Higher ratings on difficult places to get to

<p> Just wondering if when photos are rated on this site if you give higher ratings based on large sums of money to get there or extraordinary physical effort to get to the location. I know I do. I would feel privelged just to get to some locations. There are some photos on here where I know it was a once in a lifetime situation. So I reward photos more even if they are not the best, although some of course are quite good. Just thinking. Jim</p>

<p>I rate a photo only on what I can see. I don't care if you had to fly to Jupiter in a meteor storm to get the shot or if you took it in your back yard on a pleasant Sunday afternoon. The extent of the trekking involved to get the image makes utterly no difference to me when it's hanging on my wall.</p>

<p>Isn't it hard to tell how much effort it took to get someplace? Was the African wildlife shot by someone from Mexico or someone that already lives in South Africa? Was it while on a backpacking trip through the outback or from the safety of a photo safari vehicle? I don't rate many photo here anymore, but when I look at them and judge them for myself, it's based on the contents of the photo and how it moves me, and nothing to do with who the photographer is or what he went through to get there, only why he decided to pressed the shutter button at that moment and what he captured.</p>

<p>Jim, I think there are a lot of people who do as you suggest. It is sort of the exoticism thing where everyone swoons over photos that might be quickly passed over if not for the odd clothing (to the viewer anyway) the person is wearing, for instance. I think it can be just a part of human nature to be intrigued by such things but maybe not as freeing as getting beyond and actually paying attention to the image and content of the work at hand--at least when looking for growth as a photographer.</p>

<p>Never crossed my mind...</p>

<p>...to rate photos.</p>

<p>The photos I like I put in favorites. Most of them are wall worthy to me. That's what I ask myself, "would I hang this on my wall?". If the answer is yes, in the favorites it goes.</p>

<p>Some very famous photographers have taken very nice photos in place that I can easily get to.</p>

<p>ps, there is a photo of a cheese grater in my favorites folder. Yes, I would hang that on my wall, I like how it looks.</p>

<p>I just went and looked, the majority of you don't have a Favorites folder.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is the photographic image. Not the place. If you happen to be in a really different locale, that's fine...but the photographic image captured is either good, great, or ugly.</p>

<p>The rating system is for the photography, not exactly for what area you managed to travel to....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't really feel qualified to rate. However, I do feel that a successful photograph captures something unusual - be that an unusual perspective, an unusual subject, an unusual amalgam of components, or an unusual venue. I've been to several Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibitions in London; there are some beautiful images purely on artistic and technical merit (and there's an "animal portraits" category), but there's no doubt that many of the most striking images have that effect because of the subject rather than the photograph. The skill of the photographer was to have the vision and arrange to be in the right place at the right time; if the image was strikingly unusual, at least some of this is likely to have taken significant skill.<br />

<br />

I've seen 360 degree panoramas taken from the top of Everest. And I thought "wow, that's a cool picture". Was there much artistic input? Probably not. Would I make an image with the same impact if I took a 360 degree sweep standing in work's car park? Absolutely not - unless something striking was going on.<br />

<br />

I'm not sure how this would affect the way I'd rate someone's photo. But I'd certainly be more likely to <i>like</i> a photo if the photographer had gone somewhere unusual (and spent money or effort) to get it, because such a photo is likely to be more novel.<br />

<br />

On the other hand, it would cost me quite a lot of air fare to take photos in a slum in Los Angeles (I'm based in the UK) - I wouldn't think they were all that special just because it cost me money, because there are plenty of people who could take similar images - and because such images may not be all that distinct from what I could achieve closer to home. I do, from my last visit, somewhere have the more famous Los Angeles skyscrapers lit by a low sun, reflected in the glass of an under-construction tower block; to me <i>that</i> was an image that I couldn't see every day (and it also vaguely had a theme), so - within the limits of my flawed execution - I quite liked it. To a native of LA who has the same view each morning, I doubt it would mean much.</p>

