Asthetics...Originality...&...Quality

Er...I was thinking may be an additional parameter can be included to

judge a photograph. Right now we have two : Asthetics and

Originality. Why not have a third : Quality. This can judge, say,

focusing, post-processing, DOF, etc. Why I was suggesting this is ,

some photographs are asthetically good even when the composition is a

blurred picture.

May be, quality rating need not be used to find the final (weighted)

rating of astheticity and originality. Also, there is this issue that

low end cameras cannot compete with high-end SLRs in some hardware

aspects. But still.

I was just thinking out loud.

I can see your point, up to a certain extent. However, every technical aspect of a picture is functional to a subsidiary aspect, which might be either pertaining to expression or to usage (i.e. what kind of use is being made of a certain image). You would never dream of illustrating a travel magazine with Holga images, but the same subject won't necessarily be as aesthetically valid just because the camera involved is a 4x5 instead of a light-leaking, plastic lens contraption.

 

Your request addresses the need for an exchange which I'm afraid can only be born out of a teacher-pupil relationship. Focusing, post-processing, DOF are all elements which have no value per se. What counts is the context, and I'm afraid these things have to be evaluated by people willing to actually verbally discuss them. No ratings, but words.

 

I was thinking out loud too!

I think I'd second this one too. It seems like a good way to please those who want more feedback and it provides a neat way of saying 'I likle this picture but it could have been better made'. It could also say 'I hate this picture but concede that it's technically excellent'.

Agreed, Kalaga. Not a new idea, though... In the previous threads suggesting more or less the same, an obvious problem came up: we can't really change rating categories anymore, says the management, because all the old pictures would not have a quality rating, and could therefore not find their place in the top-rated pages - unfair.

 

If you find a solution to this problem, perhaps things could change. But... not easy...

If you take a Quality Management class, you will find that there are almost as many definitions of quality as there are people. The most standard is "meets or exceeds the expectations of the customer." So would you mean "technical", "Aesthetic", or "Subject matter" in "mmeeting or exceeding the expectations?"

 

You would open an additional can of worms. People can't define and apply the definition for originality.

 

Conni

I consider Aesthetics to include quality, composition, technical performance, purpose in output, etc.

 

to me originality is the content and the resulting output in a visual for (example: a picture of a flower that has been digitally altered to resemble something else would be original.. depending on what they did, how well they did it would be aesthetics).

 

aesthetic according to an online dictionary:

# Relating to the philosophy or theories of aesthetics.

# Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the aesthetic faculties.

# Characterized by a heightened sensitivity to beauty.

# Artistic: The play was an aesthetic success.

# Informal. Conforming to accepted notions of good taste

 

so if you feel an image has good quality. then rate the aesthetics well. if you think the content is good then rate the originality well.

I agree with others that I already incorporate "quality" into my aethetics rating.

 

What I WOULD like to see is an additional rating parameter for "degree of difficulty."

 

It's one thing to take a picture of an eagle in a cage, quite another to capture them in flight in the wild. Same for underwater photography vs. aquarium shots, and more than a few composite shots as well.

 

My .02,

 

BD

Everything that's been discussed so far can be incorportated into the current ratings guidelines. It boils down to experience within each genre - shooting, viewing, discussing. You can't mandate that.

Does this mean I would get 3/3/3s all the time? People usually duplicate the scores as it is because holding two concepts in their head at the same time is not possible... and you're asking them to juggle three concepts?! Waste of time! I'd recommend we drop Originality and then I'd just have to worry about the next 3 I get...

Marc G - would it not be possible to average out the marks to give a ranking ? If it is old and only has two marks you divide by two and if it has three you divide by three.

 

Byron - that seems a very wide definition of aesthetics, I would have thought technique was a different animal.

 

( I ought to explain my input I suppose before I get slated - I do check the "gallery" forum out of interest and appreciation but it all seems so fraught that I am not keen on "dipping my toes".)

