Let's all rate...or comment

In several recent threads there have been good discussions about

rating and critiquing. I thought it might be fun to take a single

image of historic photographic importance and open it up for rating

and critiques ( the image is not mine).

 

I thought by running this experiment that we would get a better

understanding of just how our rating system works. If anyone chooses

to rate this image either a 3 or a 7 then I would expect that they

would leave a comment in this forum as to why. I ask this because

that seems to be a common thought in the forums.

 

Once this post has run for seven days I will add my own ratings and

comments as well as reveal the details of the photo. We need a rating

for Aesthetic between 3 and 7, a rating for Originality between 3 and

7 as well as your comment or critique. I hope the moderators and

administration will participate. Have fun.

Green<div></div>

Guy, I'm not sure what your trying to accomplish to discover but there's something simular setup already. It's called Photo of the Week.

3/3

Image appears to me to be nothing more than a snapshot of wires. Nothing that original here and the aesthetic doesn't do anything for me. Technically, the upper right sorner should be cropped of that distracting "thing", and the hotspot should be toned down a bit. Also, the sky has a bad gradation on the left side of that green thing, close to the horizon and in the upper left corner.

 

If this is of historical photographic importance, then after these 30+ years in photography, I don't get it. I think it would take a gallery owner, perhaps one trying to sell the image, to come up with and explain how the lines are very important to the shot and how they juxtapose to the strenght of the green column.

 

Anyway, there you have it.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

this will probably turn out to be a classic of some sort but it doesn't really matter; I'm with Alexis on this-it does absolutely nothing for me and I rate it 3/3. cb

I would go 3/3 only because the system won't let me post 2's. The photo is really bad.

 

From the bright blue sky, it is obvious that the sunlight will be intense with hard shadows. Since the lamp post isn't running away, come at a time or day when the lighting is more favorable.

 

Even if the light problems were solved, it would take a lot of Photoshop cloning to deal with the distracing power lines.

I'd critique that the photo shows good form in composition attempt with the flowing line of the lights' wires, and displays very vivid colors. I'd then remark that the multiple edge intrusions offer too many distractions, and that the pole's base, whether it is or isn't, appears askew, making me tilt my head a little when viewing. As it's obviously film, I'd say the sky was a little grainy. I'd say 2 for aesthetics, and 4 for originality, and the latter would be generous. I'd remark that a theme was necessary for more impact than gets delivered.

 

Guy, I know this photo, and understand, I think, what you're trying to do...I'd remark that remember folks - there's photography, there's art, then there's photo art, what publishers are looking for in current trends, there's what's selling in the private art sector, etc. Basquiat, for example, enjoyed success for the same reason this fellow did (other photos of his work are very different from this, too), for the same reason Adams did, and the same reason other lauded artists do - there's an audience for it...everyone's entitled to liking their preference, vanilla or chocolate, or even rocky road;)

Is it the photograph or the subject that has some sort of historical significance? I would add the clutter in the bottom corners to the problems with the power lines and especially the light.

 

The subject could be interesting because it's an unusual juxtaposition between a huge pole and what looks to be Christmas tree lights, yet I want to see what's higher up on the pole, perhaps with a wide angle lens, to give me more clues.

 

This is why we need more than one image a week to talk about . . . but I question the propriety of posting someone else's image in this forum, even if it was uploaded for critique on this site.

Well I should have guessed. After Christopher tipped me off, I went right to the photographer that I thought might have taken this.

 

I was right. . . . .

 

And I still stand by what I said.

 

Guy, the lesson to be learned here is not that famous photographers are free to ignore the aesthetic principles that guide the rest of us, but rather if you're going to be a snap shooter that others should pay attention to, you'd better have something compelling to say.

 

The date of the image might also have put the image in "historical" context.

For me, it's a good example of why I think the skip button is a useful feature. I know others disagree but this would be one where I'd just move on by. Why? Largely because, for one of several possible reasons, I don't think the photographer would care much about the comments of us PN users (Again, just my opinion).

 

I see what Chris is suggesting in the later part of his comment. I'd add that it feels a little like you're setting people up, Guy. Hope I'm wrong.

Lately, I've developed an appreciation for photos that may appear as snapshots to others. While I might not hang this on my wall, I do find interest in it. As Chris said above (though differently) there are many different reasons or motivations for shooting an image. It doesn't always have to be a decorative shot. There are many masterpieces (paintings) I would love to own but wouldn't want to look at all day every day. The photo also doesn't have to tell the whole story. Sometimes, it's the long look at a what a photographer offers as a quick glimpse (snapshot) that makes the shot worthwhile. Granted, it requires more work on the viewers part than a photo meant for decorative purposes.

