UKC

In reply to Richard Bradley: Shame really isn't it some people just like spoiling the system.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Richard Bradley:

It's funny, I can't see the votes anymore by holding the pointer over the score... has the system been changed?

In reply to Richard Bradley:
Don't worry about it, they're just jealous.

It only took 1 day to get a rubbish vote on my latest pic

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Make sure the page you're looking at is the active window, left click some white space above the photo rating and then try holding your mouse over there again. It works for me.

In reply to Paul P: It does make me laugh. Most of the really good pictures get rubbish votes. What are these people on?

In reply to Paul P:

Put that down to the knee! Bad form old chap

In reply to Richard Bradley: wouldn't worry, there's definitely someone out there who simply goes around giving rubbish votes to every pic regardless! used to frustrate me, now i can't care less! great pic by the way but agree you might want to try and lighten it up a wee bit? still a clear 4 or 5 though anything else is a travesty.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: the holding thing still woks for me.

In reply to Richard Bradley: I'd still say it needs a bit of PS work - images out of digital cameras are never 'natural', almost always lacking contrast and softer than the actual scene...this could really do with some selective contrast and colour work...and maybe a little cloning to remove distractions...

and next time get the bloke spotting to move to his left a little!

great pic

Ian

In reply to Paul P:

You're right, there was a backgound task running (google search)... when I closed all the other windows I can see the scores again.

On the subject, the odd rubbish vote seems to be inevitable, in this case the other votes are a reasonable mix. I don't much like this sort of shot, you can't see the rock where he's climbing and the out of focus stuff seems overdone... and it's bouldering , but in such cases I just don't vote.

I only vote for photos I like, 4 or 5... can't see the point in slagging a shot... it's not as if we were a jury or something.

In reply to Richard Bradley:

The fastest I got was 2hrs.

I had a unanamous 4/5 that got a 1

people like doing it fact.

if you moan you get more

In reply to Richard Bradley: That's a cracking shot!

In reply to Ian Hill:

Yeah, I do keep getting drawn to the climbers foot in that guys groin, LOL. I'd be tempted to clone him out.

Still thinks it's a 5 but not sure if that's because I've been on the problem and feel more drawn to it though.

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Jealousy pills.

It's sad, but some people have nothing good in their lives so have to belittle everything that contrasts their existence with something better.

In reply to Paul P: The guy moved into shot at the last second. He and his mate had been stood behind Zoe up til then. Can't fault him for concern though.

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Me neither, I've span off this problem many a time

In reply to Richard Bradley:
Gets a 5 from me. Spat off this one many a time - captures the moment well.

In reply to Richard Bradley:
At the risk of a flaming-

does it matter?

In reply to Richard Bradley: Richard, If I had to find fault, I would suggest cropping the top to exclude the guy with the pad in the top right. Fantastic Shot mind.

In reply to Removed User:

No, but it is an interesting sociological discussion on why some f*ckwits insist on trashing people anonymously.

In reply to Richard Bradley: big fat 5

In reply to The Bantam: I was the featured gallery a couple of days ago and my average score of 4 went down to 3.8 in a matter of hours.

In reply to The Bantam:

If threads like this didnt exist, then I guarantee that the number of "rubbishes" would fall dramatically.

Isnt it obvious that its a puerile form of attention seeking?

Just ignore it and vote as you see fit yourself.

In reply to JamieAyres: well said.

as much as you should just ignore the minority of voters who say somethings rubbish when it obviously isn't, it can be hard not to be annoyed / upset by the votes.

i thought that particular shot was a 5.
i only actually vote if its a 3-5. i don't vote if i think a shot is poor or rubbish. (not sure its thats a good thing or not!)

In reply to The Bantam:

There's also probably an insteresting sociological discussion to be had as to why it matters so much to you.
I mean- it's not as if there's some prize money or something at stake. If all you can take is compliments and you can't take (unjustified?) criticism- don't accept votes.
Your aggressive 'f*cwits' comment betrays certain personal insecurities too.

Tell me about your mother......

In reply to Removed User: ah but you can't NOT accept votes...

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Has the depth of field (out of focus blurry background) been added in Photoshop? I only ask as it's screwing my head up trying to work out if the tree works in three dimensions.

In reply to psd:
Doesn't look photoshoped to me. Think about it, if it was photoshoped there would have been a lot of work done seperating the leaves from the blurred background and someone with this level of PS expertise would have played around with the levels & brightness/contrast to really finish off the photo!

In reply to Paul P: no, I doubt there's any PS...just a 5D with a wide open 50mm lens, maybe a bit longer

In reply to Ian Hill:

Cool - I only asked because I really wasn't convinced either way, whereas normally it's obvious.

In reply to Richard Bradley: I smell shameless self promotion

In reply to psd: No photoshop used. Shrunk to size using canon software is the only adjustment.

In reply to Ian Hill: 50mm is spot on.

In reply to Dr Avid: not my picture!

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Who's is it then? It's in your gallery and has your name in the 'photo author' field

In reply to Paul P: Taken by the J in R & J (my brother Jim). You would know if it was mine as the bo selector bear would be the one in focus!

In reply to Richard Bradley: Why not give him a bit of fame in the credits then You can edit the details without it effecting votes or anything else.

In reply to Richard Bradley: Sorry Richard was only stirring...

In reply to Dr Avid: That's ok .

Time for lunch I think.