What is the site philosophy here about critiques or the lack of critiques with low ratings. I call low ratings 4 and under...

[yannik_hay]

For example, I like to see nudes made in an artistic way or in an erotic way

but I see often bad nudes photos and vulgar nudes photos getting high rates and

I see very good nature photos, landscapes getting low rates.

I think that on this particular website it should'nt be possible to rate

without critiquing.

 

I joined this website because of what I saw of it first, great photos and great

photographers to be inspired from and to get better at what I do.

Now I am seeing more and more bad photos with good rates, no critiques and the

opposite too. As if friendship had to do something in the ratings and it

should'nt.

 

I am very disapointed as I thought this website was different then the other

websites and thought that is was frequented with only objective members.

But more and more I see photos being underated including mine, as if anyone

just wanted to put down others or as if they their ego is so high that other

photos are just poor work.

 

Should I post my photos for "critiques only" by checking the box, to avoid

getting ratings without any critiques?

 

What's the way of doing it here.

 

Regards.

[lex_jenkins]

You're a creative person and a talented photographer. Creativity demands sensitivity. Unfortunately, that sensitivity tends to make creative people defensive about their work.

 

A 4 on a scale of 7 is not necessarily an indicator of a low score. If 7 is the pinnacle of a photographer's achievement, very, very few photos should receive that score - only a few photos in the lifetime of the very best photographer could be considered "perfect." On such an absolute scale, a 4 is better than average. Considering the literal glut of photos online today, it's difficult to stand out from the crowd. If your photo received a 4, it's better than average and did manage to stand out from the crowd.

 

It's a matter of perspective.

[yannik_hay]

Thank you Lex for taking the time to reply, I apprecitate it.

If you look at the rating system here, 4 is average. And 5 is good. When you rate directly in a photo this is what is written.

 

What do you think I should do, ask for critiques only or let go the flow and be it?

How can I get better at what I do if people don't critique?

 

Take care, Yannik

[tonmestrom]

Lex is right on all counts. It's a matter of perspective and you're a talented photographer (just checked)

[lex_jenkins]

Critique systems are highly interactive. I rarely participate in critiques on photo.net simply because it's time consuming and while DSL has speeded up my web access, my PC is old and slow.

 

I'm a writer and occasionally upload poetry for critiques on Urbis. That system is entirely dependent on mutual feedback. It isn't necessary to leave good feedback to receive good feedback. But it is necessary to participate and critique the writing of others in order to view ones own critiques - otherwise they're locked. It's an interesting system with certain checks and balances that seem to work well. The reason I have relatively few critiques of my work is simply because I don't write enough critiques of the works of other writers. It's a very simple, direct and fair correlation.

[AJHingel]

Yannik, I will not advice others, but I have the same experience as you and have drawn the

conclusion not to participate in ratings. I don't give them and I don't ask for them. This is

one of the reasons why you will not find any of my recent photos among the "top photos"

and I will not be mentioned among the "top photographers". Another reason is of course

that I have only bad photos and I'm an impossible photographer - in case I asked for

ratings. The thing is that Photonet uses statistics on ratings as the only way of informing

on the best they have to offer. I have not got imagination enough to suggest a better

system neither.

 

So why am I still here ? Because PN provides, as you mention a great number of very good

photographers that do inspirer me and I have found many friends that indeed bother

giving me advice on how to improve my work. Other sites where many of us also are active

can sometimes offer the same, but the mere number of people passing by here makes it

especially attractive.

[cmitchell]

As one who does critique and rate now and then I'd say a 4 is not a low rating, it's an average rating. When I rate a photo I ask myself "could any decent photographer take that picture with a point and shoot?" The answer is very often, yes. I give that a 4, even if I like it, it's average. No outstanding lighting or composition, no outstanding feeling derived from viewing it. Just a nice, average, photo.

 

I give a 5 if I judge that someone gave it a bit of extra thought or skill in lighting, composition, unique perspective or subject matter. Sometime a nice post-processing treatment. It's above the average point and shoot of a bird or building...

