Make rates not critiques?

I recently responded to a "request for critique" and was informed by the poster that I was verbose : offering nothing but words. <p>

Is anyone else experiencing this sort of feedback to considered critiques? <p>

The image in question is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1314976"> here.</a><p>

This was the critique request :<p> <i> Inspired by environmental politics after a recent trip to Page, Arizona and southern Utah,

but don't read anything into this image other than whimsy because I don't think they'll

ever drain Lake Powell. Enough local politics, eh. I just wish to know what you think

about the aesthetic qualities of my image. Peace.</i>

<chuckle>

 

I think Andrew VonBank finally came out and said what is probably a very common thought on the minds of many photo.net users. I wish he would join this thread and argue his side -- why "request for critiques" shouldn't be construed so literally, why critiques are useless, why ratings add much more value to the photographer and the site than critiques, and similar matters.

 

Pity there isn't a "Wall of Shame" where we could place these images and their archived (lest the comments get deleted) threads. Just like the "HOT LINKS" presentation, may be someone should start such a thing. For entertainment purposes alone, natch.

What I get out of all this is that aesthetic qualities are to be rated on a scale of 1-7, like olympic skating. So next time someone shows me a picture of their grandbaby, I'll just hold up a card that says "5.5" or whatever is appropriate. It seems very ironic that we should use an UGLY scale to rate aesthetic qualities, though.

Just to say explicitly what seems to already be implicit in this thread: I, and I hope many others here, value careful critiques such as Seven's far above any numbers.

The ratings, the ratings, it is all about the ratings.

 

Suggestions, ideas, analysis... that actually takes time and thoughtfulness. Much easier to say "I love it."

If we want more comments, I'd suggest using check boxes - for example:

<p>

 

My Comment is: <br>

<input type="radio" name="affiliation" value="WOW">WOW<br>

<input type="radio" name="affiliation" value="!!!!!">!!!!!<br>

<input type="radio" name="affiliation" value="Beautiful">Beautiful<br>

<input type="radio" name="affiliation" value="I love it!">I love it!<br>

<input type="radio" name="affiliation" value="Photoshop">Is it Photoshop?<br>

<input type="radio" name="affiliation" value="lens">What lens did you use?<br> <br>

<p>

 

 

That's the way to get more comments. I'd also allow multiple buttons to be checked, so you could leave comments like:

<p>

WOW!!!!! Beautiful. I love it. Is it Photoshop? What lens did you use?

Obviously the person only wants numerical ratings and isn't interested in meaningful dialogue.

 

Give 'em what they want.

 

Set up multiple accounts under various aliases, for example, one as "Five Fuartson," another as "Three Thtuartson," etc. "Five" and "Three" can award the 7/7 ratings and "!!!!!!!!!!!!" critiques these insecure artistes crave. And, under your own name, you can give 'em the 1/1's they so richly deserve for being wankers.

Expressed as a percentage of comments, Seven's critique falls

within the one percent or so that actually says something that the

photographer can use to improve future images, not just fuss

with the one we're asked to critique. A few of us have suggested

that there should be a minimum number of words contained in a

comment in order to rate an image and if I thought enough

people had the patience and ability to do what Seven is doing,

then maybe we would have a decent chance of seeing this

encouraged, if not required.

 

Every week there are several threads that deal with this issue,

yet the obvious first step to improve this situation and others

closely related is never taken. . . . . Tell participants in the photo

critique forum what you want them to do. Put it in a prominant

place. Put it in the FAQs. Put it in the first email they get when

they are given a password.

 

Many of us have put a lot of thought into making things

bulletproof using database filters, but until that happens - and it

may never - why not tell them what you want them to do. I think it

would come as a surprise to an awful lot of people that Seven's

comment is supposed to be the norm.

I have been thinking of setting up a site that is called "backpatting.com". People who do anything can come and post there work and everyone tells them how great it is, no matter what.

 

The inability to accept criticism even when you DON'T agree with it is to condemn yourself to a life of mediocrity.

 

Hey I got a better name for my new site... "blowsmokeupyourbutt.com"...

 

Don't let it bother you Seven. I know how it makes me feel when I really try to be helpful and constructive and I get it thrown back in my face. To heck with them.

 

Dave

It's funny, because you were really offering constructive

criticism, and it seemed to be coming from a good place.Whether Andrew agreed with you or not shouldn't matter. He took it all personally and attacked you. I'd love to know the ages sometimes of photo.net users, because sometimes the level of discourse is pure High School.

