[Tom C]

>From: John Francis <johnf at panix.com>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>Subject: Re: Re:
>Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:39:43 -0400
>
>On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:19:19PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
> > Granted, everyone has their own taste and I can't, nor do I want to, 
>change
> > that.  However, I and several others tend to find the list is often too
> > self-congratulatory.
> >
> > Almost every single photo shown here meets with praise.  That tends to
> > diminish the value of truly well-deserved praise, and to some degree it 
>does
> > the photographer a disservice.
>
>I think it's more a case that people don't post if they don't like
>the photograph.  I've often noticed that several of the photographs
>that meet with approval from some of the people here are shots that
>I would consign to my reject pile.  Does this necessarily mean they
>are bad shots?  No  - it just means that the criteria being applied
>are not those which I use to evaluate my own work.
>
>It's a rare photograph that would please everybody on this list.
>
>

>I think it's more a case that people don't post if they don't like
>the photograph.

I took that into account when I made the comment. Yes, it's a rare photo 
that would please everyone.

>From what I can see there is too often very little criteria applied.  What 
I'm attempting to state, likely to my own detriment, :-) well an example...

If my wife asks me "Do these pants make my butt look big?" , and I say "No 
Honey", when they do indeed make her butt look big and she knows it, she'll 
likely view future compliments I give her with an askance eye.  I get viewed 
with an askance eye frequently. :-) I'm not totally stupid.

The same goes with photographic critiques/comments.  If the threshold for 
receiving adulation is sufficiently low, praise when given becomes somewhat 
meaningless, even when taking into account personal taste.

Tom C.