Am I really that bad of a photographer?

[Laurie1]

<p>Hi Christal,<br>

It seems your question has produced quite a long and fruitful thread. Though I spend a lot of time reading the forums and occasionally going through the galleries I am not very active in them. I have never used rating systems mostly because they seem to me to be often based on popularity and "politics" rather than a true response to the photo.<br>

Anyway what prompted me to add to the thread was your comment -<br>

<em>"I realize we all have different tolerances for criticism.....that's fine. But your idea would let those of us who would like honest criticism to 'invite' it from other similarly minded members"</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Like you, when I am looking at someone's images I am mostly not sure if they want a critique or just for you to look. On another site I always put the following comment with my images-<br>

"If you find this image interesting please say something about it. Helpful criticism is always welcome."<br /><br /><br>

This way the viewer at least knows I am open to advice and helpful criticism. On the down side I still don't get much in the way of critiques but nor do I get a stream of "good" "great" etc (or perhaps my images just aren't good or great at all :) )<br>

One other thing, and here I can only speak for myself, - sometimes I feel I ought to get more involved and will write several critiques on images that interest me in the critique forum. But of those I leave comments on, only about half are acknowledged (and this often applies to others who have commented). While I am not asking for agreement or praise, just a thanks to show the person has at least read the critique. As your track record in this thread shows you are obviously not one of these people - but I high-light it just to show that sometimes people get disenchanted with the system and like me give up commenting - at least for a while.<br>

Sorry for the long winded response. Thanks for airing this subject.<br>

Best regards<br>

Laurie</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish you had read the comments and responses, and I think you would understand that I am indeed not looking for stroking or compliments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I didn't say that you were. Rather, I discussed the double standard and sensitivity applied to less favorable responses than higher ones which is a different issue. That issue being summarily brushed aside purposefully or more sub-consciously. Perhaps a mix of both. Its hampering your evaluation of peoples responses in general and whether they are actually useful or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm truly frustrated by the seeming lack of effort put in by the community members... ...let me be clear.....I am not 'concerned', as you say, about the low ratings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Of course you are. Look at the title of the post. It certainly wasn't "Am I really that great of a photographer" with complaints about a lack of feedback from higher ratings. There were no complaints about lack of comments from average rates. If it were really only about a lack of critiquing itself, the title and post would have been about that in general. Instead, it was...<br /> <br /> <em>"I get so frustrated with the <strong>low</strong> ratings"</em><br /> <br /> "<em><strong>My 'friends'</strong> (the regulars who comment on my work) <strong>applaud my work</strong>, occasionally giving me constructive criticism." </em><br /> <br /><em>"it's just plain demoralizing <strong>to receive low score</strong> upon low score."</em><br /> <br /> <em>"I just don't understand how someone can rate <strong>a 2 or 3</strong> and not offer some constructive comment."</em></p>

<p><em>"I am proud of some of my shots, even though many of them have received<strong> low</strong> ratings."</em><br /><br /><br /> Your words, not mine. I believe, however, that you are genuinely interested in feedback and specific commentary from all perspectives at least in principle. My concern here is whether you are getting or will get the most out of any commentary that you receive and evaluating the comments objectively. Look at the reaction here to my commentary. Summary rejection of the critical observation about low ratings despite repeated reference to only low ratings. Now its supposedly about lack of comments in general and how higher raters leave comments. A real concern should be if those are actually useful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do expect to learn from the critiques, which never accompany the low ratings. That is my bone of contention.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All of which are by identifiable people which is a factor in why the comments even exist and what they say. A social phenomenon. Attaboys. Unfortunately, the numbers of high and average rates and comments don't match either. No "bone of contention" about the lack of comments for those ratings. So, you see, you state officially that the concern is about about a lack of commentary on ratings in general and but the actual evaluation and conclusion (the bone of contention) still references only the low ones.</p>

