there has been ratings inflation lately.

Finally, I agree with schmee, Captian_Jim1 and Ana on the all 5s issue. To me each criteria should be judged according to its defined terms. There are the rare shots that really do deserve a 5 in all of them, but I don't think a shot deserves all 5s just because it has great impact, or is really funny, etc., any more than one that I think is irrelevant or gross deserves all ones.

My 2 cents worth.

Craig,
Ratings can't be policed. Not one person can be considered the norm and two highly experienced, excellent photographers are likely to disagree on one category or another.

Some of the W.S. members are caught up in the "ought" and "should" of rating behavior. I'm not one of those. Since my strongest urgings will have no visible effect on anyone else's rating behavior and because my field is psychology and statistics, I'm just going with the flow.

The image above is one of the few that I have given straight fives to, ever. In addition to the fact that this image is deeply pleasing to me, I gave it straight fives because I thought it deserved to be featured with little time left on this last morning of the theme.

Now I'm an experienced photographer and very supportive of most others. I don't think I'm the #1 most liberal rater (I think that may be bioLarzen), and I'm certainly capable of in-depth criticism of the work of others or of my own work. I rarely offer a rating lower than a three, but I *sometimes* do.

If I want to give this image straight fives, who will tell me I have no right, reason or place to do so?

King - you claim you can effectively argue all 5's for the above photograph, and seeing how this a large point of this discussion, I invite you do so. I think that if, in the course of an adult conversion, someone needs clarification on anm on-point opinion (ie. me needing clarification on why this photo deserves all 5's) it should be clarified (ie. for the point of dicussion, you should state your reasons for all 5s).

The comment about "walking over to flickr" was not directed at you particularly, but towards people who vote all 5s because they "like" a photo. However, if you are one of these people, then yes - maybe you should consider flickr. I dont feel this is a particular insult seeing how I have a number of pictures posted on flickr myself, but if you feel hugely insulted so be it. It's not rude, it's not an insult .. it was a suggested solution to a problem I see on this site. I'm sorry, but you wont get any apology from me for it. However, saying "f*ck you" is just a personal attack on me, and I think is just a bit immature.

Also, it is entirely humanly possible to rate a photo in each category seperatley. I do it every time I vote and I believe others like schmee, Ana and CraigMartin do the same. It requires a bit more thought and time, but that's the nature of the beast.

captain_jim1. I considered your paragraph about Flickr, suggesting that my (or any other member's) ratings are dishonest or that WeeklyShot is a "wankfest" to be truly insulting and demeaning.

Here's the thing about folks who are insulting and demeaning in their behaviors toward others: they think they are the judge of whether a remark is insulting or demeaning, as you just did above, while the appropriate judge of an insult is the person on the receiving end.

WARNING: Euphemisms dispensed with below.

I considered the paragraph under discussion as a broad, veiled "Fuck You" to the folks with whom you disagree. That's why I said, in the absence of an apology, "Fuck You Too." Now I'm not the kind of person to be offended by such direct language and I offered my retort with no sense of anger or upset, but merely to get your attention.

EUPHEMISM RESTORED.

You will see that I offered some very small justification for my straight-fives above, with a little history on my ratings, and my philosophy toward rating. Although you have been a member of WeeklyShot almost as long as I have, you have rarely participated and you and I don't have any history. You seem to be a good photographer and a pretty intelligent person, all in all.

I choose not to further describe, explain or defend my ratings. How did you rate this, if you did? If not, what ratings would you have assigned, and why? What do you think is the meaning of each of the five rating categories?

I took me some time after joining WeeklyShot to realize that not all the WeeklyShot members are professionals, or ex-professionals, or aspiring professionals, or anal-retentive, perfectionistic amateurs. Some folks are here to have a good time and to learn, as I am. Now I'm less critical than I used to be. I strive not to say anything at all if I don't have something positive to say...which is to say that if I have a criticism, it will usually be preceded by what I value and appreciate in the posted image.

You offer this, "done techinically well - no way. Poor composition, lighting and flash work." That's your opinion, but I doubt that you know what you are talking about, young and inexperienced as you are. I could have taken exactly this same photo with intended effect and would be proud of my work, and of having my work featured in this theme.

So no apology for what I consider to be an insult? My response stands.

captain_jim1...Re your comments above about rating separately. I'm not saying you can't consider each of the rating categories one by one.

My argument is that you cannot be entirely objective. It is not humanly possible. There is plenty of evidence for this in the psychological literature. You may not be aware of your subjectivity, but it will be present in your ratings.

