Biases on PN...

It seems clear to me that the general population (on photo.net) has;

for example, a negative bias toward flower shots. Flower images

receive low ratings and few comments, it seems whether they have any

artistic merit or not. Similarly, certain nature images and

landscapes routinely acquire undeservingly low ratings.

 

It's almost as if when someone sees an image categorised as "flower"

or "nature", they immediately catalogue that image (mentally) into a

stereotypical "rank" - sometimes higher, sometimes lower

- and then of course rate/comment based on those views.

 

I should note that these observations are not only within my own

portfolio, but abroad aswell. I have viewed a lot of images over the

past year, and these biases, among others, have become evident.

 

Perhaps this is, in part, due to the new anonymous rating system?

 

Interesting. Your thoughts?

Not really that interesting. It's a pretty simple matter of sensory overload. There have been so many pictures of flowers and landscapes (gotta be in the billions), that most will see nothing new in any of them.

 

I would like to see people hold there criticisms and ratings in for types of images that don't interest them.

 

If you hate sports photography, how can you objectively rate or critique a sports photograph? Or pet, or baby, or landscape, or macro, etc.

 

I usually save my critiques (when I have time for them) for images of a type that I enjoy or for images that just blow me away. Sure this may boost my average rating given, but I just don't think it fair for me to give a poor rating or critique to a macro insect photo just because I don't like that type of photography and may not really know what I am looking at or can't guess as to the intentions of the photographer.

The top-rated pages always have a lot of nature/landscape images on them. Part of the problem is that we are all so inundated with nature imagery that it becomes hard to stand out, and anything less than brilliance becomes perceived as mediocre. Sure, some of that stuff is over-the-top, oversaturated, oversharpened, etc. etc. etc., but it suggests that people aren't against landscapes on principal. As for flower pictures, well, they're up against a huge number of pictures and so people's bias may indeed come from simple malaise.

 

The new rating system may make some people more willing to rate low, but I'm not sure that it can be blamed for flowers and sunsets taking a hit.

 

Onward.

I see a lot of landscapes, flower shots and nude shots highly rated in Top Gallery Pages... a bunch of PN raters seems to like oversaturated colors, computer gimmicks and a limited number of photographers whatever they can produce ...<p> I do not see any link with anonymous rating.... which are, by the way, not really anonymous!

Photographs appeal to us for different reasons. A part of the appeal of a photo is the appeal that's inherent in the subject itself, and a part of it is the photography of the subject. So, you see a lot more photos of, say, attractive nude women than you do of overweight nude men. And a lot of us would rather look at a Polaroid snapshot of a nude woman than we would Mapplethorpe's pictures of men, just for that reason.

 

The same thing happens with flowers. Suppose I go for a walk and see a vast sea of tulips, as far as the eye can see. I snap a shot of them. The picture is pretty, alright. But it's pretty primarily because the subject was. So any hack with a disposable camera that wondered across that spot would also have a pretty nice shot out of it. That tends to dilute whatever talent I may have felt like I put into that shot.

 

The reaction in the rating system is then sort of a "Well, anyone could do that" reaction, and that leads to lower ratings.

 

Then the other issue, as mentioned above, is that there are gobs of flower pictures on here, so people tend to say, "Not another one!" when they see the flower pictures.

 

I seem to recall a W/NW entry one time on "Albino Squirrels" that just had one entry; perpaps something like that would lead to better ratings.

Biased? What do you mean?

 

I usually rate overdone subjects (like flowers), captured in an overdone way, low in originality, since that what really means originality. But the same photographed-thousands-of-times-subject could have been captured in a different, new, undone way, then I probably would rate it higher in O.

 

IF the shot is well done from the technical and/or aesthetical point of view, then I rate high in Aesthetics.

 

But I may not be the typical rater, much people rate w/out making any differenca at all between the two concepts, and gives an average rate for what they see.<div></div>

As an active member of a camera club, I see a lot of flowers and landscapes and frankly would be happy to see fewer of them in critique sessions and competitions because my bias runs towards things that are more interesting than pretty.

