ratings, hatings, beratings....

[tom h.]

I enjoy photo.net, esp. our lively and sometimes heated

exchanges here on the Leica forum. I keep some work here, for

which I request no critiques, and rarely comment on "words-

please" posts unless I really like the photograph (if ya can't say

nuthin' nice....)- not really a problem here as we're blessed with

a multitude of members who have no such qualms. So I recently

started getting ratings for some of the pics. Nicer big fat 3's and

4's out of 7. On work I killed myself to get. None of which really

bothers me, I've tried to take criticism with the same pinch of salt

as praise (being human however, I'll fully admit to preferring the

praise). What does bother me is that people whose work ranges

from genuine ability, to self-delusional horseshit , have taken it

upon themselves to rate (and in doing so comment upon)

anothers work without being asked. It's not the fact that they're

not rating everything 6/7, it's that the fact they're doing it at all.

Does this seem rude? I'm absolutely not being petulant, I have a

genuine love of photography, and a great respect for other

photographers (there are mainy fine ones on this forum), at any

level of their developement (we're all in the same boat, no matter

what way you look at it) Am I nuts?

 

Tom

[mike dixon]

<i>So I recently started getting ratings for some of the pics. Nicer big fat 3's and 4's out of 7. On work I killed myself to get.</i><P>

The amount of work that goes into a particular photo is seldom a good indicator of the photo's quality (though it can make it harder for the person who put in all that work to take an objective view).<P>

<i>What does bother me is that people whose work ranges from genuine ability, to self-delusional horseshit , have taken it upon themselves to rate (and in doing so comment upon) anothers work without being asked. It's not the fact that they're not rating everything 6/7, it's that the fact they're doing it at all. Does this seem rude?</i><p>

Lots of people complain that they don't get ratings. I think many people assume that implicit in your public posting of the image is a request for rating/comments. You could put a notice in the text info box asking people not to rate your photos.

[james_.1]

You have some nice work! Yah there are a lot of armchair warriors out there. There really should be a way of turning off ratings for one's photo- they really are meaningless for critique. I thought about emailing photo.net regarding this new feature which should be implemented (and I'm sure others before me have suggested it), but in the meantime gotta put up with the dweebs who like to bomb ratings.

[ray .]

I wouldn't take it too personally. You yourself have expressed your opinion here about the work of those who have graded you- and that's all it is- opinion. You are your own best judge of what you're trying to accomplish, so it's alright to disagree with what others think, or how they react to images. Even the most famous artists have viewers who think their work is worthless. You may also (as I do with my own work) take into consideration that perhaps your vision does not communicate to certain people who have perfectly valid reasons for coming to the conclusions they do.

[j m shaw]

Tom your work is very good, don't let it get ya down. I am sure there are those that just blast fotos and never submit. Mark

[davidv1]

Tom,

 

Are you nuts? Maybe. Welcome to the club.

 

If a picture is viewable by the public, then you run the risk of getting ratings. Opinions are worth what you paid for them, sometimes less.

 

Holy smokes! Is Daniella single? Lovely work there, and not simply because of the subject. I like the whole folder.

 

What you're experiencing is criticism by amateurs. I won't 'rate' your work, as I'm not qualified, and I know it. That doesn't stop others from doing it, no matter what their qualifications may be. I've got a lot to learn, and I won't abuse your work with my incompetence.

 

Don't sweat the whiners; ask the opinion of those you respect. Ignore the ratings.

 

Regards, David

[james_.1]

It's funny, one person bombed one of my photos, so I tiptoed through his folders, and rated a photo similar to his ratings (since I didn't see what the big deal was ;)) and he got quite upset.

[wind.dk]

If you really do get lots of 3's and 4's you should count yourself lucky - it means your images attract the attention of people who actually look at pictures.

 

Many raters can only say "Wow" (6/7) to an image or "it sucks" (1/2). Some will spend a little time actually looking at the photographs and give some sort of a sensible rating. They will deal out lots of 3's, 4's and 5's.

 

Your pictures are attracting intelligent viewers - congratulations.

 

Oh and by the way, remember the rating system is inherently completely meaningless, ignoring it is much to be preferred over worrying about it.

[travis1]

Actually getting 2s and 3s shows that your work is too good and is pisssing some people off.

 

People who gives 7s and 6s normally do not take a closer look at the pieces.

 

cheers Tom.

[Spearhead]

<i>It's funny, one person bombed one of my photos, so I tiptoed through his folders, and rated a photo similar to his ratings (since I didn't see what the big deal was ;)) and he got quite upset.</i>

 

<p>

 

This is just one of the reasons that the ratings are pointless and worthless.

