Originality has too much weight in the rating scale

[chubbs]

im sorry but I dont understand the question about the chess broad.

[juanriera]

I would like to contribute to this thread saying that I dont see the utility of two ratings criteria. In origin it is true that Aesthetics an Originality criteria could be good ones, but time shows that they goes always related, i.e. they are not independent. I have followed the ratings on some of my photos and I have seen most people rates by couples 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, and so on to 7-7, as some of you have stated before. The meaning of it, as people working with statistics and panel analysis knows very well, is that these two measures are not filling their original purpose as people are using both to say the same. Maybe in origin or with some experts the two concepts are separate and clear enough, but this does not seem the case for most people rating here. What is more, I have seen on one of my photos more than 20.000 viewings, 200 ratings but not one critique. It seems people gets comfortable with rating but they do not like to critique or they do not know how to do it. If this is the case, I woukld rather prefer people not having clear how to critique would not rate, and only could put a note of the like/dont like kind. Great part of photo.net success is how people likes their photos rated, and as highest as possible. However this does not say anything to people wanting to ameliorate, as ratings are so subjective and not well informed as I have said before.

So, what is what I would like? First, a binary system like/dont like for people not wanting (or not knowing how) to critique, and second, a system rewarding critique much more than rating, to get people involved in critique and discussing concepts and not point scales.<div></div>

[timothy_eberly]

"im sorry but I dont understand the question about the chess broad."

<br><br>

The question is, why don't people think that smoke taking the shape of a skull over a chess board is unique?

[timothy_eberly]

I think ultimately, 'originality' should be changed to something more focused on imagination. In my mind, that would do it.

[blago]

"Death Plays Chess"

 

Painting with cigarette smoke is not a new technique, we know at least the works of Dave Barstow:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=369362

 

A lot of playing chess photos around, too. And death drawn with cigarette smoke you could find on every second poster explaining us how harmful smoking is. But luck counts, as Carl said, and the photo is gaining originality simply because the figure of death is beautifully depicted and easily recognisable, and, from the other hand, not so easy to be taken.

 

I like a lot the composition of this photo. A small crop from the right could exclude the two separated black figures and a tiny crop from the bottom deletes the small black triangle in the LLC. The latter crop has the meaning of extending the table toward the viewer, thus giving him a place to put his elbows on it and watch closely the game. That hidden beauty of the photo I'm calling "originality".

 

Now see the player's hand. The top of it looks burnt. By the cigarette smoke wrapping it and going up, and gradually "eating up" the player's vital spark. O.K. it's a loose interpretation, but the chance to make it adds to the picture. I'd call it "originality" provoked by a visual component of the photo or "added originally". And I'm not even going to speculate about diagonals (hand crossing the smoke line) making something like a cross sign rejecting this kind of "sports".

 

The second strongest visual component of the photo is the ashtray showing the origin of the third player. It's simply beautiful, put on the right place, and serves as a balancing weight for the main subject - the figure of death. We say usually "I like this picture because all of its components work together." That's true, but for this picture I'll add "... and because every single component of the photo works separately."

 

I don't like the caption. Too poster-like.