 

Flowers and landscapes are NOT underrated on this site, IMHO, because they are often the favorite subjects of novice photographers who don't yet have an understanding of light and composition. As a rule, they rate each other's images way too high, with the notable exceptions of raters who either recognize the poor lighting (right), or are bored with the genre (wrong).

 

Nestor, your rose shot is well composed. The background is not distracting - a common problem with this kind of shot, as is hard lighting that creates distracting shadows. It looks like there's a lot of noise in the leaves, but now we get into another problem - rating resolution of jpegs (an issue I'm sure you can appreciate, given our discussion of your rates of my images when I first signed on two years ago. :-)). Lastly, it appears that there is a flaw on the top petal which draws the eye (although it's hard to tell due to the small image size). You ask for a rating, but most people don't really get the purpose of the system. I wouldn't rate it because even though it's better than average, it holds not interest for me. I'd rather look at something else on the TRP because there really isn't much to talk about here. I guess a 3/5 would be appropriate, but what's the point?

 

The best flower photographers I know report searching for hours to find the perfect specimen and the least cluttered background, then they carefully control the DOF to eliminate even minor background distractions.

 

My favorite landscapes feature dramatic (or subtle) light and distinctive foreground, middle, and background elements that put you in the scene, rather than at a distance. There are hundreds (thousands?) of snapshot landscapes that get the same rates as Eric Fredine's work, for example. That tells you all you need to know about the novice raters' understanding of the genre.

As an non-active member of a camera club, I see a lot of abstract and street photography and, frankly, would be happy to see less of these genres in critique sessions and competitions because my bias runs towards things that are pretty and interesting.

 

Flowers and landscapes are under-rated on this site because they are often not the favorite subjects of photographers who think they know a lot about light and composition and try to apply what they think they know into taking what they think are good abstract and street photographs. As a rule, they rate each other's images way too high, with the notable exceptions of raters who either recognize the poorly composed or conceived abstract or street photographs (right) or are bored with the genres (wrong).

 

Nestor, your rose shot is well composed. It is far better than average and I find it very appealing. It definitely holds my interest and it's the kind of photo I like to see on the TRP. I would rate it a solid 6-7 for aesthetics and a 5-6 for originality. It's well worth the look.

 

There are hundreds (thousands?) of snapshot quality street photographs and uninteresting abstracts that get hugely inflated ratings on this site. That tells you all you need to know about the novice raters' understanding of these genres.

 

Sounds bad, doesn't it Carl? Very opinionated, wouldn't you say? Now, go back and read your own post again. Kind of makes ya cringe, eh?

Steve! you make a valid point.<p>:o)

Right now, very crappy Tuscan landscape photography and oversharpened images of unwashed faces are the rage. The worse the image, the more popular it becomes. My personal bias against items such as pictures of flowers and bugs is probably along the lines of what Carl Root stated. If there is an excellent image of a flower, I rate it accordingly, but most of the images aren't and the repetitiveness of the flower images can cause a party to start skimming over them. The new rating system is not really anonymous inasmuch as many parties, mostly those who just are looking for false praise, are quite busy exchanging ratings openly.

Steve, do you actually believe what you wrote about the genres in question? Or are you just offended that someone would claim to have an opinion backed up by some observation and experience? The problem with attempting to offer critiques on this site boils down to posts like yours which posit that everyone's opinons are equally valid . . . . . Based on what? Having just bought a camera?

I haven't bothered with the galleries in a long time, but this topic piqued my interest since it implied there had been a massive shift in the popularity of the various photographic genres represented on photo.net. So I clicked over to the gallery and checked out the highest-rated photos. Guess what kind of photos filled the majority of that section: landscapes, nature, and flower images.

 

This post reminds me of those Christians in the U.S. who whine about how much discrimination they face for their religious beliefs . . .

"Steve, do you actually believe what you wrote about the genres in question?"

