Business
12,357 discussions
103,804 replies
Photos & Photographers
19,723 discussions, 1 new
92,293 replies, 4 new
Technique
4,558 discussions
34,276 replies
Equipment
8,909 discussions, 1 new
63,132 replies, 10 new
photoSIG Talk
7,221 discussions
80,485 replies
User News/Ads
1,718 discussions
21,616 replies
photoSIG News
484 discussions
5,406 replies
photoSIG Cafe
4,101 discussions, 2 new
57,210 replies, 8 new
Critic's Corner
1,327 discussions
16,794 replies
Start a new discussion
|
From ssal/Alex (27,279) 
on April 11, 2012 5:23:28 PM CDT
I want to get a sense of how other fellow photographers think about the point system. I am talking about Photo Rating points, the points you get from posting your pictures. For this discussion, I am disregarding the Photo critique rating, which is the point you get by someone else rating your critique helpful or not.
Do you think a photographer with consistent high points from photo he/she post has better pictures than those with lower points. For the sake of argument, I am talking about pictures over the same period of time like a month with 100 pictures posted. And let's make it more dramatic. Let's say I am comparing one with an average of over 10 points per picture vs. one with only 1 point per picture.
Let me hear it.
Thanks.
Read 402 times
Reply
|
From dogothunder/Tim (6,886) 
on April 11, 2012 5:39:14 PM CDT
There are many factors that would prove your theory wrong. But, if you look at the photo content as a whole and strip away the top 10% and the bottom 10%, I would say that yes....generally the higher rated photos are "more pleasing" to look at than the lower rated photos. One might substitute "more mainstream" or "more satisfying" or maybe even "more refined".
Does that tell me that any one photographer is better skilled than another. No, it could be that better photographers push the limits more which means not all of their stuff is "great" and another photographer has just hit on a magic formula for the pleasing photo that people just like that isn't necessarily earth-shattering.
Reply
|
|
|
From donschaeffer/Don (12,842)
on April 11, 2012 5:45:05 PM CDT
It's good to see this discussion. Many times better ratings come because the photographer has wonderful equipment and takes pictures of topics he or she knows how to shoot very well. There are lots of photo sites. I know that photos that get downrated here are often received very well elsewhere.
Reply
|
|
|
From baba/David (38,576)
on April 11, 2012 7:47:51 PM CDT
And some of those sites are very nondiscerning......
Reply
|
|
|
From donschaeffer/Don (12,842)
on April 12, 2012 10:54:24 AM CDT
http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery
http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums
http://forums.photographyreview.com
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums
http://www.easysharersforum.com
http://www.canadian-photographer.ca
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com
to name a few
Reply
|
|
|
From donschaeffer/Don (12,842)
on April 12, 2012 11:41:53 AM CDT
You have missed something. There are large galleries on these sites.
Reply
|
|
|
From donschaeffer/Don (12,842)
on April 12, 2012 1:58:09 PM CDT
Each of those links work. Look for the gallery thread. (I don't know if some are member-driven).
Reply
|
|
|
From marshall/Marshall (11,928)
on April 11, 2012 7:20:08 PM CDT
I want to get a sense of how other fellow photographers think about the point system.
I don't think much about it, at least not anymore.
Do you think a photographer with consistent high points from photo he/she post has better pictures than those with lower points.
Absent other information, a higher point score tends just to mean that someone participates more. If your theoretical two people both write consistent critiques and both post a similar number of pictures, it is likely that the higher point score is shooting more successful pictures, but it is not a guarantee. It is definitely not a guarantee that those pictures are more interesting to me.
Reply
|
|
|
From baba/David (38,576)
on April 11, 2012 7:54:17 PM CDT
There are so many different types of photos that using points to compare quality is fraught with pitfalls. What do I mean by that? Abstracts are sometimes very hard to critique and difficult to score. So a 6 point abstract might be a very successful abstract than say a 6 point bird photo. I prefer to judge my own photos not by the points I receive here but by the orders I receive for prints. Using that ruler, I have a ways to go.
Reply
|
|
|
From robertwallis/Robert (12,866)
on April 11, 2012 8:48:30 PM CDT
"I prefer to judge my own photos not by the points I receive here but by the orders I receive for prints."
