User:Richard Bartz/Expert

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

What do you think about ...[edit]

.. a Master Photographer project like enWp has, here on Commons ? --Richard Bartz 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard and thanks for bringing it up, I was thinking about that for some time. I like your idea, but I feel that we need to bring a few things up and address some issues:

  • The amount of FPs does not necessarily show how 'good' of a photographer you are - it just illustrates how:
    • much you invested in your equipment (not that I have anything against it - I feel that a photographer should invest some money in his gear if he is dedicated or passionate enough, I'm just saying, how do we avoid spoiled kids whose parents bought them 5Ds and 24-105mm EFs for their birthday and who think are the best photographers in the world [yes, they exist])
    • valuable the images are to Commons
    • much the people liked it

Maybe another measure of the 'goodness' of the image is whether its a QI or not. What I suggest is that we should make the following assumptions:

  • An FP is not the best way to judge, but it still is sometimes a good measure
  • A QI is not the best way to judge a photographer, as it's often about the gear (yes, it depends on how you use the gear, too, but you can read about that in an hour online), but it also shows that the photographer is able to take good, solid images with nice composition and DOF

Hence, I think that:

  • We should create a photographer's guild, but make a point/ranking system.
  • Everyone applying would have to write an application to those who are already in it, asking to enter and explaining why they would want to enter.
  • Those who are in it should receive some benefits, such as being part of the ranking system and maybe we would make an internal forum or something like that.

The point system would work on the basis that an FP is worth 1 point, a QI 0,5 points and a VI 0,5 points. The photographers would be arranged according to rating. Those are just some thoughts I have, please answer with what you think on my talk page. And also, voting for (or against) my FPC [1] would be much appreciated.


Freedom to share 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what Commons:Meet our photographers is for? We had a somewhat similar discussion for determining the categories and there was no consensus. --Dori - Talk 20:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I am somewhat uneasy about it as many photographers don't participate in FPC or QIC, but they could be just as "masterly". Mdf gets FPs just because others nominate his work as it's so far above the bar, but what about people like Ken Thomas who does some pretty good work, but doesn't have top equipment like Mdf so he's unlikely to get many FPs or QIs. --Dori - Talk 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Meet our Photographers is a good thing but there is no exchange of experiences .. like a small forum could do. MOP is more for people from outside who can have a insight--Richard Bartz 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it would be all that useful as it seems like yet another exclusive club. Looking at Peter's page I hardly see much of an exchange of experiences. But I do agree that such an exchange would be pretty useful. Rather than a guid, perhaps a more informal photographer's forum (i.e. no critiquing, FP, QI involved as we already have those). This could be worth a shot, but again I doubt it would have that much participation. --Dori - Talk 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Therefore i was asking. To find out if there is a need/interest for sharing knowledge or not ?

I really would like if there where a photographers guild here on commons. A job for the guild could be to give an user gallery a "featured photographer" Brownie point per poll --Richard Bartz 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • And in each category (macro, landscape, architecture) do a photo of the week. Freedom to share 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Shure. Writing tutorials and starting a nice community similar like this on commons. --Richard Bartz 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
or how about a monthly commons-newspaper with interviews about featured/interesting photographers, interesting tutorials awesome pictures .. all done by this guild --Richard Bartz 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
An open forum for information exchange could be good, provided that somebody has the time available to write newsletters, chivvy people along and so on. Don't underestimate the amount of work involved, week by week, month by month. So far as Fir0002's approach goes, I wouldn't be in favour of an exclusive club. --MichaelMaggs 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We need a small editorial department & expanding the meet out photographer page. Writing 2 Din A4 by a group of 4-8 people could be easy. --Richard Bartz 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I also like the idea a lot. Especially the exchange about photography topics would be great. Most contributors have a special area where he/she is more skilled than others and could be helpful guides. About how to judge if someone should belong to that group, I think the whole portfolio of the contributor is important. I also think that only the count of FPs can't be the right measure. So why not let the members judge if someone should be part in it. Everyone could give reasons why he/she is a good candidate (of course you need a foundation group first). On the other hand I am not really sure if a restricted club is really necessary - but it would be nice to build up a bit more community feeling here. --AngMoKio 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We have Meet our photographers with a hall of fame. We should expand this project and share it with everyone to give something back and create more dynamic. The page now is kind of boring. --Richard Bartz 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of a forum, where we can share our photo experiences. Someone proposed a couple of months ago to create a kind of guide, or personal notes, on photographic techniques. Maybe this idea could be accomodated in this guilde you suggest. What I don't like is the creation of one more restricted club -- Alvesgaspar 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We have a nice fundament with "Meet our Photographers". Why not putting a nice "open" house on top of it ? PS. We have so many cool/friendly/familar users hanging around - i think this could be very good --Richard Bartz 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Just a idea :-) --Richard Bartz 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hehe :) I can already feel it. I nearly clicked on the picture to find issue 1. --AngMoKio 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate on the idea, I'm "all hears"! :)) -- Alvesgaspar 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The idea is simple. Expanding the existing "Meet our Photographers" page by a newspaper/newsletter which is open for everyone. "Meet our Photographers" was designed to give insights for press and doing promotion for commons so we should change that and redirect the demand of this page to a more interesting user level. Every month we need a little bit of content, not too much, maybe 4-6 mixed articles. For content we can introduce new talents, making interviews with our commons heavyweights, spending barnstars (new! "golden cameras?"), writing how-tos/tutorials, tech-talk and a bit of humor. For this we need a bunch of people who doing the editorial department. The time and effort is small as every editor writes 1 article with max 400 words every month. Carol Spears as example is a user who loves to write :-). Every issue has a different color of the header. --Richard Bartz 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Commonist test.jpg

Hi richard,

I'd be glad to help, if it's for writing articles to explain a few things we believe we master. I started user:Benh/Photos_Stitching but am really busy now (as you can see by my very sparse contributions these days, and I even have my camera returned to Canon for fix after I discovered a backfocus pb with my new lens). I dislike the idea of a guild, which I find very elitist. If it's to showcase ourselves, MOP is enough I believe. To me, anyone could participate, if any article isn't accurate, if would just get fixed by any other wikimedian, like on wikipedia. Benh 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not having a guild, when everybody can be a part of it for free. Here the guild is the editorial department where everybody is invited to contribute. --Richard Bartz 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be proud to contribute then. I thought it was something like Fir's apparently closed guild en en:wiki. Hope I have something to say though :) I should be a little less busy starting from end of June so I hope I can first come up with an advanced enough draft of the article on panoramas. Benh 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard,
Does that idea need English skill? If so, I need study.(^^; -- Laitche 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard, As for the closed forum part of your proposal and ranking and all that, I am somewhat reluctant to support that part of it. As I see it MOP does that part of it pretty OK. However, when it comes to your idea of online periodical, I think this is a good idea although I agree the effort in making it should not be underestimated. Actually I would suggest to start out issuing it on a bimonthly basis. It seems clear to me that you have very many sparkling and great ideas both concerning layout and proposed subjects (it was a nice demo you did there). Personally I would like to see content not only relating to photographic techniques but also to wider topics dealing with the goings on at Commons, be it a "Geocoding made easy" article, "High quality scans", "Pitfalls in licensing", "the detective reviewer" and so on. I will be glad to help out if you think I can be of any assistance, preferably after COM:VI goes live. And if not sign me up as a subscriber. -- Slaunger 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, will start after june --Richard Bartz 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)