Am I really that bad of a photographer?

[lex_jenkins]

<p>You may be referring to average ratings. True, the overall average ratings appear to be down at least a full point compared with a few years ago. But I see many folks routinely giving ratings of 6 and 7 - these are publicly visible. These may be offset by lower ratings, but there's no way for anyone other than administrators to know for certain.</p>

<p>Personally I think it may be a mistake to make higher ratings publicly visible. I'm not sure it makes sense to only partially mask ratings lower than 6, while keeping ratings of 6 and 7 visible. This partial system seems to foster the notion that only ratings of 6 and 7 are acceptable even without critiques, while anything lower is unacceptable and certainly unacceptable without justification. Leaving ratings of 6 and 7 publicly visible also encourages a form of mate rating and peer pressure: "I see your name attached to the list of people who rated my photo. But when I checked your list of photos that you've recently rated, I don't see my photo on your list. That means you didn't rate my photo 6 or 7. Why do you hate me?" Blah-blah-blah.</p>

<p>Seems obsessive, but, hey, people do that on photo.net. The ratings have always been a bittersweet temptation. Everybody loves the high ratings. Nobody wants to be the kid who didn't get a gold star.</p>

<p>Everybody loves high ratings without any form of qualification on the part of the rater: "You like me? You really, really like me? And you can mash the 6 and 7 numerals on your keyboard? Yay, that's good enough". </p>

<p>But anyone who doles out ratings of 5 or lower had better be prepared to show his credentials: "Your undergrad degree is in history and you have an MA in photography rather than an MFA in Cross-Cultural Deconstruction of Postmodern Solipsism? You aren't qualified to rate *my* photos 5 or lower!"</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Ratings might have seemed like a good idea when the site was run as a hobby by its owner, but the system never worked out of the box and we're still debating the same 'ol thing 20 years later, except now the site is a business and needs to generate enough revenue to justify its existence so it's no longer about making it work academically, but how it can exist in such a way as to be conducive to attracting members, keeping them around, while not becoming a constant sore point. </p>

<p>In that context, the only "out" I can imagine is a rating system that serves a social function and explicitly states as such in its site description. Under such an environment, ratings can serve as encouragement, true feelings, or indeed whatever you want it to mean as a rater or a recipient. In other words, acknowledge the elephant in the room while understanding and accepting its limitations and find a new purpose for coming to the site if you're in disagreement.</p>

<p>The alternative is to remove the feature altogether which I can't see happening. <br>

</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yeah, it's a puzzle. I suspect that if you privately surveyed the folks who routinely dominate the TRP, chances are they're pretty happy with the current system. Sure, they might prefer to see their averages back up over 6.0, like they were a couple of years ago. But whether 5.75 or 6.25, they're still dominating the TRP, same as over the past several years. The system works really well for the people it works really well for.</p>

<p>The tricky bit has always been balancing parity or equity against reality. A couple of years ago the system was tweaked so that the actual, absolute highest rated photos on any given day didn't actually dominate page one of the TRP. That meant that on one or two occasions even my not-particularly-remarkable photos appeared on page one of the TRP, briefly, despite having an average rating of just over 5.</p>

<p>That didn't please some folks, who preferred a real meritocracy, with the TRP reflecting the absolute rankings.</p>

<p>And the latter may have had a point. Clearly the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect">Lake Wobegon effect</a> adjustments haven't completely resolved the dissatisfaction, whether it's because the system is inherently "unfair" or because folks don't understand the purpose of the ratings system and why it works as it does. And we're well beyond the point where we can advise folks "Just read the history of the ratings debates." I'm not even sure a Wikipedia article would suffice to explain the convoluted history and permutations over the past decade.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>You are a good photographer. Pay no attention to the rating system.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>With regards the comment above about boring images, I do at times feel quite sorry for a person who has spent a fortune on a camera body, bought the best lens money can buy, flown to Cambodia with a tripod, got up at 5am, hired a car, suffered the worst roads on earth while trying to convince their driver that drinking vodka in the morning is probably not a good idea and turning the lights <em>on is</em>, hiked for 20 mins to get just the right point of view, waited for the sun to be in the right spot in crippling humidity, been bitten by 50 mosquitoes, spent hours on photoshop lovingly crafting their idea of the perfect shot which can be blown up to exhibition size....and I see his work and think "Oh, that's quite nice". Then someone takes a casual shot of a gleeful toddler with their iPhone and it makes everyone smile. :-)<br>

The thing that gets me is how obvious self-promoters are. "He liked my pics so I'm going to like all his pics then somehow we convince ourselves we're really talented and Ansel Adams was a conman". I saw one thread on another forum by a bitchy little man who opined that HCB was "crap" an invited all his mates to confirm this. But that's people for you I suppose.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>"There is no such thing as bad publicity", look at it this way:)<br>

