Along with Pentax forums, I subscribe to another photo sharing site, which I won't name. Like PF there is a section for photo critique. So far so good.
I saw an image of a lizard there from a self proclaimed new user that carried the request.
Ma #First try in wildlife!! Suggest your ideas about the pic!! And also even the mistakes!!
In my opinion the photo was of too shallow depth of field. The creature's eye and tip of the nose was just slightly blurry. Not bad but not brilliant but not the sharpest part of the image. Its front leg and the grains of sand underneath were absolutely pin sharp. I did not care too much that the tail was cut off and badly out of focus. The eyes are important. Anyway being my usual helpful self, I pointed this out the newbie, suggesting that at macro distances smaller apertures and greater Dof could be useful.
Several days later a response come back and I quote. "yeehh!! suree!! thnx fr yur suggession!!
" Somehow I get the feeling that honest critique was not what was desired here.
Responses from two other critics included the phrases "Great DoF" and "Great blur". There seems to be an idea in here somewhere that shallow Dof is essential and that it matters not if the eyes of a lizard are oof as long as the grains of sand under its feet are sharp. It is almost as if the degree of blur is important and not the subject. I am slightly puzzled and slightly amused by all this. I won't be bothering to offer any further advice on this particular forum.
On Pentax Forums you get helpful and honest advice and that advice is always gratefully received and appreciated. Pentax Forums for ever.