Further ranking detail explored in this FAQ:
You count high detail as a good thing. Does this mean a relatively simple picture won't score highly?
Not at all. Simple art can look good, especially if there is 'purpose' in the structure of this art. In this case, perhaps the detail/intricacy won't be quite as high, /but/ there would (very possibly) be an increase in the simplicity/purity and overall ratings for this degree of art. It's clear that simplicity can be a good thing, and will possibly even be better in some ways than something that's more complex. I guess my point is that complex designs will actually lack the same kind of beauty as simple designs (even if the complex design is 'better overall').
Scores seem to be too close to each other, hovering around 20-25. Why is this?
As said at the top, all ratings are logarithmic, so a score of 25 is twice as good as a picture with a rating of about 22 or 23. This would mean that a score of 30 is around sixteen
times as good as a picture with a rating of 20 points.
To calculate the linear score, calculate 2^(x/2.5) where x equals the score given.
Why are you rating the overall score out of 60 if you're so confident that no one will create a picture that will score above 40?
Well for one thing, it shows the vast range and breadth in quality that's theoretically possible from a picture. Apart from this, there's always the slim possibility that someone /will/
create a picture so fantastic, that it exceeds a score of 40 (but I won't hold my breath yet... ;)
Are these scores completely objective and accurate?
I always try to be as fair and impartial as possible, but no doubt I'll probably make a good number of small errors (heck, maybe even some big ones too if I'm not careful ;-) ...but I'm getting to grips with this whole rating business, so bear with me.
Aren't you missing the originality/creativity rating type?
So far, I have the attributes: intricacy/detail
, but no mark to indicate how 'original' the piece of art is. There is a good reason for this exclusion though, since it's the kind of rating which would alter over time - and will vary from person to person according to how much, or how little something has been seen before.
For example, a colourful mathematical fractal design or sunset would score fairly highly in the objective criteria (purity & intricacy), but their apparent beauty is lessened somewhat - because 'everyone' has seen them - and knows what they 'tend' to look like. To sum up, I prefer to only include 'definitive' or 'empirical' criteria/rating types where the subsequent scores will never change - not even in a thousand years time.
Aren't you missing the meaning/expression rating type?
This is a seperate property of the picture, which will (indirectly) give the picture an 'extra dimension' (in the same way that the the meaning behind a song's lyrics are a seperate property from its tune).
No doubt that conveying a sense of emotion (sadness, humor, reflection, 'scariness' etc.) can very easily give the viewer something else to 'chew on', but rating may be fairly subjective, since a picture will mean different things to someone according to their lifetime's experience.
A good example is how a picture can inadvertently trigger off memories or thoughts which aren't exactly an intrinsic part of that picture. If this is the case, then it's not just the picture being rated - it's also the viewer's emotions and memories of which the picture initially triggered. Perhaps in some styles of picture though, there is a 'fully self-contained expression' which is intrinsic to that picture, so one has to be careful if rating something like this. Another difficulty is that a high level of detail/purity may 'naturally' increase the score for the meaning/expression type (and vice versa).
For now, I'll leave the meaning/expression sub-rating type out, but bump up the overall score rating if I feel such a decision to be justified (in which case, I'll include a note which mentions this).
Is it possible to score highly in one of the ratings, and low in the other (or vice versa) ?
Yep. As said previously, a picture could be rate very highly in one category, but low in the other. There are limits though; A picture with an 'Intricacy/detail' rating at say... 20 will never score more than 16 points above this (36) for the 'Overall' rating, no matter how refined the design is. Likewise, a picture with a 'Purity/simplicity' rating of 60/60 will always score at least 16 points for the Overall rating - no matter how simple the design is.
I'm still working on these concepts though, so these criteria might change as I gather a more thorough understanding of how to accurately quantify pictures in terms of quality :-)