Folks - I raised this subject a few years back and thought I’d give it an encore. UHH has 2 sections for members to post pics - Photo Gallery and Photo Analysis and posting constructive criticism in the first is frowned upon. I think this rule does a disservice to photographers looking to up their game.

I often look at posts in the Gallery and too often see, sorry for the blunt language, just awful photos. I’m not talking about subjective matters. I’m talking about pics that are out of focus, poorly exposed, with wildly tilted horizons (not done intentionally for artistic purposes), badly post processed or overprocessed, poorly composed with telephone poles growing out of heads, etc. or any number of other technical (NOT subjective) flaws.

And most times, well meaning members post, “Great set”, or “Nicely done” or other “ attaboys” in an attempt to not hurt another member’s feelings. I see this as counterproductive and reinforcing bad technique by poster. I ask how is a member to develop better photography skills if, I again apologize upfront, technically terrible pics are displayed and followed by lots of gushing platitudes?

Last time I mentioned this, I was slapped down by numerous members who argue that unless a poster requests constructive criticism, nothing negative should be said. Ok - I’ll buy the “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing” idea, but gushing over bad stuff does harm to the poster too. If the pics are bad, say nothing. Stop reinforcing bad work.

Just a suggestion to those posting to the Gallery in the future - think about soliciting criticisms so you can improve your work. Sure you will get many nasty, snarky and often incorrect replies from a certain subsection of members, but you will also get many great suggestions for improvement offered in a polite, constructive manner. I’ve been a photographer for 55 yrs and I welcome all well meaning and civil critiques. We are never too old to learn a new trick.

Anxious to see the replies to this rant.

Hello all,

I'm off to Iceland in a few weeks. I was wondering from anyone who has gone in the past, what focal length they found most useful. I realize much has to do with your subject matter and style of photography, but in your opinion what's the widest and longest focal length actually needed for mostly landscapes. Let's not worry about puffins and whale watching, since I realize that's longer focal lengths, but I'm speaking mostly for landscapes.

I know I'm taking a 24-120. I'm likely taking a 20mm prime. I'd deciding between a 50mm prime or a 70-300.
I'm not sure I have room in the bag for both. I'm taking 2 camera bodies as well. I'm trying to keep the weight down somewhat.

thanks
Mike