kab Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I finally posted a few shots, rated a few and studied photo.net more actively than I have since I began membership in 2002. Until I finally dipped my toes into the digital puddle, I hadn't realized the amount of angst, apprehension, egotism and retaliation that is taking place; in a venue that is supposed to be an avenue for the projection of beauty, in all it's photographic forms, and for education, the intent being to assist ourselves in directing our individual talents through the talents and suggestions of others also seeking resolution from their art. Digital photography has changed the way we look at images; we can now take just about any average image; crop, resaturate, hilight, burn,tone,...maneuvers that may have taken days of focus and intent in a darkroom, if at all even possible in a darkroom, and post it beautifully framed and backlit on a web page. So when we are faced with rating these images, I think we have to readdress what we are actually seeing. We also need to just as importantly consider what we are not seeing; all the beautiful images carefully handcrafted by many wonderful photographers on this site using film and paper and chemicals who are stumbling with this new digital medium required just to post a photo here. Hence, all is not equal. I therefore suggest we reassess our rating queries to reflect what we see in a photograph."aesthetics" is still a good term for encompassing subject and general visual impact. However, "Originality" has got to go. It's too vague. Importantly, the foremost rating for any photograph "Composition" should be added. Because, no matter how adept you are at photoshop, nor how perilously inept you may be at rendering an analog image to the web, composition cannot be understated. Finally,"Tonality and Lighting" might be a third parameter that could truly add to the legitamacy of a critique. Simple changes such as these might infact improve our personal visions for our art and subsequently help eliminate retaliatory critique abuse from those who have posted, and received accurate critiques of their unbecoming snapshots, and in doing so, improve their vision as well. Your comments please.... Kurt I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Good suggestions. BUt unfortunately if you read through any image's ratings it's obvious people do not look at the two ratings as any different really, more a chance just to rate twice. Which is why you see 7/7's all over a typical but colorful sunset shot. Add another category and then it'll just be 7/7/7's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul e. wog Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I just read the definitions for rating a third time yesterday. Now i'm truly confused....... Why not just one rating, 1-100? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessica_ulm3 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would love a rating system like you suggestion, but unfortunately we cannot get people to use the one we have properly. With ratings as squewed and inflated as they are, it's obvious that people would do what they alway seem to - make their own definitions for each that are completely subjective and without uniformity and, therefore, meaningless to anyone trying to get a fair judge of their work. The more we make people think, the less they do. And what about "emotion impact"? But alas, then we'll get 7/7/7/7 for every photo that a rated looks at and says "ooooooh purdy" regardless of both technical qualities and quality as visual art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kab Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 You've all got a point....guess I'm kind of late regarding this discussion and it seems to have reached a reasonable yet unfortunately placative conclusion. Probably should do away with ratings altogether if the main purpose of having them is to stroke an ego or rip a perceived competitor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 comments can do all. best thing since the invention of the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddleboy Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Don't you guys think this rating system just suck. lets face it, there is a bunch of raters out there who rate at the speed of light. tell me what value you can give to a rating given by someone who did not even take the time to look at the picture. When i say "look" i mean look. Like in: "take your time and try to find out what the photographer is trying to say" or: "Ok, you do'nt like it......... but why ???". What is a 2/2 worth if the photographer do'nt even get an explanation. I'm new to photography and new to this site, even though i learned more here in a few days than for months on any other web site i think this system is not acceptable. Changes are needed, I sugest you put a limit on the rating per day one individual can make and also, as: "power involve responsibilities" i sugest that average or below averages rating should not be posted without a critique. I may be wrong but i suspect that there is a bunch of snipers out there working hard to make sure the picture they have choosen is not compromised by another one and their weapon is the rating system. I also sugest that when someone request a rating, this person must be enable to rate others. this way, one would'nt be tempted to rate low as an expression of frustration for a low rating received. I love this site but i do not feel this rating system is a good learning tool so i'm no longer requesting ratings until things changes. By the way, thanks to all the generous and nice peoples who are always willing to take the time to help newcomers by taking the time to look, rate an give constructive critiques. YOU make this site a better place... thank you, my english is not very good but i think you know what i'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Pascal, not so long ago, there was a (soft) limit on file sizes for new uploads - 100Kb. Most photonetters complied to this limit and surfing through the Gallery/individual portfolios wasn't too bad on dial-up. Now that those file size restricitions have been lifted, I find it increasingly arduous to navigate through many recently posted images.