Point of view

[museebfoto]

<p dir="LTR">I would like to suggest a point of view, in which the PN system make the case of rating is accessible only by numbers who have already received at least 100 comments on his published photos or who have a valuable inputs in discussion forums. In this manner the photos in critique forum would be evaluated by a more qualified peoples. Thanks in forward.</p>

[parv]

What? You are not making sense.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The best way to get a "qualified" reaction to your work is to network with photographers you consider qualified to give you good feedback. Don't expect anything from a numbers (rating) game. And definitely don't expect the site to provide everything or even that much in the way of critiquing mechanisms. You've got to be proactive at getting what you want.</p>

<p>Go through portfolios and forums. Find photographers whose work you respect or who articulate things you feel are insightful and helpful. Ask them questions. Comment on their work. Start a dialogue.</p>

<p>Someone who got 100+ comments on their photos may well have done so by being popular and by making a lot of silly comments on other people's photos. That's got nothing to do with how "qualified" a critic they will be or whether their feedback (and certainly the numbers they dole out) will mean anything to me.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I don't have to be a chef or a farmer to know if I like the food or a musician or composer to know if I like the music. My taste buds and music sensibilities are pretty good. Don't you give opinions about the food you eat and the music you listen too? Photographs are no different. People know what photos look good to them. In fact, your main audiences for food, music and photos are lay people not professionals. Why would you want to eliminate the opinions of the majority of people who are consumers of these products?</p>

<p>Of course professionals can give specific recommendations that lay people may not be aware of. But everyone should be able to give their opinion.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>rating is accessible only by numbers who have already received at least 100 comments on his published photos... ...In this manner the photos in critique forum would be evaluated by a more qualified peoples.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mere receipt of comments, by number or otherwise, has no relevance to someone's qualifications. It just means they received many comments. That could mean anything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>or who have a valuable inputs in discussion forums.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if there were an adequate way to objectively measure whether one's contributions to discussions are valuable, it doesn't necessarily mean their ratings will be.<br>

<br />Ratings are not well suited as a method of disseminating expert analysis in any event. The suggestions above do nothing to change that.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I went to the "Photo Critique" forum and couldn't find any photos that had critiques. Am I looking in the wrong place? I wanted to see what kind of comments were being made in the critiques.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p>Dears<br /> The idea came up in my mind when I thought in the way the Arbitrators Committee selected for any photo exhibitions and to make the critique forum as an exhibition. The number of 100 received comments which I suggested does not constitute any value but only as a threshold step for rating, let us not forget that one photo from some members received half of this figure. Thanks again</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, a lot of photos submitted for critiques don't get critiques. There's a lot of submitting photos for critique here and much less giving of critiques, so lots of photos are submitted with requests for critique and lots of those photographers who submit for critique are not, in turn, critiquing others' work. Thus the large number of photos not receiving any critiques.</p>

<p>The best place to check what kinds of comments are being made is to go to photographers' workspace pages and look at their "Comments on Gallery Photos" link. There you will see links to all the critiques they've made. Another way is to go to the top-rated photos section and sort by number of comments. Then you will be sure to see top-rated-photos that have received comments. A warning, though, the top-rated-photos tend to be vapid themselves and the comments on them are often even more vapid. To find good critiques, you really have to get into the bowels of the site and know some of the photographers who are good at providing insightful commentary. That takes time and work. I try my best. Gordon Bowbrick does a good job. Lex Jenkins. </p>

[mike dixon]

John H.'s points are well-made: receiving comments or making contributions doesn't guarantee the quality of one's comments on photos.

<P>

<i>The idea came up in my mind when I thought in the way the Arbitrators Committee selected for any photo exhibitions and to make the critique forum as an exhibition. </i><P>

The issue in that case is limiting the number of photos to be exhibited. One of the problems of photo.net's rating and critique systems isn't that <b>too many</b> people want to rate and comment, it's that <b>not enough</b> ratings and comments are made. Not allowing people to rate or comment unless they overcome some hurdles is going to make the problem worse.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It has been suggested in the past that a group of photographers willing to commit to a certain amount of critiques a week (that was monitored for at least a minimum of depth and helpfulness -- that could be self monitoring within the group . . . if a critic got enough thumbs down on his critiques by folks other than the person being critiqued they'd be tossed out) be set up to ensure those participating some level of give and take which is sadly lacking and goes woefully unaddressed in the current critique forum. This could be set up probably without the need for administration involvement, a critique group, of sorts. Though some cooperation from administration in terms of process and placement could probably be helpful.</p>

<p>Another suggestion made was more about asking for volunteers among experienced photographers who might be chosen by an administrated or moderated panel to give critiques. And there could be some way of choosing the photos that got critiqued by this panel, perhaps, again, based on participation on the site overall. It could be made public and serve as a model for critiquing and a learning experience for both photographers and critics. Also, obviously, not easily accomplished, but worth a try if there's interest in furthering the aesthetic aims of the site.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

