i was wondering , which galery is the biggest of all here on caedes please? i for myself have more than 700 photos in my galery, does someone think he knows that? thx!

I dont know about the biggest but mines the best.LOL just kidding.

LMAO @ +tbob !!!!!

Especially when everyone knows it's mine. ;-)

I'm kidding... of course.

Moving on.... photography, I'd say.... or are you looking for a specific sub gallery ? Like Photography / Flowers for instance, which, btw is where I'd put my money.

That's an easy question. It's landscapes, of course.

Hmm. I suspect you're asking which member, not which category has the most photos. Am I mistaken?

no you re not third eye, which member has the biggest galery?

1,439 in mine!!

Like tbob said: "I dont know about the biggest", but another good question could be "Which image has the most important downloads?"
?
?
mine ;-)
Haha! Just kidding too :-D

Ooops! I found a better one:
Link
I'm beaten...

congrratulations Hottrockin, your photo is better ppigeon, plus it is for real and nota digital stuff...!

After five years, I hope it has lots of downloads, Pierre! lol

The size of any gallery is of little importance, it is the quality that matters :)

Amen

Seriously, I'm always amazed by the quantity AND the general quality of the images in the perms...

I always thought that its the quality not the quantity that matters

People.....remember quality over quantity...
but who am I?

The reason some users have so many images in their galleries is twofold. 1) They don't spend time on their images, and they expect that if they spew out enough images, one will be popular. This is what I like to call the "carpet-bomb" approach to art. An alternative reason is: 2) They can't decide for themselves what is good, so they put their images out, so the membership can tell them. I call this the "edit me" approach to art. The second group generally gets angry at honest opinions.

Either way the result is a low signal-to-noise ratio which hurts the site. People, please upload fewer but better images. Be your own editor.

Regmar...if I might?

After I posted my first pic here and recieved such a warm welcome I to took the carpet bomb approach. Not because I figured if I posted enough someone would like something, but - to be honest - I was just enamored with having my shots on great site like this. To steal a great line from Third-Eye (Rob) I "didn't know the difference between an f-stop and a bus stop". Yes, I was part of the "edit me" crowd. The difference, perhaps, is that I accepted all honest comments and critques and tried to learn from them. I am much pickier about what I post now (not that you can tell from my c-index) and would like to think I have improved my art...although I hasten to add I am still a rank novice and have a long, long way to go.

I would suggest there is a 3rd alternative...those who post a lot because they want to learn how to edit themselves. Which I'm still learning how to do.

;-)

Rich

well said..........

Rich, I believe that is the way we are supposed to evolve into using the site, and it's good to hear that it's working. A suggestion : When you post a good image, it drives people to look through your gallery. That in and of itself is a good thing, but do you want them to see all those posts you put up before you learned to discriminate? I got to feeling after about six months on the site that I wanted people to only see good stuff when they go to my gallery, so I deleted most of those mediocre images that I liked when I shot them, but which just didn't seem to catch on. Now I'll be the first to admit that I may have missed a few, but generally the gallery has improved, because I pruned away most of the dead wood.

These days some people think I'm a good artist, but the bare fact is that I just don't let them see the 99% of my work that's garbage. I think also that people would prefer to see a few pages of WOW! rather than many pages of having to search for the WOW!s in the stuff that could have been pruned.

Is this making any sense, or am I addled by the effects of turkey and bacon sandwiches washed down with wine?

Personally, I would say that I have a decent sized gallery and there are images that I wouldn't miss if I took them down. But, adding to what Rich was saying...I don't want to trim down my gallery because it shows how much I have improved, how much my tastes have changed, etc. over that past 4 or 5 year (wow..has it been that long!!)

I agree with you, Regmar, that it would be beneficial in some ways to only showcase your best shots...but there could possibly be better alternatives than reducing the size of your gallery. I know there was a thread floating around about changes to everyone's personal pages, where there would be more room for customization. One idea that someone mentioned would be to have a group of thumbnails of your top/favorite images on your personal page. That would allow people to see everyone's best and, if they are so inclined, can check out the rest of that person's gallery if they wanted.

Plus...it's those not-so-good shots that usually are the best learning tools...

Agreed, but if you were to have an opportunity to present your work at an exhibition, would you include all the work you show here? Why or why not? I'm guessing you'd show a subset of your work - the best. The reason is because you want people to think you're a "good" artist who produces professional work.

