Share Your Interpretation of Critique

[keaggy220]

This is the way I think when I rate -

 

1 = Can't tell what it is ( also commonly used as a payback rating)

** 2 = It looks like a three year old took it. ** 3 = A basic

snapshot (lacking real good exposure or sharp focus) ** 4 = A cut

above a snapshot (good exposure and focus) ** 5 = A nice photo that

appears to have some thought behind it. ** 6 = A beautiful photo

that has great color/tone, composition, etc... ** 7 - Hits me in

the gut / stare at for a while

 

This subject is extremely subjective (just look at the ratings!) so

feel free to totally disagree. I would just like to know what goes

on in your mind when you are rating.

[root]

I have lots of 'Can't tell what it is' that I like very much.

 

You never mentioned LIGHTspecifically. That's not the same as

exposure or color/tone.

[aardvarko]

"payback rating" ?

[livvie]

my interpretation of critique is a considered comment containing preferably more than two (dare i say three) words

 

ratings imo are an easy out and provide too little information to be truely called critiques.

[mg]

Aesthetics:

<p>

1) 2 cases:

<p>

a) Absolutely awful taste together with below average technique and bad concept.

b) Really terrible technique, such as gravely over or under-exposed, or 1 f-stop too dark (too bright) and out of focus together.

<p>

2) 2 cases:

<p>

a) Really looks bad, poor taste, poor concept.

b) Technically quite seriously out of order.

<p>

3) 2 cases:

<p>

a) Snapshot a bit poor technically and not very interesting.

b) Technically ok but badly composed or lacking taste somehow.

<p>

4) Technically ok, overall ok, no big deal, not bad.

<p>

5) A nice photo that appears to have some thought behind it and appeals to me.

<p>

6) Looks great. Beautiful composition, light, colors or tones, very appealing to me.

<p>

7) Wow ! That's really a cut above. Fantastic shot.

<p>

Now, originality... What matters to me is not what subject you choose and not so much whether or not it has been done before, but rather: did you bring anything new, did you show me something new all together or did you somehow manage to renew and personalize a common subject. Was your approach of the subject clever ? Did you catch something rare or particularly interesting ? Please note that for me the post-production comes under cleverness/originality as well.

<p>

1) Common subject approached in a way that makes no sense at all to me and turns ugly (I rarely use this rating).

<p>

2) The approach to the subject or post-production lacks taste and understanding of the subject or of the parameters involved (I rarely use this rating). Example: truly bad and silly use of Photoshop that truly ruins the shot.

<p>

3) Technically, the post-production is lacking taste and understanding. Poor scan, bad sharpening, technically very poor or not very clever photoshoping are things that would lead me to rate a picture a 3. OR: I don't like the idea, though it isn't really bad. (I use this rating from time to time, still not often at all.)

<p>

4) Not interesting, not bad, ordinary. The subject and approach to it do nothing much for me, but I respect your interest in taking this picture. Average post-production. (A rating I use reasonably often.)

<p>

5) Good idea, good timing, good catch. Approach is interesting. I'm not too fussy on originality: if the subject is even somehow vaguely interesting with a good approach, as long as the post-producton doesn't spoil the shot and is clean, it's a 5 in originality. That's my default rating for a picture I was a bit interested in. I would also use this rating if you had a very good subject or a great idea, but your approach was not up to the standard set by your idea or your subject - i.e when you had a great starting point, did well enough, but didn't make the very best out of it.

<p>

6) Great idea, well seen, with an appropriate treatment and clever approach. Something really worth seeing.

<p>

7) I use this rating for emotionally charged images, or truly great ideas that I'm very enthusiastic about, and for which the concept and the approach seem outstanding to me.

[gib]

after I got off the floor from laughing.....I went over to the dictionary and looked up the words amateur and critic

[keaggy220]

Well, I really didn't address commenting on a photo - only rating a photo. I realize there can be hair splitting over the descriptions I used on my original post - which aren't nearly complete. My curiosity revolves mostly around how one photo can be rated a six or seven by a majority and a handful can rate that same photo a three or a four. This is very common. I have seen beautiful photos (example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=1582163) get sixes and sevens, but it never fails there will be a couple of fours or maybe even a three. This example photo may not be the style you like, but a four? In my mind a four is a cut above a snapshot. This example photo hardly deserves that kind of rating. Or am I wrong? I know rating is subjective, but it seems to get crazy sometimes. BTW, I chose this photo because it had the highest aesthetics rating over the past week.

