I am finding this particular discussion about the standard of the work contributed (and the issues that will arise out of reviewing crappy images) very interesting. I think, quite often, we _do_ pop stuff up here that we would not normally feel the need to 'exhibit', and perhaps we need to consider more carefully just what we are putting up for discussion. I don't think it needs to be 'good', just that it should be worthy of comment. Wish I could take down the silly cat... what _could_ you possibly say about it anyway...? Oh well, next week and beyond. Best regards, Deen 2004-10-23 17:50:45 -- Deen Hameed 0405 649 101 deenhameed@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.deenhameed.blogspot.com http://calendar.yahoo.co.uk/deenhameed At 2004-10-23, 18:13:59 Bob Talbot (BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> Sorry about this post. I sent it before looking at the pix. And >after >> some excitement at home. Now I think some of my stuff is good >enough..... > >> One thing though, why not critique the pix consructivley? > >Bob > >It's a cycle that goes round and round. > >In the past I have tried that - then I remember that most here are >really quite experienced/accomplished photographers. Some react quite >strongly / defensively to comments about cropping, lighting etc. >Then, you point out things you think could/would have improved the >presentation - and your comments are classed as nit-picking. >Then you tell the truth, be blunt, and make enemies. >Then you just be polite - and dwell only on the nice aspects ... > >... and at last everyone thanks you for your review ;o) > > >How can you be constructive without really knowing the author, or >specifically their skill level and specific reasons for posting the >specific image? > >If you read my "Review of the crappy gallery" there are plenty of >serious comments woven in. >How though can you be constructive to David Small's image? >His normal standards are better (technically) so what point is there >in the almost condescending "David, you need to concentrate on holding >the camera steady or use a faster shutter speed ...". I take the view >that David knows what he is doing and has therefore consciously >submitted a blurred photo: I look at it and think, "what was he trying >to convey by the blur? Did it work?" > >Q > > ___ END OF QUOTED TEXT ___
