Bob, et al., The way I review images is actually quite simple. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not I like a particular image; frequently, the themes of photos offered in the gallery are outside my interests. But I try to look at them as objectively as I can, with the understanding that my own subjectivity will be present, no matter how minute or obtuse it will appear. I start with whatever jumps at me about the image; typically this is based on composition, the photo as a whole. I look for shapes, patterns, colors that tie everything together. My first statement is typically a positive note. I then move throughout the image, following my eyes, and comment. I don't agree with the few who believe that an entirely positive review is beneficial. By the same token, a completely negative review (the names Faul and Rosen come to mind) invites the critiqued individual to dismiss everything the reviewer may say... I believe that the professional method is to discuss an image's merits and flaws alike, to leave no vital aspect unmentioned, to commend the photographer for the image's strengths, and to offer suggestions about how *I* would have done things differently, had the camera been in my hands. Just as I have the freedom to say whatever I want about an image, the photographer likewise has the freedom to accept or reject my opinion, in whole or in part. I suppose the underlying object is to allow photographers (and viewersalike) to make adjustments in the interest of self-improvement. By reviewing others' work, my own work will improve, just as it will by considering others' reviews (whether or not they are about my own images). I have always thought of the PhotoForum Exhibits as being a courtroom in which we send our images to trial, not as a place for showing off what we have done. That's what they built the Guggenheim, Corcoran, and MOMA for... Craig D. Heinz Heinzfoto Melbourne, Florida USA
