Unsubscribe

[ma2hew]

I am tired of the jackasses who rate a picture 3/3 and don't have the balls to

comment. If they think they are so superior, maybe they could impart some of

their vast wisdom. I want to cancel my account. Who can tell me how to do

this?

[pmj]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NyOZ

[ken munn]

I note that your ratings form a pretty good bell curve, so you're not just getting threes.

 

As for the 'jackasses' I'm trying to do some critiquing lately, and there are lots of shots where

I know how I'd want to rate it, but I just don't identify with it enough to offer a constructive

critique. Having taken a quick scroll through your portfolio, many of your shots would come

into that category for me. Makes me a jackass, I guess.

 

I notice you've given rather less ratings than you've received. Is that fair?

[Brian]

Matthew, as far as I can tell, you're not a subscriber, so you can't unsubscribe. You could just stop visiting I guess, if you don't like the site.

[hjoseph7]

"I want to cancel my account."

 

We have all been there. We have all gotten the 3/3s. Just Post your pictures dont worry about the ratings and have a good time. If all you came here is to get a dog biscuit for your pictures then maybe you should unsubscibe.

[peter_daalder]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7037937"> Beginning to hate PN </a> for receiving 3/3 ratings is not the answer.<br> This site is much more than anonymous ratings... Have you ever tried submitting for <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?topic_id=1481&critique_p=1"> Critique Only?</a>

[petemillis]

Ken, re your comment about number of ratings - Matthew has received ratings on 97 photographs, yet has given ratings on 375 photographs. There's nothing wrong with that.

[lex_jenkins]

Since I'm one of those jackasses, I'll try to respond.

 

I see that one of your photos of a very cute baby got a 3/3 rating.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7037937

 

While I didn't rate that particular photo, that's exactly the rating I'd have given it. Here's why:

 

On the 1-7 scale, 4 is average. By photo.net standards, the bar for that "average" is a bit higher than for the entire population of people with cameras because not everyone with a camera considers themselves to be "a photographer." Their primary roles are something else and they happen to use a camera. By participating on photo.net you have taken on the role of "photographer."

 

Using that logic (entirely my own, of course, but probably shared by many), while a reasonably good snapshot of a cute baby might be considered "average" among the entire population of people who use cameras, by the standards of a "photographer" it is slightly below average.

 

Let's face it: babies, puppies, kitties and virtually all infant mammalia are cute. Especially to people. It's part of what powers our nurturing instinct. But while all children may be above average in Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, most photographs of said children are typically slightly below average according to artistic standards.

 

Photographing babies, puppies and kitties requires little creativity. I know. I've taken literally tens of thousands of the things. I seldom even need to get out of my chair to take a cute photo of infant mammalia.

 

Let's take an average photograph that is not of infant mammalia. Once you start taking photos of things not populated with our own kind, we begin to become "artists." How do I know this? Because whenever I take pictures of touristy things and don't pose someone in front of the building, statue, garden or kitschy whatnot, invariably someone who also happens to be holding a camera will approach me and exclaim "You must be a photographer! I wish I could do that!" So far I've resisted the temptation to say "If you would stop putting your husband, wife, child or other handy person in front of the thing you're photographing, you, too, could be an average photographer and begin making average photographs like me."

 

Average photographs require little effort to create. They are of found objects: Pretty sunsets, interesting buildings, majestic statues. You've seen 'em by the gazillions. See object, photograph same. That's why they are by definition average in terms of originality. Hence, those usually get a 4.

 

But you don't even need to leave the house to make a cute photograph of infant mammalia. Heck, half the time, I don't even get off my butt. Is it fair to rate my snapshots of babies, puppies and kitties on the same level in terms of originality as the photographer who braved the elements and went outside on a balmy day to photograph a beautiful sunset which, by the way, was provided by nature?

 

Pose that baby or catch it doing something unique and then we'll talk about a higher rating for originality.

 

Okay, let's talk aesthetics.