<p>So why point all of this out? You want feedback and that is great. Some of it is useful, some not. The best way to help decipher between the two, to the extent possible, is to take a step back and consider all responses more objectively and see much of them as mere passing reactions. First is rating score evaluation. Look at the overall scores and trends when considering scores, not the fringes. Perhaps even ignore scores. At least acknowledge and factor in you sensitivity to them on both sides of the spectrum. As to critiques and seeking them: Invite people, including friends, to be more discerning, more objective. Even if someone thinks an image is good, it is much more useful for them to tell you how it can be better. Ask them to do that. Otherwise the feedback really doesn't do much for you anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>Going from your response to me, I have some more thoughts. You say you don't have the luxury to wait around and must deal with "less than ideal light." This is what I call "standard" thinking. I come at it from a different direction. I am almost completely an outdoor photographer. In winter I most often shoot at night. I've met a few of the worlds' great photographers in the field, (e.g. Jim Brandenburg in MN, Sigurgeir Sigurjónsson of Reykjavik) and was told some very illuminating things about Light. First, there is no "bad" light or "good" light. All light is useful......for something. Your job in the field is to understand exactly what kind of light you are working with, and then come up with an effective way to use it. Shots that work on an overcast day generally don't work on a sunny day, and the reverse is also true. I see many, many photographers trying to take the same kinds of photos they do on cloudy days as they do on sunny days, and it <strong>just doesn't work.</strong> Some of your photos are in this category. To become more than a technically good photographer, you <strong>must </strong>learn how to use different kinds of light effectively.</p>

<p>I love to visit places in the polar regions--Arctic Canada, Iceland, even northern Scotland. My ultimate trip would be Antarctica. At those latitudes the light is always softer than it is closer to the equator. It's hard to go wrong! It's very easy light to work with. South Dakota has this kind of soft light in winter, but in summer the light is very harsh. You have to take different kinds of shots then. An example. You have some photos of Badlands formations in this kind of harsh light and the shots aren't working. Here's what I once did on a bright mid day. The sky was washed out blue, the formations are white. I switched to b&w film (I shoot 4x5), and then put on a deep red filter. This turned the sky very dark, nearly black. The formations stayed white. The effect was dramatic! It's not often you get a landscape where the sky is very dark and the land is very light--the image has impact! For too many of your shots you seem locked into a "standard" way of seeing and shooting, where you need to get a bit more creative I think. There were a few of your shots where you seemed to have stumbled into this, but it wasn't consistent. There's an old saying that goes, "If you shots lack impact, move in closer." I've found this to be true most of the time. When the light isn't working for a big scale shot, move in closer for a "micro" shot of some details, where the light will be working better. There is no bad light, only bad use of light. This is the reverse of how you've been approaching Light. Am I making sense? Some homework for you. Look up Ian Cameron and Sigurgeir Sigurjónsson on the internet, and study their photos. Pick what you consider their five best. Now, carefully analyze each in terms of what kind of light they had in that shot, and how they used it. Remember that their thinking is "there is no bad light........."</p>

<p>Below photo:<br /> The light was very harsh at the summit of Mona Kea, Hawaii. I switched to my Leica IIIc using b&w film, and used a Leica 3.5cm lens made in the 1940s because it has lower contrast than modern day Nikon lenses. I liked what I got with the 70 yr. old lens & camera.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>"You can learn a lot from traveling around Iceland<br /> with a photographer. He talks about Light.<br /> He's constantly preoccupied with Light."<br /> <br /> --Unnur Jokulsdottir</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[steve_levine]

<p>They rate pictures here?</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Christal, I flippd through a couple of pages of this thread and the contributions seem pretty well balanced but I would like to let you know that, I know exactly how you feel!<br>

I am a member of a forum on Flickr and...without being too egotistical, I am certain that my images are better than the work of many others who get all sorts of gushing attention. It is a SP forum and it seems to me that for many SPers, if something is well-framed, in focus, noiseless and without motion blur, it is not even worthy of a mention! I know this might seems bitchy or snarky, but honestly, it is geting ridiculous in my opinion. I'll be out in the middle of rural China bent almost to the ground and zoning in perfectly on the face of a septigenarian vegetable seller in the midst of an argument and....bang! Captured perfectly! <strong>Zero</strong> comments,<strong> zero</strong> faves, not worth<em> even looking at,</em> according to the membership. Another guy will take the blurriest, noisiest, crappiest, OOF shot of a drunk he's annoyed two minutes from his apartment and suddenly he's a 'genius'.<br>

It is very frustrating</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Stephen, with web forum and social media "success", it's mostly a popularity contest. Folks who come across as personable and easy to like online usually win that game. </p>