<p>After speaking with some photo agencies on this subject, in general, yes. The more difficult, the more exclusive, the more unusual the vantage point, the more invested in producing the shoot, generally, the higher the "value." Yes, there are also trillions of exceptions.</p>

<p>It is possible to make a really great photo of the most ordinary of locations that can be easily accessed by millions of people (a New York City landmark for example). On the other hand, it is possible to make an absolutely bland, boring and technically flawed photo after spending tens of thousands of dollars to get to an unusual location accessible to only an elite few (Antarctica for example).</p>

<p>The first deserves a high rating if it is a great image that engages the viewer and invokes a strong response. The latter deserves an average (or lower) rating if it is nothing but a snapshot your 5 year old could make with your cell phone. Why should it be any other way? Does it make sense to short-change the talented photographer just because he got to his location on a city bus, while at the same time fluffing the ego of an untalented hack just because the location is difficult to reach? You're supposed to rate the photo, not the scenery. :)<br>

-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>After speaking with some photo agencies on this subject, in general, yes. The more difficult, the more exclusive...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's commercial value, not an artistic "score", which is what 99.9% of participants consider when they rate submissions on photo.net (do I like it, do I find this visually interesting, etc.).</p>

<p>It really depends on what the viewer values out of an image. Do they value the final image? Or do they value the work that went into it? Does that value change if the image is good? If it's bad? And what if the amount of work that went into the image was overestimated (or underestimated) by the viewer?</p>

<p>Everyone is going to have different answers to those questions. Just like we are all going to have slightly different opinions and answers to the question "is this image good?".</p>

<p>Ratings often depend on context. If the viewer who is offering ratings or critiques considers the photo in context - including degree of difficulty - then, sure, that viewer might rate it higher than another viewer who isn't aware of how difficult it was.</p>

<p>Or the viewer might be fully aware of the context and how difficult the photo was to take, and still just doesn't care for the photo.</p>

<p>I wonder how I'd rate a gal's duckface self portrait if she took it while orbiting the Earth, rather than at a party? Or a photo of a basketful of kittens on Mars, instead of in someone's living room?</p>

<p>I suppose that's what the "originality" factor in the old ratings system was for. It was occasionally fun to rate photos O=7, A=3.</p>

<p>How would you rate <a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980503.html">this photo</a>, or <a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081224.html">this one</a>, or <a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090111.html">this</a>? Does the photographer show careful choice of framing, control of light, use of the rule of thirds? Is the image emotive because it's unusual, and because of the historical context? There's an artistic component, but if it weren't for what these images were <i>of</i>, they'd be pretty meaningless. I don't think you can separate them. (Edit: I swear I typed this in while Lex was making his point about orbital duck-faces. Great minds...)<br />

<br />

Similarly, with my WPotY examples, there have been winning images which have been extremely goofy looking and badly-framed images taken with a trail camera - the photographer wasn't there, and had little control over framing the shot - and none over timing it. But they absolutely made the photograph happen.<br />

<br />

You can take a very dull image in an exotic place, or a fascinating image somewhere very accessible. To make the image interesting, it has to contain some novelty for the viewer; it is simply easier to do this if the location is exotic (to the viewer). Ansel had to seek out subjects at Yosemite and add artistic input - he couldn't just take a photo of his foot and have an instant classic - but there's no doubt that Clearing Winter Storm relies on the location as well. Spend your whole life living there and I suspect Yosemite, Niagara, Vegas, Angel Falls, Venice, the Taj Mahal, etc. all cease to seem exotic. I spent long enough in Cambridge (UK) that King's College Chapel doesn't do anything for me except in the right lighting and weather, but that doesn't stop tourists from wanting their own snapshots.<br />

