wow whats with all the haters

[joseph_leotta]

<p>i accept the ratings for what they are. I just wisj there were no annonanoius raters as I respect some folks opions more than others. If someone like matt or lex for example says my photo is a 3 , I take it more seriously than from someone who never posts photos or comments, And yes I do have a bunch a shot that only shuld rate a 3. But then when there a real good one i'd like to see more than a 3.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Jason got one 3/3 on this image and he's complaining. What's the big deal? One or two 3/3's has never kept a great image out of the TRP. I think the word "hate" should be used for issues that are a little more serious than rating here on PN.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Hi Jason. PN is at it's best when there is due consideration given to the give and take nature of the site.<br>

You have requested 78 critiques with numbers attached. Of the 16 comments you have given only 3 were for others. <br>

You are asking for people who give you numbers to take the time to explain. Try taking the time to nurture some relationship(s) to the site and others who will be happy to reciprocate. Otherwise just deal with the numbers you get. <em>j</em>osh</p>

[ymmij]

<p>I think its a great photo.</p>

[jawphotos]

<p>The horse is dead I am sorry I said anything at all I will just live with what I get and shut up. Lets seal up the bag of worms I opened and let this post die. The image has recovered nicely and has gotten some high ratings that it does not deserve and is on avg. around 5/5 where I thought it should be to begin with.<br>

thank you all and no hard feels<br>

love ya</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Hi Mark M., very fine website/photos from your profile.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Jason, I think the rating you got is appropriate, but that's subjective anyway so consider this a critique from someone who has training and work experience skills in graphic design, composition and color theory and design. I used to work as an art director.</p>

<p>You have a lot of images in your gallery including the one posted here that are over saturated such as in sunset clouds to the point the cloud detail is posterized viewing on my calibrated iMac giving your images a cartoonish feel. Aside from that your gallery contains a majority of images that come across as well exposed and composed if not for the over saturated treatment. They are very good captures, just not optimally processed.</p>

<p>The image you posted here looks over processed and is probably why it got a 3/3. I would've given it less, but I don't do critiques mainly because I'ld rather spend my energies elsewhere (it takes me forever to right meaningful stuff) and also because of the fact there are plenty here who are already good at critiquing. Believe me, I did spend some time checking.</p>

<p>All this doesn't mean you aren't a good photographer, just that you need to dial it back a bit in the color department. Nothing wrong with going for the Velvia/Ektachrome slide film look and maybe you're display calibration is off, who knows, but many others who critique here are better photographers than I am and clearly show a skill in color design they may or may not have developed on their own, so you should take a look at their galleries among others to get a sense of what looks good in the color department.</p>

<p>It doesn't mean you have to copy them but get to know what good color balance and contrast in a image should look like. And don't forget to have fun.</p>

<p> </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Jason just look at it this way, "your'e not alone !" </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I have no idea what a 3/3 rating means in the abstract, but I see what it means to you, Jason. Rejection. Insult. Cowardly rotten tomato thrown at your workmanship and a personal insult to your efforts... That is your interpretation and good grief I expect you got a lot of company in the crowd. I never as long as I can recall in years tried to pin a number on a picture. I comment on a few that I like, and <strong>only </strong> for those I may add a suggestion. If I find a photo mundane,and most on the daily images are mundane, I say nothing...they deserve silence from me... Yours would not be one that especially interests me I have to say. It is pleasant enough as something to put on the wall as decoration perhaps. Innocuous, like the seascapes that I see in our Waikiki galleries. All look the same, with the sun shining its green shine through the breaking surf...<strong>Economically, the things sell..</strong> <br /> Here we have a fantasy rockscape of tumbling water and stars as still points in a cobalt sky, An abstraction of reality that does not hide the otherworldnliness quality of the scene but does not stir my imagination of what the outdoors ever looked like to me in my walks and hikes around the world. That is not to disparage as a kind of photographic art that has mass appeal as decoration, photo wallpaper (no offense, it keeps people in business and sovency my friend,something I never aspired to with any photos I disclose).</p>

