Jump to content

Am I really that bad of a photographer?


Recommended Posts

<p>Excuse me while I vent. I know the ratings system is not perfect.....never will be. I can accept that. But I get so frustrated with the low ratings I receive on all my images. My 'friends' (the regulars who comment on my work) applaud my work, occasionally giving me constructive criticism. But other people I don't know or 'anonymous' will give me low ratings......3's and 4's. And those ratings are the average of all of the ratings I receive, so that means some people are likely rating my images a 1 or 2. </p>

<p>Rest assured, I make no pretense of being a great photographer. In fact, I plan to go to photography school next summer, as I really want to improve more than I think I'm able to do on my own. But are my images really THAT bad? Sometimes it's just plain demoralizing to receive low score upon low score. I have never ONCE had someone give me a low score on an image with an explanation as to how I could have improved it. This is just plain wrong. </p>

<p>I know there are some impending changes to the ratings system. But what exactly IS the answer? Photo.net is potentially such a great forum for improving, if we can have honest discussion about our work. Personally, I'd like to see a policy implemented that would prevent someone from rating anonymously, and I would love to go back to the system where the member's name is identified to his/her rating. </p>

<p>I've thought of going to critique only, but I have no expectation that it would result in any more comments on my work. I'd rather 'fix' the rating system.....possibly even requiring a comment if you leave a rating. As it is now, I don't seem to be receiving much benefit from the system, and I question whether it's worth my time to load images at all. I've made some wonderful friends here on PN, and a few of them have been incredibly supportive and instructive to my work. But with so many members here on PN, one would think I'd get comments from more than the same few people all the time. </p>

<p>I hope I don't come across as whining. I wonder who else empathizes with my situation. And more importantly, has everyone filled out the survey that the staff at PN sent a while back asking for our input of ideas for changing the system? I gave them an earful! :-)</p>

<p>Hope everyone here in the States had a nice Thanksgiving Day, and thanks for 'listening'. :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But what exactly IS the answer?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Christal, I'm not sure there is an answer except to take it for what it is - general feedback from an audience of p.net's member demographics, and not take it personally. </p>

<p>Today's PoD is another example of the rating system's shortcomings; its inability to consistently and accurately reflect the quality of an image.<br>

<a href="/photo/17603860">http://www.photo.net/photo/17603860</a> </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> Am I really that bad of a photographer? ... But are my images really THAT bad?

 

No! I took a quick look sampling your galleries and you have a fine eye.

 

>>> I know there are some impending changes to the ratings system. But what exactly IS the answer?

 

Not trying to be flip or curt, but you might consider passing on participating. Many, including myself, have

made that choice. The system seems flawed, and of little benefit. IMHO...

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First. You have a super cool name. You should be a spy. :)

As far as your ratings. Haters are always going to hate. Do you like your work? That's all that matters. But you've taken

some really good shots and have been to a lot of places. I don't know how much post processing you do, but maybe that

would be the next step. And maybe creative cropping. I like what you've done. It's varied and interesting. If this is a hobby,

make yourself happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On photography forums (not here, I'm speaking generally), I notice high ratings for certain types of photos - sunsets, hyper-saturated colors, nude models. These seem to draw the most attention.</p>

<p>In other words, I don't know how much you can expect from a public rating system. Someone once said that if popularity were the ultimate measure of things that every meal would be pizza and every pair of pants would be blue jeans.</p>

<p>A better idea would be to compare your work honestly against photos that you believe to be of high quality, e.g. photos in a similar genre that have been published in books and magazines. At least start there. If you can, find some honest friends who are willing to tell you what's working and what's not. And listen to them. Especially when they tell you what's not working.</p>

<p>Remember, no matter where you are today, you can be better in six months and better still in a year or two. It's a matter of making distinctions and putting in the effort that you need to improve. Best wishes on your journey.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I quit giving ratings about a year ago. I stopped posting critique-seeking photos well before that. My photographic pursuits have nothing to do with what others' think, but if you do seek such things, be aware that the general oversaturation of images in the online universe means that for a picture to really, really stand out, it, well, really REALLY needs to stand out. I dare say, Lange's "Migrant Mother" would scarcely be noticed on photo.net today. Someone would complain about lack of shadow detail. :)</p>

<p>On the internet, the only choices are a thick skin or abandonment. The choice is ours.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, I'm nowhere near a pro, just a dabbler landscape photographer, and I like a lot of your landscape shots, but some of them seem to be taken in pretty ordinary light. Sometimes flat light is what you want but most times it isn't. A lot of your landscapes are spectacular but others seem just flat. </p>

