Rating Photos ( Originality )

[peter_jarmuda]

I am having difficult time rating photographs, when it comes to originality.

After several years on this website its hard to see something trully original.

There are only so many ways to shoot a landcape or a nude figure, abstracts I

don't get (personal thing), so the question is schould we get away from rating

picture on originality. I find myself feeling guilty if I give a 4 on

originality, when the esthetics are 6 or 7.

 

What do you think?

[ronaldo_r]

time to give photography a break

[benniehoff]

I think if you have seen a lot of the same thing, then the picture is not original, and why should you rate it so? I'm always surprised when the two ratings tend to be the same. They are separated for a reason. I've seen plenty of images on here that I think are 7 in aesthetics but 3 or less in originality...nothing about that should make you feel guilty.

[Dieter Schaefer]

It is my believe that a lot of people use the originality rating to modify the aesthetics score and to affect an overall score. For example, a aesthetically very good image may get a 6/6 but only a 6/5 or 6/4 if there are some minor technical issues that don't seem to warrant the full score. Rarely do the two numbers differ by more than 1 point. I don't rate anymore as the meaning of these two numbers now eludes me completely. What is original to one may bore the life out of someone else and what is aesthetically pleasing to some sends shivers down the spine of others. Without comments that explain a given rating, the two numbers don't have meaning.

[stp]

I suggest you leave comments instead. A thoughtful comment on what works or what

doesn't work, and why, is much more meaningful and helpful than an ambiguous number.

[les]

"Nihil novi sub sole". St Jerome arrived at this conclusion some 1600 years ago :)

[jerry thirsty]

I rarely rate anymore, since it seems pretty meaningless, but I got to the point where I was using Originality as a way to punish people who would submit 3,4,5 pictures of the same subject with minor changes to each one. Obviously I couldn't tell what would be coming up next, so the first image of a subject would get my honest opinion. If another very similar image appeared in the Rating queue I would give it an Originality rating one lower than the first image. If (God forbid) a third image came up, I would rate it two lower than the first one. My logic being, obviously the subsequent images were lacking in originality, since I had just seen one or more almost exactly like them.

 

My philosophy is, if you've got a group of shots you took of a particular subject and you're going to put an image in for rating, you should select what you think is the best one (or maybe two). You shouldn't be dumping all of them into the queue and seeing which ones are popular.

 

Fortunately that sort of thing doesn't seem to happen too often.

[jgalyon]

I read somewhere on site, something written about what the "orignality" category is to be used for...something written by staff...just can't remember what/where. It stated (to paraphrase) that if a shot is boring...then it's not original. Not debating whether or not that should be the criteria, but Dieter echoed this sentiment. Are many photographs truly "original"? Not by the dictionary definition. Since we're talking rating, here's a twist on the topic that I'd love to hear some input on. Some photographs have a quality that the two available rating criteria don't consider. If it were up to me I'd have a category for "intangibles". Perhaps not the best word that might be used, but a photograph can be good...and sometimes great but not be particularly aesthetically pleasing, technically sound, or original. Sometimes they are just damn good pictures and it may be difficult to even say why. Your thoughts?

[jgalyon]

Jerry: you certainly have the "right" to be here and rate photographs as you choose...but couldn't help but notice that you don't submit your own work, but critique others...apparently not thinking that most of the pics on site are very good. Just an observation, but that seems to be the norm. That is: people who love to criticize the work of others but don't subject themselves/their work to the same scrutiny. Like I stated...you certainly have the right to do so, but I have the right to say that I find an ethical deficit in this. If you feel good about it...go for it. As for me, if I'm going to tell most of the people whose work you've rated that their photographs are average at best, below for many...then I'm going to put my work out there too. Check it out if you think I'm in error...but the lowest ratings given here are generally by those who don't post photographs of their own.

[mvisionphotography]

HA HA HA ~ do like some people do to me

 

4 for aesthetics and 7 for origionality

 

I'm sorry I just couldn't help myself for this one ~ he he he

 

I do try hard to be totally different than the norm. Truthfully my husband and I go and shoot the same sunset and we do it from two different ways.

 

Regardless, RATE the way you FEEL you should rate. Honesty is the best. But, please look for the origional things here on PN there are LOTS of things out there! I find hem all the time :)

[Dieter Schaefer]

John, the <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards/">Photo.Net Rating System Tutorial</a> is what you are looking for. That's all and that's what is the basis of the rating system and what everybody gets all bend out of shape over. Originality 1 means boring and 7 Amazingly Unusual; find your own definitions for everything in between. I like the next sentence the best of the entire tutorial: "Can't reduce your reaction to a photograph to just two numbers? Leave a text comment instead." If more would actually do that as I have lost (if I ever had it to begin with) the ability to reduce an image to two rather ill-defined numbers.

[Norma Desmond]

John, while I can understand some frustration at someone's rating low and not submitting

their own photos to critique, I do remember that many great art critics are not artists

themselves. It's possible that those who don't submit photos are not even photographers.