 

I give a 6 if I think all of the above is really, really good. I see the talent of the photographer in many ways and I would hang it on my wall. This is an above average photo that clearly demonstrates both the skill and the eye of the photographer.

 

I give a 7 (not often) if I think it's, to me, a perfect photo. I don't think they could have done a thing to improve it. It's not only technically excellent but it just grabs me with it's beauty, uniqueness or mood. The photographer has captured the 'soul' of the subject, whether animate or inanimate.

 

Going in the other direction, I give the much hated 3 if the photo is either technically poor or just boring. I think photography is much more than snapping a picture, it's also a capture...of something. For example, a tacky nude posing like a porn star with no connection to the camera, even if technically average will get a 3 from me while a well lighted, well positioned nude with a story to tell will get a 6. A bird on a limb might get a 3 while a bird caught in flight with a fish in its mouth with every feather and color visible might get a 6 or 7.

 

Yes, it's a very subjective scoring method but there you have it. There is no other way when you ask someone for a rating or a critique. They are going to tell you what they think. I do get rather tired of reading "I got a 3 and I'm pissed, it must be a mistake, I'm such a good photographer." It's probably not a "mistake" it's just that someone didn't like your photo for a variety of reasons, some of which I stated here. I'm sure there are many more reasons someone would give a 3.

 

I think if someone gives you a 3 or lower maybe instead of complaining about it you should ask yourself why. If most of the ratings are higher than 3, take it that someone just doesn't like your style and they are the exception and not everyone is going to love your photos as much as you do. If most of the ratings are in the same range, take it that you need to work on something rather than being offended.

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Norma Desmond]

"How can I get better at what I do if people don't critique?"

 

Look at photography books, go to galleries, and critique yourself by comparison.

 

Challenge yourself by forcing yourself to go through your portfolio, picking 3 photographs of

yours, and writing about something disappointing about each of the three of them. Then

suggest how you would fix it.

[yannik_hay]

Hi Christine, I share your opinion: I don't post Point and shoot photos and all of my posted photos have had work in pp to make out the best of it.

 

But I see people puting a 3 as anonymous raters and they don't justify their rate. They should.

I don't have an unjustified ego but I know a good photo from a photo that need to be rated 3 or less and I don't post photos that are of 3 or less worth even though I receive these unjustified scores.

 

These people don't even open-up the image. My photos can be opened in large format.

 

Anyways, if someone don't like a photo it's different from thinking that it is mediocre if you see the effort someone has put in the composition and the pp work as you say. And people should be able to see such things in my photos.

 

Thx anyways.

[yannik_hay]

Thank you Anders for the advice. I guess this is the best way to go.

[jgalyon]

the number "7" keeps coming up in the context of "pefection". i'm too busy and lazy to find the PN primer on ratings, but to paraphrase, i believe that they suggest that a "7" be given to "excellent" photographs...as compared to other photographs submitted to this site. i don't think there are many absolutes in life...but i think that to say that a photograph can be deemed to be "perfect"...is absolutely silly. try to get two people to agree on what the definition of the perfect photograph would be...much less the entire photographic world community and see what happens.

 

when i first became aware that PN only allows a limited number of photographs posted ona any particular date to be assigned a "7" (still uncertain what that number is)...i raised what i believed to be a reasonable objection. if a photograph is worthy of being rated as "excellent"...why would i not being able to give it the rating it deserves? if we were talking Steiglitz, Steichen, Bourke-White, Strand, and AA posting photos...and me handing out 7/7s...and i come upon a Walker Evans shot...and i've given out my quota of 7/7s, do i give it a 6/6, or just not rate it? Bob Atkins was kind enough to explain that he agreed with me, and acknowledged that this was indeed a flaw in the system. But explained that the restriction is due to a long history of the system being abused, i.e., ridiculous numbers of mate-rating 7/7s. So...what could I say? I understood and accepted that the issue necessitated that some sort of restrictive measure be in place. i don't have any solution for this aspect of the problem with the rating system...perhaps someone does?

