Is there something wrong with the system?

Tony, I <i>personally</i> think that a commonly photographed motiff such as a tree with a seascape behind it (for example - and I've done these myself too!) should get a below-average score for originality. It is my view that a low O score alone <i>does not</i> imply that the photo <i>need</i> be in any way below standard (although it <i>may</i> also be a crap photo; this, however, is another matter). In this case, assuming that 50,000 or so of these have been taken and uploaded, we can happily give this a rating of O=1 (however, I'd still probably prefer to give O=2 or O=3 as I have a phobia about handing out 1s by now). The problem is that many people on this site (a) would take this to mean that you are attacking them, and (b) seem to believe that originality is the same thing as aesthetics... What we can do about this, I have no idea! Do people even think that something <i>should</i> be done about it??

I was referring to Walter's photo, not yours. You want the number of constructive criticism comments to be equal or greater for them to be considered. That's utter nonsense due to two things: 1) human nature as applied to TRP visibility, and 2) the average level of experience shooting and looking critically at various genres of images. (How many raters on Walter's image do you think own a grad filter or think the sky was really that color?)

 

Your point about getting on the TRP by shooting popular images is exactly what the 'originality' rating is trying to address. Tony is exactly right about the pervasive misuse of that rating component.

Even lesser experienced photographers can offer a useful comment Carl. In fact sometimes those with formal training (ones with loads of experience with the technical aspects) take very average images. Yet they THINK they know so much. "Rule of thirds, too much color...blah blah blah".

 

It's often the ones that are hungry for knowledge that also have an enthusiasm for this craft that bring the most to the table in my opinion. Even a complete novice can share something helpful by telling you what it is they like about the image. And for what it's worth, these people with less photographic experience, are almost always closer to what the general public is interested in. And THAT is of interest to me!

I've seen and received lots of thoughtful comments from novice shooters, Vincent, but please admit that hunger and enthusiasm can only be applied to communicating what someone likes, not how to express that point of emphasis technically, or how to broaden your range of photographic appreciation in general. You seem to want this site to be no more than a marketing tool (although refraining from criticism and rating often and high sort of skews the results for an awful lot of folks, don't you think?)

 

You have no stake, either on this site or professionally, in expanding photographic tastes, but given that this is a learning site (and after a careful reading of the ratings tutorial - again), I am confident that my vision of how this process should work is closer to the site's stated goals than yours.

 

'Originality' is supposed to be half the score, Vincent.

Neil,

 

"What we can do about this, I have no idea! Do people even think that something should be done about it??"

 

I have no inspirational idea's as to what can be done about it either. Looking at the number of comments on forums and pictures there does seem to be a lot of people unhappy with the situation.

 

As for people thinking should something be done about it, I guess it's like flies and wasps around the picnic table. Most people hate it but we accept it as it's almost impossible to do anything about it without giving up going on a picnic or posting on the web :-(

Hey...good forum topic...I wanted to do a similar one myself. I hope I haven't gotten in on it too late.

 

I made the mistake once of giving a below-average rating to a professional photographer, and subsequently received an email asking me what I would rate my highest posted photo if his was "below-average". I thought the email was a little ridiculous (didn't he have anything better to do?), but yes, I should have left a comment explaining my thoughts (although, I suspect I would have received an email anyway)

 

I just checked my portfolio, and someone gave me a 7/7 rating on one of my photos! I was flabbergasted! Now, I was proud of the photo (a fairly generic rose photo), but a 7/7??? Really? I want to know why! I got no comment! I want to know why people think my photos are good, as well as why they think they're bad.

 

So, if you're reading this post, come on! Do me a BIG favour! Go leave a comment! Even if it's a cruel, "go-find-yourself-a-new-hobby-you-can't-even-properly-light-a-flower" type of comment.

 

THANKS!

A 7/7? I think not!

Neil, I think what is meant by "Originality" as it pertains to the PhotoNet rating does not mean that a photograph need be completely unique. Please permit me, from the PhotoNet FAQ on this subject:

 

"...Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected or a familiar subject in a new, insightful, striking, humorous, or creative way. ORIGINALITY CAN BE VERY SUBTLE (emphasis added). A photo does not have to be taken on Mars to be original..."

