Am I qualified to rate a professional? My personal reaction to ratings.

[short1]

The rating system, while valid as designed, stll bugs the crap out of me -and others, who are placing caveats on their

postings to the effect: If you down-rate me, tell me why. Unfortunately, I don't think those messages make it to the

queue. Also, since I believe ( and maybe I'm a naif ) that most members are well intended, there isn't a great deal of

arbitrary rating...a low rating means the image was uncongenial to them...or, more bluntly, they thought it sucked.

And I've indeed received subtle clues to that effect, for example, comments such as:

" This sucks", "WTF", and so on. I appreciate the honesty, though it hardly bolsters my courage when posting in the

company of professionals. In fact, the well's sort of run dry at the moment, and everything I post kind of sucks...even

in my opinion.

 

To get around the system...not because it's bad, but because I honestly don't have the qualifications to fully

appreciate the nuances of fine photography...I'm just not qualified to judge a given posting, without formal training in

the field (stating that I just don't like something isn't exactly a considered and informed opinion )...I choose the

photos I admire the most ( on any given day ), and rank them 7/7. I leave a comment stating what I like about the

work, and , basically, what I've learned from it. That negates the rating system, and the potential to poorly rate what

is in fact a good photo ( thus discouraging and underming the efforts of other amateurs or aggravating professionals ),

and just stick to the obviously high-grade stuff by elite photographers...which, by comparison, really are worthy of

7's. So, I only rate four photos daily, but always leave a comment. The rating system is neautralized, and I'm forced

to leave a "critique" to explain my take on the photo. Honestly ( and I'm sure this will raise a howl- if anyone reads

this ), I think that the majority of members are in the same boat....without formal fine arts and photography training,

they are like lawyers rating a surgeon's proficiency. I may be wrong ( it's been known to happen ), but I think

humility, and the viewers level of competance, rather than pure, idiosyncratic aesthetics should be factored into an

evaluation of anothers image before one hits that deadly "3" key. If the viewer is a rank amateur ( hello), they are

actually rating themselves as such by down-grading good work. If the viewer reads the bio of the posting

photographer before rating, they'll know if they are out-classed ( if one will permit such an elitist notion), and thus not

really qualified to rate the image from a technical perspective...and are only responding to what they think is nice,

cool, pretty or whatever. No thought might be given to the difficulty of achieving such a narrow depth of field in a

portrait, or shooting in bright ambient light, or the subltlties of accurately capturing the feel of "antique" or period

pieces. You get the drift . So...for me, humility is the order of the day, and if I don't "get" an unusual technique

( some of the stuff alluded to in the forums has me running to books looking up the nomenclature ) or think

something is just down-right ugly...but it's the product of an elite photgrapher...I pass it by. Where I do have

experience and training - in fine art - and can appreciate certain tricks the photgrapher used - cross-overs from the

arts - and I think he or she has done a wonderful job...then I'll "rate" ("7"'s ), and leave a comment, which is more of

an inquiry as to "how did you do that? Did you....?"...and so on. Works for me, and I think it's the honest and

balanced approach : I'm simply not a professional, and what I think is good or bad may not be... and likely is not...

accurate. I ask myself, would anyone recruit me to judge a photo exibition? ( Hint: No way ). Do I have the

credentials? So, I depend heavily on the photograper's status ...if they are clearly professionals, they know a hell of

a lot more than I do about the quality of the image they post. I presume these bios are here for more than a "Spaces"

or "YouTube" opportunity to blow your own horn or pick up the gender of one's choice.

 

For the record, my status: Confused amateur, but honest about my ignorance.

(NB: Most times, it seems, "self taught" is eqivalent to "untrained, hit or miss" photographer. I thought I was a pretty

good "self-taught" artist...until I learned what I didn't know about art. I suppose a number of elite photographer's are

self-taught - or even "naturals", coming out of the gate in a burst of glory - but pursued the profession with a passion,

studying the works of the greats, reading, experimenting until they emerged as a fully realized professionals. I think

that must be the exception rather than the rule. Photography is highly demanding technically, and demands an

artist's eye as well - a very difficult, and for the amateur, arcane field).

