Jump to content

Originality Ratings


ross_warner2

Recommended Posts

I am fairly new to photo.net and am having a mental block

understanding the originality rating. It seems a photo is either not

original (a typical stand up straight and smile at the camera photo)

which would rate a 4 (average), or it would differ in some manner

that adds originality making it deserving a rating of 5, 6 or 7. My

question is how can a photo's originality be less than "not original"

(a 4 rating)? It seems a originality rating of 1, 2 or 3 makes no

sense unless one rates the stand up straight and smile photo is a 1

(very bad). What is very bad originality, something that is not

original? Insight into equitably rating originality is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ross - this is an excellent question and something that has long bothered me too.

<p>

If the originality scale runs 1-7, you would certainly think that a snapshot of someone's cat should get a 1 (not original at all) rather than a 4 (fairly original?).

<p>

That's not the way people use the scheme though. 95% of users give originality ratings that are within 1 point of the aesthetic rating.

<p>

To be honest I don't think the originality ratings mean anything. I don't think people even think about them. If they like an image it gets a 6/6 or 7/7, if they don't like it or gets a 3/3 or 4/4.

<p>

I've never seen anyone get a 7 for aesthetics and a 1 for originality, which should be possible and would not be an insult. However if you gave such ratings I'm betting you'd be accused of "rating abuse".

<p>

Here's the "official" guide to ratings and standards:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards/">http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards/</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have given and received ratings that have a spread of greater

than '1', but they are rare.

 

One problem with 'originality' is that it contributes to the value of

some genres far more than others. It also assumes a fairly

extensive familiarity with the genre on the part of the rater.

 

Let's cut right to the chase and admit that 'aesthetics' , as it is

often applied, is no better at determining whether or not one

image deserves to get more views than another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of whether originality matters more to a particular genre of images, the originality rating is a rating of originality, not a rating of how significant the originality is. Or at least that's the way I see it.

 

It's pretty difficult to assign an originality rating greater than "1" to most casual snapshots. Unless you get 1 point for pushing the shutter, one point for getting the focus right and one point for getting the exposure right. Then you start at 3 for most images!

 

I have fallen into the trap of 4/4 and 5/5 ratings myself, mostly due to peer pressure and not really thinking as much as I should. Everyone else does it that way, so if you start to do it in a more rational manner, you'll probably get complaints.

 

It would probably better to have just one rating number rather than two if one of the numbers is essentially meaningless, and I think that's the case at the moment. However it's probably too late now. Too many ratings, too many people used to the current scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certianly difficult to put a new system in place and not financially worth while. There However could be some direction as to what the seven rating numbers mean about originality. 1-is the photo of the cat, graduate, bride, or the family with the standard stance, expression, lighting or mood. In otherwords there would be no "bad" rating for originality. The photo could be aesthetically excellent (not likely), average (possible), or bad (out of focus or blurred).

at least giving a objective starting point may help.

 

Carl, the aesthetic rating of my photos at least gives me some measure in relation to my rating of my photo. From what I see slight adjustments can substantially increase or decrease the aesthetics ratings of a photo. Let's face it we all need some love. I really don't care if my photo of a horse is original but I do care if it is aesthetically appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ross,

 

Welcome. And behold the cautionary signpost at the gate. No doubt a contingent of us will be fearing that you are already aligning yourself with the photo.net mentality and its conventions.

 

Any numerical system of rating (even binary) tends towards denegeneration: a greater number of users with a wider cultural basis and different reference points as well as photographic biases render it next to meaningless; unless supported by the verbal foundation - a comment.

 

 

My own view is that in a world of oversaturated images, the greatest challenge for an overwhelmed viewer is to not click a 4/4 on it and walk away. The rating system falsifies the essence of any image. That mentality is reductionistic and as meaningless as it is pretentious in a mock 'critical' judgement on an image. Is it not condescending to leave a mark of disapproval on someone's uploaded images without offering any explanation? And lo! That is the norm.

