> Hi Bob. I'm sorry, but it's the buttery reviews I've been reading that > bother me more than the crappy photos they're spreading the butter on. No one here is paid to review, there are no entry qualifications. Everyone too has a different take on life. For instance, Marilyn's reviews do tend to pick out the positive, for all we know she sees the world that way. Is this bad? Read any photomag review of cameras/equipment. In thier case it's a deliberate tactic rather than a genuine assessment. Personally I appreciate Marilyn's reviews: sometimes they do point me to the positive aspects I had overlooked while dwelling on clumsy cropping ;o) All reviewers only have thier own style and experience, likes and dislikes. Luis has a unique style Marilyn has a unique but totally different style If you try to emulate either of them you are being a fraud. > And more than the real lack of reviews lately too. Of course, when one > views such a gallery, the last thing one feels inclined to do is > review it. However, if no one else has the guts to stand up and call a > horse a horse, I feel that I must do that. So I say to you all, if you > can't do an honest review, please don't bother. But how can you know for sure the two reviews were not honest? Really, there are no absolute standards. Reviewers who can only see images for thier technical flaws are as blinkered as those who can only see the good. Streetphoto stuff for instance can be about capturing the moment - Jeff's work is (IMO) about mood and atmosphere more than it is about level horizons, thirds and studio-quality lighting. His "umbrella" shot - well, what should a reviewer say? The person is not sharp? For myself I've placed my "Split" image in my club's competition for the first time. Well, it's dark, it's grainy, its not sharp ... I don't necessarily expect the judge to like it BUT the only thing that will piss me off is if he comments on it as if "the author hadn't realised it was dark, grainy and not sharp". Whether you like it or not is personal taste - before you can do a review you really need to understand what the author was trying to achieve ... > I only mentioned what I thought was pathetic reviewing because I > really feel the reviewing needs to get real on PF. Pathetic is a poor > and feeble attempt at something, and that's what those reviews were. As I said: your reviews would not put me off submitting to the gallery. "Au contraire": but without pay I'm sure you can't spare the time each week ... > I really looked twice at each submission to try and find something > positive to comment on, for each one. I mean, besides my gut feelings, > anything that I could find positive - composition, colours, framing - > it didn't happen. I always look twice: once at the thumb and once at the main pic ;o) > Flattery will get you liked, but will improve nothing. > I always liked your reviews, Bob. But lately we've been missing them. Well, there are two things to blame for that. 1) The server. Currently it breaks down every Sunday and lately it's a lottery if anything makes it through to everybody - or even when. 2) Lack of dynamics: no spin-off discussions on issues raised by the gallery. If you spend an hour doing what you call an honest review you might wonder if anyone read them. FWIW ... Greg's image this week was competant but somehow was indeed uninspiring Christiane's image I actually liked a lot (and I don't usually go for city street scenes). Bob