<p>It also requires a combination of self pimping while graciously acknowledging ones followers/sycophants. I can point to some amazing success stories, but I'd rather not do so publicly because it might seem snarky. They are very good at what they do, which is selling themselves, their personalities and how lucky their followers and fans are to be acknowledged by such swell photographers.</p>

<p>Regarding photo.net's ratings, it's a popularity contest usually dominated by a couple of cliques. It's actually quite easy to join the cliques and enjoy their favors. But that doesn't mean everyone who rates photos will reciprocate with automagic ratings of 6 and 7. Some folks actually rate without regard to favoritism and tend to regard a rating of 4 as average and 3 slightly below average - not "hate rating" as some folks might wish to believe. If we accept that some photo.netters have high standards, it makes sense that they'd rate most photos as 3-5, only average, slightly below or slightly above average. There shouldn't be a majority of photos receiving ratings of 6 and 7 - statistically that's improbable.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>You have to remember that, from an artistic perspective, it doesn't matter one bit how difficult a shot was to get or how much trouble and expense was involved or what equipment was used, or even how technically perfect it may be.</p>

<p>The perceived quality of a shot depends mostly on the eye of the photographer and the eye of the viewer. It's perfectly possible that a Smartphone snapshot taken on the way to your local bar might be more original and interesting that a shot taken with the best equipment on a trip half way around the world.</p>

<p>Personally I'm not really interested in seeing yet another perfect example of a cliche subject. Wrinkled old people in high contrast B&W, Tuscan Landscapes, HDR images of Venice or Paris or London. If I've seen it before I'm not very interested in seeing it again, no mater how technically perfect the image may be.</p>

<p>Show me something original, something I haven't seen before 100 times and at least I'll look at it</p>

<p> </p>

[Mike D]

<p>Several years ago I was with a group photographers in Yosemite, shooting during the day, talking photography and showing images at night. The first photographer showed his images that he had taken with a 360 degree camera in the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Pretty awesome (but you're not supposed to take pictures in that venue). When it came to the other photographers showing their images, that first photographer wasn't the least bit interested. I asked him why he didn't even look at the other photographs, he responded "because they're BORING." I never forgot that statement, not because the guy was kind of arrogant, but because it made me take a second look at my own images, and yes, they were boring. I don't know if I've been able to break the boring barrier, but it is certainly something I consider every time I take a photograph. I personally believe that this has improved my own photography.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>It also requires a combination of self pimping while graciously acknowledging ones followers/sycophants. I can point to some amazing success stories, but I'd rather not do so publicly because it might seem snarky. They are very good at what they do, which is selling themselves, their personalities and how lucky their followers and fans are to be acknowledged by such swell photographers.</blockquote>

<p>Dude, snark away! Dollars to donuts we name some of the same names. (No, I'm kidding about doing it publicly. But I'm serious about us both thinking of some of the same people.)</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Adam......This thread notwithstanding, I actually don't spend much time on the computer. I have a sedentary job and the last thing I want to do is come home and sit at a computer. I've been a bit more active on PN lately, but I go months without posting any images. Having said that.......I hear your point. We were actually on the road in our RV for 2 months this summer......in some remote places. We virtually had no connection to the Internet. At first, it was heavenly, and my husband and I discussed the freedom from not being 'connected' all the time. But then, frankly, it became a bit difficult. It came time to pay bills, or look up something about a destination we planned to visit, or find a name of a contractor to fix something on our rental property back home, etc....... It became clear to us that we are entrenched for good in the computer age, and there is no going back. But for us, we get many opportunities to 'unplug', get in our RV and get away from it all for awhile. Not sure I could go an entire month though.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Laurie......Well, to begin with.....if you were to start posting images on PN, I'd comment on them. I took a quick look at your work. It's high quality with an eclectic mix of shots.....the very kind of portfolio I love. But I digress.... :-)</p>

<p>I've actually tried wording to that effect on my images when I've requested critiques, and frankly I never found that it increased the number of responses. But it doesn't hurt, certainly. But I agree with you about the frustration of critiquing and getting no acknowledgment in response. So what I've started doing is looking at the member's posting record. If they are an active participant and have a fair number of comments given to other members, I consider them a likely candidate for interaction. If on the other hand, they only have a 'gimme' attitude, only posting and asking for critiques, but never critiquing others, then I look elsewhere.<br>

