Let's get tough on Rating

[jonathanjkim]

I noticed that the current "Rating" system is not working. If a photo is out of

focus, it shouldn't be rated at average but at low "1". If the photo is missing

a main subject and quite meaningless, it shouldn't get average it should be

rated at "2". At least managed to get in focus. Average should mean that it is

at least in focus and subject matter is clearly presented.

 

This being a photo.net not flickr, come on, everybody should have slightly

higher standard. Let's trash what is trash so they know and learn what is trash.

=D I meant in a very constructive ways.. Just got tired of seeing snapshots for

rating.. jesus.. make the "trash" button.. hehe.

[jennifer_durand]

I appreciate what you are saying but you are we really to judge whether the photographer

purposefully made something soft focus. I haven't seen any trash on this site, just

photographers of varying levels of competence doing their best and looking to improve.

 

Perhaps you and Darius Tulbure have something in common. Why don't you start your own

website for -m-rt -ss photographers and make your own rules.

 

If you are a professional photographer join a closed professional site. If you are an amateur

photographer you are very full of yourself.

[alecee]

I was curious with your statement and after looking at your PN website I am dissapointed - it's like saying about yourself. Perhaps you have more to offer?

[jgalyon]

Jennifer said it before I had the chance to...and my thoughts include the word "smartass" as well. As Jennifer said...how do you know what is intended to be "out of focus" and what is not? who's to say that a photograph is "meaningless" if it doesn't have a "main subject"? You have a lot of "shoulds" in your comment. Did you have a revelation from the Almighty tonight in which you and you alone were made privy to all these "shoulds" ?

 

You say... "Let's get tough on ratings". "Let's (let US) get tough... implies you feel some connection to this community, yet the number of comments you've left on anyones photos can be counted on one hand. You've posted only four photos of your own. You say we should get tough on ratings, yet the average ratings you've given out are above 5.0...(the few you've actually rated). We aren't here to trash people's work...so it takes a bit of nerve to say that your comments are meant to be "very constructive". By the way...if you want to be constructive, the following comment you made on one of the 5 photos you've "critiqued"... "it's kinda embarassing and self-deprecating to be critical on a nice photo like this. i won't comment on a bad photo". So, if you want to be constructive and help people, why would you only comment on "good" photos and not offer meaningful critique on ones you deem to be "bad"? Doesn't make a lot of sense... does it. By the way... I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "self-deprecating", and if you did...I'm not sure you've ever actually be...self-deprecating.

 

If you want to solicit the help of others on your crusade to rid the sight of "trash"...I'd think a good first step would be to actually participate, get to know some people, attempt to make some friends before going on a campaign that is sure to make nothing but enemies of those unfortunate enough to hear your message.

 

Trust me...I've ran my mouth without thinking on occassion, and it takes time to win back the trust and respect of people who know you...much less those who don't.

[papasan]

no offence meant but maybe you should start by showing off how good YOU are before you start trashing others. I see you have only 4 photos on your gallery, and none of them in my view give you the right to be so self rightous about "trashing" other people's work. As Jennifer said, maybe you should get together with some other people here who feel the same way and start your own society/website/group whatever. Good luck

[jgalyon]

"site"...not sight. :)

[samcisa]

Just trash "them". It is free... (for you anyway).

[Norma Desmond]

I agree with both of you in questioning the OPs tone of voice and assumptions. Thanks for

voicing your opposition to calling less experienced photographers' works trash. I, too,

came here for help and have offered much help to others. I don't think of other photos as

trash. That having been said, I'd like to open up a discussion with at least the two of you

on something else you've said that comes up for me a lot. It's the idea of not knowing

whether someone else is purposely using out-of-focus technique to make an artistic

statement, so the OP should not have generalized. I agree with you to an extent. Certainly,

the OP should not have generalized. There are many beautiful photos that employ soft

focus and downright blurriness, grain too, toward esthetic ends. Many folks effectively use

various kinds of techniques to make their statements. But as a photographer and also as a

critiquer, I do spend some time trying to figure out if a person has left something out of

focus (or included grain) purposely or accidentally and perhaps even unknowlingly. Too

often, I find critiquers rationalizing away bad focusing and excessive graininess instead of

calling the photographer on it and suggesting that it doesn't work in a lot of cases. If I

look at someone's whole portfolio to get a context, I am usually successful in telling when

and how and why various techniques have been used and whether they are conscious or

missteps. Sometimes they are both conscious and, in my opinion, missteps. Usually, the

photographer in question appreciates my calling attention to these things and most often