<p>Doesn't grab me by my kishkes( my "hara" or center of being in Japan). Nonetheless. Some will love it. I have to think it does not deserve the umbrage of disgrace you yourself assign to the damn number, your failing IMHO... Screw him or her or it I would say, and move on. You are your own judge. Who the heck else do you value more? Think about it. And be well and prosper. gs</p>

[bmm]

<p>Guys... I don't get it. We're talking about a 7 point scale. 3 and 4 therefore are absolutely <strong>not</strong> low ratings. They are average ratings, work that is ok but neither exceptionally good nor severely flawed compared to what else is on this site and what raters expect in general. In fact the vast majority of the ratings I give are 3s or 4s (though I do tend to give more 4s than 3s - probably more because I am a softy than because they are deserved).</p>

<p>A low rating is a 1 or a 2. And yes I agree these deserve an explanation. But equally so does a 6 or a 7 because if people are rating properly there are only <strong>very</strong> few photographers and <strong>very</strong> few images who deserve such results.</p>

<p>Anyway my main point is lets get away from this rejection of the 3 and the 4 as a 'low' rating. As I said they are actually perfectly normal, average ratings on a 7 point scale and one would expect (both intuitively and statistically) them to be the most common ratings given out.</p>

<p>Although I've said all this, by the way I'm in the camp which thinks that the ratings are just fun and games, and the real value is from properly thought-out critiques and comments. Those are what I get real value from anyway.</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>I'd be pissed too if I had to get up at 5am in the morning just to take that bloody sunrise sunshot in the cold and ended up getting a 3/3.<br /> That's why from now on I'll just shoot tomato pictures.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p><strong>I'd be pissed too if I had to get up at 5am in the morning just to take that bloody sunrise sunshot in the cold and ended up getting a 3/3.</strong><br>

Problem is, this is expected of sunrise shots. And every photographer doing sunrise shots will have to wake up early. So while the effort is commendable, it is expected of the photographer, and the end results are the only thing that counts, not getting up early.<br>

Alvin</p>

[tholte]

<p>There should be three numbers available for sunrise shots; aesthitics, originality and getting up early. I would have rated this photo a 4/4/6.</p>

[edgreene]

<p>I shoot every image with the thought in mind: "...<em>would I buy that shot and hang it on my wall"</em>?</p>

<p>Few of my (<em>or your</em>) images get to that "buy" point, be they my or your images. That does not make me a "Hater", but a discriminating buyer. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A rating of 3 just means someone thinks it is below the quality of <em>an average photo.net gallery photo. </em> If people rated good and bad photos evenly, half of the images on photo.net should have a ratings average of less than four (4). Therefore it is no shame to get a 3; obviously it is normal just as much as a 5.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>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. </em><em></em></p>

<p>If you are are concerned about feedback, there is no need for alarm as you already posess the keen powers of identifying ratings that are illigitimate as appled to your images. If you are concerned about being in a photo contest, it is probably best to enter ones that have more uniform judging criteria.</p>

<p><em>Any way I think if your going to give ppl low ratings it should be with a reson why.</em></p>

<p><em></em><br />Since this concern is apparently not also applied to higher ratings, it seems like the issue is less about learning and feedback and more about a bruised ego. Perhaps there should be some re-evaluting as to the purpose of submitting photos for rating before submitting more.</p>

<p><em>I'd be pissed too if I had to get up at 5am in the morning just to take that bloody sunrise sunshot in the cold and ended up getting a 3/3.</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

Could you show us where the criteria of 1) being up early 2) being cold weather 3) taking a picture of a sunrise is listed as a factor for giving a rating for either asthetics or originality?<br>

<em><br /></em></p>

[anthea50]

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Jason:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >While I do understand your frustration with getting anonymous 3/3 ratings, from checking the critiques and the rating tabs, it should be clear how different people’s opinion is on photographs. For example, these are two of the comments from your last image put up for critique. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. The blurring of the transition of the trees to the sky is very distracting. It gives the impression that two images where forced together. The lighting of the bottom half of the images has very different lighting that the top half, it just doesn't look natural.</p>

<p >2. beautifully done and colours are very smooth and well balanced.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, this is the summary of the ratings: </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>Summary of ratings</em></strong> </p>

