Or, to put the emphasis in its proper place: How do you evaluate whether or not a photo is good. My interest is not in starting a flame war, but in collecting the personal perspectives of members of the forum. What do you look for in a photo? What aspects of an image are most vital in determining whether or not it works? What are the different things you look for in different genres of photography? What traits are important across all genres? I ask because, too frequently lately, image critiques have degenerated into personal battles rather than intelligent discussion of the photos (although there have also been threads that did maintain a constructive tone, such as Richard Le's thread on Palestinian protesters). Perhaps a compilation of views--a summary reference of where people are coming from--might help us understand one another's image critiques.

I have my own views on the subject, and some views on the differences between how photographers of different experience level view images and how non-photographers view images, but I'd like to get some "unbiased" input from others before I go on about the subject. (And I need to go work on my taxes some more before I take another break.)

In an effort to keep things civil, please stick to expressing your own views rather than pointing out how stupid anyone else's opinion is . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 14, 2002

Answers

Visually, I look for a sense of balance, structure, and flow, and the exclusion of elements and spaces which detract from that, or don't contribute to it, and which don't have important content either. The more there is in a picture the harder it is to organize it, and the more important it is to do so, or everything degenerates into clutter.

Content wise I look for the total exclusion of things which aren't the point of the picture. I, myself, like a picture to have some point, but I recognize that a lot of well-regarded photography isn't like that, and leans more heavily on visual things only. Some photographers lean the other way, heavy on the content, nix to the eye candy, (journalists, especially, though often you don't know if it's the photog who should take the blame, or the editor/s), and I don't much care for that either, because I personally think a visual presentation demands visual coherence.

Using Mike as an example, I think a large part of his success is the visual simplicity of his photos--nothing extra, nothing out of place. The second one, above, for instance, looks like there's a lot in it, but really there are only three things, and a lot of black space. After the initial chatter, it quickly resolves itself into only those three things. I pay a lot of attention to what my eye physically does when it first sees a picture--how long it takes to settle down, and what path it initially takes through the whole thing, for instance.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

My own view [since you asked, Mike] is that you ought to take your insatiable need for critique elsewhere and try to keep messages here on point, namely LEICA PHOTOGRAPHY. In this case, there is not a jot or tittle of even a hint of any connection therewith.

-- Alec (alecj@bellsouth.net), April 14, 2002.

For me its an image that evokes a feeling or captures a moment that I want to remember ad infinitum. It generally has little to do with the technical aspects of photography and more to do with the spirit contained. I know this must sound a bit "soft" but since I'm not a professional I tend to be more forgiving when it comes to things like lighting and more concerned with whether or not I have a memory to keep and savor for my family.

Its also true when I look at the work of folks from this forum - I tend to try to personalize the picture to see what it evokes in me since that is my main criteria for my own stuff. In fact its why I think that the whole "it does little for me" debate raged on earlier this week. Pictures either capture something for folks or not and the prettiest lighting, etc can often be very meaningless if the base image doesn't do it for the viewer in question.

For instance this past week's POW on photo.net was a non starter for me but clearly elicited raves from most.

My 2 cents...

-- John (jbee193@aol.com), April 14, 2002.

The main thing I look for in a good photo is a point - a message, a story, an idea - that is intelligible. It doesn't need to be obvious, though I've never objected to a picture that makes an obvious point - it sure beats the artistic obscurity we see so often.

The photo should have a single message, though the message may be one of contrast between two elements. If there are two elements (conceptual, textural, whatever) the connection or contrast between them should be visually accessible - i.e. the point should be clearly made. Having three disparate conceptual elements in a photo almost never works.

The technical quality of the photo should enhance the message. I hate pictures where the technical quality is the message. This applies to contrast/tonality/grain/colour palette as well as choice of lens. There's a certain element of social/cultural expectation at work here. for instance, you may think it's cool to do baby pictures on litho film processed in Dektol, but your audience isn't likely to relate to them well. Stretch the envelope, but don't tear it.

