Originally Posted by MistaBernie
Unnecessary. Whether or not they're "enamored" by the subject is pointless. The photo didn't deserve a 0/10 rating because you weren't
enamored with the subject. Technically it was a fine image - there could absolutely have been improvements, but not everyone who posts in this thread is a "professional". Most are computer enthusiasts that shoot as a hobby; while there may be a handful of people who are truly 'professional' photographers, they are not the norm.
I do find it pretty interesting that you put down their ratings because of their being enamored with the subject, but you put it down because 'you're a professional motorsports photographer and the image of a 'stick' is far more pleasing than a stock image of a car' - i.e. your opinion has value because of your profession, while theirs does not.
I'm a guy on the internet, so that means everything I say is true and that I know what I'm talking about.
I think you have misunderstood what is going on here.
The guy came along and dismissed someone else's work as 'a picture of a stick' That's just rude and speaks more of the ability of the viewer to understand the image than it does as a valuable critique.
I don't suggest that for one second my opinion is more valid than anyone else's but I wanted him to understand what it's like to be told an image is worthless. I wanted him to understand that this was coming from someone who makes a living out of photography rather than 'some guy on the internet' I was making a point.
I take no issue with the subject of a car.. hell i make a living out of photographing high- end racing. The point I was making is that it's just pointless and rude to be rating a photograph on the subject. The 'stick' image was quite good. Showed depth of field, it might not have been intentional due to the closeness of the lens and the f-stop being chosen by the camera but it produced an image where something was going on.
The image of a car was simply that. An image of a car. it's flat, it shows no camera control was considered that might distinguish the subject from the background. It shows a lack of understanding of bokeh or a simple unwillingness to produce it.
My whole point was that it's easy to be dismissive of an image as he was. It's rude and probably hurtful to the photographer. I showed how easy it was. Sure, I was a jerk about it. I intended to be just that. I was reversing the roles.
It would be nice of people to judge an image on merit rather than if they like what the image represents. I do a lot of wildlife photography also. i'd hate to be told my images of snakes have no merit by a person who has a phobia of snakes.
I will now apologise for being rude because as I said. It's hurtful.
The image above. Windy day in battery park. I like that very much. Unusual. I doubt that I'd have even considered that image in the way it was taken. Shows a good eye. I'd rather not rate out of 10 if that's allowed. i don't think that serves a valuable purpose when critiquing images.
Now. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to include an image or not and no doubt I'll receive some criticism based upon my previous posts rather than the image. Such is life
I already know what's wrong with this but in my defence it was long ( 400mm hand held, ) and quite open.Edited by ZootCadillac - 2/7/12 at 10:32am