Let's all rate...or comment

Neil, I used to lean toward that opinion but now I think I believe that it is important to understand more about the photographer. Their body of work does speak volumes. By understanding their vision a little more then I can understand when they step out of the box.

I know that this brings on the problem of mate rating but I think that a technical solution could be found for that. I am not even sure that mate rating is such a bad thing in itself. It is only when the mate rating pushes the image higher in the TRPs that it makes a difference. Otherwise who would care? That means to me that the emphasis should be on controlling the manipulation of the TRPs and not on the individual ratings. I am not a technician, but would a program that examines the top 100 or so TRPs each week for mate rating be all that complex?

 

I really dislike the current method of rating for so many reasons. I feel forced to look at images that I don't want to look at and a lot I don't care about. The time consuming mechanics are never operational and the standards are inappropriate. What else can I say? Except, maybe, there is no real answer forthcoming.

 

I do enjoy browsing through the many folders of photographers to find those special images. I have found some in yours.

 

Have a special evening.

Guy; can you just tell me why this photo is so highly regarded; what IS the story that makes it valuable to anyone? I think that was the answer to most peoples caution about judging a photo in context..

Ok, sorry followed the links you provided. What a pile of cr@p that guy shoots. Sorry, i know that may be a philistine point of view, but really, come on..

Guy, I guess I'm one of those who greeted you with mistrust and suspicion. If I offended you, I apologize though I stand by what I said.

 

If you wouldn't mind making another attempt at explaining, I don't get how the results of your experiment lead you to conclude that the ratings system is useless. I happen to agree in that I get nothing out of the ratings but I don't see how the critiques and ratings given here lead you to that conclusion. Most people seemed to rate around the threes and most seemed in agreement. Of course, some got more out of it than others. But, unless the assumption is that the picture should have rated higher because Eggleston's stature is what it is in the photographic community, I don't see how the use of the ratings system failed here. Would the ratings system have worked if John Smith took this picture and it was the only picture he had ever taken?

 

I'll be the first to admit I'm too simple minded to understand this discussion but I'd appreciate any further clarification you can give.

Jamie,

There was certainly no offense taken and your comments were much appreciated.

 

The great thing about evaluating any image is that there really are no right or wrongs. As they say, one person�s trash is another mans treasure. That is why the ratings varied from a high of 6 to a low of three, although some would have rated it even lower. The question I hoped to raise is with a different rating system would there have been different ratings and would these ratings have been less controversial. I think so.

 

For instance, this image when measured from a technical perspective could be rated low for many reasons. When rated on a technical level who could argue that the subject was centered, the background was crowded, there was a lack of symmetry, the image contained blown highlights, etc. From a critique or ratings point of view these things are self-evident and the picture deserves a low rating. Unfortunately, our current rating system does not permit us to rate on technical.

 

This same image, when measured on an artistic level could be rated low or high. The artistic quality of the image is measured by the viewer based on how the image stimulates either emotion or thought. No one can argue with the person who rates it high or rates it low. We can see from this experiment how much this can differ from one individual to another. Barry Carlton saw this picture in a very unique way. After reading what he had to say I could share his vision. The problem is that with the current rating system I could not honestly rate it any higher than an A/3 or O/3 or lower.

 

Aesthetically this picture is awful. How could anyone say it is anything else in this sense? How could it possibly rated anything other than low?

 

Neither is it original. Turn any kid loose with a camera without any training and they could come up with something more original than this. There isn�t a hint of originality here. It barely qualifies as a snapshot. Again, how could it be rated anything other than low?

 

(Note: We have a tendency to define the numbers used in our rating system to fit our individual needs. If we really like a photo we rate it high. There is no rating for like. If we think it is artistic, we rate it high. There is no rating for artistic. If we think it is clever, we rate it high. There is no rating for clever.)

 

Now from a artistic point of view there is an entirely different story. So, no matter how you slice it, the current rating system does no match up with how we as photographers or artists look at photographs. How can we ever be satisfied with a system that does not satisfy our need?

 

Bottom line, this photo on a scale of 1 to 7 IMHO would be rated a 2 for Technical and a 5 for Artistic. Personally. I don�t care for it. It is not pleasant to look at. I would not hang it on my wall. It is not the genre I am attracted to. I do not care who took it. I do not care that it is historic. I do not care that it has hung in museums. I do not care if it has sold for hundreds of dollars. I do not care if it is part of an important body of work. I do not care if another PN member has rated it high or low. It still deserves the rating I would give it for technical and artistic. By the way, without Barry�s critique, I would have rated it 2 for artistic.