 

All of the above is my own particular opinion, speculation, BS...whatever...and I'm not advocating my approach to

rating photos. I just feel better not slamming someone when my own skills need so much improvement., and I

wonder if anyone feels the same way. I don't intend for this to open a debate about the virtues of the rating

system...we've bitched enough, I think everyone's gotten the point...and this isn't about one's own ratings, but those

given to others. Rather, I wanted to raise the question in the collective membership's judgment of whether they

should develop their own ethics regarding rating, and a personal strategy based on their own level of skill...or if the

members ( legitamitely) believe that they represent a better than average informed "public", entitled to evaluate the

more advanced individual based on aesthetic , technical, or stylistic preference alone - a sort of, " I may not be able

to define great art, but I know it when I see it" mind set. That's a real world scenario, and what drives photography

commercially. My perspective is more on the academic side...how I can best do the right thing for the other

photographer and my own development.

 

And yeah, I know, this is a doctoral thesis. Too long, verbose, loquacious...okay, I know.

 

Best,

 

Craig

[short1]

Unger, you're an idiot...Of course anyone can rate any image on this site. What do we pay dues for...to learn etiquette ? A professional status doesn't gaurentee good work, and an up and coming young amateur may have a better artist's eye and familiarity with technology than a seasoned "professional", who is simply doing a passionless job taking wedding photos, and occasionally posting on PN. Who are you, the arbiter of "ratings ethics", you low-grade moron, you friggin' epsilon minus. Get a life...and lose your camera. Your opinions and photos get a solid 1/1 from me. You really do suck.

 

All the best for an auspicious experience in photography,

 

Wamest regards,

C. Unger.

 

( Just thought I'd get the first shot in)

[bobcossar]

Relax Craig. I've been a working pro for over 40 years...I have taught photography from High School through University.....But , that said, it is generally impossible to know what the intention of the artist was when they created the image I may be looking at. So, it becomes VERY difficult to offer any art critique in depth since all I know is how I personally perceive the image.

Technical matters are even worse in most cases of critiques........Honestly? I'd say that 75-85%

of techie remarks display a considerable abundance of ignorance on the part of the poster. Sad, but true.

Advice? Rate your own work before you ask anyone else to do so. If you do read a crit that touches you, one way or the other, then go look at that persons images with the idea of discovering if YOU feel his/her work is such that you need to take the critique to heart.

Regards...Bob

[joshroot]

There is nothing wrong with rating/critiquing people who are "better" than you. After all, if photographers only made images for other photographers, very few people would be looking at those images.

 

As a professional, I want to know what everyone thinks of my images. After all, I'm a better photographer than my clients/editors/art-directors, but they are the ones who write the checks. Tell me what you like, tell me how it makes you feel, tell me what you might have wanted to see differently. A critique doesn't have to be a technical "how-to" lesson, and in fact it usually isn't.

 

Anyone who cannot listen to that sort of "This is how I feel" critique and reacts with a "what do you know, your photos suck" is an idiot who should be removed from the site.

[JDMvW]

In Marxism (the real thing, not what some are talking about in our current politics in the US of A), Craig, your

approach is called an "auto-critique" or sometimes "constructive self-criticism". Its major benefit, so far as I

can see as an academic, is that it allows Marxist scholars to get two publications out of the same topic. ;)

 

I confess I only participate in the ratings system here rarely and only for something that seems really

extraordinary to ME.

 

Depending on your viewpoint it is astonishing how many of the pictures posted here are really very good, of course.

 

Or on the other hand, how very much the same, if you are a pessimist. For some much photographed objects (say the

Eiffel Tower), it's pretty hard to come up with something entirely new. But "newness", as such, is not the only

criterion of quality, and is actually much overrated in our modern world. It's perhaps a little like the practice

of bonsai and the practice of monocrop agriculture.

