Badger, if you see this, would you mind to tell me the reasons for your 5 rating? I'm not suggesting it isn't appropriate; I'm just wondering what you see (or know) that I don't see (or know). If this question is out of line, please excuse it.
Well, I gave it a five, which is "Good". To my mind that is what it is. Compositionally it is lacking as is the amount of detail visible. I would like to see lots of detail for a record-type shot or some interesting composition for a more artful and appealing pictorial shot. Normally I do not mark shots that do not catch my eye, but as this was at the top of the pile with its ten mark I just couldn't leave it there with so many better shots in the gallery, many unmarked.
Thank you for answering, Badger. I see where our points of view diverge. To me, this is a very detailed and utterly original photo. I had never seen anything like it before. Coupled with the design provided by nature, I thought it was wonderful. Since you mention its lack of detail, I am guessing that you have seen this type of photo before (maybe even done a number of them yourself) and know that the detail isn't there. That's the kind of thing I don't know, but I'm slowly learning. Thank you again.
And since you mentioned it, I've noticed that many beautiful photos go unremarked here. Often, my comment is the only one. I have assumed that it is just a matter of taste. But I will admit, I have wondered.
Snaphappy, thanks for letting us use your space to discuss this. I still think this is a great photo.
No portion of this page, text, images or code,
may be copied, reproduced, published or distributed in any medium without
the expressed written permission of the copyright holder.