 

Now the big questions. How many PN members do you think would rate this image high from a technical perspective? How many would rate it low based on it�s artistic merit? You see what I mean. Now go back and compare to how varied our currents ratings were. With a new rating system our rates would be more logical, more appropriate and more meaningful to both parties. With meaning there comes understanding and more learning. That is my goal when interacting with other photographers.

 

As I said, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Fascinating exercise, Guy. Just to add a few more of my own cents: As I said before, I didn't know anything about Eggleston when I saw the picture, and I had never seen the picture before. I still don't know anything about Eggleston except what I've read in this thread. I suspected from your build-up that this was probably considered by some expert somewhere a significant image. I thus took some extra time to look at it. In particular, I assumed the photographer knew what he was doing. The question I always ask myself in evaluating any art is, "Why did someone in control of his craft take the time to create this image (or object)?" With photography, the question is, "Why did the photographer think it was important for me to look at this image?" When you ask yourself those questions, rather than such questions as whether this is a "correct" (according to the standard rules) photograph, you can come up with some very interesting answers. Or not, as the case may be. Anyway, for this Eggleston image, if one assumes the photographer knows what he's doing, then the image must be the way it is for a reason, and it is for the viewer to figure out what that is. If you had said the photo was taken by your five year old son when you let him play with your old point-and-shoot, I would have assumed it was just a random image, certainly not freighted with any heavy cultural references, and would not have come up with the interpretation I did.

 

Now if only people here would expend a tenth this much thought on each other's images! (Or mine, for that matter . . .)

Most of you are still missing the significance of history. The reason there are so many shots that seem to look like this is because for all intents and purposes, he invented the snapshot. That's a seven for originality, folks! There also seems to be a lack of awareness that the elements in the picture actually make a statement. The potential for an image, even one that looks "unartistic", to make an observation about mankind and its environment seems to be lost on the majority of raters and commenters on this site, and I offer all the "wows" and "nice colors" comments as supporting evidence. Can't we get beyond "pretty"?

 

What is especially discouraging is that background information on Eggleston, and this photograph specifically, is easy to find, yet there's still very little evidence that anybody actually bothered to do some reading before offering their opinions.

Oh I read about him, once I knew who the photographer was. And while I find some of his work interesting, but seeing the rest, and reading about him didn't change my opinion. Sure, he brought color photography to a whole new level but the image at hand is really nothing more than a snapshot, talked up by art dealers. Trying to infer some lofty explaination for the image being a comment on America is a reach at best.

 

I also feel my comments are in line with a New York Times art critic who found his work banal, to say the least.

 

Anyway, the excercise was a good one, and not all will agree.

I agree with the poster who said he'd like to see a Robert Frank picture get assassinated. I

think that would be amusing. Using an Eggleston was perhaps not the best choice for this

experiment, as opinions on his work are almost always completely polarised anyway.

Certainly the kind of photographs that generally command high ratings on this site are a

long long way from this. As for this photo - I wouldn't rate it among my favorites, but

there is certainly something hypnotic about it I think,and it was immediately recognisable

to me as being by him, although I was not familiar with the picture. The exposure is

absolutely spot on as can be seen by looking at the lightbulbs. The red/green colour

juxtapositioning I find quite remarkable really. I might rate this a 5 for aesthetics and a 6

for originality. You can go on and on about how it's not original and an 8 year old could

have taken it, but I think whoever says that is really talking out of their hat.

One thing that people tend to lose sight of is that, at least as defined by PN, the ratings should have little relationship to whether the rater actually likes the image. An image could be very original and very aesthetic, and I could still hate it. Take, for example, pornography. Let's suppose the photographer was a real genius and came up with a new and highly aesthetic approach to degrading women. 7/7, but disgusting. Or, to be less controversial, take some picture graphically but very artistically conveying the aftermath of a car bomb explosion. 7/7, but horrifying. Most people, of course, don't rate this way. I suspect they decide how much they like the photo first, then pick numbers. We see the same thing in this thread: I don't like this picture, therefore 3/3.

Thanks, Guy. I appreciate your taking the time.

 

Carl, why do we have to get beyond "pretty"? Some people have nothing more to say than to give a simple description of the emotion an image stirred in them. Why should they pretend they've found some deeper meaning than that or that they can discuss the content at any greater level? Why should they pretend they can somehow get into the mind of the photographer? There are those who will seek out and interact with other individuals who want to discuss images in great detail. There are also those who will seek out individuals simply to share support. There are many who fall somewhere in between. Surely this site has a big enough user base for most to find some compatibility.

 

As to gaining a better understanding of Mr. Eggleston, I have to agree with Alexis.