[mark_chartrand]

Craig,

 

I have to agree with many of your points, but I do think a lawyer's rating of a surgeon's proficiency is not too difficult to

justify if the patient dies. Or in this case the photograph "sucks". What you are doing by giving a 7/7 to a photograph that

you think deserves it and then giving your reasons why is exactly what you should do. You should also give a low score to a

photograph you don't like and give your reasons why you don't like it. Your reasons are personal and as valid as anyone elses.

 

I think most people would agree that there are no set rules in photography or art that must be followed and cannot be broken.

There are many great works of art that have broken what are considered compositional "rules". I happen to think that good or bad ratings are

only worthwhile if a reason is given for the rating. You may not know what the photographer could have done to make the photograph more

pleasing to you, but you very well might know why you feel it "sucks".

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. At least we know you care!

 

Mark

[tonmestrom]

"...since all I know is how I personally perceive the image"

 

Key sentence for me. People don't pay you because they like you or are able to write an essay about your work. They pay you because you did a job for them and they like (hopefully) what you did. It's as simple as that.

 

"Tell me what you like, tell me how it makes you feel, tell me what you might have wanted to see differently" This sums it up rather nicely as well.

 

Photographers are amongst the worst critiquers because they have forgotten the basics and revert to technicalities if they critique at all.

[sarah_fox]

Whoa, Craig! With all due respect, you're getting too wrapped up in what others think.

 

FAIW, I don't submit any of my photographs for ratings/comments. I don't have any of them posted on my profile. (BTW, your profile gives TOO MUCH personal info -- e.g. birthdate. Identity theft potential, and such.) When others comment positively on the photos on my website, I thank them. However, I don't expect others to comment meaningfully. I see how photos by others are rated, and I think it's all meaningless. For instance, take a mediocre photo of a sunset, and hike up the saturation. You'll get comments like, "Oooooh! Great capture. Stunning photograph! Bravo! Wonderful moment. What vibrant colors." Yada, yada. What use is that? Do you really want empty praise? I doubt you'd get an opinion you could trust as sincere from anyone besides a critic or a professor.

 

And yes, you are absolutely qualified to judge art as someone who is not formally trained. Art is personal, and nobody should presume to tell you how you should perceive it. And as an artist, you are certainly the best qualified to judge your own work. If you want opinions about some aspect of a photo, ask a specific question -- for instance, "Is this cropping too tight?" Then you'll get no shortage of honest opinions.

[short1]

Thank you all for a very level headed and considered discussion of this subject. I suppose I'm reluctant to offer even constructive criticism ( and an appropriate rating ) simply because I feel technically inferior to so many excellent photgrapher's on the site - who am I to criticize, lacking a solid foundation in photography ( though I was firing away during the dark ages of photography - "auto-nothing", lower quality film, no manipulation other than what one could do in a dark-room; and I know most of the fundamental technology of a lens and camera... but things have changed so radically since I've resumed, in retirement, this avocation, that I simply feel out-classed, a Neanderthal in a world of Homo Sapiens)? Bob, Josh, Herr Prof. von Weinberg, Mark, Ton - as all of you are professionals and elite photographers, I very much appreciate your encouragement to comment freely, and rate accordingly. Yet, until I become more accomplished ( as , paradoxically, measured by consistently  better ratings ), I would truly feel like a ignorant blow-hard telling a professional what he did "wrong" - when I may not know what "wrong" is. But again, all of your comments are kind and encouraging, and do make me feel less tense about posting - if not about criticizing adversely. I realize that this is a learning, as well as commercially important display site, but, for now, I feel that I'll let the learning come from above, downward, studying the works of elite artists, trying to gain their attention and, thus, their valuable insights - however they rate me. A low rating from a professional - with a critique -  is far more valuable than a high rating or laudatory comment from someone who stands with me at the bottom of the amateur ranks. Thanks again for the supportive sentiments.( Herr von Weinburg: Darf ich Sie bitten: Wollen Sie mir sagen wenn Sie sprechen  von Dialectik? Es uberrascht mich. Es ist eine Idee ich verstehe gar nicht...interessant...und sehr komisch. Auf Wiederhoren.)