<br>I would be more than happy to stop by your portfolio and have a look at your work. Unfortunately, most of your uploads are between 1 to 5 Mb in size! In the past, Jeremy Stein used to delete images of that size from the Gallery. The good old days have gone indeed... <br>BTW, nothing wrong with your english and I *did* notice that your last three uploads are more manageable in size.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddleboy Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Hi Peter and thank you for pointing it out, Yesterday, i was notified by another user of my file size problem, or abuse,as you wish. After that moment i did spent a lot of time on my computer to find out how to reduce the size of my files (I'm new to image editing as well), Like you said,The few last images i did post yesterday are of the corect size. Today, i did delete all the files that where not within the established parameters. This is the proof that new comers like me have a lot to learn from old timers like you. Photography is my hobby and i like it very much, in fact i'm hooked. I do spent most of my free time (which i dont have much) shooting and trying to improve. I may be wrong but i see this site as a big oportunity to do just that. I'm very curious to see what you think of my stuff. Now that my files are smaller i hope you will come back some day. That been said, I think that you brought up something that have nothing to do with this tread. That also my friend is a waist of time for the comunity... Have any suggestion or opinion regarding rating parameters??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 <i>By the way, thanks to all the generous and nice peoples who are always willing to take the time to help newcomers by taking the time to look, rate an give constructive critiques. YOU make this site a better place...</i><p>Pascal, with all due respect to you and Kurt, The quoted paragraph was indeed what I responded to, as I like to think that it applied to me. As far as ratings parameters goes, I only have one contribution to make. They are simply weapons of maths destruction...<br>The default TRP has (once again) been hijacked and it is up to Brian to find another acceptable algorithm for ranking the images in the Gallery. As for rating/commenting behaviour, treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Pascal: you find no value in a orphan 2/2 rating, and you believe that people rating 'average' or 'below average' ought to be forced to justify their valuation. <p> Would you have this proposed legislation apply to those who rate higher than the mean?<p> And how do you envisage stopping a nonsensical critique such as 'great, wow, you rock, blah, blah' from being posted? <p> My regards, Seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy e Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Seven, very good points, but points, I think, that illustrate the absolute fallacy about the utiility of the ratings system here or, indeed, on any similar photo site. At best, the ratings system is a measure of the "vox populi" pertaining to a specific image. As the vox populi, it also carries with it all the foibles, quirks and other behaviors attendant to mass appeal or lack thereof. But as a measure of actual image quality, its a waste of time. Once you understand that, it no longer becomes bothersome. I've simply seen too many outstanding images get pounded by lousy ratings to believe that its any kind of reasonable measure of image quality. Certainly a glance at the first few pages of the Top Rated Pages will tell you that (no offense). Kurt, you simply can't force people to see and think about things that they either don't want to or can't think about. If you need proof of that, see what happens on November 2nd if George Bush manages to win the election. Just my humble opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddleboy Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Seven, As an answer to your first question i would say YES, A 7/7 or whatever given score should be justified when and if it is in oposition to the average score given by other raters for this specific picture. In other words if the average given score is 4/4, a rater should explain why he is rating a 2/2 or 7/7. What do we do with the first rate since there is no average to compare??? i think any rater may be ask to justify is rating even a few days after it was posted. I dont know if it is technicaly possible but think of an automated message sended to a unusual rater that say something like: " you rated this picture a 2/2 or a 7/7 which is below/over the average. Please explain your position by a short comment". and why not unable this user to rate after 3 warnings. I do not pretend this is a better solution and we could spend a lot of time weighting the pros and cons of any proposition. I pretty