 

Regarding ratings without offering a verbal critique: clearly the numbers show that some raters are more proficient and can count up to "7". So skilled are they that they can even count up to "7" twice. On the other hand, there are raters who try their best to count, and get as far as 3/4, or 4/4 but then lose count, and go back to 1/1 routinely. Are these raters still in their infancy or in helpless collusion with the warped rating system?

 

An alternative understanding of the current classification system can be grasped from the school of sensationalism which Photo.net has more affinity with:

 

1). Shock appeal - Did this image really shock you? (Rate 1-7)

 

2). Is this image totally clichéd to the point that your cliché and

click keys are so intertwined? If so double click 7.

 

What is a good image?

What is a bad image?

 

Both meaningless questions which assume absolute omnipotence. If the question is not meaningless, then does aesthetics then have an ethics of good and bad?

 

I would rather ask:

 

1. Does this image connect with you?

 

2. Why?

 

3. Can you kindly (or unkindly, depending on bowel habit) say why?

 

Kind regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ross, it was a long time I was looking for such post!<br>

I have problem with one of statements in 'official guide to ratings' which says:<br>

"Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected

or a FAMILIAR SUBJECT in a new, insightful, striking, humorous, or creative way"<br>

specially I have problem with 'familiar subject';<br>

when I first posted <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1624015">this</a> photo I was expecting to get 3/2 4/3 5/4 ... even 7/3

kind of ratings (first number being originality) but interestingly in the first

comment I saw this:

'Very pleaseing to look at. The keys are very sharp and the tilt works

well. ORIGINALITY SUFFERS DUE TO THE BLAND SUBJECT...' with a 5/6 rating.

and most of the following raters gave aesthetics higher than originality.

as I get from peoples' comments they find this photo 'a FAMILIAR SUBJECT in a

creative way' but they give aesthetics higher than originality. and IMO this

differs from the official guidelines.

let me make clear that this is not about the average of ratings but

originality/aesthetics balance, I mean if it should get an average of 3.5 it

should be 4/3 not 3/4.

after this experience I become confused in rating others' photos like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1741727">this</a> and

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1730793">this</a>.<br>

seems most raters beleive that a photo with an ordinary subject must get low

rating for oiginality anyway, but I don't think so IMO if someone has

the chance to photograph a cow with two heads, that is not 'originality

of how you photographed the subject' but 'originality of the subject' which

doesn't have anything to do with photography which this site is about.<br>

actually my problem is that I don't know if originality in photo.net means

'originality of subject' or 'originality of how you photographed the subject'?<br>

I'm not good in English, you can't imagine what a hard time I have trying

to tell what's in my mind, if you don't understand this post due to my weak

english, just dismiss it and go to next post ;) sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1. Does this image connect with you? 2. Why?"

 

The quote above says it all. . . . . . . or perhaps you could add " Is

there something positive in this photograph that you think is

worth discussing in this forum?"

 

Bob, You can keep the number of views and scrap the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we could judge the content and realization (meaning technical quality) of an image instead than it' aesthetics and originality.

 

Content: Is the picture interesting? Is there a subject worth looking at? Does this move any feelings?

 

Realization: Is the picture well taken? Is it well composed, exposed, etc..? What about the colors/b&w tones?

 

That would make more sense (well, for me at least :)

 

Simone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originality is a hard one to rate. And many will not agree. You know what you feel is original, go with that. You will never please everyone here. And rating are your opinion, good/bad indifferent. Asking others how to rate is along the same lines as asking someone else to tell you your opinion. There are many who would like to tell you what to think. Don't go down that road be true to yourself.

 

t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arash, your english is better than most that live in North Dakota, no appology necessary.

 

I feel originality is how you photograph a subject. However, originality can also affect the aesthetic rating. For example, lighting direction or intensity can be different "than expected" affecting the originality, however, it could in that case also affect the aesthetic of a photo. It is possible that raters and commenters confuse originality with aesthetic. I think I would do that with your piano keys. I take the angle of the keys as aesthetic rather than originality.