 

i give high marks to what i perceive to be excellent photographs...but totally reject the notion that i determine excellence...relative to other PN submissions. excellence is excellence. certainly not "gospel"...just my way of seeing things. i simply love to find good photographs and give a 7/7 when it is deserved. on that rare occassion when i receive a 7/7 i usually question if i truly deserve it, and find it a bit difficult to accept the recognition. on the other hand...in recognizing the excellence of someone elses' work...it's just pure gratification. it's like the joy of handing out Christmas presents. there is one circumstance that i can think of in which i actually "love" to give out a 3/3. and...it has occurred on more occassions than one might imagine. that is...when you offer offer a critique in which you point out what you see as a "deficiency" in the photograph, and someone fires off a salvo of insults, obviously never stopping to give an ounce of consideration as to the merit or value of your comment. once i get a clear understanding that the person is bound and determined to cram his work down my throat.... i LOVE rewarding arrogance with the appropriate numerical assignment.

[jgalyon]

Yannick...while i do believe that this is among the best sites of it's type, your disappointment with it not being "different" from other sites in regard to the rating issue...is that people will be people...no matter where you go...whether you're talking photography or auto mechanics. There will always be people who aren't concerned with educating themselves on the subject before judging it, people who simply have poor taste, and worst of all...people who are jealous, envious, and just plain mean spirited. People who for some twisted reason...take pleasure in robbing people of the respect and recognition they deserve. Fortunately, the vast number of PN members don't fall into this last category. One good thing about the underserved "3/3" ... is that we're all subject to them...so they don't really skew the numbers...unless you get the "stalker" who follows you from picture to picture. for those guys... i can live with the underserved marks if they can live with their conscience...assuming they have one.

[tonmestrom]

And that ladies and gentleman concludes this sermon. Mass has ended. Good one John. (I mean that)

[yannik_hay]

Hi John and thank you very much for this extensive reply and it helps me a lot on how to handle the ratings. Good philosophy.

 

As you say, people will always be people.

 

But here is a suggestion, would PN be a better place if we had to make a critique to be able to rate and thus to avoid abuse? Like rating too many 7 can be abusive, rating too low on good photos can be abusive too.

 

Maybe Bob Atkins could give it a thought.

 

Best regards.

Yannik.

[jgalyon]

i believe that this is, or at least has been under consideration. forgive me should i be wrong, but i believe that i've heard Josh Root discuss this a bit during the past 2-3 months.

[ifti]

Facts are there are photos posted on site that range from 1-7 they are not all above 4. Best example is your own rating history that?s on your page. <P>

 

Originality: 6-57-240-530-483-377- 18

Aesthetics: 6-58-249-482-458-439- 19

 

In your own evaluation all grades exists and are justified by you. What is 4 to you may look 5 to some and 3 to others as rating is based on perception and is not a mathematical calculation that every one adding correctly will come to same ?correct? answer.. The rating should simply be looked at as to how others perceive your post and not the quality of your work. (Things that sell well may not be quality at all). For that we need Critiques and I had a forum question about it earlier.

[tonybeach]

How would Ansel Adams work be rated in this forum? I personally consider 8x10 prints small, and anything smallish like that on a computer screen I consider a "thumbnail" -- YMMV. Too much is lost viewing tiny images on a computer screen. Sometimes this benefits an image by presenting its best attributes (ironically, the "big" picture aspect of the image, which would be what you think of a photograph when you see it from across the room), but obscures its fine details which may contain its most appealing attributes. Nudes look fine as thumbnails; landscapes suffer as thumbnails.

 

I do believe that for an image to really succeed for a wide audience, it needs to withstand scrutiny both from afar and up close. Web images really only address half of that equation. IMO, if you spend all your time trying to optimize your images to look good as thumbnails then that will distort how you approach and view photography. I don't bother much with what people think of my images, although I sometimes present them online to get a sense of the "big" picture (as in which images have more appeal and which ones might only appeal to me).

[seismiccwave]

Yannik,

 

What are there no critique associated with low ratings?

 

1) It is much easier to give praise then give criticism. Everybody loves praise.

2) Criticism generally need to be given diplomatically. Not every one is diplomatic. Some

people are simply blunt.

