Ratings system part ?

[tjwister]

I know this has already been discussed Ad nauseam, but...why or how is there

such a variety of ratings?

 

I posted a photo for critique, and received ratings of both 3/3 and 7/7 as well

as a few in between. The 7/7 was nice but I know that I am not that good. Is it

possible to post a photo and get good/neutral feedback. I request critiques so

better, more experienced eyes can tell me how a photo compares so I can get

better...

 

So the ultimate question is, are the PN critique a valid place to get feedback

or just a good place to stoke a photographers(I use the term loosely in my

case)ego?

[joshroot]

<i>"why or how is there such a variety of ratings?"</i>

<p>

Would you be surprised if you asked 50 people what their favorite food was and got a large variety of answers? I seriously doubt you would. Photos are no different.

<p>

Some people like one thing, some like another.

[tjwister]

So if I ask someone what their favorite food and they say Kraft mac and Cheese does that mean that Kraft Mac and Cheese is fine cuisine? Preference is different from recognition of skill.

[bobatkins]

Batter the photographer's ego seems closer to the actual fact.

 

It's a complete delusion to think that you can objectively "rate" art. The phrase "IT'S NOT A COMPETITION" should be displayed on every gallery page.

 

Why do people buy paintings of Elvis on velvet?

 

There is no such thing as neutral feedback. Everyone has their own subjective point of view.

 

I'm starting to think the kindest thing to do would be to abolish the ratings entirely in order to put those who suffer from them out of their misery...

 

The image below is from Jacob Holdt, one of the finalists for the 2008 Deutsche Börse Photography Prize and is one of the images in the portfolio under consideration. What would it get as a photo.net rating?<div></div>

[bobatkins]

"So if I ask someone what their favorite food and they say Kraft mac and Cheese does that mean that Kraft Mac and Cheese is fine cuisine".

 

No, it means that they like Mac and Cheese. That's what the photo.net rating are - what people like. Nothing more than a popularity contest. They really don't pretend to be anything more than that. The Photo.net gallery isn't the Michelin guide to photography. It's more like "American Idol". It's fun and it's what a lot of people like.

 

Asking for comments on how to make your photos better might well be like asking how to turn Kraft Mac and Cheese into fine cuisine, especially if your images are at the Kraft Mac and Cheese level. There's really not much you can say other than "try cooking something else" or "buy a cookbook".

[tjwister]

So there is no real point asking for critiques other than an ego boost? Using the Mac and Cheese example, you could comment that using fresh pasta, a good roux, seasoning and a blend of good cheeses would make a better Mac dish than from the box. Those are easy, ligitamate coments. The same with the pictures comments as simple as: your DOF is poor, the lighting is off, the subject is boring, follow the rule of thirds, etc. and what can be done to change it.

[._._z]

Critiques are difference from ratings. Critiques help you, ratings help the site (to show popular photos to visitors).

[tjwister]

So why is it when I submit a photo to the Critique section, I only get ratings? I want to get better and hope for, if needed, brutal constructive critisism.

[joshroot]

<i>"Critiques help you, ratings help the site (to show popular photos to visitors)."</i>

<p>

Despite what was said in the past, ratings do not help the site all that much. Sure, they give us an easy way to pick out quality photos for display in various places. But that could be done without the waste of resources and time that the ratings system causes.

<p>

The ratings currently exist because people love the idea of getting to the top of a pile. If "the site" was the only one that cared about ratings, I would remove them completely without a second thought.

[bobatkins]

Because people have nothing to say about your images. They're not interesting enough to provoke comments. There are thousands upon thousands of images here. They won't all get comments and most of the comments will be along the lines of "I like it" or "I don't like it".

 

It's possible to get constructive comments, but it's not easy. You have a lot of competition. A comment such as "take more interesting pictures" may well be valid, but I'm not quite sure how much use it is.

 

The problem with most pictures here is that they are boring. Too many people think that an image interesting the them must be interesting to everyone else. Doesn't matter if it was a nice day, you were happy, the image reminds of of something etc. The viewer doesn't feel any of those things. To them it's just another ordinary picture. It's not really possible to tell someone how to take a less boring picture other than "find another picture and shoot it in a more original way under more interesting light".

 

If you submit images that even you don't think are stunning, then you may not find a whole lot of interest in them. Your only hope then is to offer critiques on other's images and hope that they return the favor. Remember that you are 1 in 10,000 looking for critiques. Give and you may get. Don't give and you'd better be posting really interesting images if you want attention.

 

Asking for help improving your images here is a bit like posting an mp3 of you banging away on a piano and asking for comments on how you can improve your playing. Study, practice, look at other images you like and try to analyze why you like them. Read books, take an art class or a photography class and get 1 on 1 instruction from a teacher. Nobody is going to come up with a magic formula that will transform your work but you.

[tjwister]

Thank you Bob for a honest answer. So then the answer is the ratings are essentially worthless and good luck getting a critique unless your photo is most likly good enough that you don't need a critique other than a pat on the back.

[bobatkins]

There's a grain of truth in that. However I don't think anyone here would disagree with the fact that the images which get the highest average ratings are generally agreed to be "better" than those which get the lowest average rating.

 

The averages are meaningful once you get more than a few ratings. Individual ratings carry little meaning, but if you get enough of them they do. It's just statistics. Ask 2 random people on the street to rate the President's performance on a scale of 1 to 10 and you are very likely to get a different average answer than if you ask 3000 people. The result of the 2 person survey is pretty meaningless, the result of the 3000 person survey isn't.