And nothing wrong with your pictures, they are good, I had looked at your portfolio, I think you can do some editing, remove obvious duplicates. There was interesting film on TV from "National Geographic" about their photographers. Magazine stated, that on average photographer brings between 10 and 13 thousands pictures from assignment, only few of them get published and those photographers are top pros, they do not do spray and pray. <br>

Good luck.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

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

<p>Chrystal, I see this as a reasonable position to take and a reasonable trade-off. Why would anyone who doesn't put much time into something (PN) expect much in return?</p>

<p>Along those lines, though, I'm afraid many do expect a lot from PN without putting that much time into it, and that's likely not going to happen, especially in terms of substantive critiques and actual learning about photography. It takes time . . . and effort.</p>

<p>This is why I'm against having administration solve problems. We've recently asked the administration to solve the problem of the Off Topic forum (according to the survey), needing to silence our peers who we felt were too "mean-spirited" in controversial political and social discussions. We've asked the administration to stop our seeing nudes posted by our fellow community members either because they offended our own sensibilities or because we were worried about getting in trouble at work. Now we want to ask administration to protect us (with a checkbox) from harsh or angry responses to our critiques, and protect us in advance by hoping they can set up a system where we won't even address the photos of those who might not want an honest critique, even though they've submitted their photos for critique. My feeling would be that it takes as thick a skin to give an honest critique as it does to post a photo. Participating in a public forum will introduce us to all kinds of folks with all kinds of opinions and many ways of expressing those opinions. We get a reply we don't like . . . we can always simply walk away and not give the same person another critique. I have learned as much about responses to my critiques as I've learned from some others' critiques of my work. I'm not about to avoid providing honest critiques because I'm worried about a negative reaction to them and I certainly don't want the administration to come up with yet another way to protect me from fellow members.</p>

<p><em>"I believe we should all just say what we really feel (in a constructive manner) about work in the critique forums. To hell with angry responses."</em></p>

<p>I much prefer your line of thinking here, Scott, than your suggestion of a check box to indicate whether I want an honest critique or not.</p>

<p><em>"It also requires a combination of self pimping . . . "</em></p>

<p>Lex, like you I stopped playing the ratings game a long time ago and now submit for ratings only to have my photos show up at the bottom of threads. At the same time, I have sought to and succeeded in developing a following of PN members whose work I generally respect and whose comments I general find helpful if not always negatively critical. Even if they are a little on the praising side of the equation, as it's hard to negatively critique even an Internet friend's work, I do get honest emotional reactions to things which can tell me as much about one of my photos as someone else's suggestion of how I might crop it or whether I should have tried black and white. You're not doing this, but I want to make sure what you are saying doesn't get confused with the a very positive side of developing a critique "group" for oneself, which can be much different than pimping. Self promotion can actually go hand-in-hand with good work and a good critique ethic, though the self pimping situations seem to glare out in much stronger ways.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>You could block ratings and just accept critiques. High numbers swell your head and low ones depress you. Neither instructs you on what the viewer likes or dislikes about your picture to make it work for them or not. That's what you really want to learn to become a better photographer.</p>

<p>As an aside, I use to go to a photo club before I recently moved. Twice a month, they would have a critique where the members would comment on other member's photos. Once a month, they would invite an "expert" who would judge photos the members brought it. Once a month they would have a "training" session or maybe a show from some professional of his work. At the "competitions, the judge would comment why photos worked for him or not. These were good methods to learn and get feedback in a supportive and friendly social environment with other photographers with varying degrees of experience. It was also a way to meet other interested photographers to go on a photo shoot together where you could learn as well..</p>

[sjluke]

<p>It is gratifying to see the amount of words generated by this topic. People care, and that is a good thing.<br>

I agree with an earlier post by Fred G.: pare down your gallery photos. The process of going through your images can be quite instructive, even though it is difficult to be objective about one's own creations. Be ruthless; each picture must have a compelling reason for existence in your portfolio. Just think how you feel when Uncle Charlie pulls out his box of slides and you are forced to sit through three hours of picture after picture. A friend told me once that slide shows should be no longer than seven minutes. How fresh and interested your audience would be at the end of that! Take the challenge and find only the most stunning and imaginative pictures you've ever taken, and wow your audience, instead of putting them to sleep. <br>

In the process you will possibly learn something about composition, lighting and point of view and how it all adds up to visual and emotional impact. <br>

You have a lot of material to work with already. Good luck!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Forget the ratings system...

 

When I want an honest opinion on my work, I consult fellow pros or better yet, enormously talented and well known

photographers giving workshops, one in particular who is not known for handing out empty praise. I never use the net,

ever. Because the problem is that people are just too nice, much of the time to avoid retribution and criticism of their own

work....it's clearly evidenced in this thread.

