Mike,

I agree (to now return to the original subject matter ) - the bench is a beaut, but I'm still attracted to becalmed.

As resident of the Land of Oz, where all is sand, sea and sun , I find the English Sea-side somewhat bemusing - and perhaps that was the point of the shots: some irony, and I believe someone has already twigged to that too.

So - Tally Ho then.

And that was my point George, focusing some effort on facilitating the contributions from everyone here, regardless of levels of skill or 'expertise'. I believe photographic exhibitions are evaluated using some sort of template too - that's why I thought it might be useful here also (no point reinventing the wheel).

If this is merely a means to an end, and avoids having people being or becoming so intimidated that they won't post here, then that has to be a good thing.

All this might be common sense for some of course, but perhaps not yet attained by others. Common sense is highly contextual, and is after all obtained through experience. Not everyone has had the opportunity to gather that in abundance, in what is a reasonably specialised field, just yet.

Apologies Andrew - no disrespect at all to your images or your good self.

Couldn't even smell where the mouse had been in this bottle...

And that's with all due respect to our very own DM, that is!

I'm interested in why that happened Nathan - was it the focal length, the IQ (which would be unlikely if it's a good copy), or something else? Are there other lenses that have been used less as well? Why was that for eg?

Just cracked a Penfolds 2007 Bin 138 Shiraz with dinner... mmm

Au contraire Dr O - what I suggested on Page 1 is done precisely so that involvement is encouraged, and so that more recent contributors are given some 'pointers' about what aspects of an image to consider (and no, these do not have to be technical at all). If you & I can't see it without a degree from a uni, then it's probably not as important as those things that are more in evidence.

Exactly why I prefer to dwell on the maternal part of the 'tree Tony...

No sorry - it's the Blue-billed Red Magpie - they posted the negative...

Andy - I believe the processing needs a touch up on the pooches - there seems to be a blue-ish tone present, and the saturation (esp the greens) is a bit 'out there'.

Andrew and all contributors,

I'd like to contribute to this, in a constructive way, by first saying I agree in principle with Mike's message about the use of 'critique' to help us all improve our skills.

None of this ought to be see as detracting from Andrew's images, neither from these nor from those in any of his many other valuable series. This just seems to be the most recent place where this issue has again become extant.

As a relatively new chum here, I suggest that the more experienced people here who are adept at articulating their judging, all collaborate to produce a C&C 'style template'.

I'm sensing that some structure would provide a means, a vehicle if you like, to facilitate the C&C. And maybe make Mike happy...

People wishing to comment on any images in this forum would then be welcome to:

- use that 'style template' on its own (ie, fill in the blanks),
- use the template as the basis for their own synthesis
- use the template in conjunction with their own C&C and commentary
- ignore the template and provide C&C in their own way.

As you can see above, no-one is compelled to use it of course, so it is not as if a template would become stifling or restrictive.

When completed, the proposed 'style template' could be made into a sticky post in this forum.

So - what say ye?