Rule that will prohibit members to rate or comment on images if they themselves do not have at least 6 images in their folders,

[Guest]

Wow, you start your post, make a cup of tea, come back and finish the post and the argument's over - oh, well!

 

Kohda, life is good!

[wind.dk]

How many here have made a full length 35mm Hollywood movie with cinematic release?

 

How many here have expressed opinions about full length 35mm Hollywood movies with cinematic release?

 

How many here feel their expressed opinion about a full length 35mm Hollywood movie with cinematic release is of some value?

 

You can substitute things like a book or a CD for "a full length 35mm Hollywood movie with cinematic release".

 

A suggestion like this implies, that the third number is no greater than the first number, and that the second number should be no greater than the first. I very much doubt that it is so, or that anyone will agree to it.

 

The ratings are of course completely uninteresting, so I don't care wether they're limited or not (completely removing them might make the forums easier to browse, as there would be far less posts complaining about the rating system), but limiting comments in this way could easily prohibit useful comments.

 

The best comments don't necessarily come from good photographers with scanning equipment and a will to post images here.

 

As the usual complaint about comments is the lack of them, there's simply no point in limiting them, nor would it be reasonable or fair.

[erik]

Hmm. I figued I'd weigh in as a comparatively inexperienced photog.

 

Imagine I rate a picture. I look at it and say 'well, truthfully I simply don't like it. It's

too (insert one: sharp, fuzzy, ugly, pornographic, boring, etc)'

 

then someone else, some photo professional, comes along and says 'ah, ugly subject

matter, but outstanding use of the PC lens combined with the XYZ developer;

technically gorgeous'

 

Now, if you want to wear the emporor's clothes, you could say my opinion is worse

less than theirs--or nothing, if you like. Reminds me of an art major defending a

Warhol print: when confronted with a viewer who found it childish and ugly, he

responded 'well, you just don't know art'.

 

but if you choose to do that, you might as well post a photo and say "can only be

appreciated/reviewed by those who 1) are pros, 2) share my standards of visual

appreciation, 3) see what i am trying to do, and 4) prove that they too are open to the

occasional bad review"

 

I have seen some stunning photos here and some truly hideous ones. Do you

honestly consider me (or anyone else in my position) unable to judge the difference

merely because I can't match the stunning ones?

 

and finally... catch me if I'm wrong, but nobody seems to complain when relatively

inexperienced people post GOOD reviews ;)

[nikos]

This is just silly and childish. This is not 'my one is bigger than yours' or 'show me yours and I'll show you mine'.

 

I can always be grumpy about how Ronaldo missed that certain goal even if he's a better football player than I am. I can always see what's so great about Mona Lisa, even if I can't draw a straight line. And yes, even though I like to see photos of my raters so I can see their style and rationalize their comments, I still want to be able to receive critique and rating from people who haven't got photos to display, or have an simply choose not to.

 

Take your childish games in someone else's backyard.

[david_eppstein]

The last thing we need to do is discourage comments, it's already difficult enough to get them. Anyway, the negative comments are the most helpful ones.

[root]

Until quite recently, low rates really did matter, because visibility on the top pages was based on your avergae, not the number of rates, as it is now. Personal favorites pages have been added and you now have a way of showing others on this site what you like. So many people complain about all the junk that gets uploaded, but if more people rated images - by whatever scale made sense to them - more of the better images would get the exposure they deserve. Sure the system is abused by a few people, but that's no excuse for abandoning the whole process. Spend a few minutes every day and rate a few images that you think deserve more exposure. The more ratings they get - regardless of what number they have been given - the closer they'll move to the front pages.

The consequences of everyone's rates is quite different than it has been in the past, but it needs more thoughful participants to be successful.

[bobatkins]

Man: I came here for a good argument.

 

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

 

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

 

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

 

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

 

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

 

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

 

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

 

Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".

 

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

 

Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

 

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

 

Man: Yes it is.

[kohda_kahn]

For more than 20 years of teaching photography to indigent youth

from East Oakland (pro-bono), the first ever lesson I always tell

students if they want to be the best photographers they can be, is

to talk less and take more pictures. That's why I cut short this

argument. I went out to take some pictures.

