Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I didn't say anything about "talent", Annette: I was talking about pictures that impress (I made a point of using the word) - for whatever reason. And just like everyone else, I have certain buttons that need to be pressed before I will comment.Psilo said:
Some of my own favourite pictures are technically naff but have a relevance and a resonance because of what they mean to me, and nothing I wrote in my previous post should be interpreted as in any way "elitist".
I'll be honest and say that I'm not actually sure how you infer from what I wrote that I'm saying that comments in the gallery should be "purely based on talent".
I'm acknowledging that the exact opposite is already the case, and that we shouldn't put too much store in the number of comments a picture gets as an indication of its quality, because clearly that's not how it works - for some reason I don't understand.
The fact remains that there are some pictures on there that really do warrant a slew of positive feedback, by any standard by which you might care to consider them - but don't get it - and there are some pictures that get an inordinate amount of credit without it being obvious why (to me, anyway!
)There's nowt wrong with that - I never said there was - but I know from PM discussions I've had that some gallery contributors who are trying really hard to come up with quality pictures find the lack of positivity they've received for their efforts really discouraging especially when seen in light of the disproportionate praise given to subjectively (or indeed objectively, depending on what you're looking for) less worthy pictures.
It's probably naive to believe that the number of responses a photographer gets to a picture he or she doubtless put a lot of effort into doesn't matter - I know it's important to some people, and I know that a lack of positive feedback for their pictures undermines their confidence.
Human nature.
None of that changes the value of the gallery, which I particularly like because it's not intended as a "critique" forum, and is therefore welcoming to all, regardless of "talent" - whatever that might be.
I certainly agree with everyone who suggests that as long as the photographer is happy, who cares about other people? But even Pete (who we know is good) has indicated above that the opinions of others can have an undermining effect.
For "opinion" you can easily substitute "lack of response".
But do you know what, Annette? I think that you might agree with me more than you realise.
The point I'm making is that people seem to post feedback to pictures which I can't really see a huge amount of merit in - and so I simply choose not to comment.
I notice a lack of comments from you on the same pictures - presumably then, you don't really "get" them either!
You only comment when you see something in the picture that works for you, and not simply because the photographer seems to be a canny sort, or whatever.
That makes perfect sense to me, whereas I struggle to rationalise the responses to some pictures - but maybe that's simply because I don't see what other people are seeing.
It's not a problem, it's not a big deal, and it doesn't worry me. It simply puzzles me.
And - as confirmed by John above - I'm not the only one.