 

Critiques can sometimes be useful, but on average they probably won't be. It's a fair bet that most people offering critiques won't know much more than you do. They know if they like the image or not, they may guess at what they might have done differently, but I'd bet few have enough knowledge and experience in teaching photography to give you specific useful pointers for future work. The few that do have such skills must divide their efforts among many, many photographers and many, many images, so the odds that any one of your images will benefit from their comments is small (but not zero).

 

You may get as much benefit from reading critiques of other images as you would from reading critiques of your own. At least there you will be a dispassionate observer, with no emotional ties to the images and no emotional reaction to the comments.

[tjwister]

So my best bet not to expect a lot of input from others and just keep on keeping on.

[joshroot]

<i>"So my best bet not to expect a lot of input from others and just keep on keeping on.."</i>

<p>

Or, you can do what tens of thousands of photographers have done for decades. Find someone who is better than you are at the photography you wish to learn and approach them for critique and advice. Repeat this until you have a small group of good photographers who are willing to help you out.

<p>

But be prepared to take honest critique. More than anything, the lack of useful feedback on photo.net is a result of inflated egos and user's inability to have someone tell them exactly why their image really isn't that good.

[bobatkins]

Absolutely. As I said before, give and you may get. Rate and critique the images of others. Take any ratings you get as individual data points with not a lot of significance. However if you get mostly 5s and 6s on one image and mostly 3s and 4s on another, then you know the first image is appreciated by more people and so could be objectively considered to be "better" in a populist sense.

 

You might want to read this article - http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/03/18/top-10-most-annoying-photo-critique-comments/

 

After that you might be less concerned about not getting critiques.

 

Remember also that critiques here are free. If you really, really, really want critiques, you can get 8 images critiqued for $80 at this site - http://www.betterphoto.com/pro-photo-critiques.asp. I've no idea if the critiques are worth $10 each, but at that price I'd be more than glad to critique anyone's images myself! There are other sites out there offering 250 word critiques for $6. Not sure if they're any better or worse than the $10 critiques though. Maybe I should do it for $5....

[tjwister]

I'll see what I can do. Thank you for the feedback.

[Norma Desmond]

Trevor--

 

I notice you haven't been very active yourself. That might be part of the reason you're not

getting any or many critiques. Go around the site and find some photographers who work

you like. Write comments on their photos' pages telling them why you like their work. Talk

some about what you are trying to do with photography and ask some questions. PN is a site

in which you may get out what you put in. Good luck!

[tjwister]

You are right, I have posted very little but only because I feel that I have little to contribute. For example, with the photo that Bob used above, I say it and my first impression was it was poorly exposed, washed out image. What do I know? Or is photography like most other art forms were a "artist" throws some actual crap at a canvas and all the other "artists" "ohh and ahh".

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

Despite what was said in the past, ratings do not help the site all that much....The ratings currently exist because people love the idea of getting to the top of a pile. If "the site" was the only one that cared about ratings, I would remove them completely without a second thought.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Simple fix: Change the critique option to be 'critique+rating' as the default, but add (via check-boxes checked by default) the ability to deselect comments or ratings.

[tjwister]

That being an extreme example, but the same idea. Lots of people say the they love Edward Weston's work, but what if I think his pepper series are really dumb(for the record I think they are great). I am right because I have an opinion or does the greater photo community opinion override mine. If I offered a comment about my dislike, even with legitimate reasoning, most people would immediately discount me.

[tholte]

"So my best bet not to expect a lot of input from others and just keep on keeping on." No, your best bet is to get off your butt and do the following: go to museums and galleries and study good photos, take some photo classes at local colleges, go to the library and check out photo books, read your camera manual and master your camera, go out and take some photos, go to photo seminars and workshops etc., etc. Do not think you will improve by getting critiques and ratings here or on any other photo site. Be active (make things happen) not passive (relying on others) and you have a chance of improving your photographic skills so you can present good work that the viewers will appreciate.

[tjwister]

Tim, I appreciate your response. When I have taken photo classes, it is usually with people who are at the same skill level, so they don't know anymore about the skills than I do, and the instructor has to share time between the whole class. However, just because I have some spare time at work spend on PN doesn't mean I am being passive. Don't assume this is my only method for learning.

 

I think that Josh most likely had the best advise, to seek out mentors to help develop my skills.

[bobatkins]

"... what if I think his pepper series are really dumb (for the record I think they are great). I am right because I have an opinion or does the greater photo community opinion override mine..."

 

Of course you are right. There's no objective standard of art, other than the collective standard that's agreed on by critics and that's often something that changes.

 

Here's a quote from an obituary for John Szarkowski who was the curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art"

 

"...Another exhibition Mr. Szarkowski organized at the Modern, in 1976, introduced the work of William Eggleston, whose saturated color photographs of cars, signs and individuals ran counter to the black-and-white orthodoxy of fine-art photography at the time. The show, ?William Eggleston?s Guide,? was widely considered the worst of the year in photography.

 

?Mr. Szarkowski throws all caution to the winds and speaks of Mr. Eggleston?s pictures as ?perfect,? ? Hilton Kramer wrote in The Times. ?Perfect? Perfectly banal, perhaps. Perfectly boring, certainly.? Mr. Eggleston would come to be considered a pioneer of color photography."

 

Even critics change their mind.

 

Once again there's no objective standard for art.

[aepelbacher]

I have found that it has taken a lot of time and energy on my part consistently over the past five years to build relationships with other PN photographers who will give me honest critiques on my photos ... they know me, know my work, and have seen the progression of the quality (or lack thereof) of my images over the past five years. And I reciprocate...