about dpc, is that it requires integrity, honesty, in commenting. At least, it does so at the important stage of commenting, during the voting, when the identity of the photographer is hidden.
Outside of those few who style is so fixed that they are instantly recognisable, you're fundamentally in a wasteland as far as reference goes ... well, leaving aside some of the geographical possibilities. even that can be deceptive - our 'Yorkshire ' blue winner, is, of course, from London (and nothing wrong with that, either), and is neither PeeCee nor Bobster, as one might have thought.
Nevertheless, fundamentally, one is without guides. as you vote, as you comment, think of this: are you commenting on an experimental photo by one of the site's heroes (take a look at Setzler's travel guide shot), or a shot from a newbie? Is that perfect shot actually aken by someone you ordinarily find quite tiresome, either personally or photographically? Is that strange out-of focus mess the work of a twelve-year-old, or perhaps an eighty-year-old who's had her fill of ordinarily representative photography? Is that badly spelled title the work of an ignorant person, or that of a person who ordinarily writes in a different alphabet from most of us? Could you correct their Greek? or Russian?
Even those shots in a particular person's style ... genuine, or a talented imitation? You do not know, and therein lies the spur to honesty of reaction, of thought.
Just wanted to express a good reason to comment as much as possible. it's good for you.
Ed
Message edited by author 2004-09-13 18:41:12.
|
