Just Some Thoughts

<p>Recently, I was exceptionally bold, exceptionally crass, or a mixture of both, and I sent an internal system message to a PN colleague to ask for constructive criticism on an image that had received, in my opinion, a disappointing average rating. Please note that I did not use the phrase 'unjustified rating'. I did not know this person, and had never seen his name listed as a rater before. Bottom line - I did <strong>not</strong> ask him to justify a poor rating; I was seeking feedback on possibly improving the image. </p>

<p>This gentleman obviously had made a number of assumptions about how I shot the photograph and also about how I postprocessed it. This led me to conclude that many of us may be guilty of the same. Perhaps we would be a lot fairer in how we critique images if we try to avoid such assumptions. Before actually posting critiques, it would help us if first we ask some pointed questions. Examples: What were the ambient conditions when you shot the photograph? Did you have any particular reason for the amorphous, undefined appearance of the clouds? Did you have any specific intent regarding this image? I suspect that answers to such questions might be of assistance to all parties concerned.</p>

 

<p>My initial thoughts on the matter are this: If you elect to post an image for critique and you want someone to base his assessment of the photograph on all of the information included in the would-be answers for which you have proposed questions, then you need to initially include that information when you post the photo or request the critique. Almost no one is going to pose questions to you, await your response, then offer a critique. That's more labor intensive than this process is designed for. To sum up: The more information you give the viewer to work with, the more likely you are to get an insightful response that is based on information rather than assumption. Don't put the onus to gather facts on the person whose opinion you are requesting.</p>

<p>Jeremy - I certainly understand your point, and I guess I need to give viewers a heads up if ever there are any special considerations that should be taken into account when preparing a critique. Thanks.</p>

<p>Jeremy: Your image http://www.photo.net/photo/15946834 is a good case in point.</p>

<p>Reading back over my response, that may have come off more curt than I intended. Nevertheless, I appreciate your willingness to consider an alternate viewpoint.</p>

>>>I sent an internal system message to a PN colleague to ask for constructive criticism on an image that had received, in my opinion, a disappointing average rating.<<<

 

 

I have never seen postings calling for "constructive" feedback on high ratings. There have been many, like here, as to average and lower ratings. Perhaps high ratings are unquestionable accurate portrayals of images unlike lower ratings where the raters are often "guilty" of making "a number of assumptions" when rating. I gather this to be so since no one seems to ever contact the high rater or suggest improvements to the site relating to high raters so recipients can gain feedback on what went right.

 

 

 

>>>I did not ask him to justify a poor rating; I was seeking feedback on possibly improving the image.<<<

 

OTOH, it may be that no one responds to high ratings this way because the ego suffers a bit from low ratings. Hence, all these responses to low ratings claiming that the inquiry is not about justifying or disputing but mere to learn about what went wrong. Despite the fact that the recipient in these kind of posts usually has already declared the rating as invalid. Such as here, again, where the rater is described as one who 'obviously had made a number of assumptions about how the image was shot and postprocessed'. The rating has already been analyzed as to its lack of valaidity and utility. Further inquiry is unnecessary. Unless the inquiry is actually motivated by scores/comments that are "disappointing" and in need of being "a lot fairer".

<p>I would say that a bit more effort is called for by both the photographer and the viewer. The photographer should make a bit of effort to explain what they were trying to do or say or show with their image, and the viewer should try to imagine a viewpoint (or even experience level) that is different than their own when writing a critique.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...and I sent an internal system message to a PN colleague to ask for constructive criticism on an image that had received, in my opinion, a disappointing average <strong>rating</strong>"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect, the <strong>ratings</strong> system was deliberately separated from the critique system for this very reason. Its purpose is <strong>not</strong> intended to be a venue for constructive written criticism, although raters can leave comments if they are so inclined. If we submit a photo for numerical ratings, then we need to accept that we will get all scores from high to low, and no one needs to explain their reasons or methodology at arriving at the score (high or low) that they choose to give to a photograph. Had they wanted to do so, or felt compelled to offer what they felt could be done for an improved score or why they think a shot is a 7, they would have written a critique.</p>

<p>That's what the Critique Forum is for. One can ask for all kinds of feedback without worrying about the shame of 'disappointing average' numerical scores. :-D</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with asking for both (as you have been doing) by submitting a photo for critique <strong>and</strong> ratings. But members need to realize the two are separate, with different goals. And perhaps spend a little less time tracking ratings (or raters) to suss out those who might have given us a 'disappointing' score.</p>

<p>Don't be a ratings 'stalker'. ;-) :-)</p>

<p>Michael - If I truly felt shame over lousy ratings, I would have stopped asking for them long ago. I resent your referring to me as a stalker for ratings, especially since I usually simultaneously post for both critiques and ratings, as you acknowledge. The sad reality is that critiques are hard to come by. </p>

<p>In the final analysis, some of us happen to be less advanced than others. I fall into this category. So please stop trying to impugn my motives for trying to learn from those who clearly are more advanced. With all due respect, dial down your arrogance.</p>

<p>Jeremy - most appreciated.</p>

<p>Michael. A couple of thoughts. Of course, I am not speaking of the particular photo you're talking about because I don't believe you linked to it. (If you did, and I missed that, I'm sorry.)</p>