[short1]

You're right...I am a fool for openly publishing personal data...it'll be gone in a few moments.

 

Sarah, I actually did what you did for a time...just stacked up photos in my gallery, avoiding the ratings, which seem so arbitrary. I've actually done a few experiments with the ratings...for example, posting a photo, garnering the ratings, deleting it, and, a while later, reposting. You'd be amazed at the difference in the net rating...differed by an order of magnitude.

 

I do care what others think, I'm afaraid. I believe all artists put themselves - their sequestered, secret selves - out there, to a greater or lesser extent ( Maplethorpe being an extreme example ) hoping for praise and validation of self. The psychology of Art is terribly complex, as the work is an extension of the artist. Of course, everybody's work is a "tell" about their inner lives, but in the case of art, the self -exposure is particularly manifest...almost like sitting in on an artist's session with a therapist. Here, I'm referring to strictly creative art, but commercial art entails not only a revelation of some aspect of self, but a livlihood and life-style as well.

 

I've had more than a few disturbances in my life lately...like Springsteen says, what you don't give away, life strips away. A compelling issue: I flew 51 missions in VN before being shot down, arms and back pretty badly burned, knee cap ripped up on the forward canopy...but I shut the whole deal out when I got back to the world, and had a successful career as a cardiologist...without a thought of VN intruding. Now, suddenly, dreams, and fleeting waking memories of VN are really screwing with my head. Artistically, I've gone dry, although a great need for expression lingers. And there is a need to reach out, to show images of psychic pain and guilt...I'm posting a self-portrait today, and it's in considerable variance with prior self-portraits ( if you'd be kind enough to take a peek at that gallery on my site ). I'm agonizing over the souls I took, in a pointless war. Sure enough, seeing a colleague of mine - a psychiatrist, of course - and got slammed with that garbage dump diagnosis PTSD...and anti-depressants. That's an aspect, one small part of my Self, and it's screaming for relief. Art seems to provide that, but I'm coming up empty - with a whole world of fantastic images out there. And, for whatever reason, that part of the self needs to go public, to seek validation, absolution.

 

I admire you, having the character fiber and self-esteem to be content to place your photos on PN without the need for praise. It speaks of psychological stability, self-assurance. You likely sleep well at night...I don't sleep until I literally pass out from fatigue, afraid of the dreams. I feel as if I could expunge whatever haunts me if I could externalize it, and throw it away in a perfectly expressive image.

 

A bit heavy for "causual conversations", huh? Another member with whom I privately correspond is insisting that I go down under - Australia - to get myself together. A truly appealing idea...but with two daughters, a child on the way ( believe it or not...I'm 57, though my wife is nearly a generation younger), a child who will be younger than my grandchild, and all my wife's relatives in the States...well, how do you leave loved ones a world away ? I was an abandoned child, and without family or romantic attachments when I went to 'Nam - I didn't have to deal with that particular agony of separation. Now, I've built a family I cherish, and I'm not about to leave any of them behind.

 

So....that's me, my phenomenology of art, and what do I owe you for this session, Dr.Fox?

 

Appreciate your support- Craig ( Colonel, Tactical Air Com., USAF (Ret.))

[JPPhoto1664880217]

I have had enough formal training in art and photography to know that a really good image will be appreciated and well received by a large percentage of viewers regardless of the sophistication of the viewers (Ansel Adams and Helmut Newton are both good examples of this). This is because the image can tell a good, interesting story (the narrative) without using any of the techniques (form) that are taught in either beginning or advanced composition classes. When we see an image we think is “good” and try to explain why, both form and narrative are usually considered. The narrative is almost completely subjective, and we usually describe how the form reinforces the narrative. But there are some cases when the narrative prevents the use of good “form”. An example of this is http://www.photo.net/photo/5340539 “A Marine Saluting His Fallen Comrades”. In this image, if the viewer is unfamiliar with military protocol, the marine appears to be saluting the Washington monument. However, the presence of the Washington Monument immediately allows the viewer to identify the Vietnam memorial. Which has a great deal of meaning and emotional impact to everyone from that era. Another example, which has better form, is http://www.photo.net/photo/6790827 “A Marine Saluting His Fallen Comrades, ver 2”. The latter image does not have the Washington Monument in it at all and is considered much better compositionally, but the area is much harder to identify as the Vietnam memorial, which (at least for me) reduces the emotional impact of the image.