 

Anyway, it looks to me most posters on this thread never heard

of this adage.

 

Good luck to all of you and boa noite. Tchau.

 

PS: You can continue with the argument though, if you want to

take less pictures and talk more. : -)

[nikos]

No, wait. Do you also tell your students not to appreciate photography before they have produced a portfolio of their own to display as grounds for their appreciation? I think not. And this is basically what you proposed here. It has been said before, and I believe it just arises from the frustruation many have felt at an ill comment or a 2/2 bya guy who became a member yesterday, has no photos, no other contributions, no nothing. But if you think about it soberly, there's no good reason why not to let people without uploaded pictures post critique/rating.

 

I also want to apologize about the tone of my previous post - re-reading it now, I can see it is a bit aggressive. I had just come back from some drinking last night and I wasn't very sober. :)

[root]

The 'talk less / shoot more" argument reminds me of "practice makes

perfect". It isn't true. The more accurate one is "practice makes

permanant." I owned a Nikon FE for twenty years and used it regularly

without knowing a whole lot. The way you improve is to get feedback

from people who actually know what they're talking about, not going

out and shooting yet another roll and making the same mistakes over

and over

[h._p.]

>>when confronted with a viewer who found it childish and ugly, he responded 'well, you just don't know art'.<<

 

This is the crux of the whole matter. Photography, like all art (let's just call it art for now, anyway) is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you went through hell and used a £10,000 camera system to get the shot doesn't make it better art to the person who sees it. They still decide whether they like it or not and there's no way you can or should tell them they don't know what they're talking about.

 

It's this obsession with absolutism that has lead to millions of people feeling anti-art. They see the Tracy Ermines of this world getting £20,000 for an unmade bed, shake their heads and say 'all art is rubbish', thus depriving themselves of considerable pleasure. It's not their fault, though, it's the fault of the clowns who say "We know what art is and you have to accept our view or you're stupid".

 

Fundamentally, that's why I don't use the rating system. I might use it if it was just a pair of radio buttons: 'I like this' or 'I do not like this'. You could usefully add a third, default value: 'I have no view one way or the other'. To me, that would make sense. We could see what the majority liked which would tell us something about the 'goodness' of the picture.

[root]

The current system already gives you the options you've asked for. Why fret about the choice between 5, 6, or 7 for ones you like, 2, 3, or 4 for ones you don't - hopefully with a comment - and no rate for ones that don't make an impression one way or another. We all value different things in images, as you've noted. I'll say it again - viewing and sorting by number of rates rather than averages makes the numbers themselves meaningless, if you want to look at it that way. The system can be reduced to vote / no vote.

[kohda_kahn]

Carl...

 

I have judged more than a dozen art and photographic

competitions and the system widely used for the 1st and 2nd

elimination rounds is the "IN or OUT". Every judge votes an entry

either IN or Out. If an entry gets a majority vote of OUTs, then it is

eliminated. The INs goes to the 2nd or final round. Of course, a

point system is usually used for the final round.

 

So, an IN or OUT system is not necessarily a bad idea since we

really do not have a FINAL round. The images with the highest

INs gets to the top of the highest rated images. The highest

rated image for the week becomes POW.

 

If this is the case, members will be encouraged to post images

every single week and there will no more elves bashing for

choosing a mediocre photo.

[bobatkins]

Am I suffering from deja vu, or did you post this twice?

[scott bulger]

By your own standards, you wouldn't be allowed to participate due to the fact that you only have three photos posted.

[lorenzo_ward1]

I think (to add a bit of confusion here and there) that the idea that ratings should be given by people with photos in the system is a good one. I, for one, often tried to trace work of people who kindly made some comments on some stuff; seeing what they do kind of helps me figure out where they come from. I am sure that I am not the only one.

 

As per the second matter of low ratings, I disagree with those who complain about low ratings. This is an opportunity to get honest feedback and useful for that only; if we are going to have to soften the message and volunteer only 'constructive encouragement' then i think the whole process gets useless. A final thought: numbers are meaningless but honest comments and responses are very very valuable for any photographer: All of us produce at times images that don't work: we should be told and move on. End of story.