A good photo is free of elements that distract from the message. This applies to the classic phone pole growing out of Aunt Flo's head, as well as bright patches in the image that lead your eye away from the center of interest. A good photographer understands balanced and harmonious composition, and unbalances an image only if it's appropriate to its message.

And speaking of centers of interest, A good photo should always have one. I dislike pictures that let your eye wander around aimlessly within the frame. And when your eye does land on that center of interest, there had better be something there worth looking at. A classic example of this is a tack-sharp eye pupil in a portrait.

Simple is better than complex. Clean is better than messy. Visually terse is better than visually verbose. You get the drift.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 14, 2002.

Well...I won't comment on the previous poster's immediate off-topic response. This is a hard question. Take your photo of the Asian girl with the flaring sun to the left of the photo, and the expression on her face that was playful and somewhat like, "What the heck are you doing?" This to me showed a relation between you and the young lady. To me, this is as important as technical excellence- conveying some of the essence of what's going on.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

BTW, Mike - by my criteria, the first picture you used to illustrate this thread is a good photo. The second one is emphatically not.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), April 14, 2002.

Dang you guys are quick on the draw, I was referring to Alec's compulsive need for a post to be just about a piece of equipment.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

A sense of aesthetic.

I look for utilization of the frame and a good balance of elements to lead your eye around. The more your eye "naturally" moves around the frame the more interesting the photo. Otherwise, I look for a strong direction for my eye to go in (like into the frame/ perspective shots) with interesting elements that are visited on the way. Also, low contrast shots don't do it for me. I like it when a negative is "just right" in terms of contrast so you have the blacks really black but you still have delicate tonal gradation where it counts. For me, this has been a great challenge and I learned that it has more to do with the quality of available light than your actual exposure settings. Top glass gets you nowhere unless nature is cooperating. From this I can understand why many photographers like studio stuff where the environment is 100% controlled... but it isn't fun enough for me to do.

All IMVHO.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

I look for an eye for composition, technical skill and especially fresh subject matter. (IMO "gurlie" shots or photos of indian travels or great-grand-children from behind have been done to death, even if they were taken with a Noctilux or 75mm Summilux on Scala etc.)

For these examples, #2 is more interesting - for me - although the shot is spoiled by being by an almost total lack of technique (B&W, no composition or focus or exposure control).

Just my 2˘.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 14, 2002.

For me, initial reactions to photographs and to people are very similar, yet very different. There are those persons I tend to like upon first meeting. Why? I cannot always give a completely satisfying, rational answer. On the other hand, there have been those I did not give a second chance to make a good first impression. Usually I can give reasons (at least to myself) why I was not attracted to them. I have been wrong on both counts. Some initially attractive people turned out to be great disappointments; while some initially unattractive personalities (after getting to know them better) have turned out to be wonderful friends. When it comes to photos, however, first impressions tend to be more influential and longer lasting. If I like it , I like it, even though I cannot always articulate the reasons for the way I feel. The reasons are not so important to me. It would be nice, I suppose, to have confirmation from others as to the beauty, or value, of the image, but if I do not receive it, it does not lessen the imprtance of the image. I like it and that is what is important to me. However, if I do not initially find the photo interesting and aesthetically pleasing to my eye, then other "experts" will make little headway trying to convince me as to "why" I should be in love with it.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), April 14, 2002.

I agree with John.

-- Brian E. Harvey (bharvey423@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

First of all, let me say that I greatly prefer the second photograph to the first. It has lots of mystery, raises more questions than it answers, and has layers of mood and emotion. I'm sure Mike already knew that I would prefer the second.

Second, what I said above probably explains how I would answer Mike's questions. I look specifically for photos to convey mood and/or emotion, or to pique the intellect. Photos that do that can overcome and sort of technical or artistic "deficiency," as those "deficiencies" are irrelevant outside the context of the photograph itself.

I generally disklike postcard shots, "new age" shots, and anything I find simplistic and one-dimensional.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 14, 2002.

