'Great'

dinners said:
Great shot, Great catch, Great stuff, Great spot - all Great responses yet compliment the photograph for different reasons.

Good shot, Good catch, Good stuff, Good spot - again responses to a specific aspect of the photograph

'Great' must beat 'Good' but on the whole I'd say neither are entirely subjective.

'Nice' and 'Lovely' are perhaps more of a opinion, almost certainly subjective and reserved for personal appreciation when perhaps 'Great' and 'Good' would be questioned.

Joking aside though - I'm happy with any possitive response and I'm also guilty of not always expanding on why I like a particular shot.

What I wouldn't do though is say 'poor shot' without giving a reason as to why I thought that.
Click to expand...

As a beginner I must say that expanding on your view of a shot is not only appreciated but is extremely helpful in our pursuit of learning this great art.
 
LowIQ said:
The context is everything.

And "Great" is a safe glib throwaway nice comment.

But if your wife or significant other asks "how do I look?" do you put her in the context of the great beauties through history, plus the great fashion houses and designer cloithing, or do you say "wow you look great"

Maybe devise a TP standard score (say 1-20) where, I dunno, 8/20 is pretty impressive for a beginner, 15/20 is pretty good for an experienced photography hobbiest and a pro-tog should expect >15/20 for a keeper
But I suspect critique will remain predominantly a sequence of "great" and "nice shot!"
Click to expand...

Your scoring system is a (I started to say great idea) "good idea".

I'm a beginner and it would be a nice tool to track my progress.
 
A rating system would be a good idea, with perhaps a table of expectations, beginners scoring 15 would rank equal to a pro scoring 20. Though it would be incumbent on the poster to state at what level they felt they were at.
 
Why should what level the photographer is at make any different to your comments, you either like a photograph for X or Y reason or not.

It is all subjective in any case. I happen to like selective colour photographs but it seems a lot of people on here don't. So not much point in posting any of them on here.
 
munch said:
Photography is subjective I can say a shot is great you may say its cr@p doesn't make either of us right.

I don't really see any problem with calling a photo great, provided it is in context.

Look up great in a dictionary and I would suggest that most of us use it as an adverb.
Click to expand...

Where is schrodinger and his damned cat when you need it?
 
PsiFox said:
Where is schrodinger and his damned cat when you need it?
Click to expand...

Do you mean that photography is also subject to quantum physics? That there is a state between "rubbish" and "great" but only if its a photo of a cat locked in a box?
 
desantnik said:
Do you mean that photography is also subject to quantum physics? That there is a state between "rubbish" and "great" but only if its a photo of a cat locked in a box?
Click to expand...

Not really. More that "great" is subjective in the way that one person thinks cat is dead, other thinks it is alive (let's ignore the third). Similarly one persons rubbish is another's great
 
You can't ignore the third state if you mention Schrodinger ;-)
 
A Picture you enjoy looking at.
 
desantnik said:
You can't ignore the third state if you mention Schrodinger ;-)
Click to expand...

Ok. Then if one person thinks a photo is crap, another great. Then another could find it both crap and great simultaneously, because they feel to inexperienced to critique an image.

On that note I,m going to bed or am I

Night :)
 
For me it is all subjective - as I treat photography as art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - rules are made to be broken and what ticks my boxes might not tick yours.

For me something that is techinically correct might not have the beauty or soul of a photograph that cries out to me.

Great would not be a word that I would use in vain. It would be a Whoooa wish I'd done that moment
 
I think we can all agree that any photograph of Schrodingers cat would be great.
 
munch said:
I think we can all agree that any photograph of Schrodingers cat would be great.
Click to expand...

Live boxcam. :thumbs: :lol:

Edit: re the OP (I think), I do feel that response is, and should be, relative to involvement. It does land you in a bit of a quandry when you don't feel qualified enough to crit other people's images though - there's nothing worse than giving an uneducated lay comment that's trumped or (worse) disputed/mocked. It doesn't happen often but that is the fear of the newbie (speaking from experience!).

Edit2: Holy crap, all my posted images look washed-out on this laptop. Please tell me it's this screen! :gag:
 
Last edited:
or neither living or dead box cam.:thinking:

And of course a single photo is unlikely to prove anything.
 
munch said:
Why should what level the photographer is at make any different to your comments, you either like a photograph for X or Y reason or not.

It is all subjective in any case. I happen to like selective colour photographs but it seems a lot of people on here don't. So not much point in posting any of them on here.
Click to expand...

We were talking about rating the picture NOT the photographer. In theory, as the average rating of ones pictures goes up the photographer would elevate their status (not important) Its not a fool proof method considering. I would say it would be useful to myself as a beginner to understand when and why I am becoming better at photography. Its just a thought...
 
artyman said:
A rating system would be a good idea, with perhaps a table of expectations, beginners scoring 15 would rank equal to a pro scoring 20. Though it would be incumbent on the poster to state at what level they felt they were at.
Click to expand...

I just thought of a major flaw in our system. Beginners rating others....lol
 
It is the one that reminds of the moment and put a smile on your face.
 
shaylou said:
We were talking about rating the picture NOT the photographer. In theory, as the average rating of ones pictures goes up the photographer would elevate their status (not important) Its not a fool proof method considering. I would say it would be useful to myself as a beginner to understand when and why I am becoming better at photography. Its just a thought...
Click to expand...

Perhaps the forum could be fitted with a LR style rating/flag system that automatically culls carp shots. Now that would be fun.
 
We could put together the most balanced objective scoring system in the World and sure as eggs is eggs, along will come those classic photos which break the 'rules', ignore best-practice and are hauntingly beautiful, and truly "great".
I guess that's art rather than science...
 
Just talking photography for a minute, rather than about TP... and I promise I'll come back to undead cats in a minute too...

People talk about "rules" and how its ok to break rules, but it actually is very rare for what most people regard as a quality photo to break the "rules". There are several different compositional "rules" for photography, a successful image usually will contain at least one or more of these.

"I don't need no stinking rules" is, I'm afraid to say it, the viewpoint of someone who hasn't yet discovered the art of creating something constructed not just "made".

I suggest people stop thinking of them as "rules" to be smashed (whilst sporting a beard and wearing a beret with a red star on it - hasta la victoria siempre, comrades) and start thinking of them as objectives they should be personally meeting.

I've been at this lark for some time now and the day I realised what I wrote above, everything changed...

Meanwhile, undead cats - what a cool subject for photos :)
 
desantnik said:
Just talking photography for a minute, rather than about TP... and I promise I'll come back to undead cats in a minute too...

People talk about "rules" and how its ok to break rules, but it actually is very rare for what most people regard as a quality photo to break the "rules". There are several different compositional "rules" for photography, a successful image usually will contain at least one or more of these.

"I don't need no stinking rules" is, I'm afraid to say it, the viewpoint of someone who hasn't yet discovered the art of creating something constructed not just "made".

I suggest people stop thinking of them as "rules" to be smashed (whilst sporting a beard and wearing a beret with a red star on it - hasta la victoria siempre, comrades) and start thinking of them as objectives they should be personally meeting.

I've been at this lark for some time now and the day I realised what I wrote above, everything changed...
Click to expand...

:thumbs::plusone:
 
Schrodingers theme song "Wanted. Dead or Alive"!!!!:)
 
PsiFox said:
Schrodingers theme song "Wanted. Dead or Alive"!!!!:)
Click to expand...

"Wanted: Dead or Alive or somewhere inbetween"

Not quite as catchy that one :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top