"Some people have nothing more to say than to give a simple description of the emotion an image stirred in them."

 

Yes, but are they prepared to respond to a wide range of emotions, or just the soft fuzzy feel-good kind?

 

"Why should they pretend they've found some deeper meaning than that or that they can discuss the content at any greater level?"

 

They shouldn't pretend, but hopefully they're open to the possibility that the purpose of an image can be greater than the parameters listed above.

 

"There are those who will seek out and interact with other individuals who want to discuss images in great detail."

 

That's the purpose of the site.

 

"There are also those who will seek out individuals simply to share support."

 

All this stuff is meant to be archived for the benefit of other members. Does "support" qualify?

Can we next critique the PagaentPhotoRetouching.com image in the ad thats usually on the bottom of this thread next?

 

Man that image creeps me out.

I believe that the anonymous way this photo was presented in this thread was a good idea. This allows anyone who doesn't first recognize the image to attempt an honest (if also unenlightened) critique.

 

Once the identity of the photographer is known, a truly honest critique becomes impossible I think (unless you happen to agree with the accepted point of view of course!). After all, anyone who knows that this is an Eggleston and doesn't say wonderful things about it is going to be considered a uneducated dunce by those-who-know-better... realising this fact, that person will either conform to the masses and heap praise on it as well, keep silent, or seek notoriety by deliberately going against the accepted public opinion.

 

Can we be sure of the value of a critique when there is pressure to conform?

Neil, very well said.

Yeah, that's why we can all aim a giant "Thbbbbt[2x!]" at Brian for being a spoilier and spilling the beans so early.

But even if this idea takes off, and we had a regular unidentified photo to critique (out of context of course), we'd still need to hope that all who knew what the photo was would self-eliminate themselves from the critiquing... and I don't believe that this will ever happen, not completely anyway (call it human nature if you like). The thing that complicates this idea the most - and it is no fault of the idea I think, just a complication in terms of running such a system - is that each photo will generate a different collection of people qualified to critique it (where, in this narrow definition of the project in question, only those who would not know the photo up for critique would be qualified).

 

So, it's not even that a club with membership could be formed; each week (or however long it would be between photos) the eligible membership would change. As long as all those interested would be willing to exclude themselves whenever a photo came up which they recognised then perhaps such an experiment could be viable. However, I tend to think that there would always be more naysayers than anyone else with such an experiment.

 

What do you think? (Naysayers' opinions are welcome too.)

Oh, by the way: the copyright question (mentioned on another <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FUHw"><b>thread</b></a>) is a valid one, and may scuttle the whole idea before it could even start anyway.

"he invented the snapshot" ho ho ha ha ha ho ho ha Oh believe me plenty of bad shots were taken before this guy twisted things to make a name and a bit of cash...'invented the snapshot' ... ho ho that'll keep me chuckling for a while..

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/eggleston/eggleston_articles1.html

Yes, yes Carl, but what it is is ART, not Photography. Thats why i am being 100 times more cynical (and harsh), than if it were a picture submitted to PN by a user... Its a form of Art that i think is more about an idea regarding the nature of art than a piece of art itself (which is as we all know a huge theme in Art viz Warhol, sheep in formaldahide, pilesof bricks, Tracey Emmens bed etc etc). To me this questioning is a sideline (or should be) to the Art story. Bringing it back to PN; this is not a gallery - it is a forum to learn good technical photography. The result is often rather formulaic (like my own work), but can develop, i hope and believe, into really original and challenging photography. For that reason i hope work like Eg.'s will always remain at the bottom of the RR q. We have to have some criteria. The art world has deliberately and very famously lost that criteria. (For Art this is not necessarily a bad thing thuogh).

Duncan -

 

I'm sorry but, respectfully, all Eggleston photos that I can think of are examples of good

technical photography. The example in this thread is perfectly exposed and totally sharp.

There is a blown out part on the pillar, but that is a question of taste rather than any

technical fault on his part. Eggleston without doubt knows exactly what he is doing with a

camera and exactlywhat results he wants to achieve. The area where he diverges from

many people's tastes is in his subject matter and often his choice of composition. He

places his subject matter right in the centre of the frame - this is not a technical fault

simply because most "how to take great photos" books say you should use the rule of

thirds. Many people love Eggleston's work, and to say it is some kind of art-world

conspiracy just seems to be head in the sand ostrich thinking.

 

Robert

Carl Root , feb 27, 2006; 07:23 p.m.

Seven Days!

This thread will be dead long before then.

 

Carl, even though it had to be searched for it remained here more than seven days.