Grumpy or inane, it matters not to me. The observation wasn't meant as a criticism but rather as a accolade. Sheese!
Chris, it was't meant to be grumpy and I don't read it that way still.
Further, there's no suggestion that your line meant it as a 'criticism' which isn't the same thing as a critique. The problem. which I stated was
mine, lies in it's similarity to so may other such writings that make ridiculous assumptions about situations of which the writer can know nothing.
You obviously meant it as a compliment, and a straight compliment is always acceptable and welcomed, at least by any author other than a disturbed one; it's when stuff is read into an image and fanciful claims made for it that things go awry - but then this sort of section is always full of such nonsense, be it about things such as 'timing' - this instance - or as bad, if not worse, alternative ideas get bandied about as to where the shooter should have stood, the lens choice he should have made etc. et bloody cetera.
If there's an exception, I'd suggest it's when the writer is more familiar, either personally or through private writing or conversation, with the shooter. And even then I think it's a doubtful idea to second-guess a photograph's intent. For a start, there's no reason at all why a photograph
should have any intent: in my own case, pretty much all of my cellpix in
Prejudice happen from a moment of pretty much subliminal recognition of something that's hardly verbalised in my head at all, simply a reaction, though the alternative, where I find myself walking around with a caption in my mind does lead to finding a picture to record. Yes, simply
record from the visible possibilities around me at the time.
Photography is full of such imprecise, passing thoughts - why waste time offering answers or solutions to things that are neither question nor problem?
Rob C
