Why have ratings or competition ?

[mitchfalk]

Why have ratings or competition ?

 

I am replying to a call for all P.N subscribers to change the ratings system.

 

I personally don't see a need for a rating system in the first place.

 

Opinions about a photograph are fine, and if given honestly - constructive, but

to anonymously assign a number to one is pointless and useless.

 

If you go to the other photographic web-sites like PBase there are no numeric

rating systems, and the people who contribute to it seem happy.

 

Competition is fine to determine the winner of a sporting event or a college

entrance exam, it really has no place in the arts or sciences. Photography is

our art and our work should be treated as such. How do you judge art ? its all

subjective, no ones is better or worse as a fact, its just an opinion.

 

Photo.net is a wonderful tool for photographers to exchange information on tools

and techniques and to view great photographs, but to try to "weed" out the worst

and present what some my exclaim is the best, is to use it as a competition and

in "my opinion" a complete waste of time and effort.

[mendel_leisk]

I agree that ratings are way too objective. A photograph should be a testament, to be enjoyed, not a contestant in a beauty contest.

 

I think it's ok to recognize pictures as exceptional, via the picture of the week, and the other home page pictures displayed. It's nice to acknowledge excellence, and draw it to everyone's attention.

[Matt Laur]

As flawed as some of the raters (not the rating system) may be, I can think of no other way to sift through the hundreds of thousands of images that exist on this platform. How would you find a handful of really stellar images out of all of those submitted this week? Search for everything that has the phrase "nice!" in the comments? The ratings are often abused, sometimes misunderstood, and certainly can't account for wide variances in taste... but they DO allow us to see at least some good images floating to the top of the heap. Don't like it? Don't submit for ratings, don't rate images yourself, and don't rely on ratings when you search. You will find yourself, though, digging through a lot more mediocrity (um, like MY stuff) trying to encounter, comment upon, and learn from the real gems.

[puck]

as i have been told by a photo of the week moderator, the photo of thr week is not meant to be outstanding, brilliant or indeed the best picture submitted that week. it is merely a choise by a few people, in this case the moderators, who think a particular picture is interesting and worth talking about. the black and white picture choosen last week or the week before was anything but ordinary and it just goes to show that it was chosen because the moderators felt it was interesting, not brilliant.

 

i don't see why there should not be competition. i would actually like to see several categories of photo of the week. one which should be for photos that have been heavily manipulated using photoshop and another that has had little or no manipulation.

[milan.ilnyckyj]

I agree that having ratings is valuable. They may not be hugely informative, in and of themselves, but they are a useful way of dealing with the volume of material on photo.net.

 

Comments, of course, are a lot more useful for improving one's photography.

[bobatkins]

If you don't like the ratings, you are free to ignore them.

 

As has been said in the past, the ratings are as much (if not more) for the site as the users. It's a way the site can find and present the most popular images for display and it's also a way for users to find the "better" images (or at least the most popular images).

 

The only harm ratings can do is to those who become obsessed by them.

[jimadams]

<i>"Competition is fine to determine the winner of a sporting event or a college entrance exam, it really has no place in the arts or sciences. Photography is our art and our work should be treated as such."</i><p>So are you saying there should be no more juried shows or exhibitions? No more photography competitions which award grants for aspiring photographers to perfect their craft? If so, I'll have to disagree.

[kahkityoong]

I don't know whether it's the rating system or some other reason. But the standard of photography and talent on this site is a feeble shadow of what it was several years ago. Everytime I look at the top-rated photos is proof of this.

[snakecharmer]

Is the point of pnet really to find the very "best" or "most brilliant" photos and showcase them, or try to emulate them? I think that plenty can be learned from sifting through all of those "mediocre" photos and asking yourself key questions: 1. What is the artist attempting to communicate? 2. How is this communication being accomplished, and is it the best way? 3. Is the communication effective/convincing/persuasive? 4. Does this work have surface aesthetic appeal or elicit an emotional reaction from the viewer? 5. Did apparent thought go into the composition and/or execution of this photo? 6. Is the work engaging? (i.e., Is it easy or difficult to look away from the photo? How does the photo guide the eye of the viewer?) 7. And last but not least: Do you think that the artist had fun creating the photo?

If the answer to ANY of these questions is yes, then I believe that the photo is successful on some level.

By "rating" photos in this way, it is possible to learn something from just about every photo on pnet. It is a much slower method than checking out the top rated photos every week and simply trying to copy them, but it does much more to foster independent creativity.

The rating system is a tool for recognition (albeit a dubious one at times), but my guess is that it was never intended as a learning tool.