1/7

[blago]

Spaghetti Western

 

By the standards here 4/4 means "average" what I (many of us) could understand. 1/7 means "very bad but excellent" what only a few of us could grasp. Not me, in any case. It's difficult to accept immediately the most original images - they carry a specific beauty (aesthetics) that needs time to be perceived. From the other hand, if a photo is extremely beautiful it's already original because it's more beautiful (that means EXTREMELY) than the other beautiful photos. I think, the two categories were introduced to help us analyse pictures, what's very important in the photography learning process. (Some proposed a "technical quality" category to be added.) Not that they exist separately in the photos taken.

[mike kelly]

The ratings system is valuable because it forces you to learn one harsh lesson: ignore the

ratings and trust your own judgement.

[dan flanders]

I don't rate because I don't post, but I see plenty photos here that are technically excellent yet totally pointless. Perhaps that is the nuance the rater was attempting to convey. OTOH, there are also plenty that are topically interesting but technically miserable. I there a way to indicate that in the ratings?

[root]

Good point.

 

You could attempt to discuss the point of the photograph instead of rating it . . . or at least withhold the rate until you've explored it with others. You may find there is more (or less?) to the image than you thought.