[dennis_couvillion]

Tom: Screw'em. Don't take it personally. After a few of my pics got trashed by some people I started to look them up. (A clear sign that you've been on the computer way too long; and that you're taking this crap way too seriously.) What I found in most cases where people had given me horrible ratings was that they had been photo.net members for like...oh, one week... and already they had rated about 200 pics. Then you look at their pics, if they have any, and they're usually crap. Then look up the photos that they've rated highly. More crap; usually heavily photo-shopped. I found one guy last night who had rated a bunch of pics and the average ratings he had given were like 2.3 and 2.5. He had no pics to show. (Awwww) Anyway, thank you for starting this thread so I could get this off my chest. :>)

 

Seriously, don't take it too seriously. Just enjoy the good things in life. You'll live longer.

 

Good shooting.

 

Dennis

[tom h.]

Thanks for the thoughts/wisdom lads, of course I shouldn't think

about it, but as I'm sure you're aware, (for personal work at least)

self doubt is a component (not always a bad thing). I'd rather

someone just left a comment, positive or negative-if you're going

to take the time to say a photograph is just mediocre (3/7) you

could at least specify why. Call me old fashioned. Mike, your idea

was simplest and best, I should've thought of it. James, I loved

your idea, honestly, it was the very first thing I thought of to do

(and giggle nastily as I typed), but couldn't be bothered. David,

Daniella is as far as I know, single, and at 13, has plenty of time

yet to think about it. She is a close friends niece and the lucky

owner of one of those "magic" faces that completely transforms

when focused through a lens and rendered on film.

 

best regards, Tom

[raymond_tai]

Even HCB and Ansel are not immune to critics so count yourself among the masters.

[james_.1]

Well, I did think the chap deserved the low ratings I gave his photo! I was being honest! But if he hadn't rated mine low, I wouldn't have bothered to look through his folders to see what makes him so great. Anyway, I'm not trying to 100% rationalize, all's fair in the ratings game. ;) Then again, when I get miffed, I look at work by the greats and become humbled and feel I don't deserve the ratings I've gotten.

[fotografz]

Tom, chill. I had the same reaction when first building my

photo.net portfolio. It's just a very public venue, with everyone

and his brother having access to your work. Sort of like scotch

taping your photos to a camera store window and asking

everyone to rate your work without having a clue as to their ability

to do so except to check their work in return...which may or may

not be completely valid. They may produce crap, but still have

an opinion formed by massive exposure to images.

 

What I mean is that photography is so personal and so

ubiquitous, that it actually is very difficult to create a truely

breakthrough and wonderous photograph in the eyes of the

masses who are inundated with images from morning until

night. Images BTW, made by the greatest talents of our time.

And that public is ONLY seeing the very best of their work. This is

a very visual world, that has educated the public eye to seek the

sensational or personally relevant, often to the exclusion of a

more personal vision. It's not for nothing that Rap is way more

popular than poetry. Great rap is accessable, sensational and

personally relevant, yet transient. Great poetry is less

accessable, introspective and more universally experiential, thus

longer lived.

 

And as a final less lofty POV, I always remember the old

advertising business saying when having your creative efforts

torn to shreds..."opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one."

[gerry_szarek]

Tom consider posting to

 

www.leicainfo.com

 

a slightly more civilized crowd. BTW looked at your work, the dock scene with the lake/ocean and mountain in the background is GREAT, where is it located? I also like a some of your people/street scenes.

 

Remember art is subjective. I really liked that dock scene, some of still life is interesting but not my cup of coffee, have fun.

 

Gerry

[mottershead]

<p>Tom, it seems that the ratings you have received are around an average of 5 or so, with a distribution high and low. From a statistical point of view, it would be surprising if there *weren't* a few 3's. In fact, as you get more ratings on your photos, you should expect there will be a couple of 2's eventually, along with some 7's.

 

<p>Here are the stats:

<table border=1>

<tr><th>Score<th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th></tr>

<tr><th>Aesthetics</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>14</td><td>19</td><td>13</td><td>0</td></tr>

<tr><th>Originality</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>18</td><td>21</td><td>8</td><td>0</td></tr>

</table>

 

<p>I looked at the 5 photos that attracted the few 3 ratings. I haven't thought about how I would rate these myself, but it doesn't seem to me that the "Below Average" ratings in these photos are obviously stupid. Several of the photos don't look sharp. In one, the head of the model is cut off above the mouth, in addition to it being blurred. In another, there is the branch of a plant in front of the model's face. I realize that you intended these things, but the people are telling you that the photos didn't work for them, which given the techniques in question, shouldn't come as a huge surprise.

 

<p>Finally, I don't think it is rude to rate photos on photo.net without asking. It is reasonable to assume that photos that have been uploaded can be rated and critiqued. People don't know that you killed yourself to get a particular photo, and actually the relative effort that went into a photo doesn't have a lot to do with how people respond to it (unless it makes the photo extremely original.)

[stephen hazelton]

It makes me a bit curious why you would post photos if you don't want a critique and don't want any ratings- especially when the system is obviously set up for that very reason. Or, if you just don't care about ratings or critiques, then why complain about them?

