> Perhaps this is an excercise for the reviewer. Even if we don't like a > picture in some gallery, we must admit that somehow the motif has > attracted the shooter. Now, analysing the image we try to get closer in > understanding other peoples' minds. > It's useful and self-improving. Peeter I agree with you ... but. If that's how you review ... fine. Even the blunt, direct, approach takes me well over 30 minutes for a full 12 images, typically more like an hour. To *really* give an in depth critique would more likely take me 15 minutes per image and even then, probably, not in one session. Doing a deep, insightful review is frankly hard work. Maybe Luis (remember him) can have one flow from the keyboard effortlessly first time ... but he's a different fish. Personally if someone thinks one of my shots is total crap - that's what I want to know. It won't affect whether or not I like the picture one jot, but it does give me useful feedback on how outsiders see it. If instead of saying the blunt truth they disguise it with metaphor, well, I might just miss the hint. Is there merit in trying to get inside other's minds? Darned if I know. A lifetime won't be long enough for me to understand my own ;o) Bob