 

When I look at a posted photograph, I try to make a concious effort to envision it as the first of its kind that I have ever seen. If the photographer has made an effort to elucidate an emotion or a concept, then I feel that there is an element of his "originality" that I should be cognizant of. How well the photographer communicates that element is how I rate on Originality.

 

Consider this. Take, for example a Beethoven piano concerto. The score has been written; all of the notes are on the page. But every orchestra, every conductor, every pianist will add (hopefully) to the expression of the Maestro's original thoughts. Every performance of that concerto will, in some very subtle way, be different from the last. The argument is, to me, unequivocally parallel to the photographs I view here in the Gallery. Regards.

Dennis, your attachment is SO BIG I did not want to wait an hout for it load. In any case, your post is way off topic here. But if you post this at a smaller size in your Home Folder, I promise to go take a look at it and give you my opinion. Regards

Pathetic thread. And there are so many like this one!

 

Does that make this site a pathetic site?

 

I don't think so: there is a lot to see and read here, and it is also a great site to study human psychopathologies.

 

I think there is something bad in everything good and vis versa.

 

By the way I also agree with Neil D about originality. So many "pretty" postcard photos here! And if they receive the highest originality ratings how will we rate works that are much more unseen?!

 

Is there a problem with the system? I agree a lot with Carl Root for this: the system must be based on understanding of human nature and control of non?desirable behaviours.

 

Human nature is to want as much as you can take, and sometimes more! Photonet rewards this human nature, because the top pages are ordered by most rated highest rated and most commented.

 

Human nature is egocentric, and everyone thinks himself is clever. So, high ratings become more important.

 

So I think what photonet needs is to stop rewarding people's ego and their greed. How? Perhaps photonet should reform the top rated pages by changing the sorting criteria. And perhaps all photos must be critique requests and anonymous for 3 days? Also, photonet can chose so many ways to limit very high and very low averages of ratings. I think every account must have given ratings averaging 3.5 to 4.5. People want to rate what they like of course, but this is a community and the goal is learning, so everyone must be willing to teach also.

 

Threads like this are too many to be ignored by the management, I think.

I think your analogy of a Beethoven piano concerto is a good one. It assumes you are sufficiently familiar with the composition to recognize how one performance differs from another. In photography, as in music, it takes both training and experience to recognize those subtle differences. "I like it" doesn't even begin to get close to the concept of a critique. Creating an environment where people are eager to share their description of these differences, and why some work better than others, is what it's all about.

Tony, your comment is surprisingly similar to what was said at the begining of this century "...everything that has been invented has alreday been invented...close the patent office". Or more timely, I can remember an icon of modern technology saying "...48K is enough for anyone..."! Regards.

Yes Carl, I am not a concert pianist, not even close, but I have been playing since I was 10. I truly love the Classics, and Ludwig ranks pretty high with me.

 

By the way, did I mention that that was neutral density grad filter that I used?

Actually Edith, I consider myself a genius, not just clever. Regards.

While there are many other things to do right now, I will take a few minutes to reply, once again. Sure your intentions are sincere and I believe you only want good things for the site Carl, but more often than you'd like to hear, your vision is quite narrow as to what is really happening. I would suggest taking a few steps back and looking over the situation more carefully before deciding to post your opinions. And lets be clear here...they are only that, your opinions! Sure sounding like facts though, but are really only opinions.

 

 

 

You said this: "You have no stake, either on this site or professionally, in expanding photographic tastes"

 

What makes you so smart to think you can make such a ridiculous claim like this?? It really is out in left field. When I started in this biz I did one thing Carl...landscapes, and only in Hawaii. All hand-held as well. BECAUSE of my time on this site as well as Usefilm before it, I have expanded my style to include Seascapes, florals, long exposures, even some street work, and wildlife...all with tripod and cable release nowadays. I've also taken over three hundred rolls from the Pacific Northwest, Washington DC, Maryland's Eastern Shore and Virginia. I believe your misguided opinion needs to be retracted here. I am always intersted in learning something new. Possibly B&W one day as well...

