Best Photographers on Purpleport

tandi said

Gothic Image said

Tabitha Boydell said

I am sure someone wrote a script (or did it manually) that listed those who had the most FPIs on the site

No clue how to find it now though. It was a forum thread

It should be a pretty simple query if you had direct access to the PP database.  I think you'd probably divide the number of FPIs by the number of years membership though, to level the playing field?

I hadn't given it much thought but as I am on the red wine now still waiting for that BackUP :-( An average of membership years, number of images and FPI's could do it. Lets face it someone who had been a member for 15 years, had a ten thousand images, but only 5 FPI's may not be so deserving of a ranking of someone who had been a member for 1 year and had 20 images and 2 FPI's. 

Yes, that's sort of where I was going ...

Putting myself forward for the top ranked photographer haha

Although I am pleased to see I'm not too far down on the model list! 16 years of hard work has paid off haha

Holly Alexander Photography said

Putting myself forward for the top ranked photographer haha

Although I am pleased to see I'm not too far down on the model list! 16 years of hard work has paid off haha

You should be proud, I love your work both in front and behind the camera.

tandi very kind thank you!

Popularity and fpis etc are all good, but I often find there are a lot of hidden gems around too!

Holly Alexander Photography said

tandi very kind thank you!

Popularity and fpis etc are all good, but I often find there are a lot of hidden gems around too!

There are far more hidden gems on PP than people know

Sometimes be nice for them to get the recognition.

A site like this is probably more representative of who has the most time to commit to a hobby.

The 'Best' are out in the real world and rarely here. I rarely get looked at here, get even less likes on images but I've made plenty of hard earned cash in the real world from professional clients.

My idea of 'Best' V Other peoples 'Best' will always differ wildly - that's the joy of creative pursuits. There's images that get FPIs and thousands more that are technically better images, but that don't get to ever see an FPI because the creator isn't an active forum member or the image doesn't suit the narrative of publicising the site (which is the essence of the FPI).

What's your definition of 'Best'? 

SimonL said

What's your definition of 'Best'? 

I think the OP covered that sufficiently in the initial post:

tandi said

I'm new so if anyone can help, I love to know if there is anyway to see who the Best Photographers in rankings order, whether that's based upon FPI or Loves?

Pretty simple metrics, though I'd dispute the choice of the word "best" for them.

Stanmore said

Using FPI’s to ‘gauge’ members of PP seems plausible enough when viewed from within the PP bubble. What I mean is that if you’re purely focussed on gaining PP FPI’s, then if you could access such a ‘charts’ list, you could find the photographers to approach and the models to ‘study’. 

But be clear that PP is a little bubble in the big boiling photographic cauldron. When I view the FPI’s, the majority come across as great examples of what makes a deeply cliched and poorly conceived and/or executed photograph. I ‘love’ the ones I genuinely think are actually great; most days that’s none of them. I’m not being snotty or obtuse; in my experience the typical FPI has nothing to interest those within the commercial, editorial or art sectors of photography, and most would be viewed as as flawed and irrelevant in one or more ways by those sectors.

In lieu of having an actual FPI charts list, you could begin to create collections of images by photographers and models that you admire, or you find have lots of FPI’s. Most photos have a ‘Collect’ button above them that you can use to add them into collections you personally curate. Each collection can be made public or kept private. Over time you could create your own ‘chart’ lists this way. 

It's well documented that I don't often agree with you, but yes, to all of this.

The FPI is a community reward that in large part concentrates and propagates a self-reinforcing community aesthetic, and rarely chooses in a way that confounds it. If you like that style and you're happy working in it, great. If you don't: also great.

I've stopped looking at them as a rule, though I have recently got back to recommending photos that do confound that aesthetic.

I think "best" is very subjective, unless you're talking about "best" in terms of groupthink.

That models list is interesting.

What makes, according to the model list, Kiera LaVelle a better model than Rosa Brighid?  I've only worked with Kiera (who was excellent and taught me an awful lot during the day I spent up in Yorkshire with her) so I couldn't make my own comparison.

I've never had any aspirations to get on the FPI list, but it's probably worth noting that there are some models who appear on there quite regularly, a few of them I've worked with.

I've got favourite models, or "muses" - haven't we all - but they're all at different levels.

SimonL said

A site like this is probably more representative of who has the most time to commit to a hobby.

The 'Best' are out in the real world and rarely here. I rarely get looked at here, get even less likes on images but I've made plenty of hard earned cash in the real world from professional clients.

BIB: interesting. Yes.

I imagine in the real world, commercial photographers have to spend a lot more time working to differentiate, too, because the highest paying audience are looking to use photography to differentiate themselves.

Whereas here, people are taking photographs with some pressure to shoot what other amateur photographers would want to shoot, and amateur models would like to be in: it cannot be anything other than self-reinforcing over time.

Gothic Image said

tandi said

Gothic Image said

Tabitha Boydell said

I am sure someone wrote a script (or did it manually) that listed those who had the most FPIs on the site

No clue how to find it now though. It was a forum thread

It should be a pretty simple query if you had direct access to the PP database.  I think you'd probably divide the number of FPIs by the number of years membership though, to level the playing field?

I hadn't given it much thought but as I am on the red wine now still waiting for that BackUP :-( An average of membership years, number of images and FPI's could do it. Lets face it someone who had been a member for 15 years, had a ten thousand images, but only 5 FPI's may not be so deserving of a ranking of someone who had been a member for 1 year and had 20 images and 2 FPI's. 

Yes, that's sort of where I was going ...

Lol, unless they deleted them or stripped the badge ;)

If people want formulas like that, then so be it, it is probably self fulfilling and will guarantee you only see what all the other people who live in silos see. A bit like those "Top 10 travel books" that list all the places every one else goes to and therefore makes them the worst 10 places to visit.

If the site is going to start producing league tables, as with all things, there should be an opt out button as well so those that don't wish to take part or think the concept is flawed don't have their profiles appear anywhere or a ridiculous score tagged on their profile they don't have a need for

Admin said

Please stay on topic!

Seems pretty on-topic to me. Notions of "best" do suggest some analysis of "best at what, in particular"? And perhaps disagreement around that.

*shrug* 

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Gerry99111 said

If people want formulas like that, then so be it, it is probably self fulfilling and will guarantee you only see what all the other people who live in silos see. A bit like those "Top 10 travel books" that list all the places every one else goes to and therefore makes them the worst 10 places to visit.

It would usually perhaps fall to MidgePhoto to recommend things like this, but Garry Kilworth's Let's Go To Golgotha! has been on my mind a lot recently, with the way social media algorithms and AI will tend to reinforce consensus, through "likes" and "loves" and "comments" and award badges (which we probably saw on Flickr before we saw it on social-media-proper), and ultimately we will be competing against bots for likes from bots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Go_to_Golgotha!

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

SimonL said

A site like this is probably more representative of who has the most time to commit to a hobby.

The 'Best' are out in the real world and rarely here. I rarely get looked at here, get even less likes on images but I've made plenty of hard earned cash in the real world from professional clients.

My idea of 'Best' V Other peoples 'Best' will always differ wildly - that's the joy of creative pursuits. There's images that get FPIs and thousands more that are technically better images, but that don't get to ever see an FPI because the creator isn't an active forum member or the image doesn't suit the narrative of publicising the site (which is the essence of the FPI).

What's your definition of 'Best'? 

I don't think FPI's get awarded because they suit the narrative of publicising the site, they get awarded after being voted for by a small panel of the members and what they view to be worthy of an FPI.

Edited by RAWing Waves

Edited by RAWing Waves