3/3s and 4/4s--the inferior methods of skipping

[root]

" . . . I believe the 'originality 'rating should not be there! Why? because as someone said earlier almost no photograph is original anymore."

 

That's because you don't yet have the ability to appreciate the value of subtle differences in otherwise similar images.

[emwalker]

The originality rating is on the same scale as the aesthetics rating- 1 for very, very unoriginal (ACK! Another sunset/bug/bird/naked girl, etc. etc. etc.) to 7 for very original (Oh my god how the hell did they do THAT?). 4 is average(eh, just as original as everyone else's originals...) Much like 'all music has been written before,' 'all photos have been taken before' is just an utterly myopic view of the art and the industry. Yeah, Ansel Adams beat YOU to Yosimite, but who's to say you won't find something interesting to photograph there that he never saw? Now, if you set up and take shots that you want to look just like his, well, that'll earn you a big fat 1 in my book. But look around if you don't think there's anyone interesting or original left, because I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. <BR>Look at <A href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1515657">Saturnio Espin</A> and tell me you've seen all that done before.<BR> Now go check out <A href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1427936">Natalie Shau</A>. See? Shame on you.

[keimae]

Dear Carl,

I take it it's a no to the removal of the originality rating?

 

If your judgement of my ability is what you genuinely believe then fair enough. I won't go

to your folio and judge you.

 

Do you think all anonymous raters DO have this ability? These raters are what this thread

is about after all.

 

Could you please let me know what you think of the idea of having a 'technical' ratings

category. I think that would be more usefulto this forum.

 

I put an idea out there, hopefully someone can reply on this ground.

[keimae]

Thank you E,

Believe it or not, I do see originality, especially in Saturnino's work, I'm quite a fan of his ,

if it's not all to my taste.

 

I was trying to write about originality in the vain of Non-members who go into the rate

recent section...

 

I believe some will see a photo of Yosemite (probably not even recognise it) that has been

taken perfectly and with a totally different vision than that of Adams' and will hit 3 or 4.

I'm not of such a small narrow mind that you might think, I hope I cleared up why I have

called for the discussion of the originality rating to be removed - even just for a trial.

 

Your opinion I take it, is no and that of course is fine, I'm a reasonable person, I don't

expect everyone to agree. I would also suggest someone's work which although might

seem similar to others' is beautiful and original, Pitor Kowalik. See? I'm not as bad as you

think.

[keimae]

Sorry... 'Piotr' Chubby fingers.

[root]

"7 for very original (Oh my god how the hell did they do THAT?)"

 

NO NO NO NO NO ! ! !

 

It isn't about doing; it's about seeing! That's what cameras are good at.

 

. . and no, I don't have much confidence in the typical rater, you included. Sorry.

 

And no, judging focus and other such technical stuff on a smallish jpeg is equally useless. You have to see the prints in person.

 

READ THE TUTORIAL !

[keimae]

Well then Carl, Why ask for critique? Composition, DOF (and I seem to have read a few

critiques lately remarking on the Focus being slightly soft or in the wrong place - not on the

eyes), are these not technical? I don't believe for a second that people stick to the 'Tutorial'.

 

I would genuinely like you to critique one of my shots, in any category. Seriously and

honestly!

 

I accept your views, I think you need to accept that no-one here is 100% right or wrong, you

shouldn't get so upset.

[root]

" I don't believe for a second that people stick to the 'Tutorial'."

 

That's because they don't have a sufficient understanding of photography . . . assuming they've read it.

 

No, all opinions are not equal . . . . unless you want to limit the circulation of your images to this site, family and friends.

[keimae]

Carl, You've obviously such a passion for photography, which in my opinion will drive you

to always improve - that is a great thing.

 

Simply, The opinion of the man in the street will not be equal of that of a 30yr seasoned

professional photographer ( or somewhere in between), Agreed. As I said earlier to Brian, I

accept that 3/3s are part of P.net. They don't bothar me if they're from anon. I would like

to see 3/3s from other members. Then they might be worth thinking about.

My suggestion to introduce a different Rating category was to throw something out there

to all who do care about the Anon. ratings. If that was not clear, I hope it is now.

 

I believe that there are indeed rules and rules will always be broken, peoples opinions and

beliefs will always differ and so I'll continue striving to my goal of

being happy and proud of MY photography... Something I have a lot of work to reach.

 

As for this thread I've said my piece, I've made my argument and counter arguments. As

for those arguments I also accept that people won't always understand them or agree with

them.

I'm actually pretty annoyed with myself as these threads always end in mis-understanding

and personality clashes and yet I found myself participating.

