> And that is where the "critique" by the "rules" ends up failing > There is, as someone pointed out, a lack of consistent guidelines for > critiques here, which is what makes it more like comments than critique. I > think that's fine, it gives some other ways of looking at photos. However, > that doesn't mean the criteria that someone uses shouldn't be challenged, > as every "critique" reflects the critiquer as much as the photograph. Jeff But it is only 1) critical reviews that get challenged. 2) the author's own reivew. I really really struggle to se why some people react so violently to any mention of "rules". Personally, I'll use the phrase "rule of thirds" if it suits me rather than have to explain at great length the whole concept from first principles. Sorry, but that is dumb. When I open the gallery images the first thing I look at is the image. That's it. Then I think, do I like it (does it connect), would I like it on my wall. If not, is it simply a genre I'm not a fan of ... and maybe does it look well done for what it is? If it fails on all levels then, and only then is when I will comment on "rules"/accepted norms/ golden means/ crooked horizons. It's not "rules led" but using norms to try to explain what isn't working. Are you telling us that when you look at the gallery there are no images that you think fail almost solely on technical grounds (the basics)? Do we ignore such flaws (note: some protagonists of the art of simulating flaws as thier style might disagree). If the horizon is tilted (and it does not appear to be for art) do we not mention it - heck,who has the right to dictate horizons should be shown level: it's only one of infinite rotational possibilities. Subconciously "old timers" here might review images differently based on thier knowlege of the author. In your case there is a recognisable style. More important in my mind is that I treat your images as if you meant them to be EXACTLY as they are shown. That's not true for all authors for sure. Remember, all the reviews here are free: it's not a competition for which we have (indirectly) paid for a critique. Seriously, if you have problems with a reviewer's style: take it off list or just don't read them. I've noticed that the biggest critics of our "reviewers" are those that never do them themselves. I've always lived by the motto "if you think you can do better - do it yourself". I.E. the act of doing it tells you more about the problems the reviewers face than any amount of pontification. Bob PS: if I ever do any more reviews here I'll try to handle them differently. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble PPS: where is Luis to show us the other way ...
