| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2003 08:50:43 AM · #1 |
I am quite new here and I wonder how the rating system works. I just received a comment saying that my photo shows very good use of space, is well composed, has good sharpness and fantastic colors, but the composition is a little bland because it is too dark.
I find this a very useful comment, because I know everything the author likes and dislikes, and it will help me improve for future shots.
However, this photo was given a 4 by this author. When I was in school, 4/10 was a flunk. It was like getting an F.
My question is: what does every note correspond to? To me, when a photo has many qualities and respects the challenge, but has one flaw, it is at least worth a 5 or 6. I wouldn't flunk a photo for one fault. Does anyone have ideas on this? |
|
|
|
10/23/2003 09:07:58 AM · #2 |
yes. you are new here. this has been discussed ad nauseum, unfortunately.
the summary version is that, for some reason, everyone seems to have a different voting standard.
One just hopes that all the votes average out and the ranking as compared to the other shots, more than the score itself, will give on an idea of how the shot was received.
On this site, an average score of 6 or higher is considered pretty phenomenal. A 7 is a home run. There have only been about 10 8's in the entire history of the site.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2003 01:58:16 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Louison:
...this photo was given a 4 by this author. When I was in school, 4/10 was a flunk. It was like getting an F.
My question is: what does every note correspond to? To me, when a photo has many qualities and respects the challenge, but has one flaw, it is at least worth a 5 or 6. I wouldn't flunk a photo for one fault. Does anyone have ideas on this? |
I have been known to award 6's, 7's, 8's and 9's to what one might consider a technically 'flawed' photo. I would, conceivably, award a 10 to an image containing a 'flawed' element or aspect, if I felt strongly that such a 'flaw' had been introduced deliberately AND that it served to intensify the artistic perception/effect of a photograph.
A 4, to me, can be a good photograph, often and usually it is one which strikes me as one of many, i.e. one lacking the kind of commotive effect, I have come to expect from something intended to be 'art', 'flaws' or not.
I look, entirely, for artistic merit. Technical aspects, to me, exist only relative to this aim and vision. Presented with a choice of two images, one technically stunning while aesthetically bland to 'offensive', another artistically striking, but technically clearly 'flawed', my personal choice should be clear.
When I look at your portfolio, Louison, using the criteria I personally apply to pictures here, I would, in all honesty, want to agree with you: 4/10, comparitively, would strike me as substandard (alongside the standard of your portfolio).
Again, I want to stress that mine is an entirely personal and subjective response to your query, but I hope it does, in a small way, address your particular concern.
Message edited by author 2003-10-23 13:59:40. |
|
|
|
10/23/2003 02:10:09 PM · #4 |
If a photo doesnt meet the challenge (in my opinion) then I rate it on a 1-4 scale instead of a 1-10. There could be a photo which I score a 4 that i think is better than one I score a 9, but if I dont see it fitting teh challenge I don't see the point in there being a challenge in the first place.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2003 02:40:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Konador:
If a photo doesnt meet the challenge (in my opinion)... , I don't see the point in there being a challenge in the first place. |
I do.
Limiting subject options is an effective method to stimulate creativity, particularly for those who are inclined to struggle with a potential plethora of choices. As such, this approach would be designed for the benefit of the photographer and not for the derisory purpose of some voters. |
|
|
|
10/23/2003 02:44:02 PM · #6 |
But if you enter a football tournament, you dont turn out ready to play polo saying "oh, i thought the football thing was just to give us sporty ideas."
This is 'a digital photography contest' after all.
That's how I see it anyway.
Message edited by author 2003-10-23 14:44:36.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2003 02:46:20 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Konador:
But if you enter a football tournament, you dont turn out ready to play polo saying "oh, i thought the football thing was just to give us sporty ideas."
This is 'a digital photography contest' after all.