<p>Now that I've said all that, I'm not putting my own work on a pedestal. My suspicion is that you put up the pictures you're unsure of which gives you more criticism than you may deserve. Thing is too that people's tastes are different. A lot of times some shot I love is greeted with universal disdain while some other shot I think is pretty ordinary is what people like. So the fact that I like some and not others really may just be different taste.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Chris.....thanks for your kind words, but I really wasn't fishing for compliments. :-) I'll check out your portfolio soon.</p>

<p>Michael.....It's not that I take it personally. It angers me more than anything. I can accept criticism quite well if it's offered in the right spirit, but I just don't understand how someone can rate a 2 or 3 and not offer some constructive comment. The only way to change that would be to require a comment if someone rates. I'm not sure what changes they have in store for us, but I rather doubt that will happen. And yes, there is a great deal of inconsistency, which is to be expected because photography is such a subjective art. </p>

<p>Brad.... <em>The system seems flawed, and of little benefit. IMHO... </em>Amen to that! I retain hope that they can devise a system where I CAN participate in the ratings and benefit from it. It could be a fantastic system......never perfect......but much better than it is now. When you say 'pass on participating', do you mean just the ratings portion, or the critique portion as well? To me, the ONLY reason for participating is for the feedback from others. I wouldn't spend so much time loading my images if it were only to 'share' my work with others. My work isn't that good. :-)</p>

<p>Rich RE: your 1st 2 sentences......thanks for the best laugh I've had in a long time!!!! As for your comment, <em>Do you like your work? That's all that matters........hmmm......</em> I'm a concert violinist, and I would never be happy staying in my own practice room and only performing for myself. If I couldn't share my art, my art would die. I feel the same way about photography. I do enjoy it, and I would take pictures even if nobody viewed my work. That's mostly because of the spiritual side of photography......being out and hiking in beautiful places and being in touch with nature......it re-energizes me, and the hobby of photography has helped me 'see' better and be more aware of my surroundings. So ideally I'd like to share my work, get feedback and learn from others. Also, frankly, I'm not experienced enough yet as a photographer to make a good assessment about my own images. I like some of my images, but that's not to say I wouldn't like them better with a little constructive criticism from fellow PN members.</p>

<p>Dan......wise words. And I do strive to get better. I agree.....I can learn so much by looking at and comparing my images to great images by accomplished photographers (and indeed, even bad images). But that's just not enough. I need to shoot more, read more, and yes, get more help from friends who are willing to be forthright with me. There have been times when a PN member has been of invaluable help to me. Unfortunately, mostly I just get the pat on the back 'awesome' comment, which is appreciated, but not very helpful. Maybe it's the concert violinist in me.......I accept criticism well, but I realize not everyone feels comfortable (or knowledgeable) about dispensing criticism. I would love to have about 10 people who would routinely give me that kind of honest critique. </p>

<p>Patrick......I don't mean to be flip or disrespectful, but why do you participate at all if you don't accept ratings or critiques? Do you spend a lot of time in the forums? I realize not everyone has a big portfolio of images, but they get other benefits from Photo.net. I would add another choice......thick skin, abandonment, OR FIX THE SYSTEM!!!! :-)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i> Personally, I'd like to see a policy implemented that would prevent someone from rating anonymously, and I would love to go back to the system where the member's name is identified to his/her rating. </i><P>

Don't expect that to happen. Anonymous ratings were introduced so people could give an honest rating without fear of reprisals (low revenge ratings, nasty comments, and hateful messages) which happened far too often.<P>

<i>Haters are always going to hate.</i><P>

See my comment just above. Far too many people interpret a low rating as a spiteful attack, evidence of the rater's personality disorder, or evidence of the rater's incompetence or stupidity. The possibility that the rater simply and honestly wasn't impressed with the photo (or that the photo simply wasn't that appealing) seems to fall at the bottom of the list of explanations.<P>

<i>I'd rather 'fix' the rating system.....possibly even requiring a comment if you leave a rating.</i><P>

"Great idea! Love it!" "Don't like it..." "Sucks!"<P>

Sorry, but you can't force people to give a helpful and substantive comment or critiques. You can make them say something, but you can't make them say something useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't put too much stock in ratings for now. It's never been more than an American Idol type popularity contest. I submit a few photos for ratings mostly to get more visibility, which in turn draws more insightful critiques and not merely compliments.</p>

<p>At the moment, and for awhile now, there's quite a bit of gaming of the ratings system that favors a few cliques. It's not as obvious as it was several years ago. But overall activity is way down so the effects of manipulation is more noticeable than it was even a year ago.</p>