That wouldn't necessarily preclude them from being good critics. There is something to be

said for having a good eye and a good esthetic, a knack for "reading" a photograph and the

ability to explain or talk about photographs. Having a portfolio is not a prerequisite for any of

that.

[ronaldo_r]

"...that wouldn't necessarily preclude them from being good critics..."

 

I agree. In fact it must be hard for a photographer to rate another photographer

[colin carron]

Peter, I agree 'O' is a more hazy idea than 'A'. I think of it like this : It is not 'have I ever seen another photo like this?' or else all portraits, street shots, landscapes etc would score low. To me it is a mixture of how inventive, technically and artistically, the shot is, combined with how well it compares with similar shots.

[jacob_brown]

Stop feeling guilty. If you see an excellent version of a trite or cliche subject then give it a good score for the photo and a bad one for originality.

[yankfan]

Rather than 'Originality', I suggest 'Interpretation'.

[jrh]

Just thinking 'outloud' but what about adding to the criteria? Have a rating for asthetics,

originality, technical, composition or image strength.

 

Certainly some subjects require competence in different areas.

 

A photographer submitting a landscape would be more interested in the technical aspects

of a shot than would say a photojournalist.

 

How would Ansel Adams think of Paolo Pellegrin's work under the current system if they

were Photo.net subscibers? He would likely give a photo a very low asthetic rating as the

contrast would be too strong for his taste. Paolo probably wouldn't care about the

technical aspects as much as he would the composition or image strength and he could

ignore the technical score when assesing the ratings.

 

Maybe?

[jgalyon]

took a while to get back to you Fred...but difficult as it might b to believe, I generally agree with you. To be more specific (as I should have been initially...), it's those you make insulting, disparaging reamarks but offer no credentials, no information that would give us any reason as to why we should give a s..t as to what they think. Some of these guys may actually be photographers, university professors, museum curators, or just people who enjoy & have an interest in photography...and they may very well possess all the traits/abilities you mentioned. if these persons offer critique that is blunt, by some people's standards...harsh - i have no problems w/that. so, i'm only referring to the ones who come across as arrogant and condescending, and/or give no indication that their comments are intended to educate or otherwise be helpful. the vast majority of time that i find such comments a quick trip to the person's bio and you find no photos, nothing of relevance in their bio, and often hundreds or even thousands of smartass comments in which they tell us how much our photographs suck. here's a quick bit of anecdotal evidence as to what can come of this behavior. you'll have to accept that i have my facts straight and am being honest...or of course, this won't mean a thing. i don't feel comfortable using his name w/o permission, but let's say he was a VERY respected member for several years. put his name in the search box and you'll continue to see an incredible number of forum posts in which he freely offered countless bits of valuable technical advice and encouraging comments accompanying. as his reputation grew on-site and his ratings skyrocketed...some people apparently became jealous...began writing absurdly harsh comments that were undeserved...giving tons of low ratings, etc. this man is not a whining child who can't take criticism. quite to the opposite he always welcomed meaningful criticism from novice or master alike. but he finally got fed up w/ unidentied "critics" who bashed his work. understand that this is one of the most humble, quiet, sweet-souled people you could imagine...but he is by no means a weak person who can't speak his mind. so the end...he told his critics to "put up or shut up". of course they didn't and he finally said to hell with it...who needs this. this man was the personification of the ideal P Net member. as for me...these guys indeed, need to put up or shut up. it's both a negative and a positive that in the art world alone can it be argued that everyone who has an opinion (anyone alive)is considered (by many) to be a valid critic... (not insinuating that you're one of those people Fred... it bears repeating that i consider your comments to be consistently among the most balanced,knowledgeable, and insightful of any person on site. you have my utmost respect my friend!)

[jgalyon]

hopefully you can read between all the typos and poor grammar...in a hurry as usual...

[Norma Desmond]

John, thanks. I know we generally agree. Just wanted to make sure you were considering what

I was saying above. Sounds like you had a different ax to grind.

[jimadams]

Originality, like aesthetics, can be a fairly nebulous term a lot of the time.

 

Using myself as an example, I'm basically a portrait photographer, although my subjects are usually partially or fully nude. I don't do a lot of tricky/moody lighting, and I often use similar poses. So a lot of my photographs aren't "original" looking, even to me. I use the word "poses" loosely because they're really not poses, for the most part...they're usually just positions the people choose themselves as I'm shooting. And except for the large format stuff, I shoot pretty fast.

 

The point is that even though the "pose" may not be original, the person in the photograph is. So rather than manipulate someone into some weird or trying-to-be-original pose, I prefer to let the uniqueness of the subject provide the originality.

 

Some people seem to be able to see that and take it into account when commenting on one of my photographs. Other people don't see it, probably never will, and rate accordingly. It's sort of the old "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing...and in my opinion (which is worth exactly what you pay for it), this applies to all genres of photography.