<<<What I would like to see is a criticism with pictures... where we (the reviewers) post a picture in response to the picture being pilloried... uhhh i mean galleried... Perhaps we can say, yes I think I understand how the image can be improved, and here's an example of what is it I am trying to convey.>>> Things move so fast on the list (if not the ListServ ;o) that there really is no time to go away and find specific photos (especially good ones) to show in response. Sometimes people do that, but the gallery is only up for 7 days: by Wednesday it is history ... Comments on cropping composition etc should not be taken literally: of course for the most part the shot can't be retaken. What they do show is that the "reviewer" had reservations and that there were things that were not quite right. Cropping is a big part of that: the "borders" of a photo are very powerful irrespective of whether you prefer work to be self-contained (all significant elements within the frame) or expansive (the photo is clearly meant to be read as a section of the world). Your two Ibex this week are clearly the second: the cropping is clearly not accidental/unfortunate. However, had you *just* lost the nose of one or tail of another instead of half the animal then it might have been. <<<I tried to do that with the light-on-water i put up a couple of weeks ago, which (i mentioned on the posting) was in response to an image of reflections on water by Emily (I think).>>> A lot of people here do that already: for me it's not always intentional, but an image or comment can remind me of a picture I have taken but never shown - eg Bobert's Bottom Movement reference ;o) <<<The trick then is to present the idea/mood/etc as a picture, one that the reviewer took, which he/she/it feels does a similiar/better job... Perhaps at this stage, there may be some use for explanations on what the reviewer themself was trying to acheive... how these images work as a series, etc...>>> I really don't think this is likely: there are few enough reviews as it is without thinking someone will take the time to go out and do a series ... sounds like a lot of work. The other thing is that the gallery is not automatic: if you want to show a reply you have to put it up on your own web site. But the real reality: how many people actually *read* and ponder the reviews we get? From the feedback her it is possibly not that many. In another post you say "don't explain your images". Well, true to a part. if you have to explain them they obviously can't stand on their own. Sometimes the explanation is part of the image (or at least learning experience) though. If the picture is of a local ceremony - then what's wrong with a few words telling us the history? That's different to actually trying to explain maybe: but what does the image say to others? Yes, if you tell them too much you direct their thoughts ... Bob PS: it is nice to see images PF members themselves have taken ...
