Photo Rating

[Archangel]

Lately I've been receiving a few ratings (obviously from the same person) of 2, 3 and 4 on some of photos/images on my gallery.

If Mr./Mrs. X for your own personal reasons don't like my photos why bother viewing and rating them with ratings like that?

Such a rating shows only biased intention and it can mean only the opposite of what Mr./Mrs. X you are trying to achieve.

And I don't think so that the following picture worths a rating of 3.





Regards

George

[Bearface]

Re: Photo Rating

It's the considered, written feedback that counts George, not the anonymous gallery ratings. I've had the occasional low rating, but then I've figured that it's probably just one person's opinion and without their explanation, I've no real understanding of their motive, so it's best to disregard it.

Similarly I sometimes get "full" marks for some shots which I consider mediocre at best, so this thing works both ways

There are no ratings standards, instead it's based entirely on the view of the individual and therefore if someone thinks a shot is only worthy of 3 or 4, then you just have to accept it. Seriously, don't worry about it

[Ian]

Re: Photo Rating

It's the considered, written feedback that counts George, not the anonymous gallery ratings. I've had the occasional low rating, but then I've figured that it's probably just one person's opinion and without their explanation, I've no real understanding of their motive, so it's best to disregard it.

Similarly I sometimes get "full" marks for some shots which I consider mediocre at best, so this thing works both ways

There are no ratings standards, instead it's based entirely on the view of the individual and therefore if someone thinks a shot is only worthy of 3 or 4, then you just have to accept it. Seriously, don't worry about it

Oh, don't start me on ratings - especially ratings for reviews. I've been in group discussions where we all agreed on the general quality and value of a product that we had tested separately, but none of us could agree on a rating!

I prefer a traffic light based system - and I use a variant of this in my own reviews, but a 5-star and percentage equivalence is also shown for 'compatibility'.

Ian

[Pol]

Re: Photo Rating

I reckon Bearface summed it up. It's just not worth worrying about gallery ratings.

I haven't rated your picture - I rarely rate anything in the galleries, but I like the vibrant colours, petal details, details and shape of your rose. I'm not overly fond of the harsh shadow at the bottom but, on the other hand, the sharp shadows work well on the rest of the rose to pick out the edges of the petal and give the flower a good 3D effect imho.

Pol

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating

It's the considered, written feedback that counts George, not the anonymous gallery ratings. I've had the occasional low rating, but then I've figured that it's probably just one person's opinion and without their explanation, I've no real understanding of their motive, so it's best to disregard it.

Similarly I sometimes get "full" marks for some shots which I consider mediocre at best, so this thing works both ways

There are no ratings standards, instead it's based entirely on the view of the individual and therefore if someone thinks a shot is only worthy of 3 or 4, then you just have to accept it. Seriously, don't worry about it

This is what I will do Tim. I will not worry about it.
The truth is that I don't pay attention to ratings, but this incident lately, happened repeatedly a few of times in the row looks like it is done only intentionally.

Anyway...I will fill my glass of beer one more time for tonight.
Cheers mate (as you say in UK)


Regards

George

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating

I reckon Bearface summed it up. It's just not worth worrying about gallery ratings.

I haven't rated your picture - I rarely rate anything in the galleries, but I like the vibrant colours, petal details, details and shape of your rose. I'm not overly fond of the harsh shadow at the bottom but, on the other hand, the sharp shadows work well on the rest of the rose to pick out the edges of the petal and give the flower a good 3D effect imho.

Pol

Indeed Pol,

Tim summed it up. I don't really worry for the rating itself. I worry mostly why someone would bother to rate something that doesn't like. It is like having something against me.


Pol,
The shadow on the bottom right was due to the way the lighting was falling. I couldn't avoid not to have the shadow there just because I would have ruined the "under the candle light" effect I was trying to give.


Regards

George

[Tinka]

Re: Photo Rating

Lately I've been receiving a few ratings (obviously from the same person) of 2, 3 and 4 on some of photos/images on my gallery.

If Mr./Mrs. X for your own personal reasons don't like my photos why bother viewing and rating them with ratings like that?

Such a rating shows only biased intention and it can mean only the opposite of what Mr./Mrs. X you are trying to achieve.

And I don't think so that the following picture worths a rating of 3.





Regards

George

Hi Archangel,
Dunno about the ratings thing, probably somme one who dosent love you but it is a great image, can you explain how you got such a good blend from the flower to a completely black background? I've tried it and have problems blending the two to look natural and ballanced.

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating

Hi Archangel,
Dunno about the ratings thing, probably somme one who dosent love you but it is a great image, can you explain how you got such a good blend from the flower to a completely black background? I've tried it and have problems blending the two to look natural and ballanced.

Hi Tinka,

This is an experimental photo. Luckily it turned out very good.
I'm trying to learn how to isolate specific images from an entire photo.
The rose is just like you see it and that it is natural color.
I use Paint Shop Pro and the "paint brush tool" and actually I painted everything around the flower in black color.
It took me long enough to do it perfectly.
Though there must be an easier way to do this with much less hassle and which I don't know yet, but trying to learn and find out which is that easier way.
I only know very well to do basic post processing (contrast, saturation, color balance, noise reduction, e.t.c) and also to play with light by creating special light effects in order to take a photo that would look like that some special effects have been applied by software and not by human interaction prior of taking a photo.
Though I'm totally amateur in advanced software post processing techniques such as adding or cloning out objects from photos or isolating objects from photos, matting, layers and so forth.

Hopefully I will find my way out into those techniques too.


Regards

George

[Patrick]

Re: Photo Rating

Lately I've been receiving a few ratings (obviously from the same person) of 2, 3 and 4 on some of photos/images on my gallery.

