mharris Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 My recent picture got a 3 from someone, that's funny. It may be a 4 but it's certainly not a 3. http://www.photo.net/photo/6221813&size=lg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_durand Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Never take it personally. People give their opinions, only that. PN members all have different experience levels, tastes. come from all over the world, have different priorities and ideas about images. You will never please everyone and you shouldn't strive to. If you like your image that's all that matters. I don't put my images up for rating or comments mainly because I am happy with them and no one else has to like them. I know when I have a bad image and I know when I'm happy. You do to - maybe you should ask yourself what your motive is for putting images up for critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 22, 2007 Author Share Posted July 22, 2007 Thanks Jennifer, I don't really mind at all it just struck me as funny. Maybe the guy stubbed his toe that day and nothing looked good. I just put them up for others to see and for my family to see. They live pretty far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennifer_durand Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Some members may not have found the rating criteria, points 1-7 and the recommendations that go with it. I prefer to look at photographs and comment on the few that stand out for me. I look for images that are unconventional and maybe brave on a site like this where they may be misunderstood. I don't like rating - I did a bit and thought it was not really helpful for the person concerned. Saying that, you are a good photographer and most of your images on PN show that. I would give you 10/7 for your bunnies, ther'e so cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry297 Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 I agree with Jennifer, don't take it personally. I also don't like the rating system, I don't need validation from it. It always feels good to get praise from your peers, but it can go the other way as well. It really only matters if you like what your shooting, anyone else is a bonus. Keep shooting, don't get discouraged and self critique. By the way I thought it was a great shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 "My recent picture got a 3 from someone, that's funny. It may be a 4 but it's certainly not a 3" Maybe that person got stung by a bee recently. If you dont like the rating you can allways delete your photo and then post it again as 'critique only'. Me myself, I dont like to give people 2s or 3s unless the picture absolutely deserves it. Then I write an explanation why I gave it that rating. Otherwise I just ignore the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 22, 2007 Author Share Posted July 22, 2007 I agree Harry, I never rate low without a critique. Actually I think I leave a critique with every picture I rate. The words are more important than the numbers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 An alternate explanation is that the person who gave you a below-average rating has seen a hundred shots similar to this in the past, and they weren't impressed by yours. No anger (or other strong emotion) on their part; no personal vendetta against you--they just weren't impressed by your shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 "An alternate explanation is that the person who gave you a below-average rating has seen a hundred shots similar to this in the past, and they weren't impressed by yours." Then if they weren't impressed why bother looking at it in the first place ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 It was submitted for ratings. When you submit a photo for ratings and critiques, you're asking people to take a look at it, rate it, and comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketch_tbhotmail.com Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 "Then if they weren't impressed why bother looking at it in the first place ?" It was an anonymous rating so they would have had to look at it at least once. Don't take it personally, Michael. I have a feeling that some people give extremely low ratings to everything. A few cynics ruining the party for everyone. On the other hand, if there weren't low raters out there than every good photo would be great. Just my two cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 A 3 isn't unreasonable. It's completely unoriginal, the composition is boring, the main subject bee is badly lit and there are ugly burned-out highlights on the thistle. I've seen worse photos, I guess, but past a certain point it really doesn't matter much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mharris Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Now that's how you critique a photo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I think a lot of people just type 3 3 for quickness as they're scanning through photos. Only if something they are interested in (ie the genre appeals to them) do they bother to even think about it. In my opinion, it would be better if people only rated photos of a genre they are actually interested it. There should be an option for <not my cup of tea> that raters can click so that you then know what percentage of people your type of photo actually has some appeal for. As to your photo - well, it's <not my cup of tea>, but if I was using the rating system then I might say 1 for originality as it is certainly not original, but then a 5 for aesthetics as I actually think it is pleasing to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Michael, would you be complaining as much if your bee got a 7/7 ? I doubt it. The 6/6's seem generous too. You asked for a fairly random spread of people to assess it and you got a fairly random spread of answers. It is the wonderful PN rating system. You know what you are letting yourself in for when you sumbit for critique. For myself I see a technically well taken macro shot with a rather uneasy 50:50 split composition. The current A = 4.88, O=5.00 looks about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 The critiques that actually deal with subject, composition, and lighting have much more credibility than the ones who simply say they like it (or not). On that basis I would say that any rate on this image above 4/4 is a reflection of the lack of photographic abilities and experiences of the rater. This is not subjective as so many people like to claim. Mark Ci is right. Saying he isn't, without a similarly detailed explanation, has no credibility. That's what's wrong with the rating system. Too many active raters have not been trained to evaluate images and worse, don't see why it's necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 "For myself I see a technically well taken macro shot with a rather uneasy 50:50 split composition. The current A = 4.88, O=5.00 looks about right to me." I`m sorry - but I don`t think this is a technically well taken photo - the bee is too much out of focus and the burned-out highlights ruins it. As for ratings; I guess everyone have to deside for themselves how much worth/meaning you will put into them. But critiques are what makes you a better photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_needham Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I don't score photos on pnet, because it all seems sort of silly to me. A critique is useful, but a lone number is useless except for ego stroking/bashing. Personally, I agree with Mark Ci. I'm not mad, nor do I have anything against bees. I'm just not impressed, or moved in any way at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermargrete Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I meant to say that receiving critiques can turn you into a better photographer:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Michael, sometime some cropping and a bit of processing can help.... see attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Now that I look at it again from a sober vantagepoint and very objectively, I would say this photograph deserves better than a 3. This in comparison to other similar photos that have received a much higher rating. One thing I noticed and I don't know if its my monitor, but I see a slight green tint to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 What makes your "objective" assessment more valid (and more objective) than the assessments of people who think it's a below average shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 "What makes your "objective" assessment more valid (and more objective) than the assessments of people who think it's a below average shot?" Mike you remind me of my Photojournalism professor. This guy is a Photo Editor/Photographer for National Geographic magazine and is known for his blunt and brutal critiques. Personally, his sytle didn't bother me, but half the students in the class dropped-out, by the drop out date. To me it's very easy to look at a picture for a grand total of 2 seconds, look up the photogrpahers name, to make sure they are not a buddy of yours and then hit the #2 or #3 button. Whats difficult is being totally objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 That doesn't answer my questions. What makes your assessment more valid and more "objective" than someone who considers the photo below average? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 "That doesn't answer my questions. What makes your assessment more valid and more "objective" than someone who considers the photo below average?" Ratings: 1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=bellow average, 4=average, 5=good, 6=very good, 7=excellent Aesthetics= artistically beautiful or pleasing appearance Original= Unique I looked at a bunch of Macro photos to see how they were rated on this site compared to the one Michael Posted recently. I then read the Rating categories one more time(they are listed above) Then with my own judgement and experience, and with a clear mind not clouded by bias or pride, I decided that this picture is Average or a little bit above average but certainly not below average. How is this picture below average I ask ? The picture is focused, it is clear not allot of background noise. The colors are good, it is not crooked. Artistically I would not call it The Mona Lisa, but it is rather pleasing. As far as originality since this is a macro shot ,how original can it be ? You would have to give a rating of 2/3 to 85% of the Macro and Flower shots by way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now