I think a photograph is good when it makes me feel something that is central to life. This is true for photos of any kind: people, landscapes, still lifes. A great photo provides a glimpse into what I think is reality: that everything is connected in a wonderous way that I do not understand. This oneness of life is something I forget too often. Great photographs taught me this and consistently remind me of it. The first picture Mike posted did this for me. The second did not. Thanks for asking an interesting question,

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), April 14, 2002.

When I see an image I like, I enjoy looking at it for one reason or another. I find it difficult to break it down into an intellectual excersize as to what exactly makes it good. Also, the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" hold true, and shots that someone goes crazy over, I can find trite, overdone, or just plain boring. Here's a few recent shots I finally got around to posting that I am happy with. recent images

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 14, 2002.

Lot of good answers already.

A simple way to evaluate a picture would be to look for CLT: composition, lighting and technique. There are always some 'artistic' photographs, some of them actually 'good', that do not meet even the simplest requirements of CLT. Some fetch quite high prices.

But for the rest of us, I think a good photograph must have good composition, balanced, simplified, attention grasping, etc.; lighting that supports the message; and it must be sharp, correctly focused and exposed.

Most of your photographs, Mike, meet these requirements very well. Some fall a bit short. Maybe they are the 'artistic' ones...

Ilkka

-- Ilkka Kuusisto (ikuu65@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I tend to consider images with sort of a layered approach. First, I impose an assumption as to the intended use or style of the image (commercial, editorial, art (both landscapes and nudes), etc.), and then try to apply a set of criteria appropriate to the genre.

Each of those genrii (?) will have similar elements, such as compositional balance (or, artfully employed imbalance), technical quality (and whether appropriate to the genre), "message", and so forth. But, how these criteria are applied may be different for each genre. Thus, whether an image "works" for me depends on whether it works for the style and (apparent) intended use. "Rule breaking" is allowed, if the result works for the image's intended use, for example.

All too often, I think, we tend to get stuck in the rut of thinking that our own personally-preferred style is the basis for judging the images of others.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), April 14, 2002.

For myself the only criterion for a good photograph is that the photograph expresses strength through truth whether visible or implied.All other technical issues such as composition, lens, film,etc.,are subordinant to this.It's tough to speak on an issue that is basically non-verbal.....I know it when I see it! But this description is probably more in line with a great photograph, not merely a good one.The ones above are good! Seems to me a little too much on the surface though.Interesting and full of style...but where is the soul?

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 14, 2002.

In professional photography, I look for preciseness and accuracy. And if the client is happy with the photographer's results, the shot is then successful.

In personal photography, I look for effort and intent.

And if the photographer is happy with his/her results, the shot is then successful.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Frankly, I've found this (with apologies to Alec!) to be one of the more interesting threads. I think the responses have been, in the main, interesting and stimulating, and most of the essential considerations have already been raised, if not fully explored. I always begin an evaluation of an image by first trying to perceive the goal or intent of its maker. I also try to refrain from a "rush to judgement" attitude because I've become aware that my own attitudes and mechanisms of evaluation are themselves, at best, works in progress. Assessing commercial work is often difficult, but the proper critique and analysis of genuine, personal, artistic work often borders on the impossible. If I've learned one abiding thing, over the years, it is to remain suspicious of evaluations by those who are the most adamant!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.

There is no set of rules or perspectives that can be articulated in advance to evaluate photographs. There are just too many great photographs that work for entirely different, perhaps infinently different, reasons. To try to list them in advance is an exercise in futility. Some of the greatest photos "break" all the rules. What we can do to some degree is state why a specific photo works for us or doesn't work. I try to bring an Open mind to a knew photograph;not prejudged by some criteria that might not make any sense to the picture being viewed. We should cut this thread short now or it could go on forever since each person has a unique answer.

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), April 14, 2002.