Thanks. I did then get to the "comments" on some images to see what was going on. I think "comments" is the appropriate term here, not so much "critique". Critique is a bit more involved and formal than mere comment. Although anyone can say "I like it" or don't, it's not as easy to offer critique, which has much less to do with personal preferences, and more to do with analysis. I would think that's very hard to do in an online forum? Takes quite a bit of time investment. And many photographers I know think that critique must be a dialog in order to have any real value. Not everyone agrees on that, but I am just saying it is a popular view. That would make it even harder to do here. </p>

<p>BTW, I agree with all your comments on this subject. </p>

<p> </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Something that makes critique different (and more difficult) than comments, is its completeness. A photograph may have powerful communication, but contain a technical flaw, for instance, and the critique will properly recognize those plus and minus attributes. In that way, the photographer gets rewarded for the good and corrected for the mistakes - just to use a simple example.</p>

<p>One kinda, sorta, possible way to accomplish that simply, would be a tab chart. Perhaps you make a few categories to score individually. Communication, Composition, Technique, Impact, Creativity, and so on. I think PSA and other groups have all sorts of standards and guidelines on this subject to get some ideas to pull from.</p>

<p>But of course, in the end, anything of actual value will require serious exchange of time. And there has to be a motivation to use the time that way.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, yes, DIALOGUE. And it does take time. And it is hard, but possible, on an Internet forum. I do try to make my comments/critiques less about personal preference. Interestingly, defensiveness demands that when someone is critiqued they will chalk up anything you say that they don't like to "personal preference" or they will use the "subjectivity" of "art" as an excuse not to really hear anything they perceive as critical. I try to be more descriptive than judgmental of what I see (with exceptions, of course, since I'm human and there's value in sharing what I like with people as well) in the hopes that if my description doesn't match what the photographer may have intended, the photographer may realize he hasn't communicated what he was hoping or may have gone awry in some way . . . or not. There are a few photographers here who I've developed relationships with and the best critiques have become dialogues, even over the course of a few photos of each of us and not necessarily limited to one particular photo. Every now and then someone will make a simple observation (not even a value judgment or preference) that will open my eyes to something I just didn't realize about a photo of mine. It sometimes happens in the blink of an eye. As you say, the hardest thing is that when I'm critiqued or mentored (this relates to your other thread on mentoring), I'm usually asked as many questions as I am given suggestions . . . and the suggestions are usually suggestive rather than specific. That's, again, hard to do in an environment such as we have. But, there are some who make do quite well, even in this environment. It is definitely an investment.</p>

<p>One thing I've learned is that just choosing photos to show and sharing them, even with no feedback at all, has been a learning experience and has taught me to look differently at my work and has definitely taught me a lot about presentation and editing. There's something about knowing your work is going to be seen that gives it some additional heft. I can't tell you the number of times I've had a photo on my own screen for days or weeks and it's only once I post it to my web site or portfolio that I will notice something I just hadn't looked at that way before. I think there's something to be said for looking at your own photos with a sort of shared or public eye, even if you get no comments.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

I've been learning the techniques of critique for the last 3 years, and I feel like a mere beginner still. It requires some learned skills and some careful communication techniques. More involved than I thought when I started.</p>

<p>Of particular difficulty is measured response. Are you critiquing a seasoned artists, or a new artist? Those have to be different kinds of critique. And if it's fine art, there pretty much has to be some informed communication about artistic intent. Without some idea of intent or purpose, I think most critiquers can pass up some powerful artistic sentiment by mistake. It's a tough business this critiquing is.</p>

<p>Let me illustrate with my own example of recent days here. I posted a photograph in the MF forums the other day. It was from a new project I am working on. When I say working on, I mean, I have a sense of what I am going to try to portray in the series, but I have no idea yet how I will do it photographically in the long run. So, I am taking lots of experimental photographs in hopes of refining this <em>thought</em> into something photographically in the future. Ok, that's the background. Now, the moderator looks at that picture, and says to me (in so many words), why would you even post that picture? It's worse than a test pattern. Now, he wasn't of course doing a critique, he was simply responding to the image. But, there you go. Now, if I showed that same picture (and I will) to my local artists, they will ask about it's meaning or my purpose, and I will give them a short synopsis of the idea, and they will then critique it with that sense in mind. Both are valid comments - and both are comments I listen to - but which will have value in my work?</p>

<p>That's a long way of saying that critique may only have meaning if it satisfies the artist's goals. And without dialog, I am not sure if what you get is anything beyond random. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, there's also a difference between critique and bluster or outburst, which may be what you encountered.</p>

<p>Also, what a lot of folks fail to realize is that the critique relationship is different from the situation of the viewer in a gallery or museum. When you say to people that getting a sense of intent from the photographer (and sometimes the intent doesn't matter or can't be articulated) is vital to a constructive critique, they will tell you they just want to appreciate the photo for what it is without needing to hear from the photographer. They don't understand, then, the difference between working with someone in a critical or mentoring capacity and viewing someone's work as a lay member of an audience.</p>

