OPEN LETTER TO THIS PHOTO-NET COMMUNITY

[kent_tolley2]

I am brand new to your site and have already been rewarded by the

availability to your photographs and your ideas. To me, this is one

of the great advantages of Internet. People who would generally not

meet or talk or view each other�s work can now grow from that

exposure.

 

But what�s all this talk about revenge-rating and mate-rating???

Is not a photographer an Artist and is it not essential that an

Artist have integrity?

The feedback we give and receive is not so much about scores and

quantities as much as it�s about helping others and being helped by

others to become better in our chosen field. It�s for this reason

that I find a well-considered comment much more useful than the

quick, easy, and subjective scoring of anothers work. To get a high

score may inflate my ego and to be given a low score may hurt my

feelings, but ultimately it's just your opinion that's contained in

that score. And opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. I

cannot use your opinion to improve. I can only congratulate myself

or feel depressed. What I need are your ideas about what works and

what does not work in a photograph. It means you have to expend a

little more effort and articulate your feelings about what you are

viewing. But this will also improve your ability on how to "read" a

photograph and you will develop a fine edge to your judgement.

 

Are we not a community of artists and doesn�t a community depend for

its very existence on the good-will of neighbors? Haven�t you seen

by now enough communities disintegrate because neighbors cannot or

rather choose not to tolerate each other? What sick pay-off can be

gained by trashing this community by either revenge or kissing

someone�s ass? You may feel justified and safe, anonymous behind

your computer screen. After all, who will know if you revenge-rate

or mate-rate your neighbor? Just remember that the person whose

opinion of you is most important will know. And that person is your

Self. You damage your own self-esteem and thus shoot yourself in

the foot to act from anything less than your highest Self. If you

are serious about your art and about yourself, I beg you to

reconsider.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Welcome to Human nature 101. Frankly I think the entire rating system is corrupt and

corrupting. <P>

 

Yes it is essential hat an 'artist' have integrity & honesty-- at least as it applies to

their commitment to their work. Outside of that narrow arrow of endeavor, yo uare

once again back to basic human nature.

<P><I>" I cannot use your opinion to improve."</I> yes you can, once you have

turned your bullsh!t detector turned on. And to be able to do that effectively the

person giving their opinion has to be able to articulate their opinion with more than a

simple number. Is a number 3 rating on a nude to be interpreted the same way as the

exact same rating on a landscape or a photograph of a building. why does either

deserve a three? does that mean compared to all photographic iamges or just to

images in that genre?<P> So I guess I agree with you.<P>

I am trying to think of a community of artists that was able to survive more than a few

years. People grow at different rates. And by the way the people you want to reach are

not even botheringto read this thread.<P>My advice to you is to stop worrying about

the ratings, or the people who whine about the unfairness of the system.

[kent_tolley2]

I enjoyed the string you began about Leni Riefenstahl. Her life raises complex and essential issues. Like the conflict between Arthur Miller and Billy Wilder over the Hollywood witch hunts in the 50's.

 

On this subject, I don�t think I am as concerned about the rating system as much as I am concerned about the health of the community. I think you are correct about the scoring system being corrupting. But Internet sites, especially those with a lot of traffic, attract "flamers" who get some payoff from inflaming the site. I think it�s basically a demand for attention: "PLEASE look at me. I am desperate for your attention" It�s like the anti-social behavior of teenagers who, unable to get the attention they crave from their good works, resort to anti-social behavior to get the attention even if by illegitimate methods. Or disappointed in the rewards they reap for their efforts they have a sick need to tear down those they envy. Jealousy is when you want what the other person has. But envy is when you not only want what the other person has, but if you can't get it you don't want them to have it either. And envy its not by accident that envy is one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

I heard an African man, who after spending a few weeks in America was asked how he found our country. He said: "America is so industrious and inspiring and the hope of the world in many ways. You know how to make Space Shuttles and antibiotics and you have developed sustainable farming practices. But you have forgotten how to make a village."

 

A village or a community will not necessarily stand by itself. It must be supported and strengthened from within by those who live there. It�s sane and in your own self-interest to do so because you depend, for your existence, on the health of your community.

 

The Human Nature you talk about runs the gamut from the most despicable to the most angelic behavior. We all sat rapt in awe as it all played out in front of our eyes on 9/11. That was a wake-up call for the world. I just want to listen to my interior angels and go where they point me. I loose my own self-respect when I follow the voice of my interior Mephistopheles and I can�t afford to loose respect for myself. It�s one of my most valued treasures.

[kent_tolley2]

PBS just recently showed the complexity and heartbreak of the issues surrounding the Hollywood blacklisting and Elia Kazan's ratting out his collegues before HUAC.

[john falkenstine]

I have only been using photo.net for about a week and find it allright. Yes, the rating system can be a source of frustration and anger. Ya have to take it in stride. After hanging around a lot of galleries here in the Tucson area, and hearing numerous opinions on other people' work, I think it is just part of the game. Every person sees something else in their own photographs and uses this "filter" as a mirror for other people's work..