I hope that all us lovers of photography can continue loving it and all be happy.

 

Elsen, I hope you got your answer in here somewhere. Best regards.

[emwalker]

There's a tutorial? Does it explain what original means? Is that different from the definition I learned when I was five? It IS about seeing, but in photography, without doing seeing does you no good. As simple as if I don't know how to focus, the greatest shot in the world is just a bunch of ooey colors running together on the screen. There's originality in creation if you're in the studio, and there's originality in capturing when you're on the street. And yes, it is about the vision, but without the technique you aint got squat. Apparently you didn't look at Ms. Shau's work, Carl, or you might begin to see where I'm coming from. There's vision there, and then there's all the doing it takes to create such stunning works. Piotr's work is a more straightforward approach, using form and light to show us what we don't see otherwise. Both are born in seeing and wrought in doing. Whether your originality comes from finding a new way to look or creating one, it takes more than a vision to make it happen. Now, I don't really want to argue, as I think we're close to the same page here...

[emwalker]

Carl, I'd like to invite you to the next thread in this never-ending whine line, where we're discussing the peculiarity of the meaning behind the ratings, and the difference between a 4/4 and a 4/7. <BR><BR><A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G4gt&unified_p=1"> Ratings woes</A><BR><BR>I think this topic more fully addresses the current issue at hand.<BR><BR>-e-

[emwalker]

Sadly, my Ratings woes post seems to have been snuffed out by the forum fairies... and I wasn't even asking for a radical (or any)change to the system, just exploring what the significance of the ratings really amounts to.... hmmm..... guess it's unacceptable to make a valid point about the status quo round ere, sorry Brian for stirring up the pot.

[kamraman]

Keith, I think you may have hit on something here. I'm new to Photo.Net, but I've been reading this forum and I find it interesting. My personal opinion is that rather than replacing the originality rating, it should just be deleted. I find that most photos don't strike me as original even if they are aesthetically pleasing. Conversely, I don't really care how original a photo is if it's not aesthetically interesting. Who cares if a photo is the only one of it's kind if it's not well done? In fact, the "average" rater that's been discussed in this forum is probably completely un-infomred about what true originalty is anyway and may not have the eye to spot it when it's presented to them. The tutorial itself explains that the two categories often affect each other, so why not reduce the rating criteria down to a single category, i.e. how does this photo appeal to you (the rater). I also think that it would be a good idea to reduce the rating system down to just 5s,6s,and 7s. If a photo is not good enough to be a 5 or better simply encourage people to pass over it. The best photos will have the most ratings and the mediocre photos will have fewer. If I'm looking at photos and I see one that would be a 3, then I'm welcome to offer a constructive critique on how to improve that photo. Or, I can just pass over it, and then over the next one, and on, and on... until I get to a photo that grabs my attention. This would also prevent me from giving lower ratings to good photos that don't particularly appeal to my tastes because I would simply pass over them. I'm not personally invested in how my photos rate on here anyway, but I love to hear peoples thoughts. If somebody thinks my photos are crap or the worst pictures they've ever scene; that's fine with me and (as long as the can explain why) I'd love to hear that opinion too. But, receiving a rating of anything less than 5 is completely useless to me without the critique to go with it. I feel that encouraging people to only rate photos they like would make life easier for both the administrators (less abuse)and the photographers who complain about unwaranted low ratings. If you don't receive many ratings you can't complain that people are low balling you, but you can decide to go out and shoot more visually gripping images. Just my "newbie" opinion based on what I've experienced and read so far. I love the site despite any "glitches" in the "system," Thanks for keeping it going.

 

-James

[mike dixon]

<i>I also think that it would be a good idea to reduce the rating system down to just 5s,6s,and 7s. If a photo is not good enough to be a 5 or better simply encourage people to pass over it.</i><P>

To a great extent, that's what raters tend to do already. If people are only interested in hearing praise for their photos, they should limit their audience to sympathetic friends and family.<P>

<i>But, receiving a rating of anything less than 5 is completely useless to me without the critique to go with it.</i><P>

A numerical rating (with no comment) is either useful to the photographer, or it isn't. How is a rating of 6 with no comment any more useful than a rating of 4? But as Brain has explained repeatedly, the numbers are useful for the site in selecting the most popular photos for the gallery. A particular rating isn't intended to be useful for the photographer.