 

In your other examples, I would see little original in the building example but I do see originality with the photo angle the apples. The lighitng on the apples I think affects my concept of aesthetics rather than originality.

 

Now I have confused myself over the merits of the concepts of originality and aesthetics. This better not hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Carl.

 

The quote might indeed say it all, however as you know, I have a tendency to say a little extra.

 

The struggle I have with adding only one pole of comments is that "positive" rapidly equates to the development of a mesmeric mutuality.

 

Simone - content and production of content do not work if the image does not "connect" with a viewer. Even with this criteria - then the problem of a rating system still needs to be tackled. The problem with a rating system, which most photo.netters fail to see, is that a rating system operates through the relationship of rater-to-image. It is a "construct" - read - "relationship" constructed by the viewer looking at the image. There is no external objectivity or hard criteria which can deduce the qualities of an image without the viewer 'participating' at some level with the image. If this was a competition, it would be different. Horses for courses?

 

Again, "content and its technical realization" is far too left-brained. Usually men come up with such reductionist tendencies. And then transfix their lenses on women as the content :)

 

 

Kind regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that many people seem to be confusing 'originality of a photograph' with 'originality of the subject matter'

 

Not all photos of cats, or all landscapes are trivial, mundane and boring. Originality is a measure of how clever, creative and uncommon the representation of a subject is. Hence, a flower shot can be original if it portrays a flower in a way that we haven't seen before or at least in one that we don't see very often. There are fine examples in this site and I invite you to look at my personal favourites to see what I mean. You will find flowers and landscapes and cats, but not the ones you have seen before.

 

On the other hand, it's again misleading to give high originality ratings for anything that merely has an exotic or rare subject. The fact that someone swam an Amazon tributary and got a candid shot of a hitherto unkown tribesman eating his breakfast doesn't mean that the shot is necessarily original. It can still be as much an uncreative snapshot as your kids in disneyland.

 

The question is, does the photo penetrate the portrayed reality to show something truly interesting? Does it present something in a new way, or in a way that makes us think about things that would not spring to mind with a normal 'depiction of reality'?

 

On the numerical scale now, I tend to use the following scheme, more or less:

 

1 - Please come to my folder and underrate me to oblivion

 

2 - Pretty bad, shouldn't make it past the contact print

 

3 - Can find one like that in every vacation roll (e.g. say cheese)

 

4 - Nothing trivial, nothing special (e.g. well-executed landscape)

 

5 - There's something interesting or innovative about it

 

6 - Thought-provoking, unconventional, stuff you learn from

 

7 - How do I sing-up with your followers' cult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that most reviewers have no concept of originality.

<p>

If I take my camera, walk up to a cat and take it's picture, it's probably going to be a "1" on my originality scale. Of course you COULD take an original photo of a cat, that's so obvious it doesn't need saying. However the vast majority of pet photos show about the same degree of originality as a network sitcom, i.e. none at all. I'm not just singling out pets, it applies to landscapes, cars, people and just about everything else. Zero originality in any meaningful sense. Most of them are indistinguishable from the rest.

<p>

Here's what ORIGINAL means

<p>

<em>Not derived from soemthing else; fresh and unusual; showing a marked departure from previous practice; inventive; a first form from which varieties arise or imitations are made</em>

<p>

Here's an image picked at random <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1697994">http://www.photo.net/photo/1697994</a>

<p>

<center>

<img

src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1697994&size=sm"

height=133 width=200 hspace=10></center>

<p>

Not a bad shot, aesthetically it maybe rates a 5. It's a nice shot. But using any realistic scale how could it possibly rate a 5 for originality? What's original about it? How is it different from the typical landscape type shot? I've seen dozens of mountains reflected in lakes. It's almost a cliche now. And if it's typical and a photo cliche, it's not original by definition and so rates around a "1". How could it be LESS original?

[i apologize the the photographer in advance. This image really was chosen randomly! It's a nice image and many, if not most of MY images would rate "1" for originality too]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we rate an image, we are saying to the site "please

increase the visibility of this image - or not." No more; no less. If

we recognize this as being a cliche shot and rate it low or ignore

it, than we won't see very many landscape shots in the gallery.

