Share Your Interpretation of Critique

..........and my point is...........no matter how you apply your own "interpretation of critique" towards ratings it will not change a thing, so why bother? Unless of course you simply enjoy playing the game.

I don't suppose we're going to do anything about it. This isn't the National Academy of Photo Criticism, it's photo.net.

 

If you want a uniform rating system based on educated and informed opinions you're going to have to give raters a test to make sure they know what they are doing. Even then, the "qualified" raters will disagree.

 

If you want to know which photos (and I use that term very loosly given the liberal use of photoshop and montage techniques) the "public" likes best, well, you pretty much have that now.

Keith, since you can also see the images that individual people have rated 6/6 or higher, the ratings also provide a mechanism for a individual to build a mini-gallery of his preferred images, popular taste or not.

So let's expand the list of featured critcis beyond the five we have .

. . . and make the list - and the concept - more visible. Emphasize

the features on this site that we think are the most useful.

 

Taste is one thing. An environment that debunks the only thoughtful

critique on an image really is a problem. The 'brigade' made that very

clear. . .

It's interesting to me that the question was about a definition of

critique...all the answers (including the person with whom the

question originated) are about ratings.

 

A critique to me is a well thought out response in WORDS (not

numbers) to the subject presented for critique. The person

offering the critique should be well versed in both the technical

and aesthetic aspects of the medium.

7 - I'd buy this and put it on my wall

<p>

6 - I'd put this on my wall if I was given a copy

<p>

5 - I'd put this in my photo album

<p>

etc.

<p>

I'm not completely against this idea, Bob, but not ALL photos are meant to be in an album or on the wall. Some are meant to become ads, editorial illustrations, or to appear in catalogs and product brochures, etc.

<p>

Your post reflects exactly something I have noticed for ages on photo.net: while SOME members are interested in commercial photography and check how's the light, the composition, etc, I'd say that 90% of the people just wouldn't look at the most original and well done product shot or industrial shot. Or they will even rate such shots a 3 or a 2 in originality. Makes no sense to me. Even when you look at Stephane Bourson's recent POW, or at Christian Holst POW - a commercial-looking still life -, or at the works of people like Nigel Haniman or Janko Furlan, this work is basically in a drawer for ever, whereas it's truly great commercial work.

<p>

Each time I uploaded industrial works to Pnet, I had someone telling me "Why bother shooting a sheet of rubber ?" or "What's so interesting about containers ?"...:-)

<p>

Doesn't bother me much at all, but I've now trashed all these images, which very few folks cared to see. No point sucking bandwidth to get this sort of comments. I even had recently a comment that read "Hmmm...", with a rating of 2/3 of course, and no further comment. That particular picture happens to be in the private worldwide stock library (destined to editors) of a major multi-national company...:-)

<p>

Unless photo.net is simply not interested in commercial photography uploads in general, perhaps PN may want to realize that categories are needed. I'd be truly glad to see other commercial works on the site and to discuss certain matters with commercial photographers - perhaps even to give a few tips to those who want to become commercial photogs... And if I upload commercial work, I have no interest in knowing that Mr X wouldn't hang a photo of a rubber sheet on his wall. Neither would I, to tell you the truth, but for this sort of shots, you don't get to chose the subject: the client does - even if he wouldn't hang his own products on his wall either...:-)

No, I do not think a bear in Alaska systematically deserves a 1 in originality. Nor does a postcard-like sunset shot. Etc.

<p>

The real evaluation of originality is elsewhere for me. Was there anything new in the approach ? Was the sunset shot interesting among other similar images ? Was it a special capture in any way ? Unusual sky and amazing foreground for a sunset shot will get a 6 in originality in my book. So would the shot of the bear if it is truly special - because of the bear's expression or because of the bear's special attitude, or because it is in a truly great surrounding... Or because it was shot at a fantastic and rare angle, or using a technique that is not common at all for bear shots and which elevates the shot above the ordinary... Etc.

"The person offering the critique should be well versed in both

the technical and aesthetic aspects of the medium."

 

But most netters are not.

 

I learned a lot from you in the Atget group about shooting for

covers and other commercial applications like the ones Marc

mentions. In this environment, Marc deletes some commercial

shots and your participation in this photo critique forum is

minimal for reasons you've made clear.

 

The novices are running the show.

 

This is nuts.

the teacher who told me his notion of Shakespeare was wont to remark that marks were articifial flowers.

 

if an exceptional photo gets low rating numbers, it is still an exceptional photo

 

fewer people will find it, yes, - I used to wonder why Homicide Life on the Streets was a critical success and a ratings failure, I see it on a rerun channel and enjoy it. The writing, the characters, the acting.

Carl,

 

I agree with you completely. I'm sure it is not what the originator

of this site intended.

To me critique and rating are two different things. This thread

started off talking about ratings but was called <I>Share Your

Interpretation of Critique</I>. (?)<P>

 

All I'll say is that this current system is very frustrating to me. I've

grown extremely tired of "Requesting Critiques." I even put in the

caption of my latest request "(please critique in lieu of rating)." It

doesn't matter. I still get ratings and no critiques.<P>

 

I wish the system would not allow just a rating number if the

photo has been specificially put up for critique. Especially when

I get an unsensible rating with no feedback. 2/2 I don't

understand how this is critiquing and I don't understand how it's

supposed to help me improve. Ok. I personally feel on a rating

scale it's 5=O & 4=A. Apparently they've seen this shot before?

What does it mean?<P>

 

I don't think the ratings systems should go at all (before

someone says that I do). I don't care when photos get rated that

I'm not looking for feedback on. But when I ask for critiques, I

expect critiques.<P>

 

Vent off.

James I think you are right - there is a difference between rating and critique. They are the same in that they are both a judgment of ones work, but they are different in detail.

 

Let me throw this out and you guys can try it on for size. What if the submitter would give the first rating and the submitter would have to make a statement of why he thinks the rating is realistic. Anyone that deviates from the submitter�s original rating by more than one (plus or minus) would be required to explain why.

<i>"Keith, since you can also see the images that individual people have rated 6/6 or higher, the ratings also provide a mechanism for a individual to build a mini-gallery of his preferred images, popular taste or not."</i>.<p> Good point Brian, so there are <s>two</s> three main reasons for having a ratings system (sorry if this sounds like the John Cleese line from the "Life of Brian" Brian). Point taken :-)

. . . . want to see some funny interpretations of 'aesthetics' and

'originality'? Check this out.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/160913

Done.

 

We had a problem processing your entry:

 

This photo doesn't exist or its owner has disabled public viewing.

 

Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.

 

Thank you.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1609139

 

Sorry, . . . . cut off the '9'.