http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery.html >Never done this before, so bear with me! ;-) Well, all credit to you old chap: there's no better way of telling someone how it should be done that there is by showing them. In hindsight: how does the attempt (first as it is) compare with your own expectations of what it should have been. Earlier you said: >When I critique a photo, I try and look at its artistic merits only, >and avoid trying to second guess what someone pictured in >the photo may have been feeling or thinking at the time the >photo was taken. and >I expect people to evaluate it for what it is, and not worry about >the model herself, what she may or may not be doing at the time >of the exposure, or if she's comfortable or not. > Qkano: Caz > Cute happy snap, timed perfectly It's intriguing how such a seemingly innocuous commetn can be read two ways. On the surface it's a compliment. But when so short, against a background of 11 other longer reviews ... paranoia might suggest otherwise. An then, there is the "cute" tag. I'd expected (should I say been prepared for) a host of different comments on this image: cute was not amongst them. I'd expected people not to like it: Did the comment I attached to the image "The sort of photo everybody would take ... " mislead the viewer. I must say I've seen a lot of cute kiddie photos in may time (find them as booring as crap) and I don't remember a single parent showing me one like this - or even another one like it anywhere else. Maybe it's because, not being a parent, I never got the "ooooh" genes switched on. I see much more in the image than it being a snapshot - but the snapshot tag is what it deserves in the reviewer's eyes. So who is wrong? Personally I'd rather have had utter dislike than "Cute happy snap". It's not a bad comment: it just does not fit with my own artistic preconceptions. Thanks for taking the time to review, BobT