I've been right when I've determined lack of focus to be an error rather than something

intentional. When you've got a picture of a young girl at graduation holding her diploma

and she's the clear subject and her face is out of focus but the tree next to her is good and

sharp, you can be pretty sure the focus is simply off. I've seen way too many comments on

grainy photos about how the grain is so great and enhancing because it makes the picture

look old. When I've questioned, in many cases, knowing what the answer would be, the

photographer says that he or she had a low light situation and probably overused shadow/

highlight in photoshop and that was where the grain came from and s/he didn't really

want it. I'm a firm believer that not everything is art or good photography. And there are

certain shoulds in certain situations that should be communicated to new photographers.

For instance, if you're doing a straight portrait of someone who simply wants to be

flattered and look their best, don't light them from one side and let the shadow of their

nose be cast down the side of their face. Sure, that rule can be broken and broken

effectively. But there have been many times where I've suggested following that rule to a

new photographer who wasn't even looking at shadows and was only aware of the smile

and eyes of his/her subject. I usually don't suggest it as following a rule, because rules

bug me, but as "it might be better if you," because I prefer people not to get the idea that

there are rules to adhere to strictly.

[saskphotog]

Any rating has no more meaning than "I like it" or "I don't like it." It's a popularity contest. Images that have "popular" elements of style, or content, or technique get good ratings. Unpopular styles get bad ratings.

 

We don't need to get tough on ratings, we need to take them all far less seriously. Too many people seem to connect the scores their images get with a measure of their own personal worth.

 

Lighten up.

[sandysocks]

Fortunately, many folks think exactly the opposite of you. I am one of those folks. I will agree with you on one thing though. The rating system is pretty obnoxious. That said, what it does do is provide a vehicle for sharing and exchange that is important to lots of people. I am put off by the competetive nature and the egotism, but I am currently rethinking my position on these issues.

[jonathanjkim]

I guess I touched some nerves on some folks. Again, question at hand is not worthiness of a photo but rating itself. Most of the rating seems to be clustered at around 4. It makes "average" meaningless.

 

I don't mind getting an 1 on my photo. I will know quite easily how people feel over it compared to let say a "4". How do I feel about 4 photo? 4 with current rating system really don't mean much. I have seen good photo with 4 and a lousy photo at 4. Very wide gap. I wasn't attacking anyone personally. I expect the same.

[jonathanjkim]

Alec Ee

 

My idea was not to show off. I don't have anything to show off. I was hoping to get honest rating, including that of my own. It helps me to know that some of my photo are worth a "trash". I still know that it is not a trash but knowing clearly what others thinks helps me.

[jonathanjkim]

Larry Cooper

 

Many of poster suggested that they don't comment on bad photo. I don't usually. It just doesn't feel right to give a 1 on someone's personal photo which is clearly out of focus and has no appeal but it must be someone they love. BUT Wouldn't it be better to be honest on Rating and rate them? Because folks just skipping the bad photo and not rate their honest opinion, we have fairly wide ranged 4 rating, nothing goes below 3. I agree with you on the point that people should not take rating seriously. People should take the rating on the merit of the photo, not the content. BUT it needs to be more honest.

[jonathanjkim]

John Galyon

 

Sorry for not being clear. I am not in a crusade to rid the site of trash. I just wanted to get a trash rating if my photo was trash so I know honestly how others feel. The rating system hid bad ratings and only 5+ rating reflected more of a honest rating. My apology if I was suggesting to rid the trash instead of rate them as one. I did say "Let's trash what is trash so they know and learn what is trash." I hoped that implied a learning opportunity with honest opinions. My wording was confrontational. I apologies for that.

[jonathanjkim]

http://www.photo.net/photo/6351010

 

Above is one of those photo. I was playing around with my f/1.8 50mm Oly MF on E-330. I just could not get a clear photo. It was too bright to see LCD well. And I must have missed some setting. I kept taking dark photo. 20-30 photos later all lousy photos and out of focus. But for some reason I decided I liked that photo. I wanted to know how you feel.

 

If I ask for critique, I will really like to get honest rating. If you feel it is a "1" because it is heavily underexposed and out of focus and no real subject or If you feel it is a trash because you honest feel that I had no clue what the hell I was doing (which is true). I will know. That will teach me something. But likely it will get 3-4 rating. Which is quite meaningless to me.

