Just because your head hurts when you think doesn't mean everyone has that
problem.

You are also quite good at taking valid photographs from anyone, you
cross dressing pervert.

Steal any Manger scenes lately?

mike

You have to be bullet-proof to post links here.  Look at Rita, for
example.  She links to some good shots and some mediocre shots, but
she obviously continues to enjoy the art of photography.  Isn't that
what it's all about?

Helen, and the detractors of Rita, are in the same boat, but opposite
ends of the boat.  Helen's gushing does you no service because she's
so over-the-top that it detracts from your work.  Rita's boo-birds do
the same thing, but the effect is to give her credit because many of
her efforts are much better than the criticism she gets.

Anyone who doesn't see that Rita's playing games with the Canon/Nikon
comments doesn't have sense enough to find the shutter release on an
Instamatic.  It's her entertainment, and she's obviously bright enough
to know that the differences between Canon and Nikon are mostly
personal preference.  She's just pulling legs and causing knees to
jerk.

I scan the group for links and look at the images.  I enjoy seeing
other people's work.  Landscapes usually leave me unimpressed.  Yeah,
you photographed a mountain.  So what?  Damn thing didn't move so all
you had to do was keep snapping.  When the scene has a unique aspect,
it's different.  Someone, perhaps you, linked to one with fog or mist
that made the image something more impressive.  The eye caught it and
said that the camera should record it.  It was good because the eye
saw something.

What really impresses me is when someone photographs an object or
scene that the average photographer would not recognize as something
worth capturing.  The guy who photographs abandoned buildings in the
Netherlands (?) is good at this.  Someone linked to a bicycle tire on
a red background that was a great job of composition.

Hummingbirds, OK.  It takes skill and luck to capture one on film.
(Or an SD card)  Some other bird shots are great moments, but
squirrels and dogs and cats and things like that are too commonplace
and easy to shoot to impress me.  Show me a shot that you had to work
at to get, not one where you walked out in the backyard and snapped a
tree rat.

Me?  I photograph my grandchildren mostly.  At three and four they are
a changing scene every day.  I won't link to those images because it
just doesn't seem right to have strangers looking at them.

My daughter just did a series in Daytona Beach (FL) shot during Bike
Week...all shots of the backs of motorcycle jackets.  Not one really
great picture on its own, but the theme was strong and the jackets
tell a story.

She also does a lot of flower shots, but they are like mountains to
me.  They just sit there and let you take pictures until you get it
right.  No challenge once you learn to press the button.

Here's one her flower shots
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/calla.jpg
It's a save-as of a 533 x 800 .jpg sent to me as an attachment, so
it's not going to knock anyone out, but I like the look of it.

What annoys me, though, is the people who look at an image and start
whining about "bokah", focus points, "soft", etc.  The only reaction
should be "Does this shot please me to look at?".    

I've been to most of the major art museums in this country, and to
several in Europe.  The "masters", the really good stuff, view best
from several yards back.  It's the overall impression that makes them
"masters".  Photographs are much the same, but you view them from a
shorter distance.

If the negative comments were attempts at suggestions for improvement,
that would be OK.  However, "the pin feathers are not distinct" offers
nothing.  Anyone who views a photograph with a mental loupe doesn't
know how to view art in any form.  It's not a picture of pinfeathers,
it's a composition.  Take in the whole composition.