Just in case there is confusion, as there is apparently with Alec's post above, Mike's post here is entirely about Leica Photography and is 100% on topic with this forum. Just to set the record straight, this forum is not to be considered an "equipment only" forum, otherwise it would be totally boring and I wouldn't be here, and neither would this forum.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 14, 2002.

Amen to that. Just read the 7th response (my post). Leica photography, meaning photography with a Leica. : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Mike- Much of what has been said above, I concur with. Photographs that I am most interested in are those of people. Of course, it is nice if the technical aspects all come in-- in focus--proper exposure- -proper framing, etc. Some photos must be judged by how difficult it might have been to get any picture at all. My hat is off to people who shoot for National Enquirer and the like. No one can say that AA didn't do good work, but Alfred Eisenstaedt, in my estimation, is in a higher league. Remember the photo of Goebbels? Trees & mountains aren't going to send you to the death camps! People and news photography is the domain of the Leica RF; always was and hopefully will be.>>>>>The photo Mike took in the bar (above) is obviously not the work of some amature with a point&shoot. It captures a mood and is what the Leica RF is all about.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Mike..IMO..Photo 2 is a great touch of atmospheric presence. Nicely done. Xtol 1:2?

Photo 1, all I can say is that the model is cute ;)

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

I'm with Art on this one. But evryone else is not wrong, just right in different ways. The truth is that there are no rules.....but respecting one's effort is important.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Mike's comment:

"I have my own views on the subject, and some views on the differences between how photographers of different experience level view images and how non-photographers view images, but I'd like to get some "unbiased" input from others before I go on about the subject"

This is very true. I myself constantly change the way I critique and examine photographs. And if many of you think I am critical of others' photos, you should see how much I scrutinise my own. With experience, I am becoming much better at understanding the level of effort and intent produced in photographs, and therefor it enables me to think more before stating my opinion, which is important, especially to a forum such as this, where people seek feedback as motivation for improvement. Well that's what I think.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

Emily Dickinson said something to the effect that she knew a poem was good when she felt like the top of her head was being taken off. I feel the same with pictures. That doesn't provide any systematic way of analyzing, but that's the way I look at it. If composition, sharpness, lack of sharpness, whatever, contribute to that, it's great. If not, it's a flaw. Very subjective, I grant you.

Feininger (sp?) talks about evaluating a shot based on its intended purpose. My pics don't usually have a purpose, so...

-- Steven Hupp (shupp@chicagobotanic.org), April 15, 2002.

Ezra Pound, one of the 20th Century's greatest literary minds, said: "Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost." The same could be said about photography.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Playful, stimulating and sincere are the keywords most often come into play when I respond (positively) to a photograph.
Although technical perfection can be seductive, it rarely makes a good photograph. Technique is only something I notice if it stands in the way of my experience of the photograph. I find myself more often in a situation were I reject a photograph due to technical perfection rather than lack of it.
A good example is Mike Dixon's first photograph in chapter 6 of his 75 'lux Adventures. The image was criticized by some people due to technique (or lack of it). Given the personal nature of a wedding, this particular image was actually the one of the 3 that had the most to offer me -as an outsider. Although not my favourite Dixon image, it still embodied all the qualities necessary to make a good photograph for me.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), April 15, 2002.

First I look at the context in which the photo is presented. A picture supporting a major news event, a wedding album, a fashion shoot, etc., would serve different purposes and involve different styles. All are valid forms of photography and should be judged within their respective context. A photo is good if it is interesting and free of cliches; something worthy of a second or third look. It is all subjective, else someone would have written a program for it. For me personally I look for sound technique and emotional impact. Yada yada yada I can yak all day on this subject but apparently I am an idiot because I find 95% of the stuff I see in museums are crap so there must be something wrong with my reasoning.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 15, 2002.

My key word is "relevance". I like this word because it directly connects the image to the viewer. The viewer(s) will decide how relevant a picture is, based on his/her subjective appreciation of image aethetics, originality, information content, etc.