 

It should be obvious that there is a wide range of tastes in photography (if not, we would all like the same pictures), so it should come as not surprise to find a variation in the ratings given.

 

Keep in mind also, that those people who are generally regarded as great photographers, were the ones whose work appealed to the public. Does it really mean much to have an image that only discerning photographers will like? Or can I say that anyone who doesn't like my work is self-delusional, and those who like it have genuine ability?

[fotografz]

Stephen, I just have to disagree that the public "selected" great

photographers. Most of them traveled in discriminating circles

who cross influenced one another. The selection was made by

taste makers such as ctitics, curators, publishers, great Art

Directors and picture editors. The public simply slurped up what

was served up.

 

If the public at large was in charge, we'd be printing on black

velvet and matching the colors of their sofa.

 

A great read on the subject of artists in groups is: "Geniuses

Together", by Humphrey Carpenter

[Allen Herbert]

Slurped up. We are getting very word wise Mr Williams;) Does it really matter what scores you get. The only opinion that matters is yours. Your vision.

 

Out of interest I posted a few photos on a similar site. The results were very much the same! There lies a story. Anyway, time to slurp off ,or up.

[bobtodrick]

One more opinion...if you're going to post photos, or display them at all you've got to be prepared for the bad as well as the bad reviews. It's nothing personal...as someone else stated it just didn't work for them. You see the same thing anytime you look up reviews of a movie you're thinking of seeing...good and bad reviews, yet no producer commits millions of $$ without being sure that he has a technically proficient crew and good actors. And I completel agree with Marc. If you think people like HCB or Capa, or even someone like Avedon hung out in Edmonton, Alberta (where I live), or Deadwood, Idaho (for examle) that they would have become as famous as they are, I highly doubt it.

[roger c]

I don't think there's anything wrong with your pictures at all, but I can see that the cropping wouldn't be to some people's taste. Something that is "arresting" or "different" is always going to get the most points, whether in a competition or on photo.net. Post a colour infrared shot or a shot of somewhere exotic, and it will probably score very highly. Most people don't look at technical quality or "fitness for purpose", they just like the shots that leap at them from the page/screen. Most of yours don't have this quality of arrestment - they're head and shoulders portraits and abstracts - but then neither would Cartier-Bresson's. To the casual observer flicking through thousands of shots, his stuff consists of technically average* b/w street scenes!<p>When I used to judge competitions, I was painfully aware of the temptation to award all the prizes to the guy who'd been on the best foreign holiday that year just because his pictures were so much more interesting than everyone else's. Ultimately he did win two of the categories, but his pictures were head and shoulders above most of the others in composition and technical quality, leaving aside the subject matter.<p>*I think it was HCB who said sharpness was a bourgeois obsession

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

From the outside looking in (I don't have any pictures posted on Photo.net and

have only occasionally posted a mixed bag of silly pictures on a cupla "no

words") here's how I feel. Even though I'm a picture editor and photographer

for two magazines with over 2.4 million circulation I would never presume to

rate any picture. I don't answer critique requests on this forum either. I'll argue

until I'm blue in the face (see "National Geographic photographer M6" string

below) about general topics, but I would never critique any work here. I don't

think it's fair because I have no photographs posted. I've professionally

critiqued thousands of pictures (I do it in editiing pictures daily, too) and

hundreds of portfolios but in the context of this forum I do think it's important to

"show your stuff". It's important to be able to receive a critique and then look at

where somebody's coming from visually. Just my 2 cents worth. (And believe

me, it's probably not worth more than that.)

[douglas k.]

--The work put into a photograph is largely unrelated to its quality; e.g., a technically ignorant novice will put hours into making a negative and print and it may still suck, but an expert can produce better work with less time and effort.<p>

--The fact that someone else's work is (in your opinion) weak does not per se invalidate their criticism. Some of the best art critics (most, in my opinion) are not themselves artists.<p>

--Unless you are trying to earn a living from your photos, why do you care what others think about them? And if you are a pro, why do you care what non-customers think?

[bobtodrick]

Another thing to consider is that often, photographers work in strings of images...or series. This is why so many photographers final output is a book. I, for example have worked for years on a series titled 'Cafe Culture'...scenes documenting the coffee 'fad'. Some of the images really work on their own, but many need to be shown in the context of the series. Yet I often see members of the forum post images, that are obviously from a series (sometimes stated by the poster) that just don't work as singular images, yet may very well work as part of the series. But I agree with a previous poster on another point. I very seldom 'critique', except on a stricly technical basis (this needs spoting being the most common). Whether it be composition, cropping, contrast, paper choice, etc....I wasn't there, didn't see the original scene and have no idea what the photographer felt when he took the image. If, in your mind you have successfully put on paper what you felt...then it is a successful image, no matter what anyone says. But they're not always going to feel the same as you.