[gib]

someone once told me why Shakespeare was and is a great writer...with a little St. Exuperay (pardon my likely misspelling).

 

Shakespeare wrote with both his heart and mind fully engaged and his writing showed the fulfillment of that engagement. Not everything he wrote would get a 7/7.

 

amateur critic is a phrase Ellis Vener tossed out in another thread and it rang like a bell inside my empty brain case.

 

I look at the photos here and I try to see what is there and how it falls in the tumble of images that I have seen all my life and in the ones that I have tried to make and failed for the most part to fully realize.

 

Everybody is at a different stage in their photographic walk.

 

They may or may not learn what is sharp focus, good exposure, composition rules, whatever technical term you want to use. They may just love their snapshots. They may begin to realize that there are other ways to walk.

 

I sometimes wonder when someone posts a mountan lake reflection shot, how I should think about the image. How hard it was to climb up the hill. To wait for the right light. How original are those shots.

 

One of my higher rated photos was a detail of a basket hand made by someone else. I photographed in the dying evening light with my camera set against the end of my couch and the basket on an end table. DOF was my major artistic choice in that shot. I would only give it a 5 at best. Many people gave it a 6 and left no comment.

 

So amateur and critic......and just what the heck is the point of the rating and comment function on this site.

 

Beats me.

[keaggy220]

A well written and insightful post William - people ARE at different stages in their understanding of photography and critique of photography. This does explain much of my frustration. However, it is common for truly exceptional works to receive a three or four.

 

Would anyone say "Macbeth" is an average work or "Grapes of Wrath" is on par with the latest Grisham?

 

 

Why do we rate? It gives the person rating a chance to study other peoples work and an opportunity to put in writing the conclusion of that study.

[sandy.]

Marc, et. al, can you please look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1604533"> this picture and the comments</a>, and add your comments to that, please? Much appreciated.

[robert_fleming]

Peter, Matthew and others who get lost in rating... I got so lost myself in rating that I refused to rate anything for months (years?), [some people here, worrying about their own ratings, might think I should have continued that way (LOL!)]. I 've seen so many high rated well framed snapshots, ignored jewels, many people being absolutely not consistent with their rating (friends, rival, retaliation,...) and therefore with their taste ... <p>that I decided to think other way around... after seeing so many pictures, I just sort and rank them in my memory relatively to each others according to my taste and appreciation of their photographic quality and starting from the level of quality you choose (2/3/4) to rate progressively using PN rating scale. <p>You might find sometimes discrepancies with existing average but dont bother with that as far as you are consistent with your system of appreciation.<p> about A and O criteria: sometimes it is obvious and easy to split the appreciation, sometimes I just sum up the 2 to get a balance figure.<p> I think most important is to be consistent with your own scale of taste and avoid noisy interefences; for that see a lot of pictures, widen your horizon, brush up your taste and doing so, apart from information you can give to others and comment you can provide, you will learn a lot from yourself. This system is subjective, but anyway assessment on artisitics works is subjective, whatever the system, whatever the people can say. That was my 20cts.

[lex_jenkins]

I suggest we dump the numerical ratings and employ a complicated system of emoticons. %p

[gib]

speaking of where people are on the path in their photographic walk.... it is almost a cliche, but someone once told me about influencing people or teaching people or people being ready to learn or change....

 

4 stages <p>

1. unconsciously incompetent <p>2. consciously incompetent <p>3. unconsciously competent <p>4. consciously competent

 

<p>it is possible and even likely at stage 1 they dont know that they dont know. I spent a lot of my hell, probably 15 of my first 25 years taking photographs at stage 1 teetering into stage 2.

<p>

Stage 2 being where I knew something was wrong with my photos, that I wanted them to turn out better than they were, although some were ok. Before people can learn or change, they have to be in stage 2.