By the way, I think it's an awful picture. Photoshop seems to be leading us into an era like the early 70s: easy-esthetics, hippy-dippy effects, and groovy "symbols" all over the place. "Deep(hwoot!), man, (whwooo....)".

A few observations addressed to you, Seven...

<p>

1) Your critique was verbose, yes, if that means it used many words. But that's not a crime punished by law, I believe... I personally think that there are many cases where a constructive critique NEEDS to be long in order to be complete. Yet, I remember yourself, Seven, posting something about "verbose photographers" lately... Right...? Well, let's say that it backfired on you...:-)

<p>

2) As someone wrote above, Andrew is just saying here what so many think quietly anyway... As Andrew indicated himself, and we all know this is a fact, what many people want is high ratings... So, what's the big deal...? You are one of those, Seven, who have said rating threads are getting old - right...? Well, maybe, but maybe you can see now WHY there are still rating threads going on now and then... Maybe you realize now that ratings are slowly killing criticism on the site... And that's not what you want, and that's not what Carl wants, and that's not what Lex wants, and that's not what I want...

When photo.net & photonetters as a whole will realize that ratings have become so important that criticism is suffering, maybe more people will realize that a reform of the whole system is needed.

<p>

3) A question: is it the first time that you get "slapped in the face" for posting a constructive critique, Seven...? It happened to me at least 50 times in the last 6 months... Maybe you can see now why I was reasonably pissed off...

<p>

Finally, you are certainly not stupid, Seven, and you write good and constructive critiques. But as you can see, that's not good enough. All you need is 6s and 7s on photo.net - you don't need to be constructive or to take good pictures or anything else... You need 7s and for that you need friends. And if you have all that at disposal, then you will contribute to the greatest thing on the site: the assassination of the thought process that produces great photography.

<p>

I hope all this will help you realize what's wrong with what's not right, if you see what I mean...:-)

<b> Marc </b><p>

Okay, Marc, it backfired! Though I don't generally label a 200 word critique as loquacious. Where I've used the term in the past it's in relation to multiple posts on the same image, or insightful critiques given to a photographer who continues to ignore the warning signals - that his rates are being rated and not his (increasingly her) images Once a member has indicated their rejection of honesty I make a mental note not to waste further time. <p>

 

 

Big deal is the RFC issue. As for the ratings threads : yes, I'm on record as saying they're passe. I would not have initiated this post but for one factor that you fail to mention in your response : the member <i>specifically requested a critique.</i> NOT a rate; a critique. I perused the earlier comments and considered him short-changed in this respect. He wanted to know whether I found his image beautiful, I explained why I did not - but how it may be that I might yet be persuaded. I knew by using "rate" in the header that more email alerts would be generated than without it.<p>

 

Marc, I don't always understand the reasons you are angry when your critiques are rejected. I would empathise were it one critique under a single image (and especially if the critique were solicited via RFC); when you move to multiple postings in an effort to convince the photographer or others as to the validity of your view, I believe you're likely inviting disappointment. <i>Share your views. A misunderstanding ensues - clarify.</i> Where the recipient and/ or mates band together to reject your input: know that you're wasting your time and move on to where it's better spent. Much less frustrating, more time for photography too.<p>

 

As to your summary; no, neither of us is stupid, though I guess we may be called so by the PN numerologists. Stupidity in respect of this rating issue is the continued belief in a rating Utopia - a Ratopia. I might briefly have believed in its possibility, but realised many moons ago that it was not going to happen any more than our species will find heaven. Au contraire, it's headed towards hell. And with more & more people getting online with their telephone cameras and video stills, critique sites using numerical rating systems will merely bolster the illusion of artistic excellence. Problem is, PN will open its gateways to these deluded snapshooters as many of them are prepared to pay for the illusion. No numbers, no illusion - no dreams of greatness. One cannot fault admin for keeping the rates and taking the cash : we want the site, the site needs money. (Though why they're holding out on full website hosting is beyond me.)<p>

 

Ours is a time of the shortened attention span, the desire for ease : the act & art of thinking is indeed being threatened by its creations : automation, facsimile, pats on the back - superficiality is so much easier than creativity or creative suggestions. <p>

 

Where does this leave photo.net? I have some ideas, but think I'm becoming verbose!!! <p>

 

Over to you...........<p>

It seems the image in question has been hidden. Tant pis, - 10 minutes of my life just gone.<p>

 

Different certainly. Let me concentrate on your RFC - aesthetics, including comp.

