'Top Rated Photos' on PN - is 90% of everything trash?

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I had a look at PN's top-rated photos (past three days). There were 454 images. I asked myself, just as a casual exercise, how many of those images would I think worthy of being on this list? It was a binary choice: yes or no. I gave 85 of those images a 'yes' and the rest a 'no' for an overall score of 18%. That means that 82% of those images were not worth scoring highly.</p>

<p>What is bizarre is that some of those photos were truly boring and yet somebody thought to give them a positive rating (or a rating at all). I don't blame the photographer, just the people rating the work.</p>

<p>Excellence is hard to come by, but 18% is not bad.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>When I scan through the top photos, I find a smaller fraction that I feel are worth clicking on to view in something larger than a thumbnail format. That doesn't mean I consider the rest of them trash. It means that the landscape shots with interesting lighting are the ones that catch my eye. </p>

<p>What style do you prefer?</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>The thing is that if we all do the exercise Karim of Ron has done we would probably end up with very near 100% of the photos as "worthy as being on the list". They are all excellent as seen by people around on Photonet that take time to rate photos.</p>

<p>If many of us do not participate in rating of photos it is indeed because we don't respect the criteria raters use. That is our choice.</p>

<p>It is not going to happen, but it would be great fun, and in the same time very instructive, to see what shortlist the Elves would end up with among the top-rated photos as excellent photos. Or, say the POW elite, or the great commentators here on PN, what list would they come up with? Or why not ask gallery owners or art critics for a go on the list ! ! ! They might end up with a handful that few of us have noticed among the "best" of the top photos.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p> Excellence may come by quicker if you rate something. </p>

<p>I know I have given out several fours to photographers who made that Top Rated List, for images which were similar to or the ones they submitted which qualified for the list. Of the fours I gave out over the past few days, I know three of them were for nudes. One three I gave out was for a nude I gave out was for bad positioning, monsterous foreshortening, poor composition and bad basics (focus and exposure). A couple of times I tried to comment on potential improvements; I know I told one person that I gave them a four, but they could have gotten a seven out of that setup if they had just changed a few items. Also, I noticed that this morning a lot of bird and animal photos were doing well; I tend to rate a point higher on photos, like bird and underwater pictures, which require a little more effort than a "street" picture of an old building with no people in the photo.</p>

<p>While I'm not personally responsible for the entire collection of accrued ratings, I don't think the photos I rated were "trash." I know I dislike heavily saturated and manipulated photos; I usually skip those altogether. Still, bad photos aren't trash. Someone spent some time on them, and that time is worthy of a moment of our consideration. Even if the answer is only an average or below average score. </p>

<p>If you check the overall score, I think you will see that many of those Top Rated photos are averaging near a five and below. While I don't know if for a fact, I don't think we continue to see the impenetrable wall of mate rated 7's that hosed down screens worldwide with HDR'ed neon drawings passing as photographs. I think these people submitting are actually making a fair number of strait photographs, modestly edited, and submitted for critique because they want to get better. Look, for example, at the great number of ambient light photographs. How creative are the photos going to get when sunlight is the main, and often only, source of illumination for many of the photos in the lineup? The number of pictures with preconceived ideas for topics, like the props for a model besides clothing, or some advanced setup of objects, is lower this week. Perhaps it is because we have escaped winter, and its wintertime studio hell.</p>

<p>So, no, 90% of everything is not trash. However, if 90% of your comments on photos are in this thread, and not given to photographers as ratings or prose feedback, then they might be, at least, ineffective. </p>

<p>Maybe you could click on a photo and tell people what you thought about it.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Karim, you're probably right - assuming, of course, that I'm in that 15% ;-) But, it helps to consider that this is not a game show where people get voted off the island. I imagine that there are a lot of folks posting in the gallery who have no other outlet for their creativity, good or bad. Without comments and criticism, how can they get better?</p>

<p>So, yeah, a lot of the shots are pretty lame, including a couple of mine at the moment. But it's stilll fun to browse through them and find a jewel...</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>Karim,</p>