Thanks for sharing your ideas.<br>

</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Christal, you mentioned that you don't do much post processing or own a raw file processor. I would suggest that you jump in and learn sometime. It's not that complicated, and you can download trial versions of Lightroom and other popular raw processing programs.</p>

<p>I won't suggest that working with raw files will improve your ratings in online critique forums, but it will open up creative possibilities for you. Your work is good, but I would like to see you develop it ever further.</p>

[paul_vojvodin]

<p><strong>That settles it then. </strong></p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>John H. ...... I take it you are quite a literal person. No problem with that......but it seems that you take every word I've said literally and perhaps not in the entire context for which it was intended. First of all, especially in light of the fact that I often don't get a lot of responses to my posts (images or otherwise), I tried to find a 'title' for my post that would garner some attention. I couldn't state the complexity of my frustration in one line of text, or indeed even in my initial post. </p>

<p>My frustration IS with low ratings......the ones that come in waves right after my image is posted. My frustration is ALSO particularly with low ratings without comments. My frustration is also with high ratings without comments, but I don't feel it's as necessary to offer a comment on an image you like. Why, you ask? When I get a positive rating from someone, I'm not as apt to expect a constructive comment. If they think the image is pretty good, I don't need to hear why it's good, and the rater may not be discriminating enough to find anything to critique about the image. Maybe they really just like the image and can find no fault with it. Whatever......who knows? So of course, the higher ratings don't bother me as much as the lower ratings. But not for the reasons you suggest. It is not that I can't take the heat of the low ratings. <br>

With regard to your comment: <br>

<em>My concern here is whether you are getting or will get the most out of any commentary that you receive and evaluating the comments objectively. Look at the reaction here to my commentary. Summary rejection of the critical observation about low ratings despite repeated reference to only low ratings.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

In this thread alone I have received some wonderful constructive criticism, for which I'm grateful. If you had read all of them you would see that my responses were not in the least defensive. I concurred in every single instance. You are the first person whose criticism I have not accepted, though I respect your right to offer it. As with any comment on any image, I don't have to agree with everything that is offered. <br>

<em> </em></p>

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

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Kent, WOW!!!! A lighting tutorial! Thanks so much for offering this info. I think going to workshops to study such things with noted photographers would be invaluable. I plan to do it. It is also my dream to see the polar regions, particularly Antarctica.......also northern Scandinavia where I could shoot the Aurora Borealis. At this stage in my photographic development, I really don't know creative techniques and options to try. I'm learning all the time, and I know if I keep going I'll be in a different place next year. I do plan to attend photography school this summer. I've checked it out and it's format sounds perfect for me at my current level. It's the way I learn best......immersing myself in something for an extended period of time. When I'm at home working and dealing with other responsibilities, I have limited opportunities for studying photography, and I don't seem to make much headway. I'll no doubt go through the Badlands again next year on my trip up to Edmonton to visit my daughter, so stay tuned..... :-) Hopefully I'll get some shots more to your liking. :-) Thanks, again!</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Steve......funny guy! :-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Christal, just as a brain exercise, let's revise your statement a bit:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"My frustration IS with high ratings......the ones that come in waves right after my image is posted. My frustration is ALSO particularly with high ratings without comments. My frustration is also with low ratings without comments, but I don't feel it's as necessary to offer a comment on an image you dislike. Why, you ask? When I get a negative rating from someone, I'm not as apt to expect a constructive comment. If they think the image isn't very good, I don't need to hear why they think it's not good, and the rater may not be discriminating enough to find anything to critique about the image. Maybe they really just dislike the image."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Works either way.</p>

<p>So why is it so hard to accept low ratings as graciously as high ratings?</p>

<p>I'm not denying the ratings system has issues and seems to be biased with disproportionate ratings. But what I see are a lot of unusually high ratings without any apparent discrimination between genuinely good, fresh, vital or unique photography, and merely average or adequate photography that's competently executed but not unique in the slightest.</p>

<p>I don't understand why we shouldn't demand some justification for ratings of 6 or 7. I'd like to know what made the viewer think a photo was more than merely average or above average, considering the vast majority of photos submitted for ratings are variations of very familiar themes. Because how else will we know what's working when nobody explains why a particular photo seemed worthy of a 6 or 7?</p>