That's how I see it anyway. |
:-)
It ain't a football tournament. |
|
|
|
10/23/2003 03:21:31 PM · #8 |
| Many of us have created our own personal voting scales, mine is just one of many and I certainly don't advocate it as a standard, however if you want insight into one voter's thoughts on the matter, it's in my profile. |
|
|
|
10/23/2003 03:45:36 PM · #9 |
This sounds like a comment I made and I'm happy to illustrate my voting/commenting technique. I'll be as general as possible.
When I look at an image my first thought is, does this do anything for me. I think the impact on the viewer is of the biggest import for any photo being voted on. This gets the most weighting. A technically perfect image that I cannot connect with will likely not get a 10, because an aspect is missing for me, it might get a 7 or 8.
If there are additional items I find flawed, the image will be voted downward from there, depending on how much the perceived flaw(s) affect my interpretation of the image.
In one photo a lens flare may completely obliterate the image, so its impact is huge. In another it may just distract minorly, so the impact is smaller. The flaw is the same, but how it is reflected in my voting is different.
A 'failing' image is a 1. 2-4 means the image has good qualities to whatever degree but things are missing. 5 is an average picture. 6-8 are great tech. & fair interest or vice versa. 9 & 10 are essentially perfect - excellent technically & high interest.
Finally, I try to give more positives than negatives; I don't want to harp on what I disliked. I feel my vote gives a sense of my overall impression of the piece, so while I may list the one greatest thing I found negative, other smaller issues may play a part in the lower vote.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2003 03:48:13 PM · #10 |
Just a caveat, I don't know for sure that I was the commenter being referred to, it sounded very similar and I don't mind if I was. I mostly wanted to give a view on how I vote & comment since I have been doing a lot of both recently, in case anyone was wondering. It is subjective and exceptions do happen, I am basing merely on my opinions and those in general are not going to change.
Also, I do realize that I may vote down for something that an artist has done on purpose. I try and understand the choices the photographer has made but simply put, just because it was done purposefully doesn̢۪t mean I'll like it.. and if I don't like a piece I'm not going to pretend otherwise. My opinion is as always my own and will be muted by the opinions of others as the votes are all mixed together and tabulated.
- Sia
|
|
|
|
10/23/2003 10:59:47 PM · #11 |
Thanks all for your replies.
As I see it, then, the greatest difficulty is interpreting others votes with my own set of criteria. I simply shouldn't apply them in interpreting the mark I get.
Aside from that, getting less than 5 for any photo still does hurt a little... :o) |
|
|
|
10/23/2003 11:56:16 PM · #12 |
I'm going to try a different way of commenting on the pictures. I haven't seen it here before. Seems like a very helpful way to comment.
(Example)
+ Beautiful hues of sunset looks great against silhouette.
Great Depth of Field.
Great reflections in the water.
Etc....
- Need more contrast to bring out subject
Picture looks very flat.
Too much noise.
Etc....
This format should give you the negatives and postives.
Message edited by author 2003-10-23 23:57:50.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 09:58:44 AM · #13 |
| I was voting on a challenge just now, and found that it is sometimes difficult to see the relationship between the photo and the challenge's theme. Sometimes, because of cultural or other differences, it may be hard to judge whether a photo fits the challenge or not. For that reason, I will simply vote on the photo's merits (as I see them, of course), not on its fit with the challenge. |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 12:58:33 PM · #14 |
I think its impossible to apply any given rating system equally to all photos.
Some people put more weight on certain aspects. As Konador stated, meeting the challenge is the most important aspect to him. Zeuszen believes the artistic merit of the image is worth more than any other single element. Everyone has their own ideas :)
I don't consider the challenge topic at all anymore. I just look at the photo. If it's a great photo, I give it a high score... even if it doesn't meet the challenge. If it's a cruddy photo that meets the challenge from every angle, I score it low.
I'm sure that my idea is quite different than most. I like black and whites. I tend to score well done b/w images higher than others. Why? Because I like black and white.