The rating on this image is almost 6 for aesthetics which is too

high in my view given the less than ideal lighting, dark

foreground, washed out sky, etc. There are no details or

combination of unusual elements - originality - which make it

distinct from other shots we might stumble into on any hike in a

national park, yet it avergaed over 5.

 

So this guy's shot doesn't deserve high visibility . . . . BUT it's not

so hopeless that it doesn't deserve feedback. You'll notice that

he got some, From J. Scott Schraeder in particular who does this

sort of thing professionally. Unfortunately, it must be said that

had the image not been overrated, IMHO, he may not have seen

it and the maker wouldn't have known how to improve it next

time.

 

Here's another image that got virtualy the same ratings, but I've

rated it a 7/7. I just found it the other day . . . in someone's

'favorites pages'. Anyone interested in this genre should see

this shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Carl, you didn't address the issue of why this image deserves a 5 for ORIGINALITY. In what way could it be different to get a LOWER originality rating?

 

I'm not disputing it got a 5 for originality, I'm just asking if that is reasonable. If you think it is, just tell me how it could have got a lower score. What does an image have to be to get an ORIGINALITY rating of 1?

 

Aesthetics is easy. He could have slanted the horizon badly. He could have got the exposure wrong. He could have cut off the peak or the reflection. He could have got the tripod leg in the shot. All those things would drop the aesthetic rating. But what would he have had to do to drop the ORIGINALITY rating, or is the originality rating totally meaningless?

 

Show me an image that gets an originality rating of 1 and deserves it. There must to a least one totally unoriginal image in the gallery somewhere. I'd just like to see how it differs from those which get a 4 or 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Atkins wrote: <I>"Show me an image that gets an originality rating of 1 and deserves it. There must to a least one totally unoriginal image in the gallery somewhere. I'd just like to see how it differs from those which get a 4 or 5."</I><P>

 

OK. I will show you an <B>O=2</B> instead because most of us don't give 1's. It is actually quite convenient to reserve the score of 1 to pick off the crackpots and "rating abuse" types.<P>

 

I scanned through my 270-odd ratings. Some data on my ratings for calibration purposes: I apparently give on average O=4.5, I occasionally give out 7's, but normally never drop under 3, I regularly have 2 points difference between E and O, so I at least I think about it.<P>

 

Here is the only photo I have ever given an O=2:

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1746648">

http://www.photo.net/photo/1746648</A>

It is a photo of "the" Tower Bridge in London (which is roughly the London equivalent of the Eifel Tower). The photo was taken on a color digital camera, but converted (in camera or at home) to sepia.<P>

 

Here is my comment I wrote at the time to justify the rating: <I>"If this had been in color, it would look like hundreds of other snapshots of the Tower Bridge taken each day. How does a conversion to sepia help?".</I> It arguably deserves a 1, but let's make it a 2 because the photographer explicitly took the non-trivial initiative to convert it to B/W - something which the other 100 tourists on the same boat that day will not have done.

And again, I never give 1's.<P>

 

My working criteria of Originality is roughly <I>"If the photographer told you about an idea for this photo, how would you rate the idea"</I>. In this case the answer might be something like

<I>"I'm on this tourist cruise boat about to pass under the bridge, so I walk all the way to the front of the boat to get the boat out of sight."</I> I personally don't think that sepia was part of the original plan, but was added because the photographer suspected that some modification was needed to make it look more interesting.

 

<P>My interpretation of AEsthetics is simply "How visually pleasing did the photo turn out" = "Would you hang it on a wall" = "How long did you look at the photo?" = "Did you smile when you saw the photo".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning,

 

Bob - you may do well to ask "if that is reasonable" to offer a "5" for originality. The application of interpretation again is already vast, and as this post will/has proven, viewers have their own preconceptions of originality which go beyond the dictionary definition offered up.

 

Peter,

 

It is a little surprising that your comments have not been addressed to the photographer who has requested help. How are your comments helpful?

