you left bad feedback.

Just wondering am i the only one here annoyed by all those a**-hurt amazing

photographers who freak out when you give them 3/3 ratings? Can you please explain why

did you give me 3/3 when everybody else in the universe loved my photo?

 

What do you do when you get one of those request to explain your taste and your

judgement?

You know Mark, when I give a 3/3 I also add a comment to explain it. Usually I don't limit myself to write "your picture sucks", but maybe try to explain what the person could do to improve it.

 

If the picture doesn't match at all my tastes (e.g. sunset or flower) I don't rate it at all.

 

I just looked at your homepage: you rated 73 photos and left 37 comments. A ratio of 2/1.

 

I rated 875 and left 993 comments. It's not the total number, rather than I comment more than I rate.

 

It's not that difficult to leave comments on your own tastes and judgements.

If you don't want to explain your rating, don't reply to the email. You are not under any obligation to comment on your ratings or to reply to requests for an explanation. If you feel like explaining your rating, then do. If someone harasses you for an explanation or to change your rating, or draws you into an acrimonious debate about your rating, then send a copy of the email exchange to the abuse@photo.net mailbox.

Mark, You're certainly not obligated but it is helpful if you explain why you think a photo is good, bad, or average. Because people seem to interpret the ratings scale differently, the numbers are not terribly helpful. Some people really appreciate an explanation. Others simply want high rates. A quick look at their portfolio will tell you if they routinely trade 7's for glory or are genuinely looking for honest feedback.

I rate photos about 2-3 times a month, mainly because I am waiting for something else to be done and I have a block of free time on my computer. As such, I have put together a guide for me, to help me, to remember how I, rate photos, http://frank.kujawski.org/photo.net/ratings.html . For me, a 4/4 is an average picture, I usually give out 3's-5's. If I see a 7, I will view the site and send an e-mail. What I usually do not do is post a comment. I will 'try' to post comments on 3/3 or any 1's, 2's, 6's amd 7's I give. That is the best 'I' can do. If you feel my ratings are off, then please let me know.

Mark - Photographs are the creative offspring (children) of photographers. When you tell someone their child is average or a maybe tad below average, depending on the amount of pride they have in their offspring, you may hurt them. You have kids. I'm sure you understand. On top of it if you leave no explanation it's like the Robert Duval character in "Apocalypse Now" when he's dealing the cards over the dead Vietnamese bodies on the beach. You're the 4 of diamonds, next one is Queen of spades, 7 of clubs . . . What? You say the surf is good on this beach, as he drops the deck and walks away from the bodies.

Kent: I don't agree at all, and that isn't how the photo.net Gallery is set up.

 

Anybody who has posted photos on photo.net, and submitted them for critique and rating, can be presumed to know what he is doing. He has invited everybody on the Internet to rate his photos honestly. The raters have no obligation to explain the ratings to them. The photographers have no right to demand a comment or an explanation of any rating, no matter how low or high.,

 

The duty of the raters is to appraise the photos honestly. Period. The raters are not under any obligation to take the feelings or the sensitivities of the photographer into consideration. There is no need for sarcastic comments, and anybody who can't deliver honest negative feedback without being brutal or gratuitously hurtful, does not belong here either. But there is no obligation to give praise where it is not due or to withhold criticism if it is warranted in order to "encourage" the photographer or to make the Gallery "friendly".

 

If somebody can't rate photos honestly because he is concerned with hurting the feelings of the photographer, he should not be rating photos. And anybody whose feelings are going to be hurt by the rating of an anonymous person on the Internet, or who is going to react to "low" ratings, or critical comments as if his children were being called ugly shouldn't be posting photos for rating and critique on photo.net.

"What do you do when you get one of those request to explain your taste and your judgement?"

 

It really depends on the tone of voice of the question. If someone has asked you kindly to explain, may be you should say a few words why you think his/her photo is bad. In fact, I would be glad if someone has asked me to explain my taste before they launch the nuke in retaliation. I have meet many people who would simply launch the nuke at me without asking any question (regardless whether or not I have rated their photos).

"If somebody can't rate photos honestly because he is concerned with hurting the feelings of the photographer, he should not be rating photos."

 

Very true! If a strange girl ask us to rate her figure, what would we tell her? If she is stunningly beautiful, we would have no problem to be honest without concern about hurting her feeling. What if she is terribly the opposite? Would we tell her the truth or would we rather keep your mouth shut?

 

I really like that Simon guy on the American Idol, but personally, I really don't want to walk in his shoes. I would rather go with Paula Adul any day.

Brian - what is it you disagree with? <BR>

That photographs are the creative offspring of photographers; <BR>

that people invest pride in their offspring; <BR>

or is it the comparison to Duval with no thought or compassion dealing his death cards until he notices something more interesting to him?<BR><BR>

It's naive to think that all people rate honestly. You continue to insist on your ideal as if it's reality. If your ideal was reality why would you spend an inordinant amount of effort trying to stop the corruption in the gallery and to no avail? Why would really wonderful photographers continue to leave the site? Why would you continue to get the same valid complaints about the rating system from responsible contributing members until they get so fed up with trying to reach you they finally just lay down or leave?<BR><BR>

Frank, according to your table, Capa's pictures of the DDay deserve a 1 in aesthetics. This is spooky. You should maybe try to be led more by your feelings in appreciating photography.

Frank, how do you rate a picture where the subject is close and has nice colour arraignment? This would be a 2.5 in aesthetics according to your table, Mona Lisa could be a good example (but this is a paiting).

I do not think you can create this can of rate table and go blind after this.

I think all kind of art (photo, paintings, etc) is a feeling an expresion it can not be rated in so hard defined way as your table.

Inside, you will know if a photo is a 6 or 2 it depends a lot of our backgruond too.

I start out on MY ratings page with "Of course this is a guideline, and I reserve the right to change my opinion on a picture by picture bases." As a general rule I find my guidelines to be true. Yes there are some very good pictures that break the 'rules', but I find that most of the time when I break the rules, the picture is poor, hence why we use rules and guidelines. I did not say my guidelines where an absolute, "blind", but a starting point. Until I can articulate why some pictures work when rules are broken, I will not add it to my guideline. I posted my guideline so that others who are as clueless as I, can have a starting point. So if any one out there has a better system, let me know and I will use it, or at least modify mine.

"It's naive to think that all people rate honestly."

 

I wouldn't think so. I suspect that most people just pick the number that suits what they think about the picture.