:)
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 01:25:21 PM · #15 |
This is how I try (very hard) to vote:
1 > a technically (composition, focus, lighting, balance, effects, focus etc.) incompetent photo or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to the size of an image) , an 'offensive' one to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'
2 > a technically lacking photo with little or no 'perceivable' artistic merit and/or interest, even when generously considered; a somewhat 'offensive' photo or a gross and inappropriate sentimentalization of feeling in the context of the challenge; the pursuit of cliché without room for even a latent interpretation (irony, persiflage etc.)
3 > a photo of mixed or questionable merit, both artistically and technically; a technically 'acceptable' one without marked artistic or journalistic interest; a sentimental or highly 'commercialized' image designed to 'sell' a product or (worse!) person of reasonable or considerable technical merit; a potentially 'interesting' or 'promising' photo (subject matter/perspective) with 'severe' technical flaws
4 > a 'pretty' photo reminiscent of many; an otherwise captivating image with one or more clearly distracting elements, either within the capture itself or via border and/or title; a technically accomplished photo relying predominantly on an idea and/or title for impact; an artistically 'promising' capture with clearly noticeable technical defects; a technically 'stunning' capture bare of 'feeling' or aesthetic 'sense'
5 > a 'good' photo by most standards; one that communicates capably without teaching or exhilarating us; an artistically interesting photo pointing an unusual view, perspective or matter, even if it suffers from technical 'flaws'; a technically 'stunning' capture with limited human or artistic 'range'
6 > a remarkable image and well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings, not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image in the 'classic' fashion, well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait)
7 > an outstanding photograph fit for both study and pleasure, while allowing for minor technical shortcomings, an accomplished imitation of a mode of seeing or rendering drawn or alluding to another medium
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically flawless
9 > same as 8, but one that commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > a photo that challenges the order of gods and the world |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 01:31:46 PM · #16 |
so you are saying
1 - BAD
.
.
.
10 - GOOD then ?
The problem I have with any of the posted voting schemes that I've seen beyond this are that they are always too simplistic. The one above is a good example of this.
Message edited by author 2003-10-24 13:56:07. |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 01:34:17 PM · #17 |
"8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically flawless
9 > same as 8, but one that commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > a photo that challenges the order of gods and the world"
What are you talking about?
Ed
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 01:48:02 PM · #18 |
I think thats a very good rating scale, though perhaps 8, 9, 10 need further qualification/distinction. If scoring sites would post something so detailed next to each number, perhaps we'd have a better yardstick and ratings would be more consistent, or at least as consistent as a rating scale for something subjective can be.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
This is how I try (very hard) to vote:
1 > a technically (composition, focus, lighting, balance, effects, focus etc.) incompetent photo or an entirely unintelligible one (sometimes due to the size of an image) , an 'offensive' one to civilized nature or (even) a technically apt photo which 'clearly' demonstrates a 'failure of feeling'
...snip...
8 > same as 7, but one that stimulates awareness and taxes the senses, technically flawless
9 > same as 8, but one that commotes 'perceived' reality to the point of restlessness and action
10 > a photo that challenges the order of gods and the world |
|
|
|
|
10/24/2003 01:48:42 PM · #19 |
I know I've posted the Photoblink voting guidelines before, but here it is again because I think it is a pretty interesting read.
"As a casual observer and fan of this site, there seems to be some debate on how to base one's vote from 1 to 10. I do believe the written comments (as many have noted) should be the foremost priority explaining WHY one likes a photo and fortunately the comments are rated to encourage this. That said, there is indeed a 1 to 10 scoring system and perhaps it may be of assistance for viewers, particularly new viewers, to have further defined by words the rating system. Obviously what moves and bothers each person is individualistic and personal, but some definition to the scale would provide some guideline for consistency.