 

While the rules tell us to avoid background distractions, centered compositions, blown highlights etc., it isn't always possible or desireable to follow the rules. In this instance, it's likely the blown area on the pole appeared "blown" to the naked eye. To shoot it this way was simply truthful. The background distractions were indeed there, why fight it. If this is meant as a documentary photo (directly or indirectly), the shooter is obligated to show what's there.

 

To evaluate this image out of it's likely intended context is a challenge and not really fair to the image. I will say the green brought me back to my childhood. I remember when many public buildings had that same shade of green. Someone must have gotten a terrific deal from some paint distributor. The line of the Christmas lights is intersting. Visually, that's the element that holds my eye. I find myself wondering what the story is with these lights. While typing this, several scenarios have gone through my mind. I also find interest in the fact that people decorate light poles, chain link fences, even dumpsters during the holidays. It's a long stretch from the lighting of a Christmas tree. Is it human nature to decorate the ugly things we make? There's a strange dichotomy happening here. I have no clue if that's what was intended but that's my reaction after looking for a while.

 

This image wouldn't grab my attention if I came across it in the RR queue. When racing through hundreds of images on the net, many provocative images are likely passed by. Some images simply require a longer look. If Guy hadn't posted this image for comment and consideration, I don't know how long I'd have looked at it. If someone asked me how it could be improved, I'd ask them their intent. I won't offer a rate because I don't rate images anyway.

 

The photos that are most appreciated here on PN are the ones that grab the eye through sheer visual force or evocative imagery. This isn't the place for subtlety if you want exposure. When commenting on images, it's easier to comment on compositional and technical rules vs . a meaning or message. Only the photographer can decide if the image is successful based on the original intent and intended audience.

This image speaks to me it says. I wasted some film, and managed to get you (me) to look at the results. At best it is a snap shot void of any photographic merit. Perhaps it is just me but I do not get it. The problems with the photo have already been pointed out so I will not repeat them here.

 

3/3 only because 1/1 is unavailable.

It's a very average snapshot, the kind that anyone with a point-and-shoot camera and no

photographic talent could capture. If it's of historical significance, then I'm guessing it's

probably by some noted photographic "artist", but that doesn't mean it's a good shot; that

just goes to show what kinda crap can pass for art when you know the right people.

Wow! This is a good start. In response to your comments and questions.

 

Will..I thought I was clear. This is an experiment that could give us a better understanding of our rating system. Of course there will always be those who choose not to play but thanks for the comment.

 

Christopher...you have introduced a dimension to our photography and art. You mention photo art as what current publishers take into consideration when looking at current trends and what is selling in the art sector. How many of us take this into consideration when we hand out the ratings for A & O?

 

Lauri..Great insight. Now if only everyone who had thoughts about our rationg system would just take a few minutes to study what you have just stated.

 

Thanks also to eveyone else who has rated and commented on this photo. Yes, the photograph and the photographer are of historical importance. There are no tricks here. This is just an opportunity for us to all take a look at how we view differently an image of this type. The difference in this instance is that we do not have to take into account anyone's feeling. If you think it looks like h*ll then say so. If you think it is a great example of photographic art and/or skill then say that too.

 

Thanks to all who know and who are familiar with this work and yet choose not to spoil the party by naming names. I, by the way, take full responsibility for the use of this photo for non-commercial, instruction and will fully credit the photographer at the end of the seven days.

 

Thanks again.

Seven Days!

 

This thread will be dead long before then.

 

May I suggest that this image is a poor example of the rating system at work and has everything to do with looking at the image in historical context.

 

I do hope you've done your homework.

Okay Guy, I'm game, but Carl's right. fter maybe 3 days, the thread will be history.

 

I think Christopher mentioned that he recognizes this photo. I'm not sure if it's famous or anything, but if it is, it still wouldn't alter my opinion of it.

 

I would give it a 3/3. If 1s and 2s were allowed I would probably give it a 2/2. This photo reminds me of the lazy neighbors who keep their tacky Christmas lights up until the middle of June. It's unsightly, not well thought out, and tacky. Just my opinion.

I'm not a huge fan of studying the photographs of past (or present) "Masters" but I know this photo - and I know some of the photographer's other work. It doesn't do a thing for me, even if I do see the idea, the style, etc. Nor does knowing all that mean I'd rate it higher than if I didn't know it. I don't like it. If it doesn't speak to me - who cares what its rating is? It's mute. Or I'm deaf. Either way - I hit next and move on.

OK, 3 days.

 

Carl, it is just a photo. It is an example of one of hundreds that any one of us could have chosen from one of hundreds of famous photogrpahers. Yet it is no different in that one similar to it could have been posted here on PN by any one of hundreds of photographers including me. It is therefore a perfectly good example to be used in this instance.