The statistics very powerfully confirm a large correlation between all the ratings. On average, ratings tend to be high, medium or low across the board. They do not display independence from one another.

re: "I gave it straight fives because I thought it deserved to be featured with little time left" - doesn't that right there show that you did not take into account the actual criteria we're meant to be using when voting. isn't this a bit dishonest and counter to the entire purpose of this site?

if photos were meant to be just taken out of a total of 25, then we'd vote out of 25, not 5 different criteria worth 5 marks each. you don't get to carry over marks from one category to another.

i refuse to accept that anyone with a critical eye for photography could possibly say that this photo is 5/5 from a technical standpoint. i'll give you impact, relevance, even composition (despite there being actual rules for good composition), but technical quality, no way.. that's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of being able to open your eyes and see if the photo was executed with a high level of technical proficiency or not. this particular photo was not. full stop.

the real issue of course is not this particular image in question of course, but that fact that weeklyshot is off the rails. the user base has grown, yet the number of responses to each theme has only gone down. could it be because this place has turned into a forum for a few people to just big each other up? could it be because the rating system isn't respected and photos like this get featured, effectively taking away from all the other photos that have been featured that deserved it? i think so.

Regarding my age and participation in the group -- what difference does either of those things have to do with this topic? For the record, I actually vote on photos weekly, but will only enter photos that I feel have a strong chance of being featured.

As per the discussion at hand ... I'm going to have to agree with the points schmee made .. well put and direct.

schmee said - "i refuse to accept that anyone with a critical eye for photography could possibly say that this photo is 5/5 from a technical standpoint. i'll give you impact, relevance, even composition (despite there being actual rules for good composition), but technical quality, no way.. that's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of being able to open your eyes and see if the photo was executed with a high level of technical proficiency or not. this particular photo was not. full stop."

Ah, but you're wrong. It is a matter of opinion. That's the whole point. There's no photo-bot out there assigning scores, just us mere mortals. We decide what the ratings are, regardless of what you believe are the rules. It's art man, the rules don't matter.

In the opinion of King and I, and judging by the fact this photo featured quickly with very few ratings, perhaps some others, it was a 5 for 5 on technical quality. Even if it wasn't to you, it still scored high enough by at least 13 raters to garner a feature. Ana gave it a 3 in technical quality. Her opinion is valid, as is whatever you rated it at. The fact of the matter is, the scores were high enough to feature this shot.

And so what? This feature doesn't belittle or demean any other picture's quality. It's just a blip on the front page, which will probably be gone by the time the majority of people read this post.

As far as Weekly Shot being off the rails, it is what you make of it. I've had concerns in the past and even stated them pretty vociferously in the google group. The fact of the matter is, WS keeps on trucking despite all these heated debates about nothing.

You can rack up two of those lack of responses to me. I usually offer up 3 shots. For the last couple of weeks I've just been too busy to get out and shoot. I've got nothing to post. That's no reflection on WS or the community it hosts. Just life getting in the way. Perhaps that's true for others as well.

Now can't we all just let Tracy enjoy her new horse?

The problem is that people arent rating each photo appropriatly in each category. "I gave it straight fives because I thought it deserved to be featured with little time left on this last morning of the theme." doesn't seem like an honest critique. That says "I like this photo and want it to do well", not "This photo is good in all the categories."

I think that this 'quick voting' is the reason why you have so many featured photos. 48% of all submitions are featured? It just destroys the nature of the site to me. And yes, WS will keep on going long after this debate .. but is it being all it can be? It doesnt seem like it.

As far as the technical aspects of this photo .. I really have to disagree that this is a 5. Unless Tracy INTENDED for the off white balance and the slow sync, it's simply wrong. I'll let people have their artistic license and purposely underexposing photo, blowing out highlights, whatever ... but that just doesnt seem the case here. So technically, it's underachieving.

So I reread, the red glow on everything is due to a heat lamp, not the WB, but in Tracy's word...

"I had my flash on "Slow" mode so the shutter stayed open longer than the flash creating a bit of movement. It wasn't ideal but I have not had near enough sleep this week to be particular"

Tracy's saying she could have been better in the technical department.

I'm not sure with flashing when I do animal shots.
I always think that it could frighten them. I would have tried without flash, maybe using a tripod. :-)

congrats tracy. :-)

Tracy, I thought this was definitely worthy of feature. Congrats!

This has been pretty interesting dialogue - but I wasn't about to chime in until now. It was a little better than a snapshot, I was tired but I wanted to record the instance, nothing more and nothing less.

Horses are very difficult to shoot under the best circumstances, so when he was 8 hours old, outside with better light, instead of ten minutes old, I took this shot.

http://www.photo-sage.com/index.php?showimage=23

Cheers to all, and no offense taken. :-)

Hey Tracy, I quite like the website you posted that on - what is that? Can you send me the scoop by email?

As for the shot above, despite all the bruhaha, it definitely deserved to be featured. It also spawned (pun intended ;-)) some interesting dialogue!

Folks,

I've been too swamped at work to respond further. Any problem if I drop it at this end?

I imagine horses are quite like shooting strangers in public places... they move! It's a fun photo Tracy and I'm glad to have seen it.