If Mr./Mrs. X for your own personal reasons don't like my photos why bother viewing and rating them with ratings like that?

Such a rating shows only biased intention and it can mean only the opposite of what Mr./Mrs. X you are trying to achieve.

And I don't think so that the following picture worths a rating of 3.





Regards

George

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating

I couldn’t say what value a star rating has; good old critical comment has fare more value in my opinion. I would say though if any of us not just you, post pictures or post to the gallery (I haven’t got involved with the forum gallery time is my problem) we must be able to accept criticism or low star ratings, that is part and parcel of showing to a general public.
I can as it happens see why a low rating was given.
Yes saturated colours, perhaps too saturated, as Stephen has showed you its possible to saturate out detail, my camera tends to over saturate reds so I de-saturate that colour a touch, invariably does the trick.
It’s clean and sharp, but the light does no favours to the picture, much too harsh and that big black blob of a shadow dominates the whole thing.
If it was taken by midday sun a reflector or a bit of fill in flash would have given better shadow detail. I do a lot of flowers specimen shots myself and I find it best to cut and bring the bloom indoors where I can control the light to give best effect.

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

To accept criticism is OK and I do accept criticism. Though this photo was posted under the thread "Under the Candle Light". Nobody there didn't comment negative for that photo. A rating of 3 is not criticism, is biased opposition when comments are not written at least in the thread that the photo was posted.

That photo was posted as a photo being treated to look like it was taken under the light of a candle. I have even attached comments to that photo and should be judged as the comments explained.

Now, if someone sees that photo, sees the thread that I explained how it was created, sees my attached comments to the photo and judges the photo as a normal flower shot, then obviously is in the wrong terrain.

I posted though only the "under the candle light" version and that is how this photo should have been judged and rated by whoever rated the photo with 3.
If I wanted comments/ratings on the normal flower shot, I would have put up the one below.

Concerning your comments of the artistically treated flower:
Under the light of candle (even artificially) there is no such flower (and generally any object) that will not create any shadow.
As far as saturation is concerned, Stephen was talking about the hibiscus flower, not that one. The "Under the Candle Light" one though, is not saturated. The original photo of the flower is really punchy because the flower was punchy by itself. I only altered the color cast since under low lighting things look more reddish.

The original shot was a macro shot, taken at daytime, the shadowed part is visible and there was no need for flash since it was very bright and I didn't wish to blow out the nice saturated colors.

This is the normal shot that really doesn't lack anything.





Regards


George

[bigbob]

Re: Photo Rating

Was'nt me George
But i've got a 1 and 2 in my wildlife album , so i know how you feel .
BTW the tiger which has a 1 rating was the result of an interesting experiment involving manual settings .
I don't think it's that bad , but someone obvisously does

B..

[Steve40]

Re: Photo Rating

Archangel.

I am like everybody else on this. Ratings are the results of personal likes, and dislikes, and really have very little to do with artistic, or technical merits. I post a lot of shots on our local weather channel, some I think should rate good do not, but then again!.

The other day it started snowing, the first we really have had. I went to the door, not even bothering to think about composing the shot, snapped away and posted it. There were houses across the street, motor cycles parked by the curb, etc. It was just a weather shot.

So anyway it rated better than some undoubtedly, better shots I have posted. I really did not post it considering a rating. But either there were snow lovers, or motor cycle buff among the critics. So goes photo ratings.

[Steve40]

Re: Photo Rating - it all depends

I should have included this in the other post but I didn't. Another shot I made last year was of a poor guys truck, that a tree had fallen on. I took this with a Fuji A-101, a real Brownie Box camera among digital's, no focus, no scene settings, virtually no control what so ever, just point & snap. The weather was real sloppy, and I did not a want to take any better camera out in it.

That photo rated among the highest I ever posted. I really! with sympathetic feelings for the person, could not even have rated the picture. But we have a blood thirsty audience. So ratings depend a lot on what you post.

[Archangel]

Re: Photo Rating

Archangel.

I am like everybody else on this. Ratings are the results of personal likes, and dislikes, and really have very little to do with artistic, or technical merits. I post a lot of shots on our local weather channel, some I think should rate good do not, but then again!.

The other day it started snowing, the first we really have had. I went to the door, not even bothering to think about composing the shot, snapped away and posted it. There were houses across the street, motor cycles parked by the curb, etc. It was just a weather shot.

So anyway it rated better than some undoubtedly, better shots I have posted. I really did not post it considering a rating. But either there were snow lovers, or motor cycle buff among the critics. So goes photo ratings.

Steve,

I'm with everybody else on this too!
Shots we like, other people don't like and the opposite.
Indeed it is normal since there are different people, cultures, mentalities, habits and hobbies and so forth.
What I don't understand is why someone would be bothered with a picture that he/she doesn't like at all, while at the same time he can view and rate some photos from any users that likes.
So if it is not a waste of time for someone to rate photos that doesn't like then it is biased intention.

But anyway...I really don't mind the very low rating.
Obviously such things don't happen to me only.
I mind the intention, the purpose.
Everything in life is committed with intention, not with the cause
And my intention now is to stop mind others' intentions and be relaxed again


Regards

George

[Steve40]

Re: Photo Rating

George.

When I rate a photo, which I very seldom do, I really don't feel exactly qualified to judge others efforts. I try to rate it strictly on a technical merit, that's the only fair way to do it as I see. That should suppress any preferences, or personal relationship I would have. But to say that it is possible to completely disengage ones feelings, from any such effort - well?.

I think the last idea you had, will be the best composure you will make today.