[Spearhead]

<i>I think (to add a bit of confusion here and there) that the idea that ratings should be given by people with photos in the system is a good one.</i><p>

 

I think it's a terrible idea. The skills required for taking photographs and critiquing them are completely different. This is why so many great critics (and some great teachers) rarely practice the art they critique.<p>

 

Skills required to be a good photographer: vision, style, technical capability, understanding of subject.<p>

 

Skills required to be a good critic: verbal communication, ability to place specific images into the larger context, ability to analyze images, understanding of subject.<p>

 

I've simplified somewhat, but it's obvious there's very little commonality.<p>

 

The best portfolio review came from someone who has never photographed, but who gets paid to look at portfolios. Some of the most useless feedback has come from photographers.<p>

 

Think about it this way - would you value the input of someone who has six photographs of their cat on the site over someone who doesn't shoot but has evaluated portfolios for a photography gallery?

[lorenzo_ward1]

I think we disagree very substantially here; most critics have their own agenda. Galleries, for example, are interested to exhibit images that sell and cultivate an aura of credibility as a catalyst to the sales process. Critique is easy, it is art that is difficult.

 

In my view, as a photographer, the challenge we have is to convey meaning in mute form. The whole process of creating a photo is an effort to achieve this. It is difficult becasue you need to address simultaneously various constituents: the subject, the background, the esthetics or composition and maybe even colours. It is therefore like a balancing act or a juggling act where you can easily miss.

 

The feedback required by a photographer is whether the image works or, in other words, if his juggling act is successful. Often photographers know when they press the shutter if they 'have it or not' well before seeing the developped image. If the image works at thsi level the nthere is always the possibility that it may go further and charm the critics as well.

 

Critics can only offer opinions on completed works and it is then useles feedback for the photographer as his creative effort is no longer engaged.

 

You refer to critics who never shot a picture: it is fine but useless for the photographer as feedback: Imagine critics saying, for example, to Picasso that his most creative period was the 'Blue period'. Would this imply that the artist needs to develop only that side of his craft? It would be absurd.

 

Photographers need simple feedback not critique. They typically need somebody to help them when they miss the forest for the trees or, to put it differently, they need coaching. Good coaches are usually ex-players who have experienced the action.

 

This is a long-winded explanation as to why I think feedback for photographers is best given by peers not critics. And, of course, it should be brutally honest.

[paul_ensom]

Finally, a forum that isn't self defeating and where everyone respects each other. Interesting proposition, Kohda. I would agree with all those who say that knowledge can be an independant variable from skill, and I would also add that the greatest photographer in the world woudn't neccesarily want, have the time, or have photos in the right format to upload them to photo.net.

[jim_stogdill]

I was recently in Chicago where I saw Hiroshi Sugimoto's amazing Architecture exhibit. Each image was approx 40 by 60, B+W, and intentionally thrown out of focus. I can only guess that if he was unfortunate enough to post his work to this site he would get 2's and 3's and a bunch of comments like "out of foccus" (sic) from people who haven't even posted any of their own work.

 

I have never gotten an actual critique on this site, so I no longer hope for it ("nice shot", "too blurry", and "I don't get it" don't qualify as critique).

 

For a while I too thought that maybe it would make sense to a) require one to have posted some of their own images before they can offer up a critique of other's images.

 

I also, briefly, thought it might be interesting to weight the rating scores that a member provides by their own aggregate rating. But I quickly decided these were silly ideas in the sense that, though they might give one the satisfaction of looking at the work of the person who rated them (high or low), they don't change the fact that taste regresses toward some mean and no one seems to give real critiques anyway.

 

The weighted scoring approach would be particularly dangerous in that it would accelerate the regression toward the mean by creating a positive feedback loop by which the people with the most mainstream work have the most power to rate others.

 

In any case, I have arrived at the conclusion that the best course of action is to simply accept the 1's, 2's and "I don't like it"'s and not worry about it.