Originally Posted by sub50hz
That's mostly what I was getting at. This thread is stuffed with people commenting on technicals like sharpness and color, but nobody seems to look at the whole image. Too much stuff is being "rated" 9 and 10/10 when it's really.... not.
See, that's the problem -- sure, you could use some work on your PP technique, but how about the images themselves? Nobody seems to want to get into the nitty gritty, and just because saturation/contrast/color might be good, it might be a really mundane shot. With no offense to anyone intended, there are plenty of those in this thread.
I know. I've been trying to be much more selective about what I shoot and post. The most recent critique I gave was pertaining to composition not processing, and I think I gave the first rating lower then 9/10 to someone within the past 15 posts in this thread.
I've come to the conclusion that you can always go back and rework a RAW file to fix WB, saturation, etc., but unless you have a time machine, some shots just aren't re-visitable to recompose.
I try to be objective with my ratings (speaking of mundane, god knows I can get pretty repetitive. When I first got my Tammy 90mm Macro I posted up shot after shot of roses, bees, flowers, Etc.)
When I critique, I try to look objectively, as in "Is there someone out there or some sort of publication that this shot could work for?" Photography can cover everything from the mundane to the extravagant. Photojournalism and street photography can seem boring to some, and others don't care much for sweeping landscapes. Even if I find something boring or too "artsy" for my tastes, I still try to rate on pure composition and technique.