 

Another sad opinion is here Carl:

 

"You seem to want this site to be no more than a marketing tool"

 

 

Sorry Carl. I can't really decide which of these two quotes is the more ridiculous. Yes, I get feedback on some of my images to *help* make decisions regarding which images to use in our gallery line. So what? But to say I want to use the site for nothing more than that is absurd. This is and has always been foremost a learning site for me...bottom line! How often I have actually said those words while showing appreciation to those that shared their opinions on my images is a going to be a fairly large number. Check for yourself. How often I have been in the field shooting and the suggestions of another member will come to my mind. Here is just one example.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2005179

 

I vividly remember (I think it was Vlad) saying how much he appreciated these types of images NOT being so centered. So, I took those words to heart. Expanding and learning IS the primary reason for posting images here.

 

As for the third sad quote here:

 

"(although refraining from criticism and rating often and high sort of skews the results for an awful lot of folks, don't you think?)"

 

What can you possibly mean "refraining from criticism"???? Are you serious Carl? Look at my comments. Out of perhaps the last 100 possibly 5 might be great shot. Every image I comment on (practically) has a suggestion or idea or even a posted version to show exactly what I'm thinking about. Go ahead and look. The difference between my *criticism* and that of a few others, is that I try to suggest things in a spirit of kindness. A nice tone sure can go a long ways. I am sure you know what I mean.

 

Ratings are always going to be filled with flaws. Always... The only way to change that part of the equation of this site is to remove them completely. Usefilm is filled with nothing but 777777777 all day long. Most every shot is "Great" Same with Photo-Points (I took a look). This ratings system is by far the best one out there ...and I agree it sure aint perfect! Yes mate-rating IS still a problem. Yes, some of the newer and up and coming photographers appear to be getting caught up in this sad dilema. But it's still not quite as bad as last year. Tony P. put it very truthfully above when he said:

 

"As for people thinking should something be done about it, I guess it's like flies and wasps around the picnic table. Most people hate it but we accept it as it's almost impossible to do anything about it without giving up going on a picnic or posting on the web :-(

 

If a better system comes up and Brian puts it out there, then great. I'm all for it and will support it. There will NEVER- ever be a perfect system anywhere. The same *skewed* system Carl that you are complaining about applies to your images as well. People also hold back on giving you low ratings too. In the end it all evens out. Emil is still in the top of the top photographers pages (if it really means anything). Perthaps if he tried participating just a wee bit he might get enough attention to put him back at the top.

 

The bottom line in my opinion is the ratings system is okay, far from perfect, but certainly the best thats out there anywhere. Comments are still very helpful, very plentiful and always appreciated. The key to getting a measure of both is to participate. Being an active member has more benefits than simply having an icon by your name!

 

 

 

 

 

What you did is abusive. Just because you don't agree with what I say here in this thread does not give you the right to trash my photographs. Who the heck do you think you are?

Carl, you are 100% on that one. I know a lot of my comments tend to be simplistic and are not true critiques. Yet still, I hope they are helpful in some way. In time, and with growing experience, my critiques will hopefully improve.

 

To have an environment in which we are eager to share, one in which we can all consider the good and bad points of our submissions, and then to sit back, reflect, and learn, requires patience and tactfullness from all participants. It also requires objectivity. But above all, it demands a willingness to listen (on both sides). There is nothing so stifling to the flow of ideas than the demagoguery of the self-proclaimed Know-It-All pouncing down onto someone's folder and adamantly proclaiming the Truth of How it Should Be. This is, in some sense, what prompted my original posting in this thread. Best regards.

Walter, what you say is true - and I also try to modify my 'base' preference for an O score by what the photographer has done in their individual photo; and, to my mind, I rate quite generously as well - this is from an inherent politeness which makes it difficult for me to 'trash' someone's photo out of hand. However, after saying this, I still try not to hand out 7/7s and 7/6s too often...

<p>

Carl, from what you say, I'm not sure I should <i>ever</i> feel confident enough to comment on any photo on this site ever again: <i>"In photography... it takes both training and experience to recognize those subtle differences. 'I like it' doesn't even begin to get close to the concept of a critique."</i> If that were ever to happen, I guess I would rate without commenting a lot, and piss a whole lot more people off...

" . . . . . the strengths in this photograph have risen well beyond the minor areas needing possible attention (according to the minds of a just a few) making this a very good capture just as it is."

