bobbuck19 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 When rating I have a little difficulty with this, as I understand it an original way of looking at, or composing a subject, something I haven't seen before. So then a wonderful photo, of a bueatiful subject could have a low originality rating, but if the intent is to show the bueaty and detials of a subject an original composition in many cases could detract from that intent, where something original may be more "artsy" a more conventional composition would more truly show the bueaty of the subject. when rating,aphoto may blow me away, but not be original, and I find it hard to give a 6 or 7 aesthetically but only a 3 or 4 originality. so far I have'nt rated a lot of photos, mainly inexperience, but also this question kind of stymies me sometimes so I end up not rating the photo. Anybody else have a problem with this or am I just rambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkelton Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I do the same thing. I sometimes give a six for originality if something really catches my eye because it may be technically better. Not because it is truely original, but because I would hate to give a 7 for aesthetics and a 3 for originality. One time, I gave a 7 for originality. I had seen several similar "photos" that day that were nothing more than "photoshop art." The photo I rated was just that, a straight photo (with the usual color/contrast adjustment). In these strange times, that in itself made the photo original...It was actually a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrygilroy Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I also have the same problem but maybe it's because at 67 not much is original apart from some PS concoctions (I'm not knocking these as some are very imaginative and excellent). I rarely rate now prefering to leave individual comments on photos that catch my eye. Usually praising them but offering my point of view and advice if possible. No matter how good a photo of a bird on a twig is how can you rate for originality when you've seen hundreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I feel perfectly comfortable giving a low/average rating for originality and a high for aesthetics, or a high rating for originality and a low/average for aesthetics if that is how I see the picture. It would really be helpful if everybody would rate imagaes properly. Too many raters seem to think that originality and aesthetics are somehow tied together - this is another example of what makes the rating system fall down - people who are incapable of seeing originality and aesthetics as two separate things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandysocks Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 More people are using photoshop than 600mm lenses, so the bird on a branch is more original. A good rule of thumb is "ugly photos are original and pretty ones are not". Part of the problem is that nobody agrees on what originality is. Originallity ratings have no use and as far as I can tell, are not relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemillis Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Mr Potts - but then perhaps aesthetics ratings have no use either - as far as I can tell these are not relevant as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the rating system should disappear altogether.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I agree Pete. I have no issue giving a low mark for one, high for the other...whatever the photo deserves. I've always felt their needs to be a category for "intangibles". Whatever you might call such a category. There are so many photographs that have a quality that although you can't put your finger on anything specific that make it a good photograph...it just is. I find the two category system far too limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 "there" needs to be that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ananda1 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 "ugly photos are original and pretty ones are not". I don't think so. Originality according to me is that, a photo is not altered too much (other than acceptable tools in PS for improving quality) which is completely different from the original shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Ananda-- Which tools are the acceptable ones? We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnital Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Pete "Maybe the rating system should disappear altogether...." I agree with you, I stopped rating as I dont see it as a good index, and I prefer commenting. I think that words are a better evaluation method( if well observed and written) of a photo than numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbuck19 Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 thanks for the responses, it seems originality depends on the person doing the rating, i hadn't thought about it the way mr potts suggested before. which is more important an original subject, or an orignal composition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugenjury Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I have no problem distinguishing between originality and aesthetics. The two are not linked in any way in my personal opinion. When discussing photography, every aspect of it is in the eyes of the beholder. A rating system is not useless in this as it gives the photographer an idea of the overall effect their image has on the average person. I often leave comments describing what I particularly liked or disliked about the photo as well as give a rating. If someone posts a photo here asking for critique and get an overall rating of 6.4/6.5, with 50 or so people rating it, there is a good chance it would win a contest if entered. However, if the overall rating is 4.0/4.0 or less, I wouldn't even enter it. I would actually like to see more categories within the ratings. Composition, subject matter, and technical skill are 3 that come to mind for separate categories. There have been a few where I thought the subject matter was wonderful, but the composition could have been done better and aesthetics were average. It doesn't help the photographer to get an average rating for aesthetics in this case if (s)he wouldn't know how to improve it. I try to get through as many photos as I can each day to give as much feedback as possible to others, so writing comments for every photo is too time consuming. I have to limit comments to photos that really stand out either positively or negatively. This means the average photographer is more or less left out as far as getting any constructive feedback from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ananda1 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Fred Goldsmith Acceptable tools (according to me) are brightness/contrast, improving sharpness, these three are acceptable by all, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Ananda-- Good thing Ansel Adams didn't play by your rules. The magnificent book of Adams that I have called Yosemite and The Range of Light would not exist if he had. Ahh, well, to each his own. Luckily, few if any good artists ever enhanced their powers of creativity by limiting themselves to others' acceptable tools. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ananda1 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Fred yes, different from person to person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iron shore gallery Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I think the "aesthetics" and "originality" categories are confusing too. When I first came here I looked at many photographs in the "rate photos" forum, and gave out some twos and threes. I don't do that any longer. If the photograph is beautiful, then it is a 6 or 7. If I think that the composition, or lighting, or focus, could have been a little better then it is a 6. If all that looks good to me, then it is a 7. I don't open or grade photographs that aren't beautiful to my eye. It turns out that we all think our photographs are beautiful, and 6's or 7's. 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