One false move and he's lunch

Well, you made a fairly low key observation - which I'm inclined to agree with - only to be met by a barrage of rudeness! For example, Linda of Maine, who has castigated me in the past for commenting that a contributor's daily offerings were getting a bit samey. She told me to shut up as well. The cheek of the poor old biddy. Just who does she think she is!
Anyway, I had no effect at all. That particular daily contributor still posts his awful, unimaginative and repetitive flower pics every day …
But, PLEASE, UHHers, allow people a bit of individual thought. The OP was not rude and made a valid point.

Surely you're too busy creating half a dozen masterpieces a day to have time for more?

Actually, I do have a look virtually every day - it's a wonderful site!
My tablets are dispensed in London, England ....

Rognon (French for kidney btw) raises some interesting points.
The rules covering the photo gallery are generally silent as to critique, the only real reference covering a situation where a poster asks for a critique. Here the rules overlap other areas such as 'fyc'. In this instance Snap Shot specifically asks for critique and hides negative responses by putting the poster on his ignore list.
His prerogative of course but it does (in his case) make a nonsense of asking in the first place.
It does all seem to point to a gallery which frowns on any form of criticism and therefore invites only the ooohs and aaaahs. If so, I have to wonder whether it serves much constructive purpose.
Learners don't learn, lower standard photographers can persuade themselves of their own excellence and strivers have to use a different forum.

Generally speaking, you are right - I should have just gritted my teeth and passed him by. However, the daily relentless drip of self satisfied pseudo 'art' just got to me. I shall have to make sure I take those tablets.
And of course Mr Shot is gracious - everyone except a fan is consigned to a dark place.

No, I do not want a debate with Mr. Shot - I would have liked the opportunity of commenting on his rude response prior to being struck off his Christmas list.
The reality is that SS does directly and by implication invite critique which, as is now apparent, is limited to the entirely positive. He is evidently not emotionally capable of criticism.

I do appreciate all that.
But the problem is that I like to look at the picture gallery and, so far as I can see, there is no way of not opening Snap Shot's unrelenting daily dose. If I could, I would, believe me.

Having reflected on it, I feel sure that this is a post appropriate for this section. Admin may not agree.
I have been sent to the naughty step by this site's resident creative and most prolific poster, Snap Shot.
I committed the sin of inquiring whether a daily dose of what, to my philistine eye, seem to be simple snap shots of cut flowers in vases processed in a somewhat simple and repetitive style, wasn't perhaps getting a bit 'samey'.
I did anticipated a bit of flak from Mr. Shot's devotees but I did not expect the gifted one to terminate any possibility of debate by sending me to his growing list of ignorees.
How fragile are the characters of true artists - criticise at your peril ....

I'm sure this will attract flak from your loyal adherents, but am I alone in thinking that a daily dose of not very remarkable snaps of over processed flowers in a vase is getting just a bit 'samey'?

Thanks JD. I'm overcomplicating again!

Thanks for your comments Dave. I think you're right. I'm obviously making too much of it!

Actually, it was taken a couple of weeks ago! Thanks for your observations.

Never mind about the quality or the composition. I'm intrigued and want to properly understand why the birds against the sky are dark and the birds against the tower are light. I think I get it at a basic level, but there may be someone out there with a plausible technical explanation?

(Download)

How strange to see one of my posts reposted 2 years later. I wonder who did it, and why?!