The cloud/ cliff combo pulls this eye into the left third of the top third : away from the girl. When I return to her she seems out of place, in her own world, incidental. When blocking out the left third - I enjoy her presence, her contemplative stance - and the visual reflection. But then I become critical of the lack of sharpness; which I believe might be intentional (?) If the soft focus is intentional, I believe it unnecessary : mood is already conveyed by the toning.

To be hypercritical, on the browser display it seems you have some magenta in the right quarter - clouds and reflections.

So, back to aesthetics : my conclusion is that it would be a beautiful image if balanced - and that this might be achieved by (wait for it!) cropping from the right as much as 20% of the image, and around 5-10 percent from the left, towards square. I believe that this could result in a unification of the elements.<br>

-- Seven Stuartson (edit your comment)<p>

 

seven response<br>

Thank you for the wonderfully verbose critique, Seven. Do I have to emphasize that this image is a photo-illustration composed from several of my other images? Seven layers in PS, to be exact. If you click on the "large" image feature, you'll see that the subject has equal focus but less contrast, per my intent. I appreciate your comments, but at this post you haven't even rated this photo. You've got lots of words and nothing else. Peace.

-- Andrew VonBank

so they critiqued your critique - hmm seems unreasonable of them not to just be silent.

Hmm...Andrew left the other image I commented on. Maybe he yanked the other one to make those improvements Seven suggested.

 

Hey, it could happen.

Lex, you have now 2 planets to destroy and one of them is framed ! Watch it ! :-)

<p>

Seven,

<p>

"When you move to multiple postings in an effort to convince the photographer or others as to the validity of your view, I believe you're likely inviting disappointment."

<p>

Mmmm... Maybe so. To me, it's just a normal thing, eventhough I am very rarely sure to be right... I see it as a conversation. An exchange of ideas, most of the time and IF I post more than once in a thread. I believe one person's opinion enriches another person's opinion - if both mean well at least. This process is simply called dialectic, and I'm not the first and not the last to believe in its benefits. If you read one or two of ourn numerous discussions with Doug Burgess for example, you might find it "verbose:, but that's the way I learn from this site - besides the feedback I get on my own images...

<p>

"Share your views. A misunderstanding ensues - clarify."

<p>

Well, that's often what I do, but if I get a chance to start a discussion that's worth it - I will. I don't believe that talking to a wall and leave helps me much to grow. I critique people's image to learn something myself most of the time, not just to help someone.

<p>

"Where the recipient and/ or mates band together to reject your input: know that you're wasting your time and move on to where it's better spent. Much less frustrating, more time for photography too."

<p>

:-) Yeah... I finally understood that. Why indeed critique those who just don't want criticism...? They can now climb endlessly to the top of I don't know what and cast all the shame they want on the site - be it... As you said, there are better things to do...

<p>

Cheers.

Marc I agree with you 100 percent; I am continually learning through the exchange of ideas - it helps me grow as a person and artist. What's happening here, we're in agreement : do you think Brian's putting dope in our workplaces? <p>

 

And where is my other icon? - I offered $100 to PN not so long ago for a skull and crossbones. There's Lex gathering them like trophies! Perhaps I'll get a mouth.........

I've found an example that illustrates why articulate criticism may simply be beyond the grasp of some otherwise fine photographers. And it probably helps explain why these folks prefer numerical ratings to thoughtful discussion.

 

Here's a response from one of these "mate-raters" to a critique request for an image that had some potential but which suffered from lack of contrast and need for some selective burning:

 

"I would not know what suggestion I might give you to improve this shot.........sorry."

 

Well, that pretty well sums it up. Some folks are capable of making good images. Some are capable of recognizing good images. But they're clueless about anything that falls beyond their limited scope.

 

In this case I would have to assume that the person who left that comment has no experience with b&w photography and darkroom work, hence the inability to think beyond vivid colors and digital image editing.

 

We're facing an uphill struggle and the path is strewn with 7/7's and ida knows.