 

That's what you said on Walter's image. . . . along with the usual 6/6.

 

You have rated nearly 7000 images with a 5.8/6.0 average.

 

That's the standard now. We either follow that norm and offer three kisses along with each comment, or we quit because it's too hard to tell which people are now used to hearing it sugarcoated rather than straight up with numbers that actually reflect their relative worth on this site.

 

But it's just my opinion.

 

Right.

The tone of comments gets a bit tricky. It should be possible to be direct without having to sugarcoat. The comment environment should be one where criticism is expected and welcome.

 

But we all know that backslapping and discrediting critics has become the norm instead to the point where some people who see an 'OK' shot - or worse - getting comments from people who honestly seem to be willfully blind sometimes can get pretty frustrated at the lack of thoughtful analysis.

 

Critical analysis IS harder than it looks. Read comments from others and try to describe clearly what you see in the image. It takes practice. I assure you that most people appreciate an honest effort. In the long run, the person who will benefit most from this sort of approach is you.

Well if I could have given Walter'image a 5.5 perhaps I would have given it that for aesthetics. After-all, the sky in my opinion was not too bad...just needding a bit more attention. I actually suggested that decimals be allowed but that too was shot down. But since we cannot do that I have either a 5 or 6 to choose from. Figure out the rest on your own.

 

You also said:

 

"... people are now used to hearing it sugarcoated...".

 

Call it sugarcoated Carl. I took this from your comment of Walters image. You said: "Yes, this image has it's good points, but the color of the sky and the uneven light on the horizon line aren't right" Yes the "this image has it's good points" is what you call sugar coating. Well then we can both agree on doing that. Another term might be tact. Either way, it shows what others might simply call *manners*. Something this world as well as this site can always use a little more of!!

Hey Carl, those camera club competitions you're involved in must be brutal. Share a few thoughts with us when you have a minute or two.

I am in sympathy with the bit vinegared but quite realistic comment of Édith B. [jun 26, 2004; 09:49 p.m.].<p>

I do think the rates are far too high for many pictures (including some of mine), <br>I refuse to participate in the mate-rating process, somehow it is going against the own photographer interest.<br> I rate when I feel like a picture, and not a friend or a mate, and/or when I estimate that it can help the photographer to have a bit more visibility in the gallery. <br>I comment on different cases, when a thread seems funny or interesting, when I rate tough (3-4 area) which is rare nowadays because I prefer to rate what I find interesting, appealing and probably under-estimated/viewed by Pnet community or when I feel I want to leave traces of my visit, in case I don't rate...<p>

As a proof of what I said .. just look <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=588253&period=2000"> at my favorites </a>...<p> Talking about beauty, originality and appreciation of it, I quite agree with Kant analysis of it, i.e., that beauty is :<br>

- a subjective necessity: I forbid you to prefer Picasso to De Chirico, but I cannot rationaly justify this position,<br>

- totally desinterested: one of the rare pleasure that doesn't provide any physiological satisfaction,<br>

- universal without concept that can be transmitted: Eskimos and Bantous both like Mozart although no abstract concept transmitted to them (like it is the case for many science),<br>

- totally useless: a goal without a purpose or vice-versa.<p>

 

This above explains the far above of my current behavior... might change though <p>:^))

Jacques, at least in the case of biology, I would say that you are wrong when you say that beauty is: <i>"... one of the rare pleasure that doesn't provide any physiological satisfaction"</i> and is also <i>"totally useless: a goal without a purpose or vice-versa."</i> Beauty gives us a clue as to the genetic 'fitness' of another 'biological entity' (ie. person, animal, plant - whatever); a <i>beautiful</i> person (male <i>or</i> female) will be more likely to have good genes, and so is more desirable as a mate (the the "scheme" of things). Naturally, if you were to discover that someone was <i>artificially</i> beautiful, then the above would not apply to them! Note also that I don't mean to imply that less-than-beautiful people are no good as mates - this is not true, and they may well be much better parents than their beautiful <i>brethren</i>.

<p>

Or so it is said...

Neil... dont mix beauty and ... seduction, or sex or mate affinity!<p>:o)