As a viewer, I judge image quality according to my own criteria, and these criteria do include a reasonable request for being submitted to at least one of the following qualities: novelty, audacity, compositional discipline, strong feelings and/or intense information content. My judgement of images also refers to my own historical references: I hate being submitted to pale imitations of images already circulated a million times before.

As a photographer, I strive to produce images that convey those qualities (even if in very low quantity) to the viewers of my images. The viewer is the key. I have the luxury of very often being able to choose my viewers, and try to tailor my images to my understanding of those viewers' desires. It is out of respect for the mass of viewers I do not know that I do not post my images in discussion groups such as this one, and feel sometimes agressive towards those who should have the decency not to publish theirs.

Images must be relevant to the viewer(s). The photographer (myself or someone else) and the photographic process itself do not count in that equation.

I find both your today's images to be beautiful and relevant, for very different reasons.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

Mike, I appreciate your posts. Many of your pictures are very good. But some I find good only because I think the girl is good looking...
For instance for me this one I dont like as much. Too much subject movement and the hand-colored green I find as a trick. I like my pictures to be without tricks. The other picture I dont like too much either. It's a girl and a guy but what else? More blur and grain and that's it! Again "tricks" with the camera being held tilted and with the bleeding for the full edge effect. Phooey!
For me the strongest statements are made pure without any tricks. You have some wonderful pictures on other threads and you have a talent so I dont think you need to tart your pictures up. Leave that to others with less talent...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), April 15, 2002.

Mainly I look for how well a photograph tells a story. If I can look at a photograph and feel I've learned something than it is a success. Even with portraiture i like images that tell something about the person in them. Of the images in the original post I like the second because, through a sense of mystery I can invent my own theory (story) of what's going on. This I think is paramount in an image, mre so than sharpness, image quality, etc. - though a good photographer also controls these to his advantage. These are the reasons a photograph stays 'good' IMO, as opposed to visually being appealling, but nothing else. An image can be great on first viewing, but if it were to hang on your wall for a month you'd be sick of it sort of thing.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 15, 2002.

First is to go first: thanks for the thread, Mike. IMHO it is the most relavant one (to suit Jacques' criterium)we have seen here for a long while. Not that everything had to be relevant, but thinking for a short moment wouldn't harm anybody.

Only that I have been thinking about your question for a couple of days so far and the answer seems to be more elusive the more you (or I, at least) think about it. So I decided to answer mostly based on feelings.

The first thing I expect from a picture is to be told something I can readily understand and feel tunned to. I know "something" is a little too ample a concept but photography is varied enough as for preventing tighter statements. On this basis, Capa's photo of the fallen soldier and a porno shot would be the same.

The second item I look for is graphical quality, implying a solid use of composition (be it as per traditional rules or not, but solidly supportive of the subject). Technical quality goes into this same item and IMO this whole item goes second to the first one: a photo that eloquently "tells" is a good one even if not technically perfect. Possible exception: composition; the photo would hardly "tell" clearly if poorly composed. So far, the Capa vs. porno option is not discerned yet.

A special item for me is "poverty": the less graphical components the photo needs to convey its intended meannig the better. And the Capa / porno strugle is not settled yet.

The use of colour is another important consideration to be kept on mind: colour should be part of the statement and be treated accordingly. And the Capa / porno thing still holds.

In summary: I seem to think that if the photo succeeds under examination as per those categories it is a good one, be it Capa's or a porno shot. I assume that is another discussion . . .

Regards, Mike. What a good idea !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 15, 2002.

Talk to me. That's all I expect a great photo to do is talk to me. I have been one of many judges at several photo contests, which, by the way, happen very quickly without much discussion on merits of all the things we think are important in photography, and if the photo doesn't talk to the judge or grab his attention it goes in the "other" pile. DAYTON ------------------------------------------------------------------

-- DAYTON P. STRICKLAND (daytonst@bellsouth.net), April 15, 2002.

Wow! This has gotten quite a response. Thanks for all the thoughtful answers so far.