 

Firstly, you indicate the oversaturation of the type of imagery of London Bridge. I think that is helpful, even if perhaps it sounds dismissive: it locates a perspective (a critical one for the photographer to start thinking more).

 

Aesthetics is not "easy"; had the photographer slanted the horizon, then the consideration is one of technicality. Aesthetics is a different domain. Unfortunately photo.net encourages an approximation and confusion of the two categories.

 

I think the explanation you have posted here is helpful; but to whom? Anyone but the photographer? HGave you considered in kindness whether the photographer might have appreciated finding out what the "2" meant? Your comments here are far more meaningful that the 2 slapped onto his image.

 

And again, "because most of us don't give 1's" and "I never give 1s" is not a solid basis for refusing to give a 1. If a viewer uses a rating scale, he had better use it properly. Otherwise photo.net then has a plethora of viewers using their own eccentricities to rate.

"I don't rate 7s because its an unlucky number" is similarly indefensible as a modality of critique.

 

Returning to your example.

 

Before colour film became universally available, most monochrome images of the London Bridge would have had a similar resemblance. These are 'original' in the sense that originality is recovered, even if unintentionally....even if the originality was suspect in the 1950s. My own view is that your rating of a "2" is ingenerous. His work is at least on a par with most of photo.net uploads. At least a "4" for O.

 

Others are welcome to disagree: from just one deviation of perspective....and the snowball effect, it should become clear why a numerical system of rating applied by rank amateurs; holidaymakers and professionals cannot work. There is a risk that there will be a trickling exodus of the latter minority.

 

I think a little kindness in recognising that holidaymakers and snapshooters also like to improve their photographer would not go amiss. It is not any viewer's fault. Photo.net doesn't encourage raters to do this; it then falls on the behest of the viewer to comment as he sees fit.

 

Kind regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see for once a peaceful and logical - argumented - conversion about the problematic originality rating.

<p>

I believe Nikos is actually perfectly correct, from the first capital to the last full stop of his post. It also seems to me that his understanding of the Originality rating, which is about the same as mine, is pretty close to what the photonet guidelines state.

<p>

Now why is this originility rating so problenatic ? Simply because each rater will have a different interpretation of what it means.

<p>

Bob asked a very good question: was this randomly chosen picture he posted worth a 1 in originality - since it has indeed be done a zillion times exactly the same way ?

<p>

Imo, no, it wasn't a 1. It was a 3 - for me. And I'm not simply trying to be kind. Bob asked: how could it be LESS original. Well, I'd tell you this as an a answer: there is something WORSE than unoriginal, which is called SILLY.

<p>

I reserve my 1s and 2s in originality for SILLY pictures, meaning: for pictures that are taken in such a way that they fail dramatically in giving any interest to the subjet at hand. For example, if the photographer who took the picture Bob posted had waited till the sun would be hidden behind thick clouds and would appear behind this hill, then he would have completely misunderstood what this picture of his was all about. He would have been silly. But he wasn't ! He actually to the shot at a more or less appropriate time of the day, he made sure he had a visible reflection in the lake. This is some form of "cleverness" to me, and cleverness is the other word acknowledged by Photo.net as an alternative to "originality".

<p>

With a rating of 3 on that image, what I would mean is that the photographer did nothing silly; he wasn't very creative, that's given, and yes, I have seen zillions of such shots, but most of them were not really more UNUSUAL than this one. So, 3.

<p>

What gets a 2 ? A silly shot. A shot for which the photographer's intent converts a fairly interesting image into something uninteresting and ridiculous or into an overdone black-velvet-Elvis-like cliche. What's a 1 ? A 1, for me, is an absolutely stupid approach to a subject that was anyway going to be trite at best, but which turned ugly, awful, or annoying or all this at the same time.

<p>

At least a photographer who shoots a boring ultra-conventionnal flower picture or landscape or portrait is not being silly. So, he'll get a 3.

