jawphotos Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>I was just wondering why ppl feel the need to give very low ratings to very good photos. I see it all the time on photo.net. 3/3 and 4/4 on photos that are at lease 5/5 or higher and its not just my work. Is it just me or are there ppl out there who just hate on other ppls images. I think photo.net has a responsablity to try to put a stop to it some how.The last image I posted was hit by a 3/3 rate right out the gate and I must say I'm a little pissed. Any way I think if your going to give ppl low ratings it should be with a reson why.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard-just-Leonard Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>mainly because they can. an advanced degree in psychology is required for a more in-depth analysis. and no, there is nothing pnet can, should or will do to prevent someone from rating a photograph lower than YOU feel it is worth. that's just life.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwtphoto Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>3/3 is usually the first rating given - I just ignore them. great photo. I stopped caring about the 3/3 ratings and pay more attention to comments made or ratings which are not anomyous.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>Well, let's think about rationally, here. Some people open up the Rate Photos area, desparately, wistfully hoping that the very first thing the will <em>not</em> see is another blurred waterful picture. For some folks, that's exactly as original as a cat snapshot. It's doesn't <em>matter</em> how much work you put into it... the anonymous ratings queue is all about first impressions from a very large crowd.<br /><br />And just like first impressions from a crowd of a thousand people walking past your image hung on the wall, mixed in with hundreds of other images, there will always be people who - internally, with their internal voice dripping with disdain - say to themselves, "Ugh, another cliched blurry waterfall shot." And the PN anonymous ratings system equivalent of the shoulder shrug and the eye roll is... a three. <br /><br />If you take ratings here any more personally than you take the eye roll or utter disintrest shown by someone who strolls past the same image hanging on the wall at an art fair, then you're missing the point. <br /><br />Personally? I'd give the image above a 4 for originality. It's a nocturnal waterfall shot, with pine trees and sky. It's no more original than most of the stuff I post, which is <em>also</em> of only average originality, and doesn't deserve any more than an average rating. That's what "average" means. And when something is a clear, deliberate embrace of a subject type that's been shot a jillion times, it shouldn't come as a shock that some people might issue a small ratings spank, by notching down from "average" just to point out that they're a little world-weary when it comes to certain subject matter.<br /><br />I can hear them now. "Where's the ironic twist? Where's the piece of trash included as social commentary? Where's the unexpected angle of view? Where's the jarring but compelling composition? Where's the <em>communication</em>?" The reason I can hear that? Because I've heard it myself, and I get it. <br /><br />As for aesthetics: when I look at that image, as a piece of post-production, what jumps out at me are the masking/gradient artifacts around the rocks and the green foliage at the base of the treeline. There are odd jumps in tonality there, and some folks really chafe at that sort of thing.<br /><br />The more you choose commonly-shot subject matter, and need to push the technology to execute the image, the higher the bar is raised when it comes to ratings. I truly, truly wouldn't get up tight about it. And I definitely wouldn't look to PN to "do something" about it. If you don't like casual reactions to your work, definitely don't submit for anonymous ratings... and for <em>sure</em> don't complain about the results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall ellis Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>Ratings are completely subjective. Complaining that someone does not like any given image is like complaining that not everyone in the world likes exactly the same things that you do. People have debated about what is 'good' and what is not for centuries.</p> <p>- Randy</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <blockquote><p>I think photo.net has a responsablity to try to put a stop to it some how.</p></blockquote><p>Photo.net has no responsibility to make sure people only get pats on the back or that everyone likes the same kinds of images.</p><p>People like different things, that's just life.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawphotos Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>I think you guys are missing my point. It has nothing to do with if you like it or not. It is a delibrate low rating. I got a 3/3 on another image one time that was not anonymous so I e-mail the giver just to ask why.He told me he never even hear about photo.net before. Someone had made an account in his name just to give out bad ratings. I am only wondering why ppl would do this. And Matt I didnt no nocturnal waterfalls where such common place maybe next time I should go out during a forest fire when the pine trees are ablaze maybe that would be more original.