My personal preference is for photos that elicit some kind of emotional response, although that response doesn't always have to be clearly defined. I also try to evaluate photos based on their intended use (for instance, I can judge whether or not a certain photo is a good model headshot even if it isn't a photo that I find especially interesting). I usually think of the technique behind a particular photo as being "good" or "bad" based on how well it suits the photo rather than how well it fits into some "objective" standard of what consititutes good technique (for example, dancing people who are a bit blurry might be acceptable, someone sitting in a studio for a senior photo should generally be sharp).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 15, 2002.

I myself quite agree with Russell, but I do like the green colouring. I think this is th best post in a while now. Something original and useful.....how is it useful?

From now on we can better understand each other, and what we are all looking for when critique is offered. This way it is easier to interpret another's advice or criticism, without taking it the wrong way.....have I done this?........maybe a couple of time?!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

First I look at the context in which the photo is presented. A picture supporting a major news event, a wedding album, a fashion shoot, etc., would serve different purposes and involve different styles. All are valid forms of photography and should be judged within their respective context.

That's pretty much my feeling, too. It depends on what you are shooting for. I shoot mainly generic, stock travel shots, but I love the grittier, documentary stuff. For me, the shot's first impression decides whether it's good or bad. If I do a double-take, or find myself staring at it, it's a successful shot.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 15, 2002.

To Mike: What criteria have you developed for evaluating the abstract photos made by photographers like Siskind, Callahan, Brett Weston, Caponigro, and Minor white, to name a few. The threads I've read so far really don't seem to apply to that genre of photography. Which gets me back to my original post. There are other categories as well that don't seem well suited to advance expectations. What do you think? Some art can not be verbally critiqued well.

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), April 15, 2002.

John, I don't disagree at all with what you're saying. The less that a photo fits into any genre or style, the more I depend on my emotional reaction to it. In starting this threat, my intent was not to establish the "correct" way to evaluate photos--it was so we could develop a better understanding of the personal approach of some of the individuals who share the forum. My fundamental point, in fact, was to illustrate (well, to get forum members to illustrate) that there is no single correct way to judge photos.

(Changing gears a bit here) I do believe that critiques have value in that they help us to understand how well (or how badly) our photos communicate what we want them to communicate. To a large extent, I sympathize with Glenn Travis's point about not caring what the critics think. But I'm not looking to the critics to tell me what my photos should be saying, I'm looking to their reactions to see if my photos are saying what I want them to be saying.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 16, 2002.

threat = thread (Freudian slip??)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 16, 2002.

At this point I should just keep my mouth shut, but I can't take my own advice.

I see above quite a bit of implication that if the photo has content and the content is good, then the photo is good. I went into newspaper work with the specific idea that this (which is all a lot of news photogs do) was not enough, and that composition and other visual aspects are essential. Apparently my readers, though they weren't highly sophisticated as photo fans, and the judges of the wire's state newsphoto contest agreed with me, based on the feedback and prizes I got. Photography is a visual medium--ignore that at your peril.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 16, 2002.

Michael, I don't think anyone is saying to ignore the technical aspects of composition and the like. But a technically perfect image with no interest has less impact than an image of something visually exciting that has technical shortfalls. Two image come to mind - the famous Che photograph, and Cartier-Bressons image of Picasso in his apartment. Both are obviously out of focus, and though the composition of the Picasso image is great (IMO), the Che image is a tight head and shoulders (at least as is usually shown). Taken on strictly technical grounds, both images would likely fail a 1st year college photography course. That's the problem I have with critique - apart from obvious blunders (spotting, blemishes, etc) one mans treasure is anothers garbage. This is why (concerning a past post), the statement 'it does nothing for me' is valid. It may do nothing for me - but it may move the next person to tears.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 16, 2002.

Regarding what Bob wrote immediately above: some famous photographer (I forget who) once wrote or stated something to this effect: better a fuzzy photograph of a good concept than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept. I think too many folks are worrying about making sharp, boring photos.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), April 16, 2002.