Joe Blow wrote:
There is a discussion going on elsewhere about editing other's photos. The person who edited the photo did it to point out a suggested edit that would work; turning the photo to B&W. The problem is the original photographer did not like it. To me, the B&W corrected two problems and lessened a third problem that anyone with a good photographic eye would have picked up on. Those photos were (in my opinion) mediocre and lacked critical appeal. It would have taken so little to take them to great shots.
So that leads me to these questions.
1) Are people posting their photos so that others can just pat each other on the back and say "good job"? I'm not talking about images I find uninteresting (most bird shots, pets - especially cats, macro-flowers, painted flowers, and PaintShop twirling), but images that have no redeeming interest and honestly just suck.
2) How many are uninterested in improvement and are satisfied with their current level of mediocrity?
3) Does anyone care if their highlights are blown?
There is a discussion going on elsewhere about edi... (
show quote)
There are some people here who are not interested in legitimate criticism of their images so they can grow as photographers. There is also a large number of people who post what they may consider their best shots, but do not see the significant flaws in them. Unfortunately, many people who comment on these images also seem to lack an understanding of what makes a compelling well exposed and well composed image. I've seen unbridled praise given to flawed and mediocre images which does not help the photographer improve.