Heh, money talks and bullshit walks. One of my highest ranked pieces on here has only sold one time, and some (not all) of the middle of the road 6 pointers sell quite nicely. What some folks wll rank highly is not what they or their spouses would buy to hang in their homes. As you said, likewise I've still got a ways to go also.
Reply
|
|
|
From 800lbjackalope/Aaron (1,842)
on June 3, 2012 2:38:13 AM CDT
Many of my photos that looked fair on screen made great prints. Had the print been critiqued and not the "for web" version I'm sure a higher score would have resulted. One thing that I have noticed is that the time of day you upload a photo will have a meaningful outcome on how many people critique your work. Also once you have been here a while and especially if you shoot primarily within a certain jondra you will have certain people that will critique your work regularly and are usually like minded and shoot the same things. So the longer one has been hear the more likely you are to have a consistently higher score because there are more people taking the time to comment. Ten people giving a 1 or 2 thumb rating isn't the same as two or three people giving a 3 thumb rating as far as that goes if you ask me. What means more to me is if my work is attracting the attention of those who in my opinion have an impressive body of work. Even more so if they are commenting on my work regularly. I'm not a pro and I haven't been doing this very long nor is my equipment any thing spectacular so when I see favorable critique with a 2 thumb rating at least I know I'm holding my own.
Reply
|
|
|
From baba/David (38,576)
on June 5, 2012 7:36:34 AM CDT
Be careful. Some of those people critiquing only a certain genre of photos are only looking for return critiques. Many are not critical of other people's work because they frankly don't want a critical review of their work... only the points.
Reply
|
|
|
From booksbikespics/Kevin (8,557)
on April 11, 2012 11:10:48 PM CDT
As a general rule I agree with what others have said already - those that get consistently high points on their photos are very good photographers. But there certainly are exceptions to any rule. I think it was also mentioned that some people find a successful formula and repeat it over and over. Are they better photographers than someone who is always experimenting, sometimes successfully and other times not. Another factor not yet mentioned is how many friends one has on the site. Each time we post a photo we are encouraged to let our friends know. Some friends are honest in their critiques but others form a mutual appreciation society.
Reply
|
|
|
From wdeon/Wayne (8,931)
on April 12, 2012 7:33:43 AM CDT
We have no idea of the quality of the photos users don't post. They may be extremely gifted at photographing topics they don't post. That being said:
An average of 10 points vs 1 point (10 thumbs up vs 1 thumbs up) might say something towards the subject matter as well as the skill level. Anyone averaging 1 thumbs up and only one critique probably isn't posting photos showing a higher skill set. Someone averaging 10 points (all 1TUs) might just have more Photosig friends. Two 3TUs and two 2TUs might indicate a higher level..... or just friends or people who photograph the same material over- rating their photo.
If one photographer shooting the same subject as another, consistently got several 2TUs and 3TUs from a variety of people (not just a niche group or friends) while the other got one 1TU critique on average...... I might say that the higher rated photographer is posting better photos.
Reply
|
|
|
From savad/Mike (67,553)
on April 12, 2012 8:33:24 AM CDT
no.
some people have been here for over 10 years. at one point there was a point club where they all gave each other points. but their photos never improved. if the photo looks bad, then it's bad. simple. a person with low points might have just joined. let the picture speak for itself.
---Mike Savad
Reply
|
|
|
From donschaeffer/Don (12,842)
on April 12, 2012 8:47:32 AM CDT
If you ask me we ought to ditch the rating system. Verbal critique is all we need. It would make things much less complicated.
Reply
|
|
|
From marshall/Marshall (11,928)
on April 12, 2012 11:16:53 AM CDT
Verbal critique has an important role to play. And I think people should weight verbal critique here highly, both as critics and as photographers. But while doing something entirely without the rating system is fine, the ratings are a core part of photoSIG.
Reply
|
|
|
From loiswakeman/Lois (16,401)
on June 5, 2012 6:06:30 AM CDT
Good photographers have better pictures. Popular photographers here have more points for their photographs. The two are not connected statistically.
Reply
|
|
|
From 800lbjackalope/Aaron (1,842)
on June 11, 2012 2:22:35 AM CDT
I think I could agree with that. But that doesn't mean you can't be popular and good:)
Reply
|
Return to forum
|