<table border="1" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr >

<td >

<p align="center"><strong>Aesth</strong></p>

</td>

<td >

<p align="center"><strong>Orig</strong></p>

</td>

<td >

<p align="center"><strong>Ratings</strong></p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td >

<p >3</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >3</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >1</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td >

<p >5</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >4</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >1</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td >

<p >5</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >5</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >2</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td >

<p >6</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >5</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >2</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td >

<p >6</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >6</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >2</p>

</td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td >

<p >7</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >7</p>

</td>

<td >

<p >1</p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’m sorry, but why are you worrying about <strong >ONE</strong> rating of 3/3, when you have so many higher ones?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just my two cents worth. </p>

<p > </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Man up. It's a picture.</p>

<p>Pretty much all of my photos have gotten 3s and 4s. It's nice to get higher marks sometimes; but, really. It's a picture. You make them. Make some more.</p>

<p>"seal the bag worms" and get on with it; yeah, that's right. You'll toughen up a little. Feeling a little bit defensive when you first get the feedback, of any kind, is normal. I do it. It happens to me. I know it's happening to me, and sometimes I still feel defensive. Just aim for overall progress.</p>

<p>If the work's really good, and you really do need to work on it a little, after a cool off, you'll come around to it.</p>

<p>I liked the photo, but thought it would help to have a touch of black; some of the shadows weren't quite dark enough for my taste; but, I like 'em scorched. For the subject matter; I like blurred pictures and other pictures of nature and water so much, I've been working on a larger project about just that. Why, if it is such a kitchy subject? Because not everybody has this. We see a beautiful view here; a beautiful view there; why bother with it? Look around. Do you see that everywhere? Not really. So, it's a worthy subject for a photograph sometimes.</p>

<p>No, they don't care if you had to bust the chops to get the photo; but, that's part of the adventure. If you wanted adventure-less photography, you could probably get away with great photos from the armchair while you ate potato chips. Good photo is good photo; getting it is part of the ride.</p>

<p>It's just paying the dues. Reload the camera; make the next picture and drive on.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>one thing to learn do; what you THINK your images worth, can be really different from other people think of them.. For example, i think those 3 images by me look pretty good, a friend of mine dont like them at all ..because he dont like bw period.</p>

<p>You can cry in your corner about that, or keep your head straight and continue in life. Rating for me is like when kid ask there parent to *rate* there drawing..its for instant gratification, but one day the kid will grow, thinking is good, and will ask someone else that will simply say is drawing is OK for a kid nothing much (cruel?!) and the kid will stop showing is art to people because he have receive bad comment..or he can take the advice (when receive) and grow from it. You receive just 3 and 4 on your rating, maybe your image are not that good after all and its up to you to work harder to get better one ; )</p>

<p>I personally dont need instant gratification to continue doing what i like i my personal life, i respect those who want or need the rating system, but for now its not for me.</p><div></div>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>So in other words you only rate what you perceive as good photos. Personally I find that view condescending and meaningless. Think American Idol and compare Paula Abdul who ties herself up in tortuous verbal knots trying to avoid anything remotely negative and Simon Cowell who is blunt and sometimes rude but basically honest. Whose opinion do the contestants wait for as a genuine measure of their abilities? It isn't Paula's. </p>

[mt4x4]

<p>And Paula is getting replaced with Ellen Degeneres. I'm not sure what this says about photo ratings, but its true!</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Let us be friends, this week I will give your images 7/7 and you can give my images 6/6, maybe we can get 8 others to join us? Or one could join several times and rate one's photos to offset the low rankings. But, some people give 3/3 because they can and they do, look who is online and check a few of them out, look at the average of the scores they give and you get a good idea of who gives low ratings. Finish by looking at their work and you will know why most of them rank low. </p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Now we are getting into something important. </p>

<p>Ellen Degeneres is funny, but what does she know about singing? Ratings are down on Idol, so I guess Ellen might be a good replacement. I did like Paula (cute), but she was a little too sacriney most of the time. She did know the business, though.</p>

[rascal64]

<p>It looks like Jason has finally figured a way to get P-E-O-P-L-E to comment rather than just rate numerically. Post a ratings rant! Thank you Jason!</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>Could someone post some tomato photos?</p>