<p>Funny thing is, the gamers remind me of a story my grandmother told about her job managing a government housing authority. She once chided a local housing developer for his small time corruption, saying "You have a lot of potential to help the community. Stop this penny ante stuff!"</p>

<p>He thanked her profusely. Apparently he interpreted her message as an encouragement to go on to big league corruption, which he did for several years until he ended up in prison.</p>

<p>Here's the point of that anecdote...</p>

<p>For years, whenever folks would complain about the ratings system, I basically told them it's only as good as its participants. If you want to improve the ratings system, pitch in and make it work better.</p>

<p>And sure enough, some of those members have done just that. They lavish ratings of 6 and 7 on members of their cliques. They also rate a lot more photos of members who aren't in their cliques. No idea what ratings they give - ordinary members can only see which photos have been rated 6 and 7, so, by omission, we can see which were rated lower. And since relatively few people participate at all in rating photos now, it's fairly easy to see who's doling out 6's and 7's.</p>

<p>As a result, the entire system has been skewed. Cliquefolk now check each others ratings to see who's giving 6's ("Well seen!") and 7's ("Bellissimo!") and interpret the absence of a 6 or 7 to be "Hate rating!" So it's no longer a 1-7 system. It's a 1 and 6-7 system: 1=Hated it!; 6=Loved it!; 7=Orgasm!</p>

<p>Incidentally, I've noticed during the past year my photos submitted for ratings rarely gather the five ratings needed to show the average and names of raters. Up until around 2012 photos submitted for ratings routinely gathered at least five ratings. Now, I could conclude that overall activity is down. Or, because I love a good conspiracy theory, I could conclude that it's a plot to deprive me of that info because I don't play the mate rating game.</p>

<p>Or I could just not worry about it because I get plenty of insightful critiques despite the numbers game. I chose the latter. Because I'm not concerned about one-photo-at-a-time reactions to everything I upload. I'm more interested in whether a certain theme or project has gelled. Photo.net has been very good for that type of feedback.</p>

<p>But folks who want daily doses of gold stars, they'll need to follow the example of those who apparently took my advice years ago: form your own mate rating cliques. It wasn't quite what I had in mind, but goshdarnit, they certainly took the initiative. Gotta admire 'em for that.</p>

<p>I've heard some folks claim 500px is better. I've visited 500px. I see some photos with dozens of "Bellissimo!" and "Well captured!" type comments. I don't see many actual critiques. I'm inclined to conclude that when folks say 500px is "better" they mean "More like photo.net's mate rating game was 10 years ago."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I share images mainly in the weekly picture forums, Nikon Wednesday, Pentax POTW, etc. Very few comments on photos in those galleries but the fellowship is fun. I get to see, and share, parts of the world that others' don't see daily. To me, it's much more meabingful to see images with a caption or description and ponder the beauty or the location or both. Or the skill of the photographer. Lots of that evident there.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David..... Yes, I understand the best time of day to take pictures is in those magical times early and late in the day. However, that isn't always possible, so I consider it a challenge to get an acceptable shot in less than ideal lighting conditions. Sometimes my 'flat' images can be blamed on poor lighting conditions, and sometimes it's just that I didn't know how to adjust well to the situation. And that's precisely where input from fellow PN members would be invaluable. <br>

With regard to people having different tastes.......I realize how subjective photography is, and variety is what makes this site so much fun. Not everyone likes flower pictures or pictures of children. Some prefer street photography and find landscapes boring, for instance. But we're rating on the photograph......not whether or not we LIKE the subject. At least that's what I try to do......I don't give a low rating just because I don't like the subject matter. I try to distinguish between the craft and the subject matter. Obviously, not everyone does that though. </p>

<p>BeBu.....thanks for taking the time to look and for your nice comment. I am proud of some of my shots, even though many of them have received low ratings. But there are many images I should probably remove or re-edit.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Christal, I know you're not fishing for compliments. However, I'll just say I think your work is quite good. I have to agree with those who suggest you shouldn't seek ratings. In my experience, most ratings are BS anyway, and there are very few people whose opinions I would value or trust.</p>

<p>If you feel your work is good and expresses what you want it to express, then it's good.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mike....<br>

<em>The possibility that the rater simply and honestly wasn't impressed with the photo (or that the photo simply wasn't that appealing) seems to fall at the bottom of the list of explanations. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I totally agree with this!!!! But it's rather depressing that there are so many hateful, spiteful and vindictive people out there. Personally (fortunately), I haven't seen much of it. I guess some people just want pats on the back and don't really want any negative remarks made about their photos. Also, I notice that some people are not very tactful about dispensing criticism, so their comments can be misconstrued.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Sorry, but you can't force people to give a helpful and substantive comment or critiques. You can make them say something, but you can't make them say something useful.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>So true....and I agree that many would leave one word and meaningless comments just to 'qualify' as a comment. But I think there would a percentage of people who would leave a substantive comment once required to do so. I think it would be an improvement over what we have now at least.</p>

