Personal Favourites

[helenjenkins]

<p>I was just having a look through some of my old photos I've uploaded over the last year and I've noticed something about the ratings I've got which has made me stop and think and I wondered if anyone had noticed the same thing. Quite often, photos that I am personally very fond of and think are some of the best I've taken - I think a bit quirky or unusual (for me) - don't get particularly good ratings. Ones which I like, but don't think are particularly good, on the other hand, have got me some of my highest ratings.</p>

<p>This is absolutely not a rant about the ratings system. I am in no way complaining about the ratings I've received - I think my average score is about right and I don't get hung up on individual scores I get. It is merely something I've noticed and wondered if anyone else has too and if it should tell me something - am I being too subjective? Does the fact I like photos that not so many other people do mean I haven't a clue what I'm doing? It's certainly making me go back and look at photos I may not have seen for a while and trying to work out why some get higher ratings than others, which is all to the good. Not come to any conclusions yet, though!</p>

<p> </p>

[swenson]

<p>I've noticed the same. Chalk it up to personal taste.</p>

[gordonjb]

Some of my favourite images uploaded to PN have been universally panned and other of my favourites have been greeted with enthusiasm. Within certain confines I have, more or less, deduced a sort of PN aesthetic. Once anything I upload steps out of that general aesthetic it becomes increasingly less clear how it will be received. I'm fairly certain this applies elsewhere too.

 

I recently uploaded a photo of a fish and at the same time uploaded an abstract. I received lots of comments on what a nice abstract the fish was and no comments on the abstract ? This leaves me amused and confused about PN but not about my photos. The abstract I still like very much and the fish is still a fish.

 

 

" Does the fact I like photos that not so many other people do mean I haven't a clue what I'm doing? "

 

 

No, to the contrary what it means is that your work is sometimes " quirky or unusual " . Pursue your own voice, nothing else matters.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What Gordon said!</p>

<p>A lot of lip service is paid on PN to thinking outside the box.</p>

<p>Ironically, most thinking outside the box I see gets low rates.</p>

<p>What most people mean by "thinking outside the box" is thinking within the box plus a Photoshop filter.</p>

<p>What I generally notice getting the highest ratings are iconic type photos that generally fit classical descriptions of what a good photo will be. And nude women in high heels, of course. Extra points for two nude women at least one of whom is in high heels.</p>

<p>In our own work, maybe those iconic and classically good photos are things we try when we're in kind of an emulation and learning mode, stuff most people want to do well. So those get good to excellent rates. But, if we're creative, and then move away from those stepping stones, getting more personal and less "obviously good," we get lower rates. Generally speaking, the PN raters recognize "beauty" and hyperbole, not creativity.</p>

[k5083]

It means you like the photo for reasons that are idiosyncratic. If you shoot for your own self-actualization and personal satisfaction, this is exactly what you should expect. It's nice, but no big deal, if the shot doesn't resonate with others. If you're explicitly trying to reach others with your photography, otoh, you should pay attention to these reactions because they may be telling you something about how your message is coming across.

[alberta_pizzolato]

<p>"This is absolutely not a rant about the ratings system."<br>

Well, it may not be a rant but personally, I think it's ALL ABOUT the ratings system. I'm assuming by ratings you mean the anonymously submitted numbers and not comments as you mention "highest" and "score". If you submit your best at 4 AM and the only PN viewers are in search of nudes only, you lose (unless your photo is a nude). If Tuesdays are the worst days for PN participation and that's when you submit your work to the forum, you lose. If yours is a landscape and everything in the queue is a masterful digital alteration, you lose. Do the scores average out to compensate? I don't believe so. Although the exposure is not as wide, I find the comments received on a submission for critique only are much more informative than numbers. If you haven't done so before, give "critique only" a try and see if you get the same "I love this one, they don't" result. And if they don't, you now have a great opportunity to ask "why not?" as the door to dialogue has been opened.</p>

[helenjenkins]

<p>Thanks for the responses. Being a stubborn old thing, I have every intention of carrying on with what I'm doing - I'm with Gordon and Fred in that this is a hobby for me, will never be anything else and the main object for me is to enjoy myself. If I can get better with it at the same time, I'm certainly not going to complain.</p>

<p>I have to disagree with you, Alberta, it actually isn't anything to do with the ratings system (from my own personal point of view) - it's nothing to do with the ratings per se; it's a trend I've noticed over the course of a year in my own personal portfolio. No idea when I posted most of the photos and I'm certainly not too bothered about what ratings I actually get, this was definitely a Saturday Morning "I'm bored and have too much time to think" sort of a question!</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>It's hard to tell what peoples tastes are. We all have our tastes and our sense of esthetics, but believe it or not the best ratings I ever got on this forum were snapshots. </p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>I agree, Helen. I notice the same thing. Appeal is a subjective matter, and ratings may have more to do with the genre of the picture or the subject itself than the decisions the photographer made. As you say, it's not a criticism of the ratings system--we have to look at posting as a kind of testbed for evaluating popular appeal, and not a final aesthetic judgment.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Looking back, when I first came to the site I at least subconsciously assumed that because my photographs would be largely viewed by "photographers"...that reaction to them would be substantially different than that of the general public. So much for that thinking! I totally agree with Gordon that there is a PN aesthetic, and I admit that I am simulataneously annoyed and fascinated by it. Sometimes I'll put something up for critique just to see if I can accurately guess what the reaction will be...and I'm almost always right. It's very seldom that I'm surprised at the reaction to a photograph. <br>

<em></em> <br>

<em>"A lot of lip service is paid on PN to thinking outside the box".</em></p>

<p> If "abstracts" isn't the category in which thinking outside the box would be most understood, expected, and appreciated...then what is? Yet ...there is that undeniable "PN aesthetic" that seems to be most obviously applied to this category ...than any other. You can be weird, quirky, "outside the box" with your abstracts...but it has to be a particular type of weird, quirky..... "outside the box". Go figure... <br>

<em></em> <br>

<em> "Generally speaking, the PN raters recognize "beauty" and hyperbole, not creativity".</em></p>

<p>Absolutely Fred!<br>

<em></em> <br>

<em>"...we have to look at posting as a kind of testbed for evaluating popular appeal, and not a final aesthetic judgment".</em></p>

<p>Couldn't agree more Charles.</p>

<p>Concerning anything about the ratings: I decided after a six month tyrade of newbie rants about the rating system back in '07 that I'd rant no more! But...I can't resist an occassional comment. Alberta...I once had the bright idea that perhaps those awake at 4 a.m. might be the "dedicated" photographers...those that might actually put some thought into evaluating photographs before hitting the 3/3 button...wrong again. At 4 a.m. you could post "Moonrise Hernandez" and you get a 4/4 at best. But as we all come to realize, anything "nekked" (and it doesn't necessarily have to be human)...well...you know the result. <br>

<em></em> </p>

[gordonjb]

" But as we all come to realize, anything "nekked" (and it doesn't necessarily have to be human) "

 

You've convinced me, I am going to shave my dog and see if that helps matters at all.

[karenf]

<p>Helen, I think there is something to what you say. I definitely don't think poor ratings automatically means poor image. Follow your 'photographic bliss' and you will end up with a one off genuine 'Helen Jenkins'. There is plenty of the usual bland generic formula shots out there. It does depend on what you want to achieve though.<br>

Something else to consider when evaluating your own work. You might like some of your images because of an emotional response that comes from your memory of taking the shot and for others that feeling isn't quite captured in pixels. </p>