 

To me, the minimal requirements for an average (4) rating for aesthetics include being: in focus; properly exposed; appropriately composed. Pretty simple really. Deviate from those basic rules and there should be a clear, artistically valid reason that is also successfully executed.

 

Cuteness is not a factor in terms of photographic aesthetics.

 

While the photo I linked to is undeniably cute, it required no special effort, so it is slightly below average in terms of originality. And while it's well exposed it's not quite in sharp focus - the focus point appears to be on the toy in front of the baby's face, whereas the eyes should usually be in sharp focus. So it's slightly below average in terms of aesthetics.

 

You may have a personal investment in your photographic creations. Most of us do. You almost certainly have an emotional investment in your subjects, especially your own children and pets. So it may be difficult to accept that as much as you may cherish them, not everyone considers a good snapshot of a cute baby to be anything special. I've had three kids, two grandkids, dozens of nephews, nieces, young cousins and while every one of them is dear to me, I can't claim that the photos I've taken of them are meaningful to anyone outside the family.

 

Even my photo series of baby Stewie, my now-toddler nephew who was born with a serious heart defect and not expected to survive his first year, would probably rate only 3/3 from some photo.net raters. And that's fine. The fact that I spent literally months at the hospital, sometimes staying awake for days at a time to document every possible moment, does not necessarily scream "Originality!" to the average viewer. And it's unlikely that seeing the gaping chest and exposed heart of a baby would meet many viewers' definition of pleasing aesthetics.

 

And if this logic isn't good enough, look at it this way: If you quit, the anonymous raters win. I mean, if you view them as the enemy, as malicious cowards hiding behind the anonymity of the web, every mouse-click filled with venom, then don't give them the satisfaction of quitting. Laugh at them. Obviously they're idiots. You wouldn't tell your kid to quit school if he or she got bad grades, would you?

 

Oh, yeh, and the best advice I can give you? The same advice I give myself almost every day: Take better photographs.

 

Don't give up, Matthew.

[ken munn]

Pete, you're quite right and my apologies to Matthew. I confused ratings received with the

number of shots receiving ratings.

 

Makes me a bear of little brain. No surprise there, then!

[gordonjb]

This has been said over and over so forgive the redundancy. You have to grow a thicker skin.

 

Either that or only post shots for rating that your a fairly certain most people in a room would relate to favorably. I have become fairly accurate at predicting which shots I upload will get a lot of 3/3s. o Although occassionaly I forget how many cat lovers / dog haters are out there. To paraphrase a comment left on one of my images by another member 3/3 can signify that the image was not easy to digest( thanks Jeff ) and I think this is on the money. Considering the speed that images travel down the page, an image that requires a bit of time because the composition is not conventional or the DOF is deliberately shallow, in other word not a conventionally attractive image, will garner loads of 3/3s. If I upload a fairly well done landscape shot, the kind of photo with standard appeal, I will get much fewer low ratings. I do not believe this has anything to do with the ratings being Anon. or the rating system being broken. I am certain that if I gathered a random sample of people off the street and showed them some of my orchid flower photos and a few conventional landscape images, along with my motion experiments and my drive-by shots, the same thing which happens to them here at PN would happen to them under that circumstance. The less conventional as well as the weaker material would be less popular, the stronger as well as the more standard images would be more popular. If anything, at PN I would be more likely to be exposing my images to at least some number of fellow photographers who would appreciate a well executed experiment. Experience bears this out. My blurry drive-bys get plenty of 3/3s but they also garner some useful and well considered comments from the members of PN who do get what I was striving for. If I wanted to only get higher rating I would adjust what I chose to upload.

 

That being said I understand Mathew's sentiment. There are times when I post an image that I devoted some considerable time and thought to and five seconds later I am staring at several 3/3 ratings and it becomes hard to keep that thick skin.

 

Lex makes a lot of good points, my favourite being to take better photos. That to me is the entire point of running photos through the critique forum. You must be asking a random number of strangers to attach a number value to your photos for some reason. If you are concerned that you may not like the answer, then don't ask the question.

