On 5/15/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip>If I had to choose one point that I might dispute, it might be that which suggests that good critiques don't include information in regard to how someone else might have executed a shot. Sometimes that kind of input can be helpful, although the recipient has to be able to judge the quality of the advice. Thanks for the link. Good stuff.
I hear what you're saying, Paul, and I have to admit, I sometimes find myself falling into the trap (when commenting on others' photos) of saying, "I'd have done it such and such a way" - it can be hard to resist. It certainly does bother me when people say it to me, though. If one is critiquing a photo, critique ~that~ photo. Suggesting other ways of looking at the situation the next time is fine, but telling everyone how you (I don't actually mean you, Paul, I mean the generic "you") would have taken it isn't usually that constructive, IMHO. All that being said, I agree with the rest of your post. It's generally a very good article, chock full of informative tips on both photoraphy and art. I particularly liked the the thought that every great photograph was made on equipment that's older and "less advanced" than "your camera". Of course, since I still shoot most of my photos on older manual focus mechanical cameras, maybe that one doesn't apply so much to all of us... <vbg> Great article, Shel. Thanks for sharing it. Like you, I hope it starts a good discussion. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