[jonathanjkim]

michel latendresse

 

I am sorry if I was trashing others. My comment should have been strictly on rating system.

[jonathanjkim]

Samir Begovic

 

I was hoping to get honest 1-7 rating. That is all. No other agenda. I realize I shouldn't have used the word "trash". It is such a fighting word.

[Charles_Webster]

Ratings are worthless, ignore them.

 

Give thoughtful, meaningful critiques of other photographer's work and you will be rewarded by receiving the same (if you are lucky).

 

This is a community, what goes around, comes around.

 

<Chas>

[dangoldman]

Let me say this. I have posted many photos that are sharp, descent colors, well composed (IMO) and gotten below average ratings. What did i learn from this? Well, from one thread i read, some people really, really hate certain subject matter.... What else... um... nothing!

 

If a photo is so poorly executed as you described in your post, do what really helps, leave a comment! Its not hard. It takes 1minute to say that "your photo is not exposed properly and is a little OOF" or "You have not given a clear subject and thus your photo is boring for this genre". Etc. Its not a big deal. I usually try and be courteous in the way i say it, but if you would go so far as to say a photo is as bad as it can be in a numerical sense, you should have no problem telling it to someone as bluntly as i presented earlier in this paragraph.

 

Please, leave comments for people. That is how you teach. Poor ratings dont communicate a single thing.

[beauh44]

What Larry said.

[mwaks]

I have found that when I post certain photo's for a rating, if they get view hits and little attention.......it's an overwhelming clue that the photo has no appeal.

I have since removed those photo's of course.

That may be better then getting booed off stage by a rainfall of 1's and 2's.

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

That is like saying the Abraham Zapruder home video is useless because it was grainy and out of focus. This is the most famous home video in the history of the world, how would you rate it? 0 for asthetics and 7 for originality? just curious. You can google for more info ...

[kelly_flanigan1]

In a commercial application; goals are abit more defined that the typical amatuer shot to impress folks. Thus in a commerical application;the freeback loop is closed around the client; who isn paying the bill. In an amateur rating system; there is no defined job; no defined goal; you cryn if Beavis and Butthead dont rate your fine art soccer shot, sunset image or cat photo as a masterpiece. IF the shot was to sell cat food; then the cat photos can be improved to sell more cat products. Imagine if firefighters and medical doctors got goosed inflated ratings so their feelings are not hurt. With a paid job their is a real client to please; not missing links and feelings. Ratings of amateur images are always going to vary alot; there is not goal

[rachelfoster]

I agree ratings are meaningless. I learn nothing from them.

[brandon.r.foster]

I agree with some of Mr. Kim's later posts. A 3/3 is bull, as much as a 7/7 is bull. I don't know who it was that had the ratings brainchild, but you sir are quite off your rocker, which might not be a bad thing. (Now how is that for non-offensive?) Everyone is a chicken. If it is a 3/3 ces't la vie. So someone doesn't like it. Deal. People are lazy, jealous, and blind. The idea that anyone could even honestly judge a photo on the net is ridiculous. Focus is subjective. Depth of field is subjective. Exposure is subjective. Color is REALLY subjective. Half of you are viewing on a Windows machine with a 2.2 gamma, and half of you are viewing on Mac to Other. My Mac is set at 1.8 gamma. End result is this. Images edited here, are 5%-10% darker on a Windows 2.2 gamma Machine. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars devoted each year to color perfection. I believe thusly:

At the end of the day, is your client willing to pay? If so, then you did your job. If not, then you might need to look to Burger King. When you come to PDN, leave your pride at the door. There is no room for that here. If it bothers you that you have not made "Photo of the Week" then look at all of those photos, and emulate the style. One day you will get there. I personally don't bother too much with Photoshop. I try to get it right in camera. The thing that you all have to realize is this: People rate as friends, people LIKE what doesn't look like reality. We are confronted with reality everyday. When we are looking at things for fun, we run from reality. I found a sampling of PDN's that wasn't even a photo. It was an illustration. I suggest this. A totally RANDOM sampling of the PAID members work. This way we all get our 15 minutes of fame. Of course as it is, a few Photoshop rockstars make me look good. So again que cerra cerra! My clients like seeing the sampling, and the like my work, so to hell with whatever anyone else thinks. PDN is on my business card.

 

Brandon Foster. http://www.photo.net/photos/brandon.r.foster I wear a 3/3 as a badge of honor.