<p>Thanks for the insight about how things were with the previous ratings system.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I just don't understand how someone can rate a 2 or 3 and not offer some constructive comment."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Christal, there are a few reason for that. <br>

<br>

It's always easier to complement than to criticize especially when criticisms might touch on rudiments of an art form that makes it difficult to express without coming across as condescending. <br>

<br>

A thorough, detailed, and insightful critique will also resemble an essay requiring paragraphs of text to express, and not many people are willing to take the time or have the inclination to do so. <br>

<br>

Finally, if a viewer doesn't know the author of the work, he will potentially be treading on thin ice not knowing how a critique might be received. <br>

<br>

There are many other reasons, but in fact there is much that can be extracted from low ratings. For starters, a poster (or learner) must have some idea of their relative level in spite of their best effort, and with the understanding that sometimes apparently disparaging remarks about a photo can not be balanced with positives, either because there is none to be had or nothing short of a reshoot with new insights will suffice. <br>

<br>

We've all had our share of receiving low ratings, and in my case, I find myself often able to infer unspoken comments from the low numbers because I know it's a lousy picture to begin with, and if I was unsure, I'd ask in my request for critique. <br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> When you say 'pass on participating', do you mean just the ratings portion, or the critique portion as

well?

 

Both. What has worked for me over the years is having a good sized but close knit circle of friends who

also shoot (some paint as well), can provide honest feedback, and whose own work inspires me.

 

I never understood what pnet ratings are about. Is there some kind of competition or something?

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lex......I hear you about your gaming and conspiracy theory. Frankly, I haven't seen it, but I don't doubt it occurs. Weird! All I've seen is a propensity toward low ratings. Though it's frustrating, I've never taken low ratings personally, as I haven't (I don't think) angered anyone or cause anyone to retaliate against me.</p>

<p><em>I get plenty of insightful critiques despite the numbers game.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>How is it that you're able to garner so many helpful critiques without participating in the ratings? Is it just that you've been a member for a long time and developed a 'network' of friends who will honestly critique your work?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I understand the best time of day to take pictures is in those magical times early and late in the day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The person who make this suggestion makes a valid point, but there is another way to look at light.<br /> <br /> Years ago, I assembled a collection of some of my best photos to show to some friends. I realized that a portfolio made up only of sunrises and sunsets can become boring quickly. There's not enough diversity from shot to shot.<br /> <br /> In my opinion, it's better to shoot in a variety of lights. Light changes throughout the day. The trick is to figure out what subjects look best in the light that's available at any given time. Now I shoot at any hour as long as I can find a subject that works in the available light. It's liberating. Give it a try!</p>

<p>I enjoyed your Arizona photos, by the way. I'll look at more of your galleries shortly.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lex......I hear you about your gaming and conspiracy theory. Frankly, I haven't seen it, but I don't doubt it occurs. Weird! All I've seen is a propensity toward low ratings. Though it's frustrating, I've never taken low ratings personally, as I haven't (I don't think) angered anyone or cause anyone to retaliate against me.</p>

<p><em>I get plenty of insightful critiques despite the numbers game.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>How is it that you're able to garner so many helpful critiques without participating in the ratings? Is it just that you've been a member for a long time and developed a 'network' of friends who will honestly critique your work?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Brad pretty much sums up my own thoughts. And I, too, don't really understand these ratings. I pulled up a couple of your photos and searched in vain for their ratings. Where do these appear?</p>

<p>Irrespective, I pretty much do what Brad does. I don't want my work numbered, ranked, and processed by faceless strangers in cyberspace.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve......thanks for taking a look! Greatly appreciated! The more I hear from you all, the more I'm considering giving up on the rating system. Or maybe I'll wait until the 'new and improved' website comes out, and then make the decision.</p>

<p>Sarah.....Thanks so much.... And for realizing the last thing I'm doing is fishing for compliments. :-) Also, I want to say that I have long admired your work. I've been to your website several times.....quite well done. I've just never known how to leave you a message on your images. </p>

<p>Would you agree with Lex's remark above:</p>

<p><em>I submit a few photos for ratings mostly to get more visibility, which in turn draws more insightful critiques and not merely compliments. <br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I'm afraid I'd never get any feedback if I weren't submitting my images for ratings. My images wouldn't have as much visibility, would they?</p>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...