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawphotos Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>Also Im not looking for pats on the back or flickr type post what I want is honesty and if you think it is a below ave. image tell me why as matt has done.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>Yeah, bogus rating account happen from time to time. Some people have strange ideas of fun. We have ways of finding the accounts and eventually they will be deleted.</p> <p>It just comes with the territory.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em>"Any way I think if your going to give ppl low ratings it should be with a reson why."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Says someone who has given out 45 ratings of 4 and below (30% of the total ratings given), and didn't give a reason or comment on a single one of them.</p> <p>Your indignation might have a little more weight if you applied the same standards to your own ratings as you expect from everyone else.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p><em>It has nothing to do with if you like it or not. It is a delibrate low rating.<br /></em><br />If you don't like it, but still plan to rate it, of <em>course</em> it's a deliberately low rating. Just as a rating that's a 6/6 is a deliberately high rating - and still has everything to do with if you like it or not.<br /><br />And please digest this piece of information: I'm not making an authoritative statement about how common something is, or how many people think it is. I'm simply pointing out that the entire thing is <em>subjective</em>, and driven by people. You're looking for respect, and need to <em>show</em> respect by understanding that many people simply won't react well (or at all) to some images.<br /><br />It's just like some people will actively decide not to correspond with someone who always uses "ppl" in place of the word "people." Obviously it's not going to kill you to type the extra three letters, so one can conclude that you think communicating in this forum while using Twitter-speak is appropriate. That's completely your personal judgement call, and other users will form their own opinion of how you've chosen to address them. Again: completely subjective, and not something to get yourself all worked up about. But something to <em>understand</em>. Just like you might want to understand that someone finding a given image not to be their personal cup of tea doesn't make them <em>hateful</em>. You really need to get more comfortable about the distinction, there.<br /><br />As for fake ratings accounts? It happens. Patterns emerge, and the admins occasionally delete such accounts - along with the footprints they've left behind. If there's a fake account that happens to have left you a comment, just drop a note to the admins.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawphotos Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>You are right Michael when I first started my p.net account I would rate on all kinds of images. Then I realized that I should not give out low ratings without a reason why and now I only rate images that I think are 5/5 or higher because most of the time I dont have the time to include a full critique.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Well, let's think about rationally, here. Some people open up the Rate Photos area, desparately, wistfully hoping that the very first thing the will <em>not</em> see is another blurred waterful picture.</p> </blockquote> <p>Matt, you're a genuinely funny guy. I'm on my lunch break and nearly had a choking attack ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>4 for originality and a 6 for aesthetics. A VERY WELL DONE photo Jason, not at all the type of waterfall stream shots I see -- rather rare with the stars shining through.</p> <p>However, if it is a composite then it's graphic art and not a photo and I wouldn't bother even rating it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>Jason, Ken likes your photo. I'm not as keen on it. It truly is subjective. I see what you're trying to achieve with it, but the colors are not satisfying to me. The sky is beautiful. The image looks a little too HDR to me, but maybe it is not. HDR and Dragonized images make me physically ill to my stomach, and I could not tell you why. I would not let the water or rocks go too cool. I would neutralize the bluish cast a bit. But that is just my opinion and it's worth exactly what you paid for it. Personally, I cannot take rejections of my images well, so I don't put them up for "scoring" (or at least I don't think they are being scored)<g>. And really, I could care less what people think of them.</p> <p>I belong to a photo group that loves to PhotoShop everything. If a tree is bothersome to them, they would remove it in PS. The more vivid the color, the better. As a medium and large format photographer, they don't get my work at all. They could care less that I painstakingly expose, process, and post process my images for maximum tonal range. My scores are typically 6's out of 10--the lowest they give any of the amateurs in the group. While someone with a truly crappy image who has created an awful looking vignette and fuzzy horse heads, a near perfect score. If they don't like the keyline border around the image, they will deduct points. If the major elements don't fall into the rule of thirds, they will deduct points. My images are my vision, and either I like them or I don't. I care more about whether they please me or whether I can sell them. Those are the only two scores I care about. I would personally avoid the ratings forum<g>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chartrand Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>@ Ken,</p> <p>Does that mean if I take a wrinkle off a girl's face the picture becomes a photo-illustration? It loses its photoness because I did something to it. It turns into <em>graphic art</em>! Bummer, I used to do things to pictures in the darkroom all the time. I thought I was just trying to make the photograph better. I didn't know it stopped being a photograph and it shouldn't be critiqued or rated.