 

Of course not, Carl, and I'm quite certain that you're intelligent enough to recognize the point of my post.

 

"Or are you just offended that someone would claim to have an opinion backed up by some observation and experience?"

 

I'm not even slightly offended by what you wrote, Carl, although I happen to disagree with you. I feel reasonably confident that, on a percentage basis, ratings are no more inflated for the "pretty picture" genre than for the abstract and street photography genres. "Pretty" pictures make it to the TRP's not because they are any better than photos of the "competing" genres, but rather because a greater percentage of the membership of this site likes pretty pictures. I also suspect that, on a percentage basis, there are just as many "newbies" rating the abstract and street photography genres as there are rating the pretty pictures genre.

 

"The problem with attempting to offer critiques on this site boils down to posts like yours which posit that everyone's opinions are equally valid . . . . . Based on what? Having just bought a camera?"

 

Actually, Carl, what you see as a "problem" is probably one of the things that make this site so popular. That is that the opinion of someone who has just purchased a camera (or someone who doesn't even own a camera) is as valid as anyone else's opinion on this site. I think that Brian has pointed out on many occasions that you need not necessarily have ever taken a photograph in your life to judge the quality of a photograph. I happen to agree with him.

Most flower, nature and landscape shots uploaded here on PN are boring. That is the main reason they are ignored or given a low rating. In order for any of the three categories to be interesting, they must be unique in some way or be technically well executed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rating system being anonymous or not.

To the moderator,

Why do you let Mike Dixon make such a ridiculous and anti-religous statement in a photo form?

1) "I feel reasonably confident that, on a percentage basis, ratings are no more inflated for the "pretty picture" genre than for the abstract and street photography genres." - Steve Marcus.

 

A simple glance on the TRP at the scores obtained daily by some landscaape snapshooters should be enough to demonstrate that this is wrong. Nestor Botta's picture uploaded in this thread is indeed an interesting example: you stated you'd rate it O 5/6 A 6/7, and I'd rate it O5/A6. And I sense that it would get an average of O 5.3 & A 5.8 or so on photo.net. But then you will see any day pictures of flowers which are so obviously less original and even less beautiful, and yet score averages like O 5.8 A 6.3. Why ? Because of a bias for a "flowers" genre...? No. Simply because some photographers have more "friends" (rating partners?) as others.

 

2) "Pretty" pictures make it to the TRP's not because they are any better than photos of the "competing" genres, but rather because a greater percentage of the membership of this site likes pretty pictures." - Steve Marcus.

 

I believe this is true. But a large number of members among this "greater percentage of membership" are united to dominate the TRP. For these folks, there is no good or bad landscape: any landscape is simply either very good or excellent. Incidentally, I have yet to find on photo.net "street photography gangs" exchanging 6s and 7s day in day out.

The shot posted above is the unique flower photo that I've ever made and uploaded to a public site. I really don't feel excited about such subject, I don't photograph them, and of course I also donnot feel compelled to look at any flower shot for more than 5 seconds. If the shot is good enough to capture my attention for more than that, and even making me come back to take a second, third, and a tenth look, it's because probably it was captured or is shown in a new and different way. But that's a very scarce situation, cause I have seen SO many flowers, that sometimes is VERY difficult to say something new.

 

Why I posted it then? (not in this thread, but in one of my folders) Cause I thought I had a very humble new thing to show, that is, the almost "artificial" way colors are rendered, and it's not only about overpushed saturation...

 

Average rates it got (much time ago): A 5.45/O 4.70 Then, for ME it means that I've succeeded in my intention: to get a 4.70 in originality probably is fair enough, given the huge amount of flowers all around the site.

 

BUT I'm pretty sure that if I post it again, it would get totally different rates, for different reasons. So and then again, we shouldn't take the rating game so seriously. They can mean something to the photographer, but every one of us shouldn't expect much out of them, for good or bad, with the only and very definitive exception that they DO means more or less visibility for the shot (and then for the other images of the photographer).