 

Stage 3 is where they are trying new things, reevaluating, learning to evaluate their own work, and that is what photo.net ratings and comments might be able to foster, accelerate, improve if it was perfect. But it is not perfect, so a little one step forward, two back, hop right and spin, confusion, frustration, recalculation and take more photos and look harder at them.

<p>

Stage 4 is where everyone wants to be. And I suppose it is a series of constantly lowering mountains and hills, where we start out on top with snapshots and confidence and then work our way down into valleys, climb up, down again up again, each hill a little less difficult to climb and we get to see, well, .....you show me what you see.

[gib]

Lex, I think the true cognescenti want a combo of 3 thumbs up/down, a NICE stamp, WOW stamp, and the single finger rising (metaphysical symbol of unity) to cover all those photos uploaded on photo.net, except mine. I will take cheques or cash.

 

happy snaps

 

Bill .......... rakish hat below

 

<\8-}

[n_p]

......and just what the heck is the point of the rating and comment function on this site.<p>William, I thought it was a competition! The winner gets their name listed in this special box, attached above<br>Thought you would have worked that out by now.

[n_p]

Oh well, attached below, then...

[i._g.]

For me basic technical soundness of a shot (focus/exposure) does not buy it any increment on my rating scale. I'm trying to rate what the photographer did, the two parameters above are in many cases taken care of by the electronics in the camera (and for those that use manual cameras, usually these people moved their craft above the level of focus and exposure being a problem so no rating gratification for them either ;-)

[dougityb]

Here is what I would like to follow, but am hindered by my awareness that it is not equivalent to the photonet system. I think 1/1's are rare for this site, but are not non-existent. I have seen plenty of 1/x, or x/1's: <p></p>

 

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="40">

<tr>

<td>

<div align="center"><b>A Ratings Interpretation </b></div>

<p align="center"> 

<p></p>

<p></p>

<p>Last revision: June 27, 2003 0959 EDT </p>

<p><b>7: Excellent Photography: </b><br>

No technical improvements possible. Aesthetically stimulating or challenging.

Off the charts creativity; extreme use and command of photographic qualities

and controls including toning and shading, sharpness, exposure, composition,

etc. Jaw dropping captures, etc.

<p> <b>6: Very Good Photography:</b> <br>

Advanced use of camera/film/media. Creative approach displaying a unique

perspective on the subject. No evidence of misplaced focus. Tones and

colors are accurate and well modulated, etc. Composition is stable and

only marginally improvable, i.e., Slight improvements helpful, but not

really necessary.

<p> <b>5: Good Photography</b>:<br>

Solid, quality work showing competent use/knowledge of camera and film/media

and photographic qualities (sharpness, Depth of Field, tonal values, highlight

and shadow values, etc,). The subject and/or message is clearly identifiable.

<p> <b>4: Not Bad Photography: </b><br>

Work at this level is adequate, but nothing to write home about. Work

that most of us are capable of without much trouble. Appropriate sharpness,

exposure, composition, and a straightforward approach to subject, etc.

This replaces the word "Average," which is not a very encouraging concept.

<p> <b>3: Almost Bad Photography.</b> <br>

A photograph at this level is one that has one or more mistakes, but still

is more or less worth looking at. Focus may be a little off, composition

somewhat poor, colors not quite right, skewed horizontals, or veritcals,

motion blur, etc. Work at this level would be an average photograph with

a significant problem, such as a well lit portrait that is slightly out

of focus.

<p> <b>2: Bad Photography:</b><br>

Work at this level misses on two or more of the photographic essentials

and needs significant scrinting improvement or even to be reshot. Focus

is off, Composition is very poor, Exposure exhibits extreme areas of blown

out highlights or detailess hadows, Lighting not suited to the subject,

Background is more intersting than the subject, etc. Work at this level

is may not be salvagable.

<p> <b>1: Very Bad Photography. </b><br>

Work at this level illustrates a complete lack of understanding or abuse

of photographic principles, and/or controls, particularly with regard

to tonal values, composition, sharpness, camera craft, etc. Aesthetic

issues could include simple ugliness to portrayals of chaos.

