> Perhaps this is an excercise for the reviewer. Even if we don't like > picture in some gallery, we must admit that somehow the motif has > attracted the shooter. Now, analysing the image we try to get closer > understanding other peoples' minds. > It's useful and self-improving.
Peeter
If that's how you review ... fine.
Was it so simple!! I do not review the photographs at all, I mean publicly. Now I have confessed.
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.
Exactly!
What's the point in dividing the photographs into "absolute crap", relative crap" and "the rest"???
Or vice versa -- "gems", "jewels" and "simply good shots" ?
Or digitally -- 1 or 0 ?
I feel damned and cursed when I start reviewing. I always realize that if I cannot do it in one breath, the very next moment I may feel in a different way.
Looking at pictures I have quite specific feelings that grow out from the moment and some previous moments, the overall mood of the day, and only then from my health, education and preceding experiences.
I feel dishonest to say something -- perhaps it is only a fragile shadow of the moment, not what I really think?
The only honest way would be to contemplate and analyse, but this price seems too high.
Or .. perhaps not?
Anyway, as the direct consequence I never send my reviews.
I know -- for all those reviews I get from the Forum members I also owe something, but I prefer taking more pictures to pay the debt.
Maybe sometimes I cannot resist and write my first review
Peeter