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Let me tell you something about my personal life: my father is a wedding and social events photographer, he's been shooting since 1954, the last time that I was with him, he was proud to "announce" his anniversary as a pro: 50 years of pushing the trigger. As I was growing up, I saw tons and tons of B/W first and then color photographs of the same things: baptized childs, couples signing the wedding book, a birthday party, etc. All of that people appeared always in the same pose, with the same smiles, with the same white dresses for the bride, and so on.

 

I grow up bored, fed up with photography. I was really convinced that nothing new, pretty, cute or smart could come out from such an activity.

 

That assumption changed many years after. But I still think that those shots are very un-attractive, I don't do them, and I'll reject them if I see them. I also have to make a real effort to take a look to a friend's photo album, for the same reason that I've been seeing such un-imaginative way of photographing (o please, my dear friends, forgive me for what I'm saying here, but it's the true!!!), for so many years.

 

The point is: just like me, every one of us has a different, special background, and then everyone of us are BIASED to this or that subject. That's natural, it's the way we human beeings are. This is not a science, it's about art, about beauty, or even about opinion, in the case of street/photojournalism shots. We're subjects, then the "subjectivity".

 

I DO keep on finding new things every day here in p.net, sometimes they ARE flowers and landscapes. But I think the average viewer here in p.net preserves a higher percentage of high marks for overdone shots like flowers than I have, and that makes that we'll always have flowers on the TRP. More often than I would agree that they deserve... ;-)

BTW, to answer your original suggestion: I don't see much change with regard to this or that subject beeing shown more or less since the re-entrance of the anonymous ratings. But I DO find much more appealing and interesting the current way TRP are selected.

 

Before, the rating gangs was far more active and productive, in such a way that very average, technically poor images were shown in the TRP.

 

The average quality of the images on the TRPs was definetly improved, NOT diminished, since the re-implementation of the anonymous ratings. People now can rate more accordingly to their real thoughts, and not so tighted to a "convenience" factor.

Steve, are you implying that Carl Root's statement had an arrogant flavor to it. Come on Steve that's not like the humble Carl Root.

I have never been comfortable with landscapes and those big wild weird saturated skies

are just awful (imo) but recently I have posted 4 landscapes which with all this anonymous

rating have received MORE comments than I got in the past and HIGHER aesthetic ratings

than all my other landscapes with one or 2 exceptions.

 

The system seems to work fine and seeing as these are a new departure for me I see no

overt bias.

 

The top 4 are the most recent.

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=330695&ratings=true">My

landscapes Here</a>

I don't understand the point of your post, given that street shots and abstracts do not get anywhere near the high rates and site exposure that flowers and landscapes do. There are numbers in the data base that can back this up.

 

It always boils down to the purpose of the site. I just clicked on a landscape that you and your friends rated highly. It has obvious shortcomings which somehow no one seemed to notice. If this is a chat room, it doesn't matter, but if the photo critique forum's purpose is to learn, then the rates ond comments under that image and so many others like it are counterproductive.

 

You do understand, I hope, that promoting equal credibilty is seen as necessary for site survival.

Street and PJ shots will never get as much visibility (i.e. high rates) as flowers and landscape, cause usually they require a deeper and more critical "reading". Images usually appeal to feelings, but street and PJ shots are more for the intellect.

 

Feelings are among our natural primary reactions; our intellectual ones, are usually a step behind.

Throw in a naked woman into the frame and your flower shots will receive very high ratings.

It's my opinion that the anonymous rating system should go. If you can't stand behind your ratings then you shouldn't be rating. I don't see critiques in the newspapers/magazines/real world made anonymously, why shoud they be here. Granted you are going to get buddy rates raising the average, but it's not like that doesn't happen now anyway.

 

Great picture 7/6

 

signed Joe Blow

 

How banal is that?

It was made clear by Brian M. that the anonymous rating was implemented due to the overwhelming amount of reports of abuse to abuse@... and other similar problems, for not so low rates (like 2/3). The high mate-rating was not the real, "heavy" problem.