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:-)

As an owner of Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro, it's an excellent lens but give consideration to Sigma's 180mm f/3.5 macro. The extra reach comes in very handy. Especially when you consider that you have to get dead on top of your subject with Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro. After I finish paying off a couple of other photographic related purchases, the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro will be my next lens.

Oh! And for those that worry about these sorts of things, the Sigma lens rates better than the Canon equivalent on PhotoZone and is about seven hundred dollars (US) less expensive:-)