Deuce, i see your point... let me just add some thoughts. The rating system i came up with really only pertained to freshwater fish, not tanks. i totally understand that a well crafted and creative slightly blurry tank is worth a bit more than a crisp but boring and stale uncared for tank. Rating tanks is a different beast. Rating fish doesn't rely on the tank setup as much... and its really more about capturing fish personality and beauty, and less of displaying the beautiful setup of the tank you've worked so hard on, thats why i've been more harsh... and ofcourse this is just my take on it. I find it personally 4-5 times harder to take good pics of my fish than of my tank. My tank requires one setting on my camera... auto.. and i usually get a nice crisp shot of my tank and its inhabitants... it takes practice and patience, but what doesn't. Taking pics of fish requires a good deal of patience, but the reward (and the criticism) are greater, because your fish are living and display personalities, while tanks are stagnant and more aesthetic.
Anyway, i think you see the point im making... i love that you find it harsh, i wish more people would criticise it (though i love the praise), so that more users will concentrate on rating fish pictures, not just tanks.
Rating A Picture
16 posts • Page 2 of 2
-
Deuce15663241 - Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:55 pm
You know what I think it's funny not reading one word in your first post can change what I thought you were talking about. I was basically skimming and when my eyes saw fish my brain was thinking tanks. I basically agree with your rating system but I tend to rate higher just because people get really personal about their fish and no one wants to see one of their babies bet a low rating ya know lol? I do agree with your point that people just shouldn't rate tanks and try to rate fish every once and awhile. I know when I uploaded my picure of my betta violet goby and gourami it took forever to get a good amount of votes. I hope you didn't think my previous post was a personal attack on you just a difference of opinion mixed with a tiny attempt at humor haha
-
spongebob4460 - Posts: 603
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:37 am
I didn't take it personal one bit, i actually wrote the thread in hopes of getting criticism and praise, just so people discuss it... and i agree with you on the tank ratings... maybe I will write up a tank rating thread soon, hehe.
-
Roan - Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 6:21 pm
I use pretty much the same system, but one other factor I throw in is the difficulty/rarity of the subject. Some fish are FAST and don't stay still -- anyone who can get a decent shot of a rainbowfish or danio or something like that gets a +1 from me. Other fish that don't move around a lot, like bettas, I don't give a bonus to. I also give a bonus to macro shots that are well done, especially if they are fry shots.
As for rarity -- I'd rather see a pretty good shot of an endlers or rare killi than a "wow" shot of a cichlid. I get tired of cichlids.
As for rarity -- I'd rather see a pretty good shot of an endlers or rare killi than a "wow" shot of a cichlid. I get tired of cichlids.
-
Zambize4899 - Posts: 499
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:35 am
I like this thread, and the original post, Boss. (That's Mr. Boss here) :)
I tend to rate tanks and I don't get much time so my system is kind of quick and dirty:
0 - Cruel or dirty conditions or simply a stupid/joke photo.
3-4 - if the tank is presented as "complete" but is visually and/or functionally unappealing and grossly incomplete. Meaning major stuff...like one plant for a tank full of Gouramis. Although, that borders on cruelty.
5 - they made an honest effort to photograph, edit, and upload and that all takes time and patience all by itself. Besides, we are all proud of our tanks and we all anticipate our ratings so why be harsh when there's honest effort? Sometimes these are children's pictures we're rating, too.
6-7 - If the person's passion and care for their fish is apparent. It just comes through whether or not a person is mechanical and ego-driven or they want to provide the best for their fish while creating a beautiful thing.
8+ - And I do give these. And it's based on whether or not I'd personally like to swim in that tank!
Not as technical as Boss..... :)
Z
I tend to rate tanks and I don't get much time so my system is kind of quick and dirty:
0 - Cruel or dirty conditions or simply a stupid/joke photo.
3-4 - if the tank is presented as "complete" but is visually and/or functionally unappealing and grossly incomplete. Meaning major stuff...like one plant for a tank full of Gouramis. Although, that borders on cruelty.
5 - they made an honest effort to photograph, edit, and upload and that all takes time and patience all by itself. Besides, we are all proud of our tanks and we all anticipate our ratings so why be harsh when there's honest effort? Sometimes these are children's pictures we're rating, too.
6-7 - If the person's passion and care for their fish is apparent. It just comes through whether or not a person is mechanical and ego-driven or they want to provide the best for their fish while creating a beautiful thing.
8+ - And I do give these. And it's based on whether or not I'd personally like to swim in that tank!
Not as technical as Boss..... :)
Z