<p>

Bob, since you refered to your own pictures and said most of them deserve a 1, I don't think so. For the reasons stated above, I've rated these images of yours a 3 or a 4. And to the great annoyment of some top-rated photographers, I have occasionally (rarely) rated a 2/2 some images that had an average above 6/6. I may of course be wrong, but I'd say that hill reflection is any time less silly (therefore more clever) than adding something in PS to anotherwise nice image if it ends up looking like a totally ugly manipulation that fits the black-velvet-Elvis-antology.

<p>

On the other end of the scale, if you take a picture for which I enjoyed your approach, whereby you showed you saw something interesting because of your interesting way of seeing it, that's a 5. Not a 6, not a 7. A 6 would be an excellent approach that works powerfully on my mind or heart - or read Nikos's definition of a 6. A 7 is a breathtaking aproach, and generally something that really got my attention in a very impactful way.

<p>

In that sense, the picture Carl rated a 7/7 would be an O5/A6 to me.

<p>

If a picture is not somehow special, then I'll give it a 5 at best - generally speaking. My originality rating average is about 5.5 so far, mostly because I rated by priority shots that interest me to some extent. Shots like the one Bob posted here are all over the site, but why rate them ? I used to rate shots like this only when I saw them getting sky high ratings, to express a contrary opinion, and basically say that I did not think this picture should be given such visibility in the gallery. Which is now pointless anyway since unoriginal shots are now the only winners of what Bob said wasn't a competition...:-))

<p>

What to do about the originality rating ? Well, how about averaging originalty and aesthetics ratings and only display the result for the images that were already rated under the A&O system, then simply dish out the 2 words ? That seems quite easy to do. Then people would only rate the image on a single scale of 1 to 7 (possibly with .5 indents to limit inflation, or without).

<p>

A unique rating scale could then read:

<p>

1) I find it awful... 2) I don't like it at all... 3) I don't really like it... 4) Quite good... 5) I like it a lot 6) I really love it ! 7) Absolutely outstanding !!

<p>

The problem with the originality rating, right now and for ages, is that it means a different thing to every rater, and in the end you are averaging apples and oranges. An originality rating makes perfect sense if it is very well understood, but right now, most people rate subjects, because that's easier than finding out in which sense the approach was good or not. As it is, the originality rating also gives unfair visibility to Pshop creations because a moon on top of a neck is of course more unusual than a face...

<p>

I won't insist much here since I'm no longer rating much anyway, but I thought I'd contribute my 2 cents. The originality ratings just need

to go. Simply because it means different things to different people and because it priviledges certain genres and certain subjects over others. Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone does indeed have different interpretations for both

originality and aesthetics and most will continue to defend their

right to their own rating patterns even when asked to change to a

fairly clearly defined approach. And yet we keep the system.

 

Compare the landscapes above. If someone can find a better

landscape shot than the one I chose, please post the URL and

explain why you think it's better. If you can't find one, then you

MUST give this 7/7. To not do so is to express a genre

preference for other types of work where you would offer higher

scores.

 

Rates have no meaning, EXCEPT to determine which images IN

EACH GENRE get relatively more visibility. Ideally, everyone's

personal favorites pages should have your picks of the best

images of each genre on photo.net - best by whatever standards

you think appropriate for the genre. Forget 'originality' and

'aesthetics'. If there are no landscapes in your personal favorites

pages, then you shouldn't be determining the visibility of images

in that genre for others who like the genre more than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"I am fairly new to photo.net and am having a mental block understanding the originality rating."</i> It all started there... interesting point of views from all of you. <br>

I think a sociological study can be done, however im not able to do it. <br>

My only advice would be to use photo.net as a comunicational system. If you dont understand how a picture can get 3 or 7 or 1 or whatever for originality from someone then go ahead post a comment asking his/her point of view. Or request his/her email address and write him / her an email. <br>

It is the smarter and faster way to understand. If you dont get a reply and still dont undesrtand the why: forget about it. If the rater wont give his her opinion after asking those numbers mean nothing at all for anyone except the rater.<br>

Here we talk about individuals who are very different in different ways and things. Dont be afraid of asking, you may also make him/her think about it which is what most people will want here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...