The two - making art, and giving critiques : are certainly separate disciplines. I saw an amusing but also worrying article on BBCi concerning competitions for brief SMS messages. Might be on our horizon : <p>

<b>The Lord's Prayer</b><br>

 

The winner, Matthew Campbell of York University, condensed it thus:<p> "dad@hvn, ur spshl. we want wot u want &urth2b like hvn. giv us food & 4giv r sins lyk we 4giv uvaz. don't test us! save us! bcos we kno ur boss, ur tuf & ur cool 4 eva! ok?"<p>

 

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2814235.stm"> Link to BBC</a>

A few thoughts (sorry for the length): Last week I was quite surprised (and pleased, to be honest) to see one of my images make it to the "top of the ratings". I've been reading, taking a lot of pictures, and spending a fair amount of time examining and critiquing the works of other people here on photo.net. It quickly became apparent that the only way to get some feedback on my images was to examine someone else's work and post a comment (generally favorable) about it, i.e. do what I'd like for them to do for me. I�m not quite sure why this comes as such a surprise to some folks! Looking around, I'd guess that the vast majority of photo.netters are not and never will be professional photographers, myself included. Obviously, we don't post photos with the hopes that people will hate them! Mostly likely, our photos will be appreciated by the relatively small group of people we know, perhaps given as gifts to our friends, family and so on. Photo.net is probably the closest we'll get to some sort of public recognition for our work. Of course, I dream of making a big breakthrough, creating photographs that change the world, revolutionizing the art, having supermodels beg me to take pictures of them in their lingerie and so on, in the same way that I dreamed of going to the moon when I was a kid, or being a professional beach volleyball player (all bikinis, all the time!) ;)

<p>

When I progress to the point where my mastery of the basic principles of light, composition and color are such that I can identify and closely control them in all my images, I�ll worry about trying to do something groundbreakingly original. Currently I attempt to capture the beauty of the world around me in the traditional and accepted manner simply so that I have a clearly defined goal and an existing body of work against which to measure my progress. Perhaps later my focus will shift to creating �unique� images, but I don't want to pretend that my inability to control the camera is "creativity". In the mean time, I write software for money because I enjoy it, I have already developed that mastery of the tools and techniques, and it pays well :) I take pictures of things that I enjoy, both as exercises to refine my skills and to share my experiences with people I know (other reasons, too, but that�s a different discussion). If I went to an acquaintance�s house and, when asked how I liked his new rug, I told him that it looked cheap, gaudy and clashed with the other décor, he might change it but I�d be unlikely to get invited back for dinner� ever! :)

<p>

The other day when I checked, out of the 4000 photos posted in the last three days, only about 1000 had even one rating or comment. So for the majority of posters, their photos are never seen or appreciated by anyone. There�s probably a very good reason for that (like lack of skill and/or originality :), but in general people tend to post the best of what they can do. I�ll go out on a limb and say that very few people look at their latest roll and think to themselves �hmmm, that�s a great shot, but a little too nice for photo.net. I�ll post the blurry picture of my dog instead and save the great one for that MOMA submission.� So why tell someone that their best effort is flawed? To help them improve, to demonstrate one�s superior knowledge, or simply because one is sick of seeing the same stuff again and again? If it�s the first, then one should probably either figure out how to give advice in a way that will be well received, or limit one�s efforts to people who are receptive� i.e. a circle of friends or thick skinned, serious students of the art who respect the critic�s opinion. Help the people who want to be helped, and ignore the rest. Wait a second, that�s starting to sound a bit like mate-rating, and so the cycle continues.

<p>

P.S. I DO think it's childish to ask for a review and then object to a detailed technical critique, so I understand your frustration!

It�s clear that there is as much variety in the expectations of image

uploaders as in the images themselves. I honestly don�t know why

someone would browse through all the excellent photographs on this

site, then upload a snapshot. If snapshooters want feedback, they

need to do their homework first. Take a photography course, or at

least buy a couple books. Spend some time looking for in depth

critiques on the high rated images. They�re there, just not as

numerous as many of us would like. Then upload your best image,

knowing full well that you�ve still got a long way to go. This site

needs to get the idea across that any critique offered in a reasonably

civil tone, should be welcome, given that most images are justifiably

ignored.

 

Those who critique could help to create a more positive atmosphere by

starting with something positive about the image. Then point out what

you see as a weakness and suggest a way to correct it, either by

changes made to the image in question, or to similar images in the

future. Lack of attraction to the subject matter or genre does not

constitute a legitimate critique and somehow needs to be emphasized

and reemphasized until the large number of people who approach images

this way finally get it.

