Originality Ratings

[john_vo1]

Thanks for starting this thread Ross. It has generated many interesting views and opinions which I have not had the chance to read all, but have skimmed over quite a few.

 

I don't know if this was mentioned above, but why not have just one rating category that encapsulates both originality and aesthetics, as well as other presently non-ratable categories such as technicality, artistic value, emotional satisfaction, etc. At the moment, I see a lot of confusion over the concept of rating a photo for originality. Originality and aesthetics seem to be rated hand in hand, i.e. [6,6] or [4,4]. Often ratings include the typical one-point spread of [4,5], [5,6], or [6,7] combinations. Sometimes I come across two point spreads, and very rarely I come across those over two-point spreads (are these raters being original or malicious?).

 

I feel that confusion in the individual ratings leads to confusion with the final ratings. I have to admit that I sometimes don't understand the final ratings at all. However, having said that, I see that the very best photos get the excellent ratings they deserve. But, what about those photos that aren't very good, but are still good. I often see a final rating of [4.75,4.50] which doesn't tell me anything useful.

 

I find that the two category rating system, of aesthetics and originality, is quite an original concept (no pun intended), yet I feel it has not worked out as well as imagined. Is it because users are not quite informed on how to rate for originality, or is it because each user has their own interpretation of originality. I think that most people would feel it is a bit of both, with more because of the latter.

 

Isn't a one category rating system sufficient? This seems to be the norm when ratings are offered for movies, music, restaurants, etc. at other websites. Why not have one rating category that cover the gamut of all possible categories a photo can be rated upon (as I have listed above)? I don't mind a numeric rating system at all, however I think it should also be tied in with comments. That is, a user must include a comment with a rating. This will not only limit the excessive compulsive raters, but also give more confidence and validity to the rating system. It can possibly deter the occasional spam rating and hate rating as well. Isn't a one category rating system quite subjective enough that we have to have two subjective rating categories?

 

I feel the Photo.net staff are doing a very good job with this website so far, and I hope they will take this into consideration to make the website even better.

[beeman458]

"It seems a photo is either not original (a typical stand up"

"straight and smile at the camera photo) which would rate a 4"

"(average),"

 

I got banned from dpreview for posting questions of this nature and trying to unsuccessfully deal with the antagonism that followed:-)

 

Here's an example of something I posted that was given many three's but I've not seen one similar image posted of this nature, anywhere. The image was all natural light in a venue with only light coming in through the stained glass windows.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1067058

 

The feeling that I felt then and now was very emotional and yet it received ratings that equaled it to nothing more the a basic snapshot of a dubious nature. So part of the question goes from what is original or unique over to the question of what makes for a valid criticism of an image. The two are inextricably intertwined. Why? Because the reviwer/critiquer is going to be evaluating and applying a rating and the qualifications of the critiquer will create a number that represents their interpretation of Asthetics/Originality.

 

One of my rated images, unintentionally I'm sure, was scored by the same individual and the second time it was rated, the ratings dropped by one point. Why's that? Was he in a good mood the first time? Was he in a bad mood the second time? This fact and this fact alone, lacking consistance, shows the invalidity/inconsistancy of the rating system. I've also noted that some of those that rate images, are unusually harsh in their ratings as they rate everybody low with few exceptions. Example would be an image that receives many six's and then one or two reviewers posts fours. Is the four valid in that you have to understand that a four is really a six in the eyes of the person leaving a rating number? Is the rater just in a bad mood, for what ever reason? Is the reviewer just an overly critical critic? Is the reviewer down on your particular subject matter (burned out)? The above points all need to be taken into consideration when asking the question as to what makes originality.

 

Also, another thing that I've discovered in the rating process and what is considered unique, is cultural and sub-cultural biased attitudes. Do you have a punk rocker rating traditional images as opposed to a Westerner classically trained rating American getto art or Someone from SouthEast Asia rating African Art? Does someone from Europe have it in for the "American"? Is the denigration some sort of enthic hate/love thing? The reasoning runs far, wide and deep as to the validity issue of those doing the rating.

 

Myself, I'm beginning to believe the rating of images and the act/art of critiquing images is so subjective that it only has a cursory value for the purpose of weeding out snapshots from "art". Seeing the process/action as anything more then that is highly subjective and politically driven. The politics of judged shows, is well known.

 

I've been working on the answer to this question for about a week to ten days now:-)

 

Hope the above helps:-)

[smolinski]

Unfortunately, this would be subject to the same problems as the other categories.

As a studio photographer, some shots may take days or even weeks to set-up. There

are sets to build, props to find, models to select, etc. I'm sure I have no idea what a

nature or landscape photographer has had to endure to get that beautiful photograph

that might seem perfectly unoriginal to me. I alway look at the portfolio of anyone

who has given me the courtesy of a rating, and find it interesting that the lowest

ratings often come from those with portfolios unlike mine.

 

On the digital maniupulations, I often wonder on the technical side, did the

photographer shoot all of the images for the composite? Are they compiled of a

bunch of free clipart, perhaps with one image of his/her own? How can I rate it

unless I know?

[r_e]

There is no general answer relating to a personal feeling. So you have to decide and underwrite (ethical) by yourself.