[kamraman]

Fair enough, I see how the ratings can be beneficial for sorting the photos. As for why I would consider a rating of 6 useful without a critique, but not a rating of 3... Simple, if someone likes my photo or thinks it's successful, that's enough for me. Sure I'd rather hear "why" they like it, but it's not necessary. Alternately, if photos can only be rated as 5, 6, or7, and I don't get many ratings, then I would assume that my images aren't grabbing anyone's attention and are in need of improvement. I'm interested in knowing which of my photos are successful, but I don't need low ratings to know which ones aren't. I think the lack of comments, views, and ratings (of any kind) will tell me that. I see your point and I personally see validity on both sides of this discussion. In all fairness, at the moment I've got no complaints about anything on this site, I just had an idea while reading this thread and thought it was worth contributing.<BR><BR>

"If people are only interested in hearing praise for their photos, they should limit their audience to sympathetic friends and family."<BR><BR>

I appreciate your comments, but please be aware that I'd be more than happy to have every one of my photos ripped to shreds by anyone who wants to do so, as long as there's informative critique about why this or that photo is garbage. I view critiques of the negative aspects of my photos as immensely more useful than any amount of praise. Praise doesn't make me strive to be a better photographer, but being informed of my photographic shortcomings (according to someone else) and of ways to correct these issues does. It doesn't upset me if someone rates one of my photos as a 3/3, but it doesn't tell me anything useful about that photo either. However, as you've noted, the numerical ratings (sans comment) are not necessarily intended to be useful to me. I'm fine with this and I have no problems with Photo.Net using them to administer this site.

<BR><BR>

Regards,<BR>

-James

[alexandrei]

reducing the rating system down to just 5s,6s and 7s would be a disaster.people will either have no rating at all(if their photos are really bad),or they will have an average above 5(only for their good photos).so the best photographers,that now have average ratings above 6 will remain there,and the others will have undeserved higher average ratings.just as an example,someone can take a photo that averages between 5.5 and 6 and besides that one,he can take 50 more photos that would average below 4 let's say.Since there would be no other ratings below 5,he would remain with a good average for only one photo.does that help him in any way?does it make him a better photographer?no!And about the example i gave:i know a person on this site that has published 28photos.out of those,1has an average of 5.5(it was rated by 50persons).out of his other 27photos,2 barely make it to an average of 5.the rest are below 5 and many even below 4.

I hope you understand my statement

[Emmanuel Enyinwa]

Just my two cents. I think the idea of a rating system is somewhat silly because we are all sensitive to criticism. The funny thing about photography is that a lot of it is influenced by the quality of your equipment.

 

Someone with a sinar on the average will get better tones than someone with an old Practika, for instance. Then, add in the fact that some people are simply better at Photoshop than someone like me, for instance. Yet, it is the reality that raters look at an image and judge it on its merits without regard to how it got that way. Unfair? yes, but that's the way it works.

 

One MAJOR quibble I have, though, is the "originality" rating. Now, how is a photograph original, exactly, and why should lack of originality be a bad thing? How original were Ansel Adam's pictures? What about Irvin Penn or Brett Weston, who more or less copied his dad? But, yet, are you going to find better prints anywhere?

 

I've learned to not worry so much about the ratings. Some of my more highly rated pictures are not even my favorites, which are really the street candids and happy accidents I've encountered over the years. Some pictures have meaning to me, stories I cannot tell to an anonymous viwer in front of his computer screen. Should I not post these pictures because over the years they have acquired a little dust spot? Or because I shot it with a tiny disposable camera? Of course, NOT!

 

I find that my more "mature", tonally superior photographs can coexist with my more playful, spontaneous snapshots, of which I have many more. That is who I am, and why I take pictures.

[romu]

Pretty bad my ass. Tell that to the people that left 5's, 6's, and 7's.

 

Provokers.

[elsen]

Months ago I posed this "3/3s and 4/4s--the inferior methods of skipping". Now I start to think about another issue--"The inferior method of skiping by 3/3s and 4/4s, the suppression of 1/1s and 2/2s and the combined effects of the two policiy". Assuming there were two pics with the same average, 3.3/3.3, while one really deserved it and the other got 3.3 because all those 1/1s ans 2/2s it got are hidden, is the system still fair?

[bennyboy]

Brian,

 

You mentioned some salient points above regarding the statistical spread of rates.

 

Presumably it wouldn't be overly dificult to knock up a page that shows the previous weeks (or whatever period) ratings break down.

 

I think this could prove to be particularly useful in reassuring people - and could doubtlessly be linked to a FAQ page shown in this forum.

 

What would be even more interesting is a statistical breakdown by category, this way we could see how the rating of different categories compared 'at a glance'. It's often been conjectured that some categories score more highly than others, this would allow us see if this is the case: Of course whether this is down to viewer bias or photographer skill we can not determine.

 

Anyhow, it's just a thought.