well know that for any given proposition there is a ton of "yes, but what if..." This is not a simple problem so there is no simple solution. I have a huge respect for this site and the people who builded it, i'm convinced that these guys must have spend many hours around a table discussing about what this system should look like and they came up with the one we have now simply because THIS is the best one and the problem is not the system itself but the persons who uses it. i'm relatively new here so maybe i do not have what it takes to bring my sugestions and should have keep learning before talking. i take this forum as an opportunity to bring my contribution to what i consider to be some kind of a brainstorming, hoping that maybe there is a way to make this system a better one. I think this is enough for now, i will take the time to think about your second question.Best regards,Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Always good to bring in politics, and the insinuation that the "other side", or those without YOUR opinion must not think, or want to. The ratings will always be about how popular a "style of image" is. No other way around it. Besides, just like politics, everyone has a different opinion on what makes good art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy e Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Andrew, that's a laugh coming from you. What, now you're the great champion of the democracy of aesthetics? Cut the crap. Words minus action equals zero or at best equals wretched hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy e Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Oh, and one more thing... I guess what you're saying requires then to unquestionably hold all art as being equal. Therefore, I should hold Britney Spears in the same aesthetic esteem as W.A. Mozart because both have adherents who believe that what they do is "good art". I guess then the whole course of art history is invalid because from era to era people have made distinctions between the good and lasting and that which is poor and of no value to the consideration of art as art. Maybe I'm stupid but that makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Pogue: I find it interesting you feel the need to make a discussion personal. It speaks volumes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 If you will allow me to quote, "And as for stand alone art, well, that's a purely subjective point of view, don't you think?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 <b> Pascal </b> You mention average rating again. What average : the rater's or the image being rated? e.g. a 4/5 from me is a relatively high rate by current standards.<p><b> Pogue </b> Britney and Wolfgang in one sentence - LOL! I hear she's such a rare talent that she lip syncs her wedding vows; could be good practice for that night at the opera.<p> <br> (Interesting Gaelic BTW!)<p>Cheers, Seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddleboy Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 SEVEN,PETER this is geting too complicated for me and i think this tread is not going anywhere. In my life, i always stood up to defend my opinions but it's very hard for me to express what i think, i'm never 100% sure if i'm not offending someone or being perceived as arogant (Which i'm not)just because of my poor english level(it took me about an hour to write this comment). Anyway, this thing is taking to much place in my life, i should have spend more time shooting instead of trying to make my point on such a complex subject. Tomorow is deer hunting season's opening in this part of the world so i'm taking the week off. In the future, I will keep watching but try to keep my mouth shut. I will always be happy to read your comments about my work and be more than happy to be rated 4/5 by you seven.Respect to all of you!!!Pascal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 <b>Pascal</b> - what you've posted has been done in a climate of civility, I don't think you're arrogant at all. There really seems to be no solution to the numbers game : so I think it's an excellent idea that you've decided to go shooting in preference to typing. <p> I hope soon to follow your example. <p> Have a great time. <p> Best regards, Seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaghetti_western Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 art requires critical look at impact of work over period of time. comping britney the entertainer to mozart the composer is more pointless than would be britney to madonna, or madonna to elvis. entertainers of the moment will be most popular as will whatever floods the market of attention. look at the flood of fall foliage shots here as example, soon winter scenes and so forth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_daalder Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I know Bob A. frowns upon people trying to pollute the Feedback Forum (or any forum thread, for that matter) with facetious remarks, but Sergio Leone just made me realise that art brings out the good, the bad and the ugly in all of us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tige casey Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Here is an IDEA...Make people be paying members to vote on pictures...I would be happy to contribute on that level. Until then I will give nothing financially as I have to sift through rubble to gain anything... (repost of my answer in "I've just a BASIC question" by Jacques Henry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now