 

The bottom line-when you see an image that you really like, the “rules”, whether beginning composition rules or advanced composition concepts, may or may not apply in the context of a given narrative. So we are all qualified to rate each other, maybe not on a 1 to 7 scale for aesthetics and originality, but we all know what we like and do not like, which is the essence of photonet critiques.

[steve m smith]

Of course you're qualified. Unless a question has a right or wrong answer, everything else is just opinion.

[short1]

I hear you, and I understand that the progression of art from one motif to another is a matter of breaking the rules. When Impressionism came onto the scene, it was the first true radical break with classical, "academy" art - it was shocking, but has become the most popular art form to the present, as "deco" or post-modern art - derivatives of Impressionism.

 

Yet, taking as an example my pilot training, first you learn the rules, then you stretch them. If the fundamentals are lacking - in art or flying - you're flying blind, and one may exceed the edge of the envelope ( I realize I'm mixing metaphors, but it's after 2 a.m.), successfully by sheer happenstance - or crash and burn.

 

Reading your comment, it's obvious that you're an accomplished artist with an academic background, and one who can evaluate a study with an eye towards intentionally beneficial or benign rule bending, as opposed to a blown composition, which may work, but only because probability - uninformed gambling, if you will - favored the artist.

 

An example: We both commented on a particular study today. I regarded it as a group of seperate elements, which, frankly didn't work - for anyone who commented. But the artist is elite, and knows that I admire him and his work - so, I could be honest, and explicate how, artistically, the study fell apart. It didn't occur to me to look beyond the formal compositional structure. You, however, saw the photo in a more global context, with a more refined sense of photography and the photographer, and suggested that the study could, in fact, work in a particular context. Your perspective is, by training or experience, broader than mine, and you saw contextual potential where I saw flawed and dispersed elements of formal composition. In your terms, you appreciated a "narrative" potential which I completely missed. I don't think either of us - or the artist himself - liked the study, but you were attuned to context as a reflection of formally flawed composition, whereas I focused completely on the skewed elements of composition. The moral: I learned more from your review of the study than

from the work itself.

 

Realistically, I know I can comment on any image. I think you know I follow your work, and study it. I offer comments to elicit your response - an educational exercise - as well as to express my admiration of your abilities. You've worked hard, no doubt, to refine your technique, and I would feel out of line to criticize someone from whom I'm aquiring a better eye for what I should note in an image, how I should evaluate an image in context, and when a "flawed" composition is, in fact, creative and contributes to the visual/ emotional impact of the image .

 

I do appreciate your egalitarian encouragement, which all of the professionals responding seem to genuinely share; but the reality is that I have to pay my dues - learn from Jim Phelps and certain others - before I presume to view and comment on work critically - not negatively, but intelligently.

 

I don't know if I just made a bit of sense...but thanks Jim for your encouragement...and your work. Craig

[short1]

Sorry Steve, I guess I was responding to JIm when you posted. Again, thank you, and of course you're correct...but I

don't want to be one of those who Bob alluded to, offering useless technical advise; and while I absolutely agree with

Sarah that art - or what one finds good or bad in a particular work - is intensely personal, touching upon the viewers

psychology in an interactive manner with the artist's; still, there must be some strictly cognitive threshold of

expertise required to comment tactfully, constructively and critically on a work one doesn't like. That is, there must

be some absolute criteria one applies before letting one's subjective reaction dictate a response to art.( Which leads

to: What is Art?) I think Jim's remarks demonstrate a skilled, considered strategy to the informed critique Anyway,

thanks, Steve for your participation and kind words. Craig. ( And the header is OOPS, not OPPS. And now to bed.