By the way I don't see much schlock in your gallery. Where are the bad shots?

If I were to present my work at an exhibition, I would indeed just show the best as you said. I think that's where our opinions differ. To me, this site and our personal galleries are not necessarily meant to be solely exhibition quality. It's just my feelings on what this site is about...which I guess is a good thing, because I would venture a safe bet that the site means different things to different people. I would rather see the whole journey instead of just the finish line.

I actually haven't deleted very much from my gallery, so pretty much what's in there has always been in there. But, I'm definitely like most...all my "other" shots are languishing in the depths of my hard drive..far far away from the public eye ;)

...but, I think I should clarify...I do feel that one should not upload just for the sake of uploading. Your gallery should be a representation of your work over a period of time, not a dumping ground of pictures.

It becomes very confusing.
Over the past several days I have pruned approx 50 inmages from my gallery. The easiest way to do it was to cull the lower scoring ones - public opinion won that race, but I did not like to see some of them go because I did not consider ALL of them to be of lesser quality than some that are left. I have many more to give the chop and find it difficult to decide. The easiest way would be to delet all archived images maybe.
Recently there was some criticism of folk who immediately delete their images if they do not score well in the VB.

I agree with Steven - if all images were expected to be exhibition quality here then no one would ever learn anything. For me personally, that is the main attraction - learning and hopefully improving.
Reg you ask " do you want them to see all those posts you put up before you learned to discriminate?"
My answer is - not all of them - heaven forbid, but I do not see it as a matter of learning to discriminate, my poorer images were the best I could achieve at the time and it is only through posting them for others' opinions and observing the fine work of others that I have been able to achieve any improvement. I know that is debateable - I think I have improved, others may disagree.

I agree Lyn. What I was trying to convey is that I think it's OK to upload images that you want to get critiques on, so you can learn, but later when you've learned what you wanted, and you realize that those images may not favorably reflect your talent it would be helpful to you and to the people who peruse your gallery to not have to go through 45 pages of images to see four pages of quality work.

For myself, I often go through others' galleries to see "what else" they produced. I do this every day - several times. When someone has a 20 to 30-page gallery I stop long before I get to page 20. This means the older images don't get seen, and I don't think it's fair to the artist to sort their work by c-index. If they had fewer images in their galleries, then I'd get a better feeling for what quality work they can produce, and I think most artists want to put their best work forward to get the best possible public opinion of their work.

Regmar, my main issue is that if I was to prune all my mediocre images out I would have about 4 pictures left, lol, lol.

I agree with your point about rather lenghty galleries I myself have 3 pages (at 32 to a page) and have culled out a page and half so far, so I do update my gallery. Could more go ? Absolutely. But osme stay because I like them personally, or because as Steven said it gives reference to my ipmrovemnt...or lack thereof. i'm certain that as my gallery grows bigger I'll cull more - but to Lyn's point, I'm not sure I will use the c-index as my sole guide...I have some shots that didn't score very well that I like quite a lot.

Having rambled on here let me make on thing very clear...with very few exceptions I do agree that I have difficulty in seeing how folks who post twice a day have time to take the shots, cull through them for the best, effectively post-edit them, post them, get into the VB, and review others work in enough to depth to leave a thoughtful, HELPFUL, honest critique which will help others improve as artists. They obviously have a lot more time on their hands than I do!

I seem to have something of penchant for stirring up hornets nests, which isn't (usually) my intention. I agree with most everything you said, I was just simply trying to point out that some of us are still trying to reach the point where we can self-edit ourselves.

and you realize that those images may not favorably reflect your talent it would be helpful to you and to the people who peruse your gallery to not have to go through 45 pages of images to see four pages of quality work.

for my part if i don t have time or don t want to go through many pages i sort pictures by c index, you should try it...

Again...if I might...

Regmar indicated above that he does not feel that is fair. And I understand that. I want a feel for the entire artist, not just his/her best...

