Critique Ratings Are 'Just For Fun' -- Experienced Photographers Know the Worth of Our Own Photos

[lbattjes]

John, your attitude is very refreshing and very real! I love to take photos, and when I found PN, I was ecstatic! what beautiful photos, kind and helpful people, inexpensive to join, etc. What a deal. I have to admit, though, that I started to get caught up in the ratings and found my feelings hurt and at times lost my desire to shoot just any old shot...I was afraid that it had to be just so, perfect time of day, natural lighting, etc, etc. so I found that I wasn't taking the shots I enjoyed. I have since found a happy medium... I still enjoy simple snapshots on occasion, and I'm enjoying the learning process that goes into setting up the "perfect" shot! :~) I love to hear peoples thoughts on my shots and still enjoy the ratings, but as long as I like my shot, that makes me happiest. Maybe someday I'll move toward the professional side of things, but for now I'll enjoy my amateur/hobby status :~) Leslie

[paul e. wog]

Good post John and for once it seems nobody has anything to argue about. If this keeps up it could put the PN forum industry out of biz.

 

My one question would be, and not meaning to be a thorn in the side. If you all don't care about ratings and its all blahseh, grain of salt etc...why u all get so uptight on the other end of the scale?

 

Wasn't it just last week the system had to go though major changes due to howls and crys about ratemating?

 

Well i use a better approach than deeming the rating system a mear amusement... I never shoot a shot unless its a 7. If someone rates it 6 they were obviously out of 7's. If 5 they had to be a bit green with envy....as the scale drops down the envy factor goes up. So in reality a 1 is the best score ya could get :)

[tholte]

Alexander, I don't think so but they both get triple 7's for being long-winded. Both of them have enough words in posts and comments to fill three sets of Encyclopedia Brittanica and a couple of Tolstoy's War and Peace.

[akochanowski]

yeah, but one has talent and the other is a hack.

[john falkenstine]

IN A SIMILAR vein. Visited a photography gallery in Bisbee this last weekend. The owner has some stunning stuff, very Southwest orientation, and reasonable prices, and of a type rarely seen on photoshop.net. (As noted above, most of them would get 4/4 or less) Pictures of Georgia O'Keeffe in her elderly years, holding mementos and ailing in Bed, Mostly B and W. but also some stunning color, showing the large format photography is still king. One of the best photo galleries I know. But...April 30th he's closing his doors. Folks that visit Bisbee aren't interested in the content of the store/gallery (its usually empty). The owner has noted the genre of images that folks are after....and its close to the velvet Elvis joked about not too long ago. So...if you're local, and want some great pictures, he's discounting. My impression is that if the gallery was in Scottsdale, he would NOT be closing shop...

[paul e. wog]

Will you be doing the usual photo documentary on the building after he goes out of biz?

[john falkenstine]

Maybe..Right now it is a very upset fellow that owns the store, and others in town are also upset over the situation, because they know the value of what is being lost here...but economics rule...you have to offer what people will like if you need to make a living at it. I think the original intent here was to offer something different and very nice with the idealistic intent that it would "spark" or kindle some kind of artistic interest, but the majority of humans just don't work that way....Most of us have our blinders on ALL of the time FOREVER...

[edmo]

<i>I recently posted a photo and so far it has received seven ratings, one each from 2/2 through 7/7.

<p>

What does this tell me? </i>

<p>

You need a pair of ones for a straight.

[johncrosley]

I can do without a straight. I would be, I think, (after all) flushed. (note my comment about ratings trolls).

 

John (Crosley)

[johncrosley]

Tim Holte,

Your comment to Alexander reads out of context -- was there a comment from an Alexander, say Alexander Chubb that was removed?

 

John

[johncrosley]

Interestingly, after several days' exposure, the ratings finally read 12 ratings 4.83/4.92 with the only double ratings 4/4, 5/5 and 7.7 and a similar spread for the remaining ratings.

 

I still contend that this photo is 'outside the box' for the ability of Photonetters to rate -- that is its theme and execution are good enough and its execution is gritty enough that Photo.netters as a whole don't know what to do with it. As a result, the 'average' ended up getting lumped in the middle somewhere. But is the middle a proper rating? Is it like saying that positive poles of electricity and negative poles can be averaged and somehow you have neutral energy?

 

Sometimes, averages don't tell us anything; maybe this is one of those cases (except to tell us that the raters are unable to rate effectively).

 

Otherwise the rating system often shows great effectiveness - there often is great (collective) wisdom in the cumulative judgment of raters, especially when the number of raters approaches 10 or more.

 

John (Crosley)

[root]

Curators.