chad_gard

I don't think limiting who can rate would really help that much. Sure, the ratings system is

currently close to meaningless. But at the same time, as others have said, the free

members contribute a lot.

If I couldn't have rated, i wouldn't have joined. But I didn't join because I wanted to rate

more - I joined because I wanted to be able to post collections of photos all at once, then

request critique of them more slowly, and as a free member you can only have 5 more

photos than you've requested critique of. And because I was gaining a lot of insight on my

own photography by critiquing others'.

What I think would improve the rating system most would be to require a critique in order

to rate, regardless of whether you've paid or not. sure, the number of ratings people have

would decline, but when you see someone who's only joined a month ago with 2500

ratings, how meaningful can those be?

it's the comments that are helpful. Encourage more comments by requiring a comment to

accompany a rating. Sure, some will leave a comment of "asdf;lkj", but more will take the

time to actually look at a photo before rating it, and leave a comment, and that will be

much more helpful.

As several others have said:

-PN is a tough crowd. If 4/4 is average for PN, it's probably above average for the world

of photographers as a whole. but also based on a very biased rating system, with a bias

that changes continually. Even amongst the PN "crowd", you really won't get a sufficiently

large number of people rating to be statistically significant, and thus a very high margin of

error.

-What really matters is if you like your photo, or the person writing the check does if

you're doing something commercial.

-I wouldn't get too hung up on the ratings. For example, when I post a photo for critique,

I may just occasionally glance at the ratings. But I'll typically read comments several

times. It's the comments that show someone took enough interest to judge the photo in

detail. And It's the comments that will help inform your future photography. It's just too

bad more people don't leave them. Really, is there a point in rating without a comment?

What gets me is photos that I think are rather ho-hum and upload only because they are

part of a set will get more (and higher) ratings than one I like more and submitted for

critique. Best I can figure is someone sees the one posted for critique, looks at my gallery,

then rates other photos, but not the one submitted.

That can be frustrating, particularly when the photo you like gets low ratings, and the one

that was just an ancillary suddenly gets listed on your most frequently rated photos list.

But then you remember the rating system is very unreliable, and it's OK that your favorite

photo that you have taken has an average rating of 3/3, with a couple of 1/1's, while a

photo you've taken that bores you has a rating of 6.5/6.24 with a handful of 7/7's.

As many have said, the rating system is somewhat suspect, since you're getting numeric ratings from people you don't know and who don't know you, with differing photographic backgrounds and experience, different cultural backgrounds and experience, etc.

But, I have to agree with you that the "Aesthetic" and "Original" labels for ratings are somewhat flawed. If you read the archives, pretty much everyone equates these areas to something different. For me, "Aesthetic" is where I rate the emotional response I have to a photo, and "Original" is where I rate the technical aspects - usually composition, exposure, appropriate depth-of-field, etc. Occasionally I come accross one that throws my "system" for a loop because it is truly interesting, though.

If one were to truly judge a photo on originality, it would A) be very difficult to give a high rating, and B) anything that did get a high rating would be very unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing, because there is little one can do in a single phot that is truly original anymore. Which is different than to say a collection, series, or body of work.

Personally, I miss the fact that I used to be able to see WHO gave me WHICH rating - now I can see the ratings I got and the people that rated my photo, but not match them together. In the past, I would look at the portfolios and the highly-ranked photos of the people who rated my photos particularly low or high. This allowed me to see the things that person was interested in, and thus get a general idea how my work is viewed by people who like certain types of photography. Especially since so few people leave comments with their critiques (which are what really helps - I try to leave a comment with nearly every rating I give, but few do).

Granted there was lots of vitriolic commenting and "revenge-rating" that happened because of this, but if one could avoid getting hung up on getting upset, a lot could be learned about his own photography.

Tim's right - I REALLY like his 17-40 f4. Perhaps even covet? Maybe not that bad. But it is much, much better than the kit lens. The kit lens is rather "soft", has some color abberations at the perimiter that annoy me a bit, and the build quality is quite low in comparison to, say, the 17-40. Which is not to say the kit lens is a bad lens - I got it because it is usable as a utility lens that allowed me to make the move to digital within my budget.

I also really like Tim's 28-135 IS, which I believe I am going to buy from him shortly.

If I had my 'druthers, I would get the 17-40 and 28-135 IS, followed by the 70-300 f4 L, or maybe the 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM (a friend has the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and I really am not impressed. This is a range wehre I definitely believe the "L" glass is worth the money), and toss the kit lens.

I really doubt the kit lens has any resale value - it was worth it to me, as when I purchased my digital rebel I was also changing camera systems and thus had no lenses available. But in the long run, it won't get used much once I cover its focal length with better glass. I think if you get the 17-40, you'll find the same holds true.

A couple of shots with lightning behind a friend of mine (sorry to

post 3 in a row....)<div></div>