[nic bower]

Lex; You're a legend. Would make a nice intro of what PN should be all about.

[lex_jenkins]

"Lex; You're a legend."

 

Only in my mind, Nic. And in my perpendicular universe.

[Matt Laur]

Lex: you put the frankincense back in good, frank, common sense.

 

Matthew M: stick around, get used the atmosphere here. Provide, and focus on the critiques - it's far more rewarding, I can assure you. But that being said, I can assure you that Lex is correct about having one's own personal investment in the subject create some off-kilter expections about how it will be received. This is one of the most jaded audiences you can imagine. Rather than seeing that as a curse, see it as an invigorating challenge.

[marshall]

Matthew -

 

Ok, I'm a little stuck on that picture Lex commented so effectively on as well. The bottom line is that it's a cute picture, good expression, and relatively well lit, especially considering the on-camera flash. However, it's also blurry and there isn't that much to make it stand out. I'd probably put it right in the middle of the scale (if I still gave numbers to pictures here) as a picture that the parents and friends will love but isn't really of stand-out quality.

 

Two general points: yep, there is a lot of misuse and abuse of the rating system. It happens. Second, insulting the critic and assuming that a low rating comes from a feeling of superiority isn't a great reflection on the site, either.

[joshroot]

Lex, you rule. Well played sir.

[colin carron]

Do you want to take better pictures? One way to do that is to learn by participating in PN. There are other ways of course. Reading books then trying to put the wisdom from them into practise is another and does not need as thick a skin as PN.

[sfcole]

Matthew,

I'd like to make 2 observations from looking at your own pictures, and the ratings you

gave other people:

1. All of the pictures in your gallery that I saw with ratings (I didn't see every one) were in

the 4-5 range.

2. You've given hundreds of ratings, and, statistically, they should have formed a bell

curve with you giving 3 more than other ratings. However, the interesting thing is that the

top of the bell occurs in your ratings at 4-5. This possibly tells us: all the photos you rated

were actually above average, which I don't believe. Or, your standards are slightly lower.

 

I your dissatisfaction with ratings helps prove my theory: ratings inflation. I simply can't

believe how many photos I see that have been rated higher than a 3. The vast majority are

simply not very original or interesting or technically superior.

 

The main problem is your ego depends on the gratification at seeing high scores. Snap out

of it.

[KenPapai]

I love Lex's long winded explanation. RIGHT on.

 

He's more than generous than me though, as a 3/3 for the baby shot is closer to 2/2 (at best) in my book since it's not in focus and takes no effort, originality to concoct. The only savior from a '1' for originality is the nice, tight framing which most beginners cannot pull off.

[silverdae]

And men say women are emotional...

[Matt Laur]

No, no, Jen. Men just say women are emotional about different <i>things</i>, see? We say that women are emotional about what <i>other people think</i>... oh, wait. Never mind! Carry on.

[seismiccwave]

Wow Lex! I actually read through your entire explanation and loved every word of it.

 

Matthew, I am also one of those jackasses. It is not easy to sit in front of a computer

screen to flip through images after images that looked like they came out of some one's

point and shoot at a babies' party.

 

There are two kinds of above average photographs in my opinion. The one that requires

the photographer to "envision" the photograph ahead of time and create the photograph

to duplicate his/her vision. Second one will be when the photographer was at the right

place at the right time and capture an image so unique that the probability of that image

happening again is very slim.

[tommyyearginjr]

I agree with Lex: don't give up!

 

Tommy

[timzeipekis]

Lets start a 3/3 gang, I'll be the OG Triple Triple Mack, we'll randomly victimize innocent civilians by telling them they suck and then run off without explanation, subjecting them to the endless anguish of trying to figure out why they suck.

[petemillis]

I want to start a 1/1 gang, but I'll be filtered out. So then I thought I could start a 7/7 gang to make people think they were good when really they suck, but then I can only do it to same person once every two weeks!

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Mammalia...mmh...nice name for a kid.