Originally posted by clackers I disagree.
I find it to be very accurate, Mee, *way* more indicative than rhe paragraphs a Gloomy Gearhead writes in a rant.
You might accept what a stranger on the Internet says, but the rest of us want to see evidence of their argument. It's very easy to do, and does not have to be a privacy-sensitive pic.
I don't want to see their gran in her delicates, either.
But we forum members who like to help other posters ask for examples of their problem, with intact EXIF.
The OPs are grateful to us when their issue"s solved - what a resource this forum is - but the sample photos are key..
What you are seeing is what you want to see though... again art is subjective.
Yet this conversation is rather vague.. perhaps I don't understand what you mean.
So allow me to present an example -- Someone can say "I wish Pentax had a 48mm f/1.03 lens, XXXXX other brand has it. This 50mm f/1.4 isn't cutting it." and you say "Show me your photos."
Now, how does that serve you? You then pick apart their portfolio based off of your subjective opinions on it... based off your own personal likes and dislikes. In the end, their view and your view are still opinions and not fact. Perhaps it solidifies it in your mind, but it is still a
subjective claim.
Even if you find their work wonderful, their view is still an opinion and your opinion of their opinion is still an opinion. There are no facts here because there is no agreement between good and bad art or an artist's perceived wants or needs.
We can say Dave Downunder's shots are largely more enjoyable than Joe Blows. But, even then, we don't have a true full agreement.
Because appreciation, or valuing, of art is subjective.
I think you might be too far in the forest to not see the forest for the trees.