<p>The "top" list includes some that average under 4. Maybe Josh or someone else can tell us how the list is made. But I don't think they intended to imply that all are top, I think it is just a sorted list with an arbitrary cutoff point.</p>

<p>IMO, a very high percentage of the first 20 on the list are excellent. You only included 3 days, for more excellent images include a month. How many great images do you think can be created in 3 days!</p>

[h_j7]

<p>Also, one other thing to consider, like Mr. Kahn pointed out, "there may be folks posting in the gallery who have no other outlet for thier creativity, good or bad."<br>

And, to take it one step further, those same folks could possibly not care at all what you, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about the images they post. Just because you think an image is "boring" doesn't necessarily make it so. Feel free to come out of your ivory tower every once and a while. A breath of fresh air may do you some good.<br>

I rarely browse through the galleries anyway so I am not one to judge what constitutes a good or bad image. We all started somewhere. We ALL still take bad photos from time to time. We also get lucky every now and again and snap that perfect image. YOUR perception of perfect might be totally different than mine when it comes to photography. To each his own I guess.</p>

[george_ghio]

<p>In the eye of the beholder.</p>

<p>Who says your 18% is worthy?</p>

<p>Why should I think that my choices would fair better?</p>

<p>As far as I can tell 98% of the photos on PN fall into one of two categories, 1) Recording. Where the intent is to record an event, building, animal etc. for posterity. 2) Happy snaps. Self explanatory. </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with these, they may be a perfect example of the photographic process with crystal clear focus, brilliant color reproduction, but they are not art (subject to only my standard as the beholder).</p>

<p>The other 2% are art (subject to only my standard as the beholder).</p>

<p>The point is, photography is a highly subjective medium.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

I think the category is a big factor as well. For example the birds category is quite good here on Pnet. I submit photos

for rating in this category often and find it very hard to get an average rating over 5. I have never had a 6 or better

average. Of course I don't shoot the caliber photos as some guys and gals on here, but I do believe that some

categories offer better work than others, but then again that could just be due to my personal tastes.

[m_stephens]

<p>I'm new here, so wasn't familiar with the ratings gallery. This thread got me there for the first time. First thing I noticed was that no criteria are explained - just a 1 through 7 numeric rating. That means the submissions are presented against no criteria, and then rated without any criteria, by people with no explicit credentials. What would you expect the results to be? Suppose random songs from every musical genre were presented. How would "Nessun Dorma" rate against "Jumpin' Jack Flash"?</p>

<p>It seems to work as a public popularity measure. But, that won't tell you much about photographic merit.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John makes the single-most important point. If you want to improve ratings and critique, rate and critique and stop whining about it in forums. YOU can make a difference here, but not by looking from above while sitting on your . . . well . . . er . . .</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>There is no way an open list can be of any use for filtering or determining the "best". <br />Its like PSA sanctioned camera clubs. All the work looks like it was shot by same<br />person because of their rating criteria. I'm not slamming clubs or saying the<br />work generally stinks. I'm simply pointing out the shortcomings of the process.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Anytime you try to anoint anything "the best" there is a shortcoming in the process. Photo.net TRP, the Oscars, juried art competitions, olympic ice skating, etc. Someone is going to disagree with the results, probably many people, that's just the way those sort of things go. Expecting perfection, particularly for any one given viewer, is impossible.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>mmh, I just browsed for the first time the first three pages of the "Top Rated Photos" gallery.</p>

<p>Why so many hummingbird images?</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Hey! What's wrong with hummingbirds? ;-)</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Maybe photography isn't really a competitive sport?</p>

[stp]