One further thought to be entertained...we bandy about the term 'artist'...and to be sure, we each are in our own way. Yet, by the same token very few of us are professionals. I can be relatively confident that I will never have a professional showing at an art museum or gallery. I lead a busy life in which I have a full time job not related to photography. I am also the VP of our Local Union (2000 members), have a 8 year old nephew who has lived with us since he was a baby and we are raising, a 22 year old son from my first marriage, who with his finacee, is expecting twins (he will be serving in Afgahnastan when they are born) and to be blunt and perhaps share TMI my 2nd marriage is on the rocks. Combine all that with the fact I'm still learning the basics of photoraphy and editing...about the best I hope for at this point is to at some point reach the 'pro-user' point.

I guess what I am trying to say in a long and convoluted way is that what to me IS "self-editing" is to others an "edit me approach to art".

Which brings us back full circle...ATTEMPTING to self edit yourself, and only posting what you consider to be your best work (whatever level you are at) COMBINED with meaningful, honest critique improves the site.

Fewer uploads to the site in general means everyone has more time to review individual posts and leave meaningful comments and critiques. I caused an uproar here by suggesting the posts should be limited to 1 upload every other day for non-cadre members and 1 post a day for cadre members. I would humbly offer that this thread is starting to overlap the one I just referenced in some ways, and while it would take some reading to get the full context, this discussion may best continued there.

Hope everyone had a great Thansgiving (for those outside the US I hope your day is treating you kindly!)

;-)

I know this is probably a stupid question....I do that sometimes.
Where IS the Perminant gallery? Can you actually go look at it?
When in Caedes Control, the ones with the * by them are "archived". What about the ones with nothing by them?

You'd think after all the time I've been here, I'd know the answer to these questions.....

Greg, The permanent gallery is what you get when you click on 'photography' in the left column top of this page. It is further broken down into categories of animals, flowers, landscapes, etc.

The * by an image in your Caedes Control means that the image has been archived. Anyone can see that image if they go to your gallery, but they will not access it by any other means. No * means the image can still be on the front page or pulled up when someone calls for a wallpaper search for like images.
That is the way I understand it.
No question is stupid, Greg, when you aren't sure of the answer. :)

Thanks Cindy! :-)
So I guess there's no symbol if one of your images has been placed in the perminant gallery. Thanks....just curious.

I also think, by what I see...that the resolution has to be at least 1600 to be included in the Permanent Gallery. I only upload at 1280 X 768 at present, so I won't be there. :-)
Not a problem. :-)

DAMN there's some Incredible Images in those gallerys!!!!!

Greg, there is no minimum resolution for inclusion into the permanent gallery. I offer this image as evidence :=)

"So I guess there's no symbol if one of your images has been placed in the perminant gallery."

Correct :) - also it will not have 'new images' beside it - Just Photography or whatever category it belongs to. Try sorting yout Caedes control list into Galleries and any Permanent ones will appear in their own group, minus the 'new image' tag.

Actually mimi, That one really doesn't fit what I was talking about. It's still 1600 dpi. I haven't looked at ALL the gallerys, :-), but I haven't seen anything permanant that was under 1600. Could be wrong. Just an observation.

I would think that having an Image placed in the Permanant position would be a real great honor. Knowing that the "Powers that be", thought enough of your image or photograph to deem it worthy of keeping permanantly. Just seems like it would be worthy of some type of actual symbol designation in your Caedes control.

I agree with regmar too. I really do try to post only Images that I REALLY think are good enough. It's all in the eye of the beholder though. Which reminds me.....I think I'll go and cull my gallery down a bit. Or at least try. :-) :-) Seriously.

I rather like that idea of flagging images that get into the perms both in your Caedes Control panel as well as in your gallery. Perhaps a different color mat would be good. Hmmm ... Sadly there's only one programmer, and that's Caedes himself. We have to look into cloning him :-)

As one who determines what goes into the perms, I can say that I don't consciously apply any minimum number of pixels to my decision about perm placement. On the other hand I have a relatively high-resolution (1600x1200) monitor, so when I open an image to determine its eligibility for the perms, an 800x600 image is going to look pretty bad. Before promoting any image to the perms, I use it as wallpaper to see how it looks and feels. I suspect that since low res images don't look good as my wallpaper I probably exclude them.

By the way dpi doesn't really have meaning when you're talking about digital images. A 1 dpi image will look exactly the same as a 1000 dpi image if they're both used as your desktop wallpaper. It's the total number of pixels edge-to-edge that counts.

Many of old images present in the perms are 1024x768 sized:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Interesting to look at these oldies, no? ;-)