I think of photography as my means of creating something artistic. When I have completed an image to my satisfaction I do not need or want anyone to critique it for me. In other words I do not care if he or she likes what I already like.
The frustration comes from people who claim to know something about photography, ask to see something I have done, and then make very superficial comments like “nice” or “good”. This even extends to the same person asking to see the pre-processed image and then being able to see nothing but the most obvious improvements.
This all started as a rant to allow me to vent a bit. I realize friends are often being polite, are well intentioned, are less than perfect, and claim to know more than they do.

Many of us try to master basics of composition. Going further, post processing can undeniably make a good picture even better. So, after I am all done, pretty satisfied with the improvements over what I got straight out of the camera, people who view the images spend very little time viewing them critically. It's particularly frustrating if I provide a before and after; and differences are not noticed until I point them out.
Since I photograph and process for my own satisfaction, it makes little difference that careful viewing holds so little interest. One could argue that all that matters is that the image leaves an instantaneous impression of "good" and that nothing else is necessary. But usually there is so much else going on that raises good to "very good" or even "excellent".
Only superficially related: I have always loved listening to music, preferably live or through good quality speakers. Ear buds do not and cannot provide the same experience. For most people they are good enough. The concern is that standards of quality have been cheapened.

Many of us try to master basics of composition. Going further, post processing can undeniably make a good picture even better. So, after I am all done, pretty satisfied with the improvements over what I got straight out of the camera, people who view the images spend very little time viewing them critically. It's particularly frustrating if I provide a before and after; and differences are not noticed until I point them out.
Since I photograph and process for my own satisfaction, it makes little difference that careful viewing holds so little interest. One could argue that all that matters is that the image leaves an instantaneous impression of "good" and that nothing else is necessary. But usually there is so much else going on that raises good to "very good" or even "excellent".
Only superficially related: I have always loved listening to music, preferably live or through good quality speakers. Ear buds do not and cannot provide the same experience. For most people they are good enough. The concern is that standards of quality have been cheapened.

Many of us try to master basics of composition. Going further, post processing can undeniably make a good picture even better. So, after I am all done, pretty satisfied with the improvements over what I got straight out of the camera, people who view the images spend very little time viewing them critically. It's particularly frustrating if I provide a before and after; and differences are not noticed until I point them out.
Since I photograph and process for my own satisfaction, it makes little difference that careful viewing holds so little interest. One could argue that all that matters is that the image leaves an instantaneous impression of "good" and that nothing else is necessary. But usually there is so much else going on that raises good to "very good" or even "excellent".
Only superficially related: I have always loved listening to music, preferably live or through good quality speakers. Ear buds do not and cannot provide the same experience. For most people they are good enough. The concern is that standards of quality have been cheapened.

Photographically, I think most people just respond to their initial impression and verbalize with a quick comment. It sounds as if you are an analytical person and are looking for responders with that same critical analysis as they view your work, and would then respond accordingly. Unfortunately, not all critics are analytical, and as a result their comments are not appreciative of the effort in the photographic process. Perhaps a test photo is the way to go...that is, post a good photo on facebook, and then post the same photo on Hedgehog, and then measure the comments by a arbitrary rating system. Lots of facebook followers have a built-in WOW factor in their vocabulary...while the HH audience is more muted. Just my thoughts!

Who do you think would be good at coming up with the self imposed standards of what is postable? Would that be you, Admin, who should set limits? What if YOUR photos don't make the grade? Could you please post some photos soon so we can all take a look. We all have different interests in photographic subjects, different ideas of what makes a great camera and the lenses to go along with it. But we all, also, have different standards that make us happy. While some of us shoot photos that we want to enter in contests, most of us basically want photos of travel, family, happy times, school events and so on. I have no idea how many members are on UHH but it would take that many categories to satisfy us all on the forum.

I'm not setting myself up to judge what should and should not be posted. And once again, even though I have said it repeatedly in these postings, I really do not care how others judge my photos, so there would be little point in posting them.

And c'mon, you have seen photos on Ugly Hedgehog that are simply crap... very badly exposed, no discernible subject of interest, out of focus, etc. Let's not pretend that photography has no standards and every time the shutter is pushed a "nice" image results. This doesn't mean images they shouldn't be seen. They may have great worth to those who took them. I don't reject the photographer who may not know better of is not capable of better; but I have no respect for those who comment with "great capture" or similar.

Many of us try to master basics of composition. Going further, post processing can undeniably make a good picture even better. So, after I am all done, pretty satisfied with the improvements over what I got straight out of the camera, people who view the images spend very little time viewing them critically. It's particularly frustrating if I provide a before and after; and differences are not noticed until I point them out.
Since I photograph and process for my own satisfaction, it makes little difference that careful viewing holds so little interest. One could argue that all that matters is that the image leaves an instantaneous impression of "good" and that nothing else is necessary. But usually there is so much else going on that raises good to "very good" or even "excellent".
Only superficially related: I have always loved listening to music, preferably live or through good quality speakers. Ear buds do not and cannot provide the same experience. For most people they are good enough. The concern is that standards of quality have been cheapened.