Thank you all...I have to let all this sink in, because, really, art is very important to me, as it is to the others on this

site. We're not in competition, but as the above remarks demonstrate, mutually supportive. As I said, I want to do

right by others who express themselves sincerely, and manifest a desire to learn..and , in time, I'll learn enough to

do so, thanks to this community. Professionals in harmony is an amazing experience for me - you ought to see

doctors ripping at each other. Ego city.)

[sarah_fox]

Craig, I don't think you've run artistically dry. I think you're in a stage of metamorphasis. You sound like you're doing some deep soul searching about your artwork, and I think you are trying to transform it to address the dark issues that haunt you. You are doing the mental work that comes before the camera is ever picked up. Photography is not about pretty sunsets and macros of flowers. It's not about oversharpened B&W images of hooded figures in the dark. That's the "chewing gum" end of photography, in my opinion. (Apologies to anyone reading this who specializes in this subject matter.) It's about human experience. It's about what lies deep inside us. It's about what we see around us.

 

YOU have a lot to say in your work! If you feel you have run dry, I suggest you figure out how to show us what's in your head -- what haunts you during your nights and days. When viewing your portfolio, I do catch glimpses of it, and that fascinates me.

 

More than anything, I am hanging on your comment, "I'm agonizing over the souls I took, in a pointless war." Perhaps I can suggest a direction? I see a society around me that is itching to go whoop up on Iran. I see kids glibly blowing away people in video games, with blood flying everywhere. I see kids who want to join the Air Force so that they can go for joy rides in fighter jets. Nowhere in all of this is the consideration that these things involve killing -- life and death struggles for real people -- on our side and on "their" side. The sacred value of human life is lost in the equation. These kids just don't understand, and I wish you would teach them through your photography. Sadly, few people consider these sorts of issues, outside those battered souls who have suffered through them.

 

My wish for you is that you find a way to show others what is inside you through your photography.

 

Peace,

Sarah (yeah... Ph.D)

 

PS You asked for my comment on your newly posted self portrait. To me it doesn't communicate a lot. On the other hand, I'm haunted by the one that appears on the right. I also love your fighter jet. It reveals (to me) a love of flight.

 

PPS Just stating the obvious: You're probably flashing on Vietnam because of McCain's presence as a presidential candidate, but I'm sure that's occurred to you.

 

PPPS I'm in the same sort of metamorphasis stage in my own work -- not "dry," but not feeling as though my prior has much meaning, failing completely to address numerous issues about which I am passionate. So perhaps I recognize something in you too. ;-)

[jpo3136b]

Are you "qualified to rate a professional?" Their customers are. Don't see why you wouldn't be.

 

I find that when it comes to questions like, Am I at a stage of artistic metamorphosis, the best answer is to reload the

camera, hit the trail, get back, hit the showers, and either crash on the couch or knock back a beer at the favorite bar at the

end of a good day.

 

No one owns what is or isn't art. These are just made objects. Proceed with confidence. J.

[tomwatt]

Craig, if a professional were so thin-skinned that criticism bruised then business would be a short and brutal affair. I cheerfully admit to being a bad photographer, hack artist, and lousy designer. But I've managed to make enough money at all this to make ends meet, taught classes at a number of large, well-known universities, and survived criticism during my school training that made many others cringe or worse. Being face down in your work makes it hard to see things sometims... criticism/comments from others can be refreshing, enlightening and thought-provoking. Unless of course someone pronounces your work "interesting," which really doesn't tell you much at all.

[stoatsngroats]

Pardon me for adding my, unskilled, photgraphically uneducated, and brazenly oppinionated comments here, as - I'm a complete amateur....

 

I add critique to pictures which inspire me; which entertain, and thrill; which allow me to see something I'd not noticed before, and which have a beauty I can understand.

..or, those which I can see have some problems, ones which I would have re-engineered!

 

Generally, I offer comment because I want to help....

 

Is it really this simple, or is THAT just me..?

[JPPhoto1664880217]

Shaun and Craig,

It is that simple