<p>Regarding the picture you posted to the MF thread. Context is SO important. A photo can certainly be critiqued in its own right, but I have done enough series to know that a good critic will bear in mind that individual photos often serve the vision of the series or concept and won't stand on their own in the same way a photo made to be individually shown will stand. In any case, test pattern didn't enter my mind when I viewed it.</p>

<p>I quickly learned that critiques (mine and those of others) often (NOT always) tell as much about the critic as about the photo. There are certain commenters on my own work whose reactions I can often predict. And, even among folks I don't already know, depending on their own work, I might be flattered by their not liking something of mine. I have often told people who are miffed at getting low ratings here to look at the top-rated photos and then they may want to consider low ratings a badge of honor!</p>

[museebfoto]

<p>Yes, I agree that most participation are within the limits of observations and comments, nor critiques. In fact, what I have mentioned are all about the "rating" because comment need more time, good information and a good expression. Personally, I feel the degree of rating which is come from a photographer who has a good performance will take place to others in better way even if it is low. And a good performance photographer must have technical workers that can attracted others to comment. PN site has a good statistical data to do this.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>IMO, ratings are a complete waste of time in terms of the substance of one's photography. It is a game. Not even a popularity contest, since ratings are often limited to only a trickle of random participants. They tell you NOTHING. </p>

<p>If you knew the identity of a rater, you might give it a tad more credence because you could look at his or her work and other statements and get a sense of their sensibility and the value of their consideration. But, here you don't know the identity of the rater, so you get NO useful information from a rate. The way it works is that most people pay attention to the high ratings and assume that means they made a nice photo and those same people pay no attention to the low ratings assuming they came from mean people or people who are just rating everyone low or people who couldn't substantiate their views. Again, a waste of time and energy. For every ounce of energy you put into rating or looking at your own ratings, you could be critiquing someone or looking for someone who's photos you appreciate to ask a question of.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p><strong>Fred G.</strong> Thank you for your time and effort.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you knew the identity of a rater, you might give it a tad more credence because you could look at his or her work and other statements and get a sense of their sensibility and the value of their consideration. But, here you don't know the identity of the rater, so you get NO useful information from a rate.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed the system give the name of rater after five, and one can get a tentative idea about them.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

"IMO, ratings are a complete waste of time in terms of the substance of one's photography. It is a game. Not even a popularity contest, since ratings are often limited to only a trickle of random participants. They tell you NOTHING."<br>

============<br>

Once again, I agree with your views here. I see no value to the rating at all. I suppose the idea I would have promoted for a site like this is a critique-exchange system. People wanting critique would be in column A, people capable of giving proper time and care to critique would be in Column B, and they would select each other for an exchange. It would then take place off line via email or something for a fixed period. They they would re-enter their name on the list. Not hard to do.</p>

<p>I think there are a LOT of photographers who want/need serious critique. Whether periodically, or specifically for a project, or as learning in their craft and art. Without some formality to it, it won't happen on a forum. There is a real shortage. That's one of the reasons I joined a club. Critique is the primary activity. Yes, some are no good at it, but some are very good, and it's not hard to work with the ones who are good. This is how I have been learning to critique. I enjoy it, but it is difficult.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>The number of 100 received comments which I suggested does not constitute any value but only as a threshold stepchanges everything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So its not a useful measure but its a useful measure. That changes everything.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p>If rating process doesn't mean a lot to this extent, why the site give some attention to this just like " top rated photo " ?.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The number of 100 received comments which I suggested does not constitute any value but only as a threshold step for rating.</em><br /> <em><strong>John H</strong>. said</em><br /> <em>So its not a useful measure but its a useful measure. That changes everything.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I am with you <strong>John</strong>, but what I meant, that the figure of 100 received critiques are nothing for a long-practiced photographer who has the right to rate " is not useful from this side ", but it is useful to the process of rating itself. I hope I am clear now.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In academic publication, number of citations of ones work is often used as a measure for tenure, etc. However, some have learned, for example, that embedding a subtle misinterpretation of, say, one of the laws of thermodynamics is a very good way of getting <em>many</em> citations (of course, all correcting the error, but a citation is a citation).<br /> I hope you all are able to extend this little parable to the critique of images here without my holding your hand along the way....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>If rating process doesn't mean a lot to this extent, why the site give some attention to this just like " top rated photo " ?.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because people like games, numbers, and competitions. Like <em>American Idol</em> and the lottery. The site is a business and wants to drive and keep traffic here and, to some extent, appeal to the greatest common denominator even if it's got nothing to do with good photography or the substance of photography. This is a commercial site. Someone has determined that it's a good business practice. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, great suggestion. I wonder if it could be done where the PN membership could read the critique dialogues, rather than by private email. I think there's a lot to be learned from reading good critiques and it might be helpful to many, even if they didn't actively participate. I noticed you, intentionally or not, modeling a form of critique in the contrast thread (which I then tried to continue). It's good to put such an approach out there. People are bound to get something out of it.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred,<br>

I don't know how to make it public reading, but I completely agree that would be a better way, and have more total value. Making it public would require programming on the forum I think.There might be ways to brute force it, like simply starting threads for each critique, but that is a bit clumsy I would think. </p>