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomark Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I don't play the ratings game, but if I did this would get pretty low marks from me. The digital work is sloppy. Maybe your monitor doesn't show the shadow detail, but I can see your hard brush marks plain as day. It's especially obvious on the right side in the trees above the middle-ground bushes where there is a well-defined edge between shadow details in the trees and a big blotch of dark where something was either cloned out or curved into oblivion. If you are going to complain about low ratings, I think you should use an image in which you have shown a little more care. There is really nothing subjective about it in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_harlan1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <blockquote><p>Ratings are completely subjective.</p> </blockquote><p>Photography is completely subjective.</p><p>Jason, chill out.<br>I had a photo on another forum a few years ago..It received very low ratings.<br>I licensed it 3 months after posting and ate for 3 months!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>Many of us choose to just be happy with our little portfolios, and not get involved much with the rating game. Those with thin skins should probably just join us.</p> <p>Matt has it for sure. But people just want everybody to be above average. President Reagan was horrified when he found out that <strong>half</strong> the kids in American schools were "below average" in achievements and testing. Something had to be done it about it right now.</p> <p>One of the apocryphal stories about a great researcher in my field was that a student came to him and said, "Why did you give me an F in this course?" and his answer was "Because there isn't any lower grade."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>"<em>Does that mean if I take a wrinkle off a girl's face the picture becomes a photo-illustration? It loses its photoness because I did something to</em> it. It turns into <em>graphic art</em>!"</p> <p>If it is a composite, then yes. Is what you are describing a composite? What does removing a wrinkle on a photo ("airbrushing") have to do with a waterfall shot in the late evening?</p> <p>99.9% of people who take photos couldn't do what Jason posted.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawphotos Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>@Mark M<br> you are in some ways right and thats the kind of honesty I am looking for. The image does need to be reworked. I did the PP very late last night and plan to rework the image today. I am wondering (sence there are no images on your page) have you ever tryed a shot like this?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chartrand Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>"<em>99.9% of people who take photos couldn't do what Jason posted</em>."</p> <p>This implies that makes it good. I'm not saying that it isn't good, but just because you do something someone else can't do or hasn't done, does not make it good. It just makes it different. Your own work is not art because you say it is art.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomark Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Jason, I don't often use the p.net portfolios—I have a website listed on my profile here, though. But no, I have not tried these kind of shots. The closest I can think off the top of my head is this: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1460246&id=48668594548 but it's a significantly different kind of photo with a different set of challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>I agree that Jason's image is 4/4 or higher and he got the title of this thread correct. There are haters and trolls out there, the Internet is a great platform for them to spread their ill will. L.J. in the first post is right about the amount of psychology required to analyze these folks. Lex has also made some great posts about this exact same subject in other threads about anonymous ratings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 <p>At one of our photo salon juried competitions, one of the three judges always gave very low ratings to otherwise good images and extremely high ratings to those he liked (ratings performed "in camera"). Result: His ratings had more effect than the two other judges who rated more realistically, such that the desired images of the first judge often came out in the final rating of the top ten or fifteen images.</p> <p>This happened once or twice before a posthumous analysis was performed on the ratings of the three judges. The first judge wasn't re-invited in future salons (held twice a year, with a rotation of the outside judges).</p> <p>Subjectivity is the name of the game. Try selling your photos and you may see that those you thought not so highly of become your best sellers, and those that are truly original and communicative are passed by.</p> 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