Is it impossible to make an extraordinarily bad photograph?

<p>?? I don't think it's possible to make a picture that will score all 1s in the critique forum. Because, boring, dull, crummy pictures score 3s, and pity will get you a 2. But to get 1s! To aspire to the limit of unacceptableness! You have to think about what you're doing; work against the grain of your natural inclinations, push against what comes naturally, squelch all those built-in compositional inclinations and aesthetic urges.</p>

<p>To get 1s you have to really irritate the people rating the picture. Push them out of their comfort zone; piss them off, disturb, distress, upset, outrage, annoy, rattle their world ... <em>move</em> them.</p>

<p>But if you move people like me, I'll give you a 7 and you've failed at getting all 1s .. and it's back to the drawing board. *sigh*</p>

<p>Do you have, or have you seen, or can you suggest *any* photograph anywhere that you think would achieve pure 1-ness? Is there something about the automatic whole-picture-ness of photography that limits one's ability to shoot for the ultimate 1?</p>

<p>Hmmm. Photographic trolling. I'm sure it's possible, but like you say - that much effort is sort of entertaining regardless. So it has to, despite the work involved, still retain a degree of deliberate and nearly universal jerkiness that's difficult to describe. <br /><br />I'm thinking of some "lifestyle" shots that accompany the ads for obviously scammy dietary supplements aimed at "mail enhancement." But even some of those are so self-referentially awful that they're funny, so you have give them a 2 or a 7. Which leaves us with people who <em>try</em> to do that sort of thing, but can't even get the irony right in their ham-fisted trolling belligerence. Maybe those are your 1%-ers!<br /><br />I agree that being truly moved, even to outrage, won't produce a 1. It has to be deliberate low-level irritation. Like photographic poison ivy.</p>

You call it pity, but perhaps people feel that giving a 1 will discourage the person from working to improve -- that is the

rating of 1 serves no useful purpose. People who revel in cruelty will probably give 1s to good photographs. That leaves

the "honest" ones who are probably still reluctant to rate something a 1. Maybe we can rate some of the photographs that

come out in those newspapers who fire all their photographers with a 1?

<p>One can certainly make an extraordinarily bad photograph. I'm sure I've made quite a few. But I'm just hoping they aren't the ones I've posted! You be the judge, though, as with any subjective aesthetic enterprise. Seems to me that the issue of a photo receiving a rating of "1" is different from whether a photo can be extraordinarily bad, though. So-called "Likert Scales" such as the one used in photo.net's rating system are typically difficult to interpret unless the rating values are "anchored" with descriptors that provide raters with a concept of what exactly is meant by a particular number value used for rating. The labels "low," "average" and "high" at the ends and middle of the rating scale are probably just fine for our purpose here but don't necessarily translate to "extraordinarily bad." Maybe a "1" just means way below average but still not extraordinarily bad in some raters' views. </p>

<p>I was unsuccessful in finding ratings by .[. Z who was a prolific rater and often criticized for it. He rated tens of thousands of photos with a predictable Gaussian distribution containing many "1" ratings. He was unfortunately banned from the site.<br /> <br /> Maybe someone can find his member page.</p>

<p>Found it. Too bad the photo links are not available:<br>

<a href="/photodb/user-ratings?user_id=116858">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user-ratings?user_id=116858</a></p>

<p>To answer your OP on point, Julie, I think that an extraordinarily bad photograph can be made under basically two sets of circumstances: (1) a shot taken more or less randomly by someone totally unfamiliar with photography; (2) a skilled photographer (maybe even an expert) deliberately screwing up camera settings when shooting and then adding insult to injury through postprocessing. I suspect that the first happens quite frequently, but I would be hard pressed to think of anyone deliberately producing bad work, unless it were done for instructional purposes or just for the proverbial sh#*s and giggles.</p>

<p>For whatever it's worth, I have no doubt that I have made some lousy photographs - just look at the number of 3s I've accumulated. So far, though, no 1s or 2s. </p>

<p>The photo.net rating system used to be in 2 categories, aesthetics and creativity, each on a scale of 1 to 10. The system was simplified to one number after years of complaints in forum threads (search the archives). </p>

<p>Ratings are problematic at best. Not only because it's subjective, but it's also highly dependent on the rater's photography experience and level of expertise. For example a film shooter will not typically rate digital images the way a digital shooter would, and vise versa. Similarly someone with little to no microscope or telescope time will never be able to rate an astrophoto or microscopy photo with any degree of legitimacy. </p>

<p>For me, there's one category of photos that automatically trigger a "1" response: Bad paparazzi shots of "celebs" in unflattering situations. The photos are bad, and I don't care about the subjects. And yet, they make money from them. What's wrong with this picture (pun intended)?</p>

<p>ON second thought, make that a "-1"...</p>

<p>Good or bad are judgements, as are the ratings; de gustibus non disputandem est. Another person's 7 is my 2; and vice versa will obviously happen too. And yes, in my view, it's fully possible to make a "1" photo, but I'll be kind enough not to give any rating if that would be the case. Plus, rating my own photos is impossible anyway ;-)</p>