 

All this being said, yes, take a class or a workshop. My opinion is that most of your work is below average in terms of

amateur camera owner standards, a lot of poorly represented light, static and lacking compositions. I know many will harp

on me for saying the last part, but I am just calling it like I am seeing it.

 

Good luck in moving forward and getting some real instruction to improve your vision.

[gordonjb]

<p>Looking for critique on sites like this one, more often than not, ends up being a road to mediocrity and stagnation.You need to develop your own yardstick. Take courses, study the work of those who you know to be masters.Put your energy into photographing and evaluating rather than relying on a random group of strangers to judge your progress. They may inform you as to what is popular however I'm not sure of what good that does anyone. Given that you are not selling you images you have the benefit of not being concerned with what is popular. That in itself is a luxury which should not be squandered.</p>

 

[Mike D]

<p>Cristal, going through your portfolio, I have listed the images that I thought were interesting and I took a second look: In Harmony, Yellow Mounds Dusk, Underwater Ballet, Trees Exhibit B, Green ion Orange, Escape Goat, River Rock Abstract, Striations of Color. Another way to rate a piece of art is by how long a person looks at it. The longer, the better. </p>

[Two23]

<p>I agree with Gordon B, above. The ratings have more to do with popularity and marketing than they do ability. I have no interest in that at all and think it's silly. My thinking is the "rating" system should be simplified into "Like" or "Dislike." That might give a better gauge. If you want more meaningful feedback, why not join your local camera club? Really, I think this is part of your answer. I've been given a lot of meaningful feedback on my own images from my camera club, and people tend to be more honest when you're dealing with them in person. There's fewer games played.</p>

<p>Christal mentions she sometimes doesn't have enough time for photography. Probaby most of us can say that as well. The answer to that might be to take short one to two hour trips around where you live rather than relying on big grand trips. Just as winter gives different opportunities than summer, night gives you whole new opportunities vs. day. There is an unlimited amount of images to be made within five miles of your house. Or, even inside your house. To better learn how to use flash, I set up "still lifes" on my kitchen table, and put a 3-sided white foam core around it, or a black 3-sided foam core background. I then put two of my flash on lightstands and began taking photos right in my kitchen, varying the light. Doing this I learned pretty quickly the fundamentals of placing light and how to use it. You can do this without flash too, just to learn Light. Another thing I do is as I drive along or even just sitting somewhere, I try to compose little photos in my mind. I carefully analyze the light and ask myself how to use it. This is GREAT practice, even though I'm not actually taking shots. I am constantly analyzing light in a photographic sense as I go through my day.</p>

<p>--->I think this is the key to photography: sharpen your previsualization skills.</p>

<p>Just as before you play a sonata on the violin you think about how you want to interpret it (dyanamics, meter, etc.) so too must you consider all the possibilities when making a photo. You don't actually have to have your violin to think about how you're going to play a piece, and you don't actually have to have your camera to think through how you will make an image.</p>

<p>Below photo:<br /> I like to take photos of my old camera gear as I acquire it. I set up the white foam core on my dining room table and get out a couple of flash. Our cat, Annie, is drawn to this activity like a magnet. I've taken some cute shots of her and my camera gear over the years as she does her inspection. Again, done at home on my kitchen table. It's good practice. Note the skeptical expression on Annie's face. Ultimately, she did approve of the Rollei.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

Another +1 for Gordon B's insightful comments. Follow your own vision. Blaze your own path. Establish your own criteria

for what works and what doesn't.

 

If you do seek advice, favor that of those who have accomplished something. I would avoid the advice of someone whose body of work does not appeal to me (or who refuses to show their work). That's like letting some lazy couch potato design your exercise program.

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<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?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's possible, but it's 1000x harder than learning how to use a camera. Creativity is mostly inborn I think, but some of the books might help you understand it better. Take a look at "The Zen of Creativity" by John Daido Loori, though it's far from a "100 things to do to be creative" instructional cookbook.<br>

<br>

I'd say stop copying, in the sense that landscape photographers might not want to copy or compare their work to that of [insert name of favorite landscape photographer here] or portrait photographers might not want to copy or compare their work with that of (insert favorite portrait photographer here]. Equally, don't try to emulate popular images on photo.net. Avoid shooting anything that could be sold as a postcard in a gift shop. Be prepared for others not to understand (or even like) your work. Shoot what you feel, not what you think might make a good picture.<br>

<br>

Picasso was original and when he started out everybody (as in the public and most art critics) hated his work. They didn't understand it - but he did.<br>

