I was recently surprised to see a comment somewhere on Caedes that the person writing would "never" give a zero in the vb. I was surprised because such a stance had never occurred to me and it got me thinking about the issue. The foundation point for my reasoning on this issue is that every image in the VB is there voluntarily, it's possible to post your photos here without submitting them to the VB so anyone who does submit to the VB has made a choice to get voting feedback. I have seen in the VB images that were entirely out of focus or in which the obvious subject (Eg a flower) was out of focus even if everything else was sharp. It's an image, something to be LOOKED at, if you cannot actually SEE the subject, what's the positive that might get it a 1 or a 2? In the VB I've had images of a mass of foliage, or a forest, for example, dull colours, underexposed or overexposed, no lines, no particular subject, no particular quality of the forest or foliage highlighted or noticeable, maybe in focus, maybe not, maybe one bit in focus. I give those images a 0. I understand the forest or foliage may have significance to the shooter but the photo has totally failed to let me in on the secret, which a photo shared with the public needs to do at least in some measure, otherwise, why share it? Now the argument could be made that all of the qualities I've just used as reasons to vote a 0 might be artistic choices with a point to make. True. I consider that a good argument for some additional information on images in the VB to give voters a better frame of reference in such cases. As a general rule it's possible to pick up the works using such qualities artistically, they have a "thought about" quality to them. I usually go to see the photos I vote 0 on, curious to see where they came from, so far visiting the owners' pages has not indicated to me at any point that I voted 0 on a shot that was ugly or bad as a statement. They were all simply seriously deficient. I don't give many 0's, I always look to see what is good, commendable, attractive in an image and if there is something, then that's the basis for my vote. I think a 0 should be as carefully used as a 10 in the VB - indications that an image is an extreme example, of the good or the indifferent. If I am prepared to give a 10, then rationally, I should be prepared to give a 0 also. If getting honest critical feedback (such as 0, which only shows up vaguely as part of the overall c-index.) (EDIT: since I started this thread the actual votes given your image are available on your own page, thus rendering this small detail inaccurate.) creates great distress in a person, they are free to not subject their images to the VB, or they are free to consider the opportunities for personal insight and growth that might flow from them considering why such a small thing creates in them such a large reaction.
The foundation point for my reasoning on this issue is that every image in the VB is there voluntarily, it's possible to post your photos here without submitting them to the VB so anyone who does submit to the VB has made a choice to get voting feedback.
I have seen in the VB images that were entirely out of focus or in which the obvious subject (Eg a flower) was out of focus even if everything else was sharp. It's an image, something to be LOOKED at, if you cannot actually SEE the subject, what's the positive that might get it a 1 or a 2?
In the VB I've had images of a mass of foliage, or a forest, for example, dull colours, underexposed or overexposed, no lines, no particular subject, no particular quality of the forest or foliage highlighted or noticeable, maybe in focus, maybe not, maybe one bit in focus. I give those images a 0. I understand the forest or foliage may have significance to the shooter but the photo has totally failed to let me in on the secret, which a photo shared with the public needs to do at least in some measure, otherwise, why share it?
Now the argument could be made that all of the qualities I've just used as reasons to vote a 0 might be artistic choices with a point to make. True. I consider that a good argument for some additional information on images in the VB to give voters a better frame of reference in such cases. As a general rule it's possible to pick up the works using such qualities artistically, they have a "thought about" quality to them. I usually go to see the photos I vote 0 on, curious to see where they came from, so far visiting the owners' pages has not indicated to me at any point that I voted 0 on a shot that was ugly or bad as a statement. They were all simply seriously deficient.
I don't give many 0's, I always look to see what is good, commendable, attractive in an image and if there is something, then that's the basis for my vote. I think a 0 should be as carefully used as a 10 in the VB - indications that an image is an extreme example, of the good or the indifferent. If I am prepared to give a 10, then rationally, I should be prepared to give a 0 also.
If getting honest critical feedback (such as 0, which only shows up vaguely as part of the overall c-index.) (EDIT: since I started this thread the actual votes given your image are available on your own page, thus rendering this small detail inaccurate.) creates great distress in a person, they are free to not subject their images to the VB, or they are free to consider the opportunities for personal insight and growth that might flow from them considering why such a small thing creates in them such a large reaction.