Technique rating...again.

[joe_hodge]

WARNING: A dead horse was beaten in the making of the post!

<p>

While critiqueing (sp?)photos tonight, I found myself marking down

pictures in the "originality" category simply because, well, they were

not that original. All well and good, except that there wasn't

necessarily anything WRONG with them, either. Sure, someone else has

already posted a few hundred good "bright flowers against dark

greenery" before you, but that does not tell the photographer anything

useful.

<p>

OK, so I put that in a comment. Also, well and good, but it seems to

me that an explicit "technique" rating would be useful for all those

times when pictures are rated but not commented on. That way,

submitters could track their technique ratings over time to see not

only how the community like their choice of subject matter, but also

how their presentation is improving (or not, as the case may be).

<p>

At any rate, I would like to see a third rating category, and would be

happy to pony up another few years subscription in advance, if

necessary, to defray the cost of implementation.

<p>

[rmckenzi]

Yeah. Me too. Many times I find myself giving low ratings to photos even though "technically" there's nothing wrong with them - they are just boring and completely unoriginal. But I would like some way to express the fact that the technique is fine - it's the imagination/originality that's lacking.

[bobatkins]

That's what comments are for!

[joe_hodge]

Tsk. tsk Bob, that's taking an easy out!

<p>

Many, if not most, ratings do not have an associated comment. I think that an explicit "technique" rating would be popular and valuable. I'll set my stake at 10 years subscription fees, paid in advance, if we can get and additional rating category for "technique" or "technical execution".

[john falkenstine]

Just curious on technique; does anybody out know of any studies or books on photographic techniques, and "why" so many of us take the same "type" of picture? What I'm getting at here are not the standard "how to" photography books, but perhaps something more of a study on some of the cultural photographic trends? (Maybe should be another forum string?)

[RobertChura]

I saw a good book called the Tao of Photography another is John Loengard's Looking at pictures. They are more than "how to" or "look at my beautiful picture" books

[maxhaynes]

I like this idea of a third rating, the originality score is rarely used that way, more as a

secondary idea, in fact, it seems like some folks don't know what the word means. It

would be nice if originality marks were for just that. What about not having to rate in

each category? Great technique on that boob shot, but it's not an original boob.

[john falkenstine]

A lot of us wear some incredibly strong filters already in front of our eyeballs, just from the few posters in this forum there is enough difference in perception and interpretation of images to start a small war...I think there are many outside influences on ratings in the current categories that will not change, no matter how many other categories are added. The written critique is the "safety valve" or "communication filter" that needs more encouragement. Right now, more feedback on posted pictures is given and offered than your high school teacher gave you on submitted papers.

[rejamesuk]

thank god!!!!!!

 

i thought i was the only one who thought this was an issue. obviously not, as it seems this has been mentioned MANY times.

 

i wont mark down a portrait for instance, because it's not origional, but technically it perfect. people should be rewarded for good camera technique.

 

who's to say that a good sunset should recieve a low rating, just because it's unorigional??

 

not me. i find myself giving higher markes for origionality in compensation for no technical review.

 

can it be THAT hard to put in another critiqal response (button)??? (i'm no web designer, i dont know)

[vivian_kumana]

i dont know if this was supposed to be a rhetorical question, but i have a real answer-- the reason why it seems as if people are taking the same pictures over and over again is for the simple reason that we've seen and studied photography for over 150 yrs. just a century ago photography became widely commercialized. there has become a certain aesthetic associated with photography about what is "good" or "right." how many fine art photographers have taken pictures of calla lillies against a black background? my guess- all of them. we have a catalogue of photographic images in our minds that we flip through when something catches our eye, whether conscious or not. and there are two ways of breaking this. one is to take the pictures and get it out of your system- use them for the technical expertise you can gain from trying to emulate past masters. or two, allow yourself to be influenced but consciously note images you have seen in the past so that you can create your own original works. this is still hard, because there are so many competitors for use of imagery- there can be many people developing the same ideas simultaneously (which even happened with the invention and introduction of photography way back in 1839) and there will obviously be differing opinions about ownership of originality. just understand that it is a natural thing, especially with so many ammateurs out there who think they are producing art. you might liken this to a more extreme comparrison of someone who builds small scale models and an architect. sure they are both making similar things, both looking nice aesthetically, but one requires much more thought and execution of ideas to create a monumental piece of work. and this is where i believe true fine art lies- it is a throroughly thought out statement including aesthetics, composition, form, and mood which drive the peice conceptually.

[alberto pastorelli]

My vote for the "technique" cathegory.

But,sadly, Photo.net is going in an other direction... In these days I discovered that the "equipment" list of every member is not visible anymore...