Amusing

[pecunium]

So, I went to join a critique group at flickr. They tout themselves as being for the working, or dedicated, photographer, who, "wants to move to the next level" (which is really ugly wording, but sadly typical).

This is one of those groups which wants (nay, demands) that one give comments on specific other photos; when posting a photo, and leave that photo up for a week so anyone else who wants to may comment. This doesn't prevent anyone else from looking, or commenting, but it does give a focus.

I was rejected. Apparently my photos didn't meet the standards of the group. I will take them at their editorial word and assume that "we reviewed your photostream" and not a single guy.

I wonder what the criteria are? I have guesses (based on the rest of the pool). It's not really my ability. I have photos at least as technically competent as most of the photos.

It's that I am not shooting the sorts of things they like. Perhaps it's that my stream isn't nothing but that. They are afraid; because of just how I've combined the various things I shoot, that rahter than this:



Or this:



Which are both very much in keeping with the photos being offered up.

I'll offer up somthing like this:



Which isn't.

But, since they managed to be as dismissive as they were, not so much the rejection, but rather the, "you aren't good enough to even try to help/benefit from our critique," tone of the letter, I don't think I'll repetition for membership.

Comments

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I could hate you for that picture too. *g* I do try to keep it to raw, seething jealousy though.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

What's funny... that's one of the few pictures I have for which the complaint, "If I had your equipment I could take pictures like yours," has some merit.

Because, if you knew a butterfly was going to emerge (as I did), and managed to find her at the right time (which I was lucky enough to do), the right equiment probably makes up about 70 percent of that shot.

The other 30 percent, is something anyone who has a modicum of serious intent will manage to get; if they were willing to spend the money on the equipment. I could teach you all the technique you need to do that, in an afternoon workshop.

If I were to hate me for one of my pictures... this one would be in the running.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

I have a small Konica/Minolta digital with both optical and digital zoom. I've just started learning how to use the macro setting. Mostly I experiment and end up amazed and sometimes delighted with what I get.

Here's hoping I did the links right, because they look like gibberish in the preview window.

This (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1795311014_14ccf937d7.jpg) was one of the first tries I made. I was happy with it.

This one (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/2460275018_af77d43962.jpg) and this as well (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/2460270180_0b1931a85e.jpg) made me happy for beginner attempts. My camera seems to focus not in the center of the lens, but more on surrounding or background images. The focus isn't as sharp as I'd like at times, alas.

Back in the day I had a Minolta SLR with manual focus and interchangeable lens, which in reality was my ex-husband's camera. I loved shooting black and white. I was actually better at shooting people than flowers and 'things' back then.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Links are ok, but to standalone images. I just go to the image's page and use that link... so people can hit the rest of my stream if they like.

The pink leaf is quite nice.

[stillnotbored.livejournal.com]

Crap, grabbed the wrong links. That's what I get for doing this at midnight. Plus I'm not used to sharing pictures this way. I do get the links right when I torture my friends list with pictures.

And thank you. I'm doing what I can to improve in the time I have to spend on pictures.