<p>And I don't mean just copypasta like "Bellissimo!" or "Well seen!" I mean a comment, phrase, even a single word that didn't come from a keyboard macro.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Stephen.....as I said above, it's often a popularity contest. The more you put in to it and 'play the game', the more comments you're going to attract. Some of us don't have the time to do that though, so I guess we just have to accept what is offered and be content with that. I'm curious, what differences are there between Flicker and Photo.net? I've never investigated Flicker. Good luck with your work!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Dude, snark away!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nah, not here. Because many of 'em are really decent folks. They're not merely narcissists. They just happen to be very good at cultivating fans. We actually can learn a bit from them.</p>

<p>Similarly, I have a few really good photographers on my FB feed who really are doing great work and should have thousands of followers, but don't. They're also really likeable folks. They just don't seem to have generated the sort of self-sustaining momentum it takes to nudge their popularity over the top.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Lex......oops.....I answered Stephen before I read your post. I said almost the same thing......though you said it better. :-) I do think people have different standards for rating. One person could consider an image average and give it a '3'......another could give it a '4'. And there are only a handful of photographers on PN who have consistently received 6's and 7's. </p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Bob. Just curious......to what degree do you think it's possible to learn creativity and originality? I know there are books out there on the subject......none of which I've read. Do you think they're helpful?</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Stephen.....as I said above, it's often a popularity contest. The more you put in to it and 'play the game', the more comments you're going to attract. Some of us don't have the time to do that though, so I guess we just have to accept what is offered and be content with that. I'm curious, what differences are there between Flicker and Photo.net? I've never investigated Flicker. Good luck with your work!</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Dan......you're right, of course. I'm working toward that end. The photo school I'll attend this summer requires sophisticated software, which I'll get soon. The problem for me is that I don't learn this stuff well on my own, but once someone shows me, I attend a class, or even an on-line class on Lynda.com, the info seems to stick. The main thing for me is that I currently don't have much time to devote to photography.....much as I'd like to. I'm thinking of retiring soon though.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...what differences are there between Flicker and Photo.net?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Flickr was essentially born of social media. It originated as a photo sharing utility for online gaming. But it diverged and became a standalone site that rode the early wave of social networking. From the beginning it incorporated tools that encouraged connectedness among users: tags to find photos based on common key words; folksonomy and clusters to allow users to organize photo genres or categories, rather than a rigid top-down taxonomy defined by management; metadata - huge factor; groups set up by users, not by top-down management.</p>

<p>Such a system tends to go one of two ways:</p>

<ol>

<li>Social anarchy, like 4chan, and way back when, Usenet, with relatively little moderation other than to delete illegal material. This works only with anonymity or pseudonymity, with participants' true identities unknown and generally unknowable to each other. Basically the apocalypse. Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria. Real wrath of god type stuff.</li>

<li>Social cliques, with moderation aimed at preserving a pleasant environment free of bullying, threats, intimidation, and generally indirectly fostering conformity. This works only with real identities, avatars, or handles or nicknames - aliases or pseudonyms that are only surface veneers and part of a social identity within a particular community, not intended to protect privacy. Flickr went this direction. Cirque du Soleil rather than Grand Guignol.</li>

</ol>

<p>Photo.net is... hard to describe nowadays. It's old web. Web 1.75. Not so much hipper than 1990s Geocities, CompuServe and Yahoo, just not as embarrassingly clueless because it never tried to be popular. It was the World's Most Interesting Man, before his gall bladder surgery, diabetes and COPD forced him to stop drinking and hanging around smoky bars. He's still an okay dude, maybe a bit hard of hearing and tends to rehash the same old war stories every time you see him. And he has some good photos... in boxes and negative sleeves, or dry mounted on 6-ply archival mount boards.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Lex.....hmmm....I should start hanging out over in your neck of the woods! :-) I just don't see a preponderance of high ratings. And I don't mean to say that I couldn't benefit from comments on the higher rated images. But the few images I've posted that have received 6's or 7's, I KNEW were good images. I didn't need the ratings to tell me so. Now, would I have liked someone to tell me how to make them even better? You betcha! But again, I can learn much more from a well-thought-out critique on a low rated image than on an image I know to be pretty good to begin with. </p>