 

It�s not right that we should have to be cautious in our attempts to

find images that were taken by people who would welcome critiques.

Having to consider how a critique will be received ultimately

discourages comments. It�s human nature. .

"It quickly became apparent that the only way to get some feedback on my images was to examine someone else's work and post a comment (generally favorable) about it, i.e. do what I'd like for them to do for me."

<p>

Yes, that's understood, BUT... What defines the mate-rater is:

<p>

1) that he won't look for any way the picture he sees could be improved BECAUSE he wants to rate you high so you will do the same for him.

<p>

2) that he will therefore rate high even your worst images

<p>

3) that he will only contine rating people who will return him the high ratings he expects

<p>

4) that he will potentially retaliate against anyone who does not return his 7s

<p>

5) that he will rate his friend's bad pictures 6s or even 7s, whereas he will not rate other people's bad pictures unless he expects them to return him his favor...

<p>

Conclusion: if you go back to someone who rated you high and rate his best picture for what it's worth, you aren't a mate-rater. :-)

<p>

"So why tell someone that their best effort is flawed? To help them improve, to demonstrate one�s superior knowledge, or simply because one is sick of seeing the same stuff again and again?"

<p>

That's right, those are the choices... My idea of criticism is simple: there is almost ALWAYS SOMETHING that can be improved in an image. So, let's look for it... I very often rate an image I like a lot a 6/6, and still mentionned in what way this picture can IMO still be improved. The goal is simple as well: I want to improve my own vision and that's why I post critiques. Incidentally if it helps the one who receives it, then fine. If it helps some of the many others who will read my critique, even better ! that's about it. I was for very long under the understanding that top-rated pictures were in that sens the best pictures to critique, because 1) they were supposed to be better; 2) more people would read my critiques and possibly join for an interesting conversation... Well, I was wrong. If you rate a top-rated picture any lower than what it was rated for, people go wild, some retaliate, some insult you, and in the end the picture gets eventually deleted and nobody will learn from it... Conclusion: why bother...?

<p>

The trouble is that the more people will give up rating the top-rated pages - and the more mate-raters there will be to inflate averages -, the worse the top-rated pages will look like, and the more difficult it will be for people to find great work. And meanwhile, a lot of good photographers will be discouraged seeing that they can't ever make it to the top-spots and they will leave the site... But well, I can't do much about all that. Only photo.net's management can...

<i>

...the more people will give up rating the top-rated pages - and the more mate-raters there will be to inflate averages -, the worse the top-rated pages will look like, and the more difficult it will be for people to find great work. </i>

 

<p>

Actually, in my opinion, that is the beauty of the new rating system! In the past, the "top rated" pages could be dramatically impacted by a single bad vote-- a bunch of 6's and 7's could be negated by a single 1/1... This caused a lot of bad feelings, anger, frustration and confusion. With the new system, we are effectively voting for images. If you don't like the top image, or think that seeing the same shot reposted for the third time in six months is enough, ignore it (DON'T VOTE for it)... If you see an image that is rated lower than it should be, do your part and help to raise its visibility with your vote.

<p>

The current rating system evaluates the POPULARITY of an image.

Skill and originality factor into this to a large degree, but there are clearly social factors. However, this is exactly like other "popular arts." Few people with musical training would argue that eminem is the most musically gifted artist today, yet his records sell more than anyone else's. His music is more popular, and, in a very meaningful sense ($$$$) can be considered "better".

<p>

Want to see a greater diversity of subject matter of the top pages? Vote for it! Encourage like-minded people to do the same! Because of one of marc's comments (on a different thread) in which he listed a few examples of truly innovative landcape photographers, I've added two new photo.netters to my watch list. When they post something new, and I like it, I'll vote for it. Diversification at work!

<p>

Here's my spin on the original exchange that started this thread: "What do you think of my image?"... "I don't like x,y, and z" ... "Thanks. Because you spent that much time critiqing my image, and yet did not vote for it, I deduce that you're not really trying to help me, so thanks but no thanks..." Perhaps not the most mature response, but quite understandable given the idea that we're VOTING for images we like... The other day someone rated my shot a 1/2, and left a short comment about how much they disliked it. I laughed, and though, "Thanks for your opinion, AND thanks for your VOTE..."