corkman

"Oh my!" she whispered softly.<div></div>

The one rating that puzzles me is Originality. As a photographer I am limited to shooting either what I have access to, or shooting things I get paid for shooting. I rate most of my own photos on aesthetics only. In sports you follow the action and get the best image possible of what is happening in front of the camera. I have no control over the subject matter. If something spectacular happens and I end up with a sharp photo using the best combination of settings and have put myself in the best position for using the available light, there is absolutely nothing original about it. Photo manipulation is another story, and I often consider this in my originality rating. So often I see high originality ratings for great exoctic settings (usually foreign, although what's foreign to one, may be native to another) that get 7's for originality. Basically they are being rewarded for coughing up the money for traveling to that spot, standing there, and clicking the shutter. Because how well they capture the image in front of them is all on the aesthetics side. I fear that there is probably no ratings system that makes sense in grading the massive number of photos that are uploaded annually to this site.