 

Unless I am missing something, and I might be, no homework is necessary and this photo does not need to be measured in its historical context. In fact, I would prefer that it would not be because that has no revelence to this post. This is just a close look at how we rate/critique and why. Collectively it should tell us a lot.

 

Thank you Will and Kathy. I appreciate your participation.

So it is of some historical photographic importance. hmmm. While I can certainly agree with above posters about snapshot's having a bit more interest that normally allowed with them, especially when there is an interesting aspect to the image...like a portrait of another time for example..., the fact that this seems to be a hit because of the artists other work , and the fact he's considered a great artist (is he? I still don't know who it is) only goes to reinforce my belief that sh!t sells if you're famous. I can't imagine how this can be anything other than a shot that should have been filed in the round file bin.

 

And yes, I would have given it a 1/1 if possible too.

...oh, and it gives us a break from all the rantings and ravings.

To me, this discussion brings out one of the bigger problems with the presentation of photos on pnet. Its not really a question of ratings criteria for me though. Its that we tend to present and evaluate photos individually here AND without context.

 

The restraints of looking at photos individually -- if this photo were part of a series in a certain style, or about a certain subject matter, and I as viewer knew that, the photo would have more meaning to me than as Guy has presented it here.

 

Regarding context, suppose this were the scene of a notable event, or a part of a famous structure known for this color green and the lights -- again, the photo would take on a meaning for me that it does not have otherwise.

 

Pick up the newspaper any morning and evaluate the photos without reading the captions, then do the same with reading the captions. Makes a big difference. And it should. I don't think a story-telling photograph is demeaned by the need for a caption -- it is part of a story that is aided by text. One of my favorite photographs is one of the last photographs taken of Abraham Lincoln. Its the one from a cracked plate, with a narrow depth of field and a slight smile on his face. Its not a bad photograph without the context -- but knowing its of Lincoln specifically, and one of the last taken, around the time he knew the war was won and so was finally willing to show a small smile, and just prior to his assasination, is critical to fully appreciate it -- the knowledge of its context transforms the visual experience.

 

As someone who tends towards story telling, the pnet bias for individual "pretty pictures" can be very frustrating. But again, to me its not an issue of ratings as much as it is one of presentation overall. It seems to me that the design and methodology of the site is driven in large measure by a drive to maximize page views, so the site keeps things as simple as possible, and focuses its attention on attracting quick ratings of indivdual photos. This is where I usually shrug my shoulders and accept the situation. If this is what they need to do for the site to exist, well, I prefer it to the alternative. And there's plenty of access provided if you want to slow down, and for that I am grateful.

 

So, on this image, I would like to know the context before providing any evaluation. From the hints above, I think proceeding without such information is the equivalent of viewing the image without full sight.

Ben S. - that's a great argument. Context plays such an important part whether you want it to or not. I took a series of images of Fall in the Rocky Mountains, and knew full well that some of them would not stand on their own, but work very well as part of the whole. That's likely the case with this photo - I do know the background/spread of this photographer's work, and still don't like the picture, but I am capable of appreciating the effort. I don't like free jazz either, but do recognize the skills involved in creating it. I saw a photograph many years ago - a grafiti-sprayed wall, chunks knocked out of it, barbed wire on top of it, ppl everywhere - looked like prelude to a riot in a bad neighborhood. Didn't really think twice about it - until I read the caption, and realized it was the Berlin wall, and those ppl were taking it apart with hammers, and tire irons, and their bare hands. Completely changed my opinion and feelings about the image. Context does indeed matter, and rarely does anyone get that in the rate queue. Fortunately, if I like an image - I go check their portfolio, and more of the story comes clear in the context of everything they've posted.

Regardless of the context, I'm with Alexis when he says that crap sells when it comes from someone famous. This is a snapshot taken under harsh light, which could have been done by any 8 year-old boy with a disposable camera. I believe good art should be accessible for and understandable by everyone. When an artwork is considered a great piece by half a dozen of experts, but to the rest of the world remains something with no message and not capable of awake any kind of feelings, then I guess something is failing. The difficult thing is to create something with impact and to be considered as good art, both by the ordinary viewer and by the experts. I'd give 2/2 to this one.

Sorry, guys, but I think this picture is hilarious. I'd give it a 6/6. For me, it's a comment on what happens when the modern industrial and commercial world runs into the spiritual. What was once a living tree becomes artificial, and even then grossly outsized, and painted a hideous green. The idea it represents has been killed by commercial exploitation. The very ugliness of the picture is its point. Hence the high aesthetics rating. It's also a very non-obvious scene. One of the commenters so far would have photographed it, much less seen it. Hence the high originality rating.

I meant "None" of the commenters.