</td>

</tr>

</table>

[root]

How much of your rating is based on what you suspect the original

capture looked like as compared to what it looks like on the screen.

given that the latter is influenced not only by your by your scanning

equipment, but also jpeg compression and the viewer's monitor

settings?

 

'Unconsciously incompetent' also applies to rates and critiques -

yours and your opinions of those offered by others.

[gib]

when I look at the equipment used and see a view camera and then look at my monitor and think am I getting a real view of the image....it used to be that we look at a 4x6 print in our hands or an enlargement matted and framed on a wall. Now we look at what someone has managed to pull through a camera, film or digital, scanned, sharpened, levels adjusted (if they have software to do this kind of thing), presented in a small file format on my monitor which is not as highly calibrated as some. Of course I have moderate red-green colour blindness to throw into the mix (not uncommon in men).

 

but....which thumbnail or medium sized photo catches my eye, or anyone's eye.... and why do we respond to that manufactured image is going to be a subjective blend of who we are, what we think we know about photography. The more we know about technique, perhaps deepens the appreciation.

 

Two years ago, I got a chance for fun to make a quilted pillow, with the help of a lady who quilts. I like lines and patterns, you can see that in my photos. Well, the amount of thought, measurement, selection of pieces of material (colour, pattern, compliment) that goes into quilting, let alone handstitching, ironing of edges to help in sewing....quilters are insane, or dedicated, or gifted in their aesthetic manufacturing.

 

Taking care, paying attention, selections and choices....some photos are taken on the fly because they can be made that way or because the nature of the subject requires that, but some are made more slowly, with more deliberate thought and choices...with various options explored.

 

Some photos make me feel. Some photos make me think. Some photos make me do both. And some make me imagine how they were made and how I might use those notions in my own work. And some are just a smile, a chuckle, for fun, plain and simple, how to rate those?

[bobatkins]

Here's an alternate way to think about ratings:

<ul>

<li>7 - I'd buy this and put it on my wall

<li>6 - I'd put this on my wall if I was given a copy

<li>5 - I'd put this in my photo album

<li>4 - I'd keep this in my photo shobox archive

<li>3 - If I lost this, I wouln't be upset

<li>2 - If I lost this, I'd be glad

<li>1 - What me? Take that? I've never seen it before and I don't want to see it again</ul>

[pdoyle]

1) Photo of a truly unique and interesting sculpture, taken head-on with ordinary lighting and composition.<br>

2) Photo of a "commodity," not-very-interesting sculpture, taken with interesting lighting and/or creative composition.

<P>Which one gets a higher Originality rating from you? Do you reward the photographer or the sculptor for their originality? Or is it "original" of the photographer to take an ordinary snapshot of an interesting object?

<p>I think I've seen both rating philosophies at work on this site, and to me it's an interesting question.

[bobatkins]

If you want to get technical, "originality" refers to the photography, not the subject, so a mundane (or original) subject photographed in an interesting and original way gets a high score and an original (or mundane) subject photographed in a mundane way gets a low score. A postcard shot of the Mona Lisa gets a 1 or a 2, no matter how much you like the Mona Lisa, ditto for shots of bears catching salmon in Alaska which have pretty much become a nature photography cliche these days.

 

However don't expect the average user to do this. If they like the subject or they like the imaage, it gets a high score. I don't think you'll ever change that.

That's why "aestheic" and "originality" scores are very closely correlated

[root]

I would go so far as to say that your way is right, and the 'average'

user you refer to is wrong. This may not matter much until you try

to comment and critique on an image that has only seen the

'average' interpretation. We've seen on a daily basis that you will

get shouted down, no matter how tactful you are.

 

So what are we going to do about it?

[keith_laban]

<i>�So what are we going to do about it?�</i><p><b>Reasons for having a ratings system</b><p><b>(1)</b> It brings in the punters. People enjoy playing the game. This is understandably important to photo.net.<p><b>(2)</b> It acts as a democratic filter giving the most <b>popular</b> images greater visibility.<p>Any attempt to design a ratings system to display the <b>best</b> images is doomed to failure. We all have differing opinions on what is best, therefore the most any democratic system can do is select the most popular. If we the punters and/or photo.net want a democratic ratings system it will never reflect our own interpretations of great photography.