I agree with Carl, less is sometimes more. Drop to 1 rating from 0-7.

 

This circumvents the issue of adding a 3rd value whereby all older photos will not have this value populated, at least by dropping to 1 value a rounded average of the 2 existing values can be calculated for every image in one fell swoop, or on the fly in code.

 

Arguments for:

 

o It reduces database overhead. A great thing! Less indexes, less search time, less RAM used = faster site.

o Removes the need for combined ratings calculations on the TRP thus speeding up page load when multiplied by the site volume.

o Increases the number of ratings given/speed of rating because people have 1 less thing to do per photo.

 

Arguments against:

 

o Reduces granularity of rating. However, we have a vehicle for this already - the critique.

On the contrary, I would like just one rating which actually it will be if you like or not the image.

Sounds good. One rating, only two choices. Either an 0 or a 1. Just right in the digital world. :-)

Two is plenty enough for me.

This is an ever lasting question. I am currently in favour of one number rating system, because it is so so so bloody obvious that the concept of originality seems to be beyond the comprehension of very many PN-members, sorry. Frankly, the best way is the comment type of rating.<p>

Anyway, I don't believe for a second that the system is going to be changed as the base is alredy so huge. Theoretically a two number system with "overall impact" and "technical merit" could work, but the easiest is to have one rating with a range 1-7, but perhaps there should be a somesort of a personal scaler to keep the given average in sensibel limits. Now, there are those who have average given at 6/6 or even more.<p>

One thing that should be instructed more clearly is that whether photos shuld be rated within a genre, although, I think it might be beyond comprehension too.

I get the point. The critiques left behind for the pictures can really put the quality issue at rest. Like Leo said a 'teacher-pupil' or peer discussion.

 

Constance, quality does have different definitions but there could be common grounds. E.g, a picture might score 2,3 or 4 on a O scale, but they are of very high quality. So the photographer sees a low O score and gets disappointed. But a good Q rating will tell him or her that the equipment handling was perfected. This is also one of the facts that a photographer needs to master.

 

On the other hand a picture can have high A rating because it is pleasing to the eye. Or high O rating because the content is unique. But can have low Q rating.

 

Byron, if I see a image that is asthetically good, but of poor quality (deliberate or serendipity), then I rate 'A' well according to the available facility. But will it do justice to the reverse case.? I didn't see that happening.

 

Marc, to begin with let us not use Q rating to judge top-rated photographs. Nevertheless, let it be introduced. This can prevent the unfairness you mentioned. The Q rating system can be introduced to the newly uploaded pictures, but not used for rating. Later, if possible, it can then be used to judge top rated photographs, in a gradually introduced phase.

 

Diamond, if "degree of difficulty" rating is introduced, then my latest photograph of a tiger must top it. Imagine taking that picture with a canon powershot A95, without lenses, and still be alive to type this comment today. In truth, how close was I?. I was safely inside a vehicle and i used the 3x zoom of my camera even though the vehicle was quite close.

 

Let me assemble the crux of my argument:

 

1. Q rating will help the photographer to improve on the equipment handling.

 

2. It will seperate beauty from quality.

"I would have got a good Q rating because the photograph came perfect, but I chose to improve on it with PS, because it can be more beautiful when blurred, saturated, balanced, cropped, and framed(A). Forget the originality (O)".

 

3. Q rating will do justice to photographs that are low on A & O ratings. But are technically perfect.

 

4. The management of photo.net can introduce Q rating to the newest photos uploaded. But not use it for the final rating.

 

 

Thank you for your input friends.

Kalaga:

 

What you are calling "Q" is actually technical skill. Quality, given that definition is not universal could equally mean composition, light, color - or not, and then you're back to the same can of worms the originality score has - no two definitions are the same. If you want a technical score, call it technical but quality is too amorphous in meaning.

 

I would thin that if you use two scores, call them aesthetics and technical.

 

Conni