3) Criticism can lead to misunderstanding and bad feelings. If you look at some of the

criticism of an image either the photographer or another member will jump in and defend

the photograph. Why give criticism if you know the criticism will bring hard feelings.

4) There are not much good etiquette on the internet. Most people are generally rude. I

have known many individuals who are just the nicest person in real life turn rude on the

internet.

5) No credibility behind criticism. Many people giving criticism simply don't have the

credibility to understand what is a good photograph. Anyone can join this site and/or

other site and rate photos and type criticism.

6) After a while the member sounds mean when he/she kept on writing criticism even

though the criticism may be very well intended.

[jgalyon]

Anthony, what you said is so very true. to make things even worse...viewers have the option of using the "rate recent" feature(the "drive-by option, as i like to refer to it) which doesn't allow the larger version of the photo to be seen. of course, i think in most instances the viewers that use this feature couldn't care less. i've had photographs that are gorgeous when printed...but in the small Web version...most of what gives the photo value can't even be seen.

 

As for Ansel's work...you could probably post a 24 x 30 version of Moonrise-Hernandez and it would immediately get 3 or 4 "3/3"s. ;)

[jgalyon]

Christine...agree whole heartedly to your comment about asking "why" we get a 3/3 instead of automatically whining and complaining. On one hand people complain because they're so arrogant that they can't believe they're incapable of producing anything that is "below average"...and on the other hand, people who have a legitimate complaint due to idiots abusing the system. I have to say that what does piss me eternally is the fact that people are allowed to abuse their peers by handing out ratings under the cover of anonymity. In a year of being a member I've received only one 3/3 and one 4/4 that had a name attached to it. Granted there are exceptions, but generally speaking, something fishy is going on when you have a photo with 25 ratings and an average over 6/6...and then a lone 3/3 shows up. Give me all the 3/3s ya want... but have guts to say why. Don't hide behind your anonymity.

 

One last thought. Why not have the pictures posted without knowing the photographer's name...and have raters be required to disclose who they are? Or why not just make it so that no one's name would be disclosed? Wouldn't that go a long way toward eliminating the abuse?

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

You (and I) have received few 3/3 or 4/4 ratings with names attached because people are

afraid to rate truthfully and most limit their ratings to 6/6 or 7/7 and many hope to get

6/6 in return. In the scheme of things, you and I both know that we have photos in our

portfolios, relative to better photos in our portfolios, that deserve 3s and 4s.

 

I contend that ratings with names attached are as bogus as anonymous ratings. High

ratings are as bogus as low ratings. They tell you nothing about your work and everything

about a flawed system.

[jgalyon]

it's late as i'm reading this Fred...and trying to fully digest what you're saying. let me just ask you this. do you see any type of rating system as being of value? i truly don't know what i think on the subject anymore. i do know this. there are particular people who i have become acquainted with and consider to be friends...or if not friends, at the least...people whose integrity i believe i can count on - and when these people give a high...or low mark to one of my photos, i feel that there is value attached, that i can count on their ratings as something i can give credence to. all others...buyer beware.

[jgalyon]

Fred, I meant to say that I agree about people being afraid to rate truthfully. While I know it's true... it still remains very difficult for me to fathom. If the day ever comes that I'm "afraid" to give an honest rating...please, pull me aside and instruct me to "grow a set" ;)

[yannik_hay]

Hi Anthony, I think that Ansel Adams work and many other professional photographers would get lots of 3 and 4 here as there are too many people putting ratings without taking time to look carefully at the image and they don't try to see what the photographer meant in the message of the photo and they don't try to see the work and effort put into the photo. ;)

 

John, I totally agree with your suggestions: "Why not have the pictures posted without knowing the photographer's name...and have raters be required to disclose who they are? Or why not just make it so that no one's name would be disclosed?" This would be a good step in the right direction and this site would be different from the others.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

Yes, I think there are a variety of ratings formats that could be of value. One would be where

I choose about 50 photographers on the site who could anonymously rate me. Another would

be if a group of professionals whose work I am familiar with could rate me. I'm sure there are

other "closed" formats.