<p>A viewer's assumptions are often guided by what he sees, rather than what he knows. That can be helpful, because the photo before us is a visual creation. So, even if he's got some things wrong, that can still tell you a lot about what he's actually seeing. For instance, someone might say to you that a photo looks manipulated, fake, or artificial. You may, indeed, know that you've done little or no post-processing to it and might therefore dismiss the critique because of the assumptions made. But the critique is still telling you something. It's telling you that, despite the fact that you did no post-processing, the photo still looks fake, artificial, or manipulated. That can occur with no post-processing. I've seen many of my own RAW photos start out looking weird, faked, manipulated. As a matter of fact, sometimes I work hard to get just that sort of look in camera, for artistic reasons. I'd be happy with such a critique, even if the critic thought I'd done it in post process. My response might or might not be to tell the critic how it was accomplished. Or, I might not care to reveal that.</p>

<p>Very often, knowledge is helpful and enhances our experience of a photo. But sometimes, it can actually cause us to miss the point of a photo being able to speak visually. </p>

<p>The best critiques are a matter of dialogue. I would tend, at first, to give out no or little information and want people's unfiltered reactions, unknowing of circumstances or my intent. Then, once I get the critique, I may decide to discuss further and the dialogue that proceeds might achieve great depth.</p>

<p>That's me. Sometimes, especially when my photos are more documentary in nature and often when I do series, I will have a bunch to say about the photos, mostly as accompanying text rather than to provide specific explanations.</p>

<p>I actually think misunderstanding is often the best path to eventual learning and sharing. What a viewer seems to "misunderstand" due to lack of "knowledge" of one's process or intent can give a photographer a whole lot of information that can be extremely valuable. The viewer is telling you what he sees and how he sees it. How it was "really" done is sometimes irrelevant, sometimes not. But the irrelevant times are well worth considering.</p>

<p>Many thanks, Fred. As usual, your feedback is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. At the suggestion of another colleague, I just posted 4 images for both critique and ratings, having supplied some background information - date, location, EXIF data. I'll see if that makes any real difference.</p>

<p>Hi Michael......... In responding to just the above comment (although I have read the thread)..... I have looked at your 4 posted images (as mentioned above) and because the content/genre is not to my liking I have chosen to move on... without comment.<br>

That said, it is not because your work does not hold merit, it does, but it does little for me as a person AND if the truth be known, I'm never too sure how to comment on "Architecture" for instance (smiles).<br>

My point here, I think, is that I sometimes shoot for what I think others will like, whereas others will shoot for what they like, irrespective of others...... no right or wrong here.<br>

Our fellow members are fickle and they comment on what they like I suppose..........<br>

Regards </p>

<p>Grayham: Clearly a particular genre of photographs doesn't have universal appeal. I don't expect you to chime in on an image just because of our dialogue on this thread. You have every right to decline commenting on or rating an image regardless of your reasons.</p>

<p>And, yes, PN folks comment on what they like. </p>

<p>Many thanks............</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I just posted 4 images for both critique and ratings, having supplied some background information - date, location, EXIF data. I'll see if that makes any real difference."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Provided that type of information and specific critique request may help for viewers who use the Critique Forum view. However if they use the Rate Photos queue they won't see that information.</p>

<p>Unless a viewer navigates to the member page on which the critique request appears, the viewer only has the photo itself and the category as guidelines for ratings. While I have no access to data to support my opinion, I'd bet the vast majority of members using the Rate Photos queue pay no attention to the category and rate based solely on impressions of the photo absent any context. Unfortunately that tends to diminish the value of the ratings process for documentary photography, which doesn't lend itself well to single photos without context.</p>

<p><strong>Hi Lex</strong>....... 100% coreect........ from the Rating process, one can click on the image to go to the crtique screen, but as you say.... Raters don't bother.<br>

I agree with your sentiments and need to be really bored with life (and PN) to go "rating". The majority of members who rated my images (back in the day) had never posted an image here... so I held little store for the numbers given...........<br>

Like so many other members/subscribers, I far prefer the written word and whilst I appreciate <strong>Fred G's</strong> words in terms of attracting dialogue, I find that time doesn't always allow me to be on PN as much as I'd like.<br>

<strong>Michael,</strong> hopefully your new "trial" will increase meaningful traffic to your images...... another thought is to use the "interesting" tag to identify photographers that you admire and keep in touch with their work as well. OH! the No Words forum has brought me unexpected visitors from time to time.............<br>

Regards</p>

<p>Michael, I see that you've given technical and informational details about the photos in the supplied PN fields, which I suspect a lot of folks don't look at. What I think would be more effective in the critique forum, would be to actually say something in words in the comments field when you request a critique. Those comments show up right next to the thumbnail in the critique forum and are more likely to generate the kinds of responses you want. Actually asking some questions might elicit more response. You and I often comment substantively on each other's photos, because we've established an interest in each other's work and in what the other has to say. I have been remiss lately on my commenting for a variety of reasons, but will try to come by soon and do so on one of your new photos.</p>

<p>[Addendum] Just commented on two of the four photos.</p>

<p>Lex: Point well taken. Ratings often are just gut reactions to quickie views of images. </p>

<p>Grayham: I've been posting both for ratings and for critique to try to gain exposure on PN (yup, bad pun). I do agree that feedback in the form of constructive criticism is far more valuable than simply a number. </p>

<p>Fred - Adding comments to a request for critique seems like the way to go. I've not done so with any regularity due to no real explanation except laziness. By the way, I started posting EXIF information based on several suggestions to do so. It doesn't take a great deal of my time, and if it helps viewers get a better take on an image, that works for me.</p>

<p>Interestingly, comments made on images posted with EXIF data have not once made any reference or questioned such information.</p>