<p>Julie, your title is interesting as such, but your reference to the Photo.Net ratings much less so, simply because we all know that there is little need of the rater to observe any established criteria and the usefullness of the ratings lack in that respect.</p>

<p>I remember an otherwise talented judge at our photography salons who was not asked back when it was discovered that he skewed the overall results (a 3 judge system) by rating excessively high the few images he wanted and rating just about everything else very low with little in between. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"For me, there's one category of photos that automatically trigger a "1" response: Bad paparazzi shots of "celebs" in unflattering situations."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an interesting remark, William. <br>

<br>

Would you also rate a bad cassette-Walkman bootleg recording of the Beatles the same way? <br>

<br>

How about cellphone frontline war photos? <br>

<br>

Should we judge a photo by its content? technique? aesthetics? sophistication? or does it depend on the individual observing the photo? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good or bad are judgements, as are the ratings; de gustibus non disputandem est.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't waste your energy typing that. Photo forums attract people who's mission is, apparently, to persuade everyone else that there are objective standards for images. It always follows that only the missionary and perhaps a few of his friends, are the arbiters of those standards.</p>

<p>It's all a bit too "Vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit" for my taste.</p>

<p>It's possible. I've done it many times. I prefer to keep those images to myself, but I do attempt to learn from them.</p>

<p>Maybe it's just me. I always seem to find something expressive or interesting or otherwise "moving" about what probably should be a terrible picture. Digging through my own stuff, for example, this kind of picture:<br>

.</p>

<p><img src="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/puppy_blurry.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="492" /><br>

.</p>

<p>... is expressive, or at least it makes me smile, which means it's at least a 2.</p>

<p>For me, if a picture gets under my skin -- in <em>whatever</em> way -- it gets more points than any picture that doesn't (such as pictures that are plain vanilla "good"). So really bad = good, wherein lies the paradox, for me.</p>

<p>I once saw a collection of photos shot at an event were several speeches were given (some sort of formal awards presentation, perhaps). The lighting, composition, exposure, and white balance of each photo looked fine, but almost every presenter was caught with their mouths open, their faces twisted into one of the many momentarily awkward positions that speaking requires.</p>

<p>It was almost as though the photographer had gone out of his way to make the people at the event look bad. So yes, it's entirely possible to take a bad photograph, and in some people's cases, to believe that there's nothing wrong with it.</p>

<p>Julie, your dog photo is adorable! </p>

<p>P.S. Vanilla isn't plain, it's a flavor.</p>

<p>Any photograph I make that is <em>indifferent</em> is a "bad" one. Some of them I call "record" photos. Really they are just nervous <em>snapping</em> -- just passing time to avoid boredom, and they look it.<br /> Smart ass answer:<br /> To make a bad photograph out of a good one you crop and crop and crop. To make a good photograph out of a bad one you crop and crop and crop.</p>

<p>It is frustrating to have to crit a "good" picture you think is bad. Well made but boring is bad photography to me. For someone else they can't get over the perceived flaws in the ones I like. Critics who have a photo-as-illustration bent are the worst. They are all reductionists. Guys like me find things that aren't there to talk about.</p>

<p>I just stumbled across some shots that may answer Julie's question:</p>

<p><a href="http://now.msn.com/road-trip-photos">http://now.msn.com/road-trip-photos</a></p>

<p>@Michael, it's hard to say. I'd probably reject the Beatles album as much for the source as for the quality; but, then, I never bought a Beatles album, anyway. About cell phone war shots, I just don't know. I guess the upshot is that the response is purely emotional. Or, maybe visceral is a better term.</p>

<p>By the way, I don't rate photos (with a single exception). I don't think my photographic skills, such as they are, qualify me to rate someone else's work with a number. In fact, I'm beginning to think that the best way to judge how well a photo is received is by the number of views...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm beginning to think that the best way to judge how well a photo is received is by the number of views..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, William. There's no such thing as a bad nude photo. :-) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have to think about what you're doing; work against the grain of your natural inclinations, push against what comes naturally, squelch all those built-in compositional inclinations and aesthetic urges.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a recipe for actually getting creative!</p>

<p>"Yes, William. There's no such thing as a bad nude photo. :-)</p>

<p>Well, of course not! :-)<br>

"</p>

<p>Julie said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p >So really bad = good, wherein lies the paradox, for me.</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >So, we are really talking about "art" aren't we? He he. It will always be a paradox I think because there are so many different ways of looking at the whole thing. </p>

<p>Personally I find <a href="http://youarenotaphotographer.com/couple-funny-selective-coloring-photos/">this site</a> a constant source of inspiration ;-)</p>

<p>While I cannot speak for anyone else, it seems worth pointing out that most of the many many extraordinarily bad photographs I've made, you have not seen. Some of us are smart enough to throw them away.</p>