<br />

There's no way to tell how hard a photograph was to acquire. "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" was captured partly by luck (with some skill to expose correctly); with an automated camera, someone might hop out of a car on the way home from the shops and capture something similar (give or take skill at printing and format differences). Someone else may spend months lying in a ditch waiting for a rare example of wildlife to wander by. My "one that got away" was when I was driving home at night on the London orbital motorway (M25) and the road lifted above a layer of fog, lit from above by the full moon, with the taller buildings of the London skyline sticking through - I'd have that on my wall if I'd had a camera with me, but it would have been opportunism, not diligence. I think all we can do, in fairness, is vote for how an image moves us - and exotic locations have to contribute to that, consciously or not.</p>

<p>It's an interesting conundrum. <br />Is a photo of Prince William playing polo at Sandhurst, 20 miles away a better shot because of the people with machine guns at the gate or is standing in front of charging bulls in Provence a better shot because it's some hundreds of miles travel?<br />Both are essentially being in the right place at the right time and getting the shot right.<br />My personal feeling is that it's the shot that counts, not the location and not the difficulty in getting it. A beautifully lit bird sitting on your window sil is going to be a better shot than a bad exposure on Easter Island, in my opinion.<br>

Sandhurst - 20 miles away<br>

<a title="Cavalry polo by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3710217784_6f80951653_z.jpg?zz=1" alt="Cavalry polo" width="640" height="426" /></a><br>

St Chaptes - 600 miles away<br>

<a title="Bandido. by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1192/1305067059_6ca1b3c6fe_z.jpg?zz=1" alt="Bandido." width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

<p>With respect to wildlife, there seem to be four contexts: zoos, wildlife parks that attempt to emulate the animal's natural environement, wildlife parks and reserves located in the animal's natural habitat and animals in their natural habitat in a non-protected location. Consciously or unconsciously, I think a lot of us tend to uprate a bit for shots taken in the latter two contexts.</p>

<p>Michael said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That's commercial value, not an artistic "score", which is what 99.9% of participants consider when they rate submissions on photo.net (do I like it, do I find this visually interesting, etc.).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I later wrote that my post wasn't necessarily photo.net-specific, but my "edit" time ran out. Still, I thought it an interesting reponse worth posting here.</p>

<p>In my opinion ratings mean absolutely nothing...and in many cases appear to be not much more than a popularity vote...PN's most under appreciated value is the Critique Forum...which surprisingly most members rarely take advantage of. I would much rather receive a constructive critique of one of my images that would help me improve as a photographer vs. a rating number which tells me nothing. Conversely it does not take much effort to provide someone a helpful critique...I just wish more people would do so. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>In my opinion ratings mean absolutely nothing...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of people here share that opinion I'm sure, but that is not the topic of this particular discussion. ;) :)</p>

<p>I don't like to submit my photographs for ratings, because I usually get lower scores than what I would give them. It is probably because I know what went into getting a shot. Even if I didn't have to bend over backwards or orbit the Earth for it, when I look at a landscape photograph that was taken by me, I associate it with my whole travel experience, and it brings out lots of memories, feelings etc. For other people, it's just a picture of a landscape. On the other hand, I think it is a good way of getting an objective evaluation of our picture, and see how much it's worth for people who do not associate it with the experiences that we've had while taking the picture.</p>

<p>oh...sorry...ahh humm...I choose not to rate photos...though I did in the past...because I can't see that it communicates any useful information to the photographer...I'd much rather get or provide a verbal critique which would seem to be a better way to communicate what you think about a specific image. </p>

<p>The quality of the photo is by far the most important element. If I knew the photo required a high degree of difficulty or commitment, that would nudge me to appreciate it a bit more. That is simply based on my own experience in chasing after a photo. If I've expended great effort over a long period of time to <em>finally</em> get the shot I had imagined, I'm going to really appreciate that shot, and it will mean a lot to me. I'm simply seeing myself in others who do the same.</p>

<p>Is a car a better car because of the location and difficulty of mining the ores needed to build it? To me the final result is what I rate only! Whether you took the photograph in your kitchen or traveled 5000 kilometers does not impact the quality of the final product... I think it takes much more talent to produce a "wow" photo from banal things...</p>