<br>

You might look at the work of Francesca Woodman <a href="http://www.berk-edu.com/RESEARCH/francescaWoodman/index.html">http://www.berk-edu.com/RESEARCH/francescaWoodman/index.html</a> It was shot in the late 1970s, so the originaly has to be based on that time period. Probably every image she shot would get a low rating here, but here work is now in some of the most prestigious photo collections in the world including the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Tate gallery in London. Of course since she committed suicide at the age of 22, she's not the perfect role model...<br>

<br>

Then again some people just want to create pretty and popular images, and that's just fine if that's what you want. In that case you probably should try to emulate the "top rated" photographers work. Everyone probably shoots "stock" type images some of the time and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, even for someone who wants to also be a creative artist. Just note that being creative is not the route to take to high ratings in a popularity contest. In fact I'd go so far as to say that, in general, if an image is highly popular, it's probably not creative. People like things they are familiar with.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Well said Bob, also I had never heard of Francesca Woodman, very interesting work. There is a well know photographer using those very same ideas today, first thing I thought when I saw the pictures.<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Note the skeptical expression on Annie's face. </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

That's not half as bad as Buggy's face with approaching Nikon, more seething hatred I think.<strong><br /></strong></p>

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

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Just do your own thing, and share, why does it matter what others think? Have respect for your own vision.</p>

<p>Unless of course you want to be the fairy sitting on top of the Christmas tree.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I had never heard of Francesca Woodman, very interesting work. There is a well know photographer using those very same ideas today, first thing I thought when I saw the pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I guess the current photographer may not be entirely original then, though all art is a progression. I suppose you could find work similar to that of Woodman before she shot her images. Most work is somewhat based on what's gone before. The originality problem is when work isn't based on previous work but is essentially an attempt to duplicate it.</p>

<p>I suppose the current analog of Woodman's work would be Smartphone Selfies, but that wasn't an option in the 1970s.</p>

<p>There is a movie ("The Woodmans") about Francesca Woodman, told mostly by her parents. It's a little disturbing - which isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Lets us be honest most great Artist never got much recognition in their day. Only the connected and arse lickers achieved that.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

 

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Lex.....thanks for outlining the differences between Photo.net and FlickR. :-) You have a very pictorial, imaginative and enjoyable writing style! Maybe that's why I like PN so much.....it's old fashioned, and even I (the non-techie) can get my head around it.</p>

<p>And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement:<br>

<em>But anyone who doles out ratings of 5 or lower had better be prepared to show his credentials.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>That's just another layer of frustration for me. </p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Michael.......I agree. I'm certain they will never remove the feature. And neither will they ever find a system that pleases everyone. But that doesn't keep me from trying to at least lobby for the changes that are important to me. Each and every member has that same right. In this thread I hope it doesn't appear that I'm bashing Photo.net. Certainly not. It's not perfect, to be sure. But I actually am amazed it runs as smoothly as it does. The content is quite good, and I've learned a lot from it. The ads haven't made the site unpleasant to negotiate, thank God, and they seem to keep in check the few crazies who have come and gone over my few years here. (Although maybe we're all just a bit crazy!) ;-)</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Lex......even after all of the mentions of past history of ratings on PN, and the explanations many of you have provided in this thread, I don't understand the rating system..........probably never will. I know one PN member who has it all figured out though, and I know he truly does. He must follow the ratings like crazy because he's able to determine which people are doling out 3's. He's calls them on it, but there is never a response. Frankly I don't know how a person could stay glued to the system enough to determine that, but certainly some of you understand the system inside and out, to the degree possible. I think I'm probably better off happily oblivious! I'm really feeling better after venting, and you all have really helped me calm down about the ratings system. It's only a number!!!</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Alex.....thanks! But someday I want to be better than good, so I keep striving toward that. I have much to learn. It's like my profession as a violinist. I never stop learning and striving to be better. I guess it's my nature. :-) Thanks for your lovely comment.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Stephen......it sounds like you work hard for your photos. You're certainly not the 'shoot-out-the-car-window- type of photographer. Maybe you could try describing the circumstances under which you took the picture in the comments section when you post. I think that would enhance the overall 'package' and may garner more comments.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Nick......yes, I have some old stuff that really needs to be re-worked or eliminated, and even some newer things that need to be deleted. Not sure when that will happen. :-)<br>

I've heard the same statistics about professional photographers. But at least they have editors going through and culling their work. I can't remember the exact statistic, but I've also heard that a photographer can take up to something like 100 shots to get 1 good one. Hmmmm......iisn't a professional photographer supposed to have enough knowledge about his equipment and lighting conditions to not just shoot indiscriminately the way some of us often do? <br>

Anyway, thanks for taking a look at my portfolio and for your input. Greatly appreciated.</p>