<p>Ratings are so entirely subjective, and they say far more about the person giving the rating than the actual photograph (unless the rating is also accompanied by a written critique). A "7" says "I really like this photo," while a "3" says "I really don't like this photo." All of this is about the person doing the rating, and essentially nothing about the photo itself. Only by obtaining many ratings can a general view of the photo be obtained, and even then it's either good, bad, or somewhere in-between, with no guidance on what's good or bad or how it might be improved. I also think that anything "different" will receive a relatively higher rating, regardless of the merits of the photo other than being different. This is especially true for photos that have been heavily manipulated, heavily saturated, or had a strong HDR effect applied. M. Stephens said it well: I don't view photography as a competitive sport; it's simply a way to lead me to more intense and intimate experiences with the landscapes that I love to explore. I like to share, which is why comments mean so much more to me than a single numeric score.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I rummage lately through cable movies on a Time Warner promotion of HBO and Showtime. Result- (for my tastebuds),: 94%= boring. 1%= good (or 'goodish', I notice the murky 'ish' a lot these days ...) <em>None </em>= excellent, i.e. worthy of my time to watch them, as I turn them off and reread a book or old camera manuals. 5%= Yucky. Even disgusting, artisticly crappolo work and script and gore for no meaning. <em> But somebody somewhere </em>must like this what I deem 98% dreck to pay for it. I do not like anything much with drugs. Or vampires. That's me. Cats don't bother me either, I like animals in movies or images...<br /> See,when you go with viewers paying and not freebies you get a metric of some interesting consequence, I suggest, Karim. Also conclude I must be kinda weird or at least off the distribution curve in my own values.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>Ninety percent of everything is crud. (Sturgeon's revelation).</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I have also noticed that wildlife shots dominate the all-time ratings list. Nothing wrong with that as many of those photos are very good.</p>

<p>Some people take the post-modernist view that every work of art is of equal value (except when money is involved). I don't take that view. There is such a thing as plain old garbage, whether in architecture, photography, industrial design, whatever. That doesn't mean we shouldn't post our crap images - that's how we learn.</p>

<p>BTW people do care what others thing of their photographs. Otherwise they wouldn't make them publicly viewable. I know I do - I'm honoured when my peers accept my work. I offered one PN member a detailed critique of why their photos were not good. I expected a bit of feedback from the photographer but instead they just took the photos down.</p>

<p>As for that hideous HDR neon fad - good riddance to it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>One. People like different things. </p>

<p>Two, ninety percent at least really is trash. My 90% might not be the same as your 90% (see above). The 90% varies a bit with subject and mood. Catch me on a grumpy day and a big batch of wedding, kids or pet pics and we'll see how much above 90% it can get. </p>

<p>Three , even 90% of what I shoot is trash. It might just take me a little longer to identify my 90% than it would take me to identify yours. </p>

<p>Four. This has nothing to do with photography. If I go into an antiques shop I will probably hate at least 90% of the material in the shops I like best. If I go to an exhibition of paintings even of a genre/artist that I like, what i really value will be a small minority. If I go into a clothes shop I like in "buy" mode, I'm probably struggling to put more thatn 10% of what I see on a long list.</p>

<p>Five. A few things that you really like, with signs of an active imagination at work, can make up for a large majority of mediocre stuff. Its actually worth sifting through a volume of c**p if you find a bit of gold. </p>

[dan_south]

I saw the HCB exhibition in New York a few months ago. Hundreds of photos by a renowned master. But there were

only about thirty that I found interesting. Why ask why? Enjoy what you enjoy. As for the rest, either forget about it

or study it until you develop an appreciation for it.

[jkilgo]

<p>I have seen PN evolve greatly since I first joined in 2006...initially it seemed to be a forum for professionals and or advanced amatures. I was intimidated at first to post any of my work for fear of scorn and ridicule. Fortunately for me this was not the case...of the people who expressed interest in the stuff I posted by and large the critiques were contructive and positive. I have since established lasting connections to a number of photogs and look forward to each opportunity to connect with them...to some extent I think PN was the original social network site. I can honestly say that my pictures have improved as a result of these many connections...and hopefully some of the advice I've given has helped others as they also endeaver to become better photogs. I guess with anything when the exposure increases there is a requisite watering down of the talent pool...and I think it would be snobbish to assume only good photogs should post on PN...I agree with the original poster that some questionable images make it to the "top photo" category, but I think this may be to some degree people learning from the good, the bad, & the ugly. I love to post critiques, but due to the shear volume of images I typically only view those that interest me...typically by genre, photog, personal preference, etc.. I really enjoy viewing images on PN and enough talented photogs come and go to keep my interest engaged. </p>