If someone has taken the trouble to post, obviously there is something they care about in the photo and/or they are just starting photogrphy or experimenting so any vote from 1 to 10 should be at least in some way encouraging, as if you were talking to a friend, in person. The rating definitions would also need to be applicable to all subject matter. For what it's worth, may I offer the following on this:
I would find myself first "sub-categorizing" into four groups. Either the photograph compared to others on the web site is obviously great (10, 9), quite good (8, 7), interesting in some way (6, 5) or lacking interest or technique (4,3,2,1). I believe it is important to put a little more description in defining the higher ratings as this is what most viewers will in fact use since many are experienced photographers and this is where opinions begin to "split hairs." So:
10: Inspirational. The photographer has used exemplary technique, creativity and/or perseverance to quite uniquely convey the essence of the subject matter and/or moment. One enjoys viewing the image again and again, for the aesthetics, interpretive, or documentary value and there is nothing that could possibly be changed to improve upon it. The photograph has magic.
9: Excellent. This is a great image with exemplary execution that supports the subject matter. There is, however, just a very slight hint of something that takes away from the unique, "magic" or completeness that would have made this a 10, and this aspect was likely well beyond the control of the photographer.
8: Very Good. This is a photo where everything came together very well for the subject matter to become compelling, but one aspect of the image in technique or composition is just slightly distracting that could have been enhanced by the photographer. It is obviously helpful to comment on what this aspect is.
7. Good. The photographer has presented subject matter of considerable interest, but one aspect of the image, in technique or composition is felt to be distracting that could have been enhanced by the photographer. To define the aspect would be helpful to the photographer.
6. Interesting. The subject matter has some interest, but one aspect in technique or composition is obviously distracting, and could have been enhanced by the photographer. Again, it is so helpful to define the aspect.
5. Average. The subject matter has received a basic level of photographic competency, and it is evident what the photographer was trying to achieve, however, it is lacking a spark of interest or artistry to raise it above average.
4. Interest Unclear. It is unclear why this photograph was taken, as the subject matter does not provoke interest, however, there is a basic level of photographic competency. Perhaps the photographer is experimenting or trying new subject matter, and any advice is likely helpful from others who shoot the same type of genre. It is also helpful if the photographer could help explain what they were trying to achieve.
3, 2, & 1. Experimenting. There is not a basic level of photographic competency evident, which is quite distracting from what ever the photographer is desiring to achieve in their subject matter (the more distracting the less value ultimately to 1). The photographer may be learning or trying something totally experimental, which is greatly assisted if they could explain if they are beginners, or what they were trying to achieve, to encourage comment and assistance (then again, who knows, maybe they are on the cutting edge of something new!)." |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 01:51:02 PM · #20 |
I would be interested in changing the jurisditctional responsibilities of the DPC Death Squad to include the monopod beatings to anyone who floats this topic in a forum again. This is no Optex monopod either. I'm talking about one of those big Manfrotto jobbies. If you're jolted awake by stinging pain and blood splattering on your teddy bear by ex-pat Colombian militiamen wearing leathers and helmets and yelling 'One is bad, ten is good' over and over with a hint of a Spanish accent, it's probably a direct result of saying things like:
6 > a remarkable image and well executed by most standards while allowing for some technical shortcomings, not easily prevented or corrected; an ordinary or simple shot, perfectly timed or 'found' that tells an old story in a new way; a very personal take, a 'fresh' controversy with commotive qualities, but aesthetically 'exciting'; an image in the 'classic' fashion, well executed (i.e. landscape/portrait)
Message edited by author 2003-10-24 13:51:56. |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 02:22:13 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
so you are saying
1 - BAD
.
.
.
10 - GOOD then ?
The problem I have with any of the posted voting schemes that I've seen beyond this are that they are always too simplistic. The one above is a good example of this. |
What I'm saying, in part, is that 'good' and 'bad' do not amount to a critical evaluation I could live with. While, admittedly, I have gone through some pains to articulate a way of looking at photos, I cannot believe that such an effort is wasted on everyone. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/24/2003 02:40:22 PM · #22 |
This is why I love this site! The folks are so diverse.
People...You gotta love-em!
Richard
|
|