"Is it like mine?" or "should it be like mine?" Am I on a pedestal? We all are to an extent. What I try to do before rating is to look at the photographer's other pictures to see what kind of cultural environment he or she is working in and the level of creativity, then I rate accordingly. When I put my pictures out for critique, I realize perhaps that somebody in Italy or Germany might comment on a pic taken in the wilds of Arizona and vice versa, and that one style is judging another. Compared to some other environments I have worked in, such as Aerospace Engineering, where backstabbing is part of "working your way up the ladder complex" I have found the overall behavior patterns on Photo.net to be friendly and flexible with some really good feedback. As far a photographer being an Artist, and supposedly having integrity,,,well,,,some humans have integrity and others don't. Being an Artist is not a factor. If you look at the few written critiques I have done, you will find 2 that are negative. one is about a series of weak photographs of an attractive girl. The other is about the "conformity look" that is being taught in so many schools which photography students apparently must adhere to on their path of greatness, and which in many places has resulted in monotonous photographs of technical perfection, but which in truth, suck very badly.

Ouch!! just fell off my soapbox. Time for a good cold Corona and hatching plans to take pictures in Mexico without spending a fortune. ADIOS!!

[phule]

Kent,

 

Photo.net is big. It's really big. There just isn't any way that your photos or my photos are going to get the critical eye they deserve (arrogant on my part?) or need. With all the uploads that are made every day, it's far too easy to get lost in the crowd.

 

Photo.net attracts many people from many different backgrounds. There's no way to expect everyone to play nice. I'm as guilty as the rest of using this non-verbal and facial form of communication to wax idiotic; it just "happens." (This post might be a good example :)

 

Photo.net is not a community of artists. It's a community of photographers and even that is a stretch sometimes.

[ken_schroeder]

Kent, do you really care what number people give your images? If you are lucky, instead of a hundred numbers, be they twos or sevens, you may encounter an honest viewer who mentions the lower portion might be more effective if it was burned in slightly. Or perhaps, the image might work better if it was slightly less or more contrasty.

 

Numbers are just opinions. An honest comment can increase your awareness of your image.

 

One of the things I like about this forum is the ability to easily learn more about a poster/responder. I have found this much more productive than using the search procedure. For example, if you find a comment interesting by John Doe, just click on his name and you fina a screen which shows his comments, posted photos, photo critiques and comments about equipment. There are many very experienced and helpful persons on this forum. I believe this forum offers much value to the community. There are also some less helpful persons. Ignore them.

[rich815]

A fantastic essay on why the numerical ratings scourge should be banned from this site forever. The problems you describe and their effect are greatly exacerbated and made ever more possible by the numerical ratings system. I am still hopeful that one day it will be seen for what it really is and eliminated altogether so we can go back to being a site with integrity and with less time wasted on all this BS.

[kent_tolley2]

Ellis, John, Rob, Ken, Richard -

 

Thank you all for your response and consideration. Since writing this I have resolved the issue in my head. For now, at least, I just won't score anybody's work. I will be free with my comments which I think more useful than a number score anyway. By commenting on the work of others I not only improve my own ability to read a photograph but I may actually be of help to the photographer who submitted the work. It's a win-win situation then. I am trying to comment what works for me in a piece and what does not work. And trying to decide how I would shoot the same shot to make it work for me. So I guess you could say I'm boycotting the numerical scoring system. It seems so arbitrary and subjective. I think it does no service to the photographer and it does no service to the person who scores the work. It invites the abuse we despise and I think it breaks the community up into cliques who then are likely to war with each other whether covertly or overtly. It's anti-community. It recreates sort of an microcosm with the very same troubles of the larger world. Maybe there is no perfect answer. We are competive beings and we each want to be on top. As Ellis said this is human nature. Only a few can actually be on top. I just don't think I can improve my art by competing with another artist. If I compete I want it to be with my self so that each time I outdistance my last effort. In the end it's not about being better than someone else. It's about continually getting better than I used to be. I will be satisfied if I can accomplish that. Thanks again.

[ken_schroeder]

Kent, I have not thought of myself as "boycotting" the rating system. I just prefer to use comments instead. We live in a very rating conscious culture, and others may prefer rating numbers. So be it. I'm not into competitive photography.

 

I think comments work best when they are brief and limited. A ratio of at least two two one of positive comments to suggestions works well. After all, in addition to an image, we are also talking about the photographer's artistic ego, something which is generally fragile. I think one suggestion per response is a good general guide. No need for a complete autopsy.

 

I suggest we all lighten up a bit. There are images waiting to be found.

[kent_tolley2]

Thanks. I think, by your standards, I have been being too wordy. It was in an effort to reach a fewer number but with a more deeply considered opinion. It helps me as well to do the "full autopsy" to find everything that works and everything that does not. But I find I'm spending too much time here and, as you say, there are images to be found. Thanks for your input.

[kent_tolley2]

(embarrassed)