I think that if one is going to discuss a photo, it should be that photo which is discussed, not some imaginary other possible, or maybe impossible, photo.
I think I understand where you're coming from there. I find myself in a lot of situations where the photo I took was (in my opinion) the best I could do. As much as I like a good photo opportunity, things like fences, lakes, cliffs etc tend to get in the way.
Another thing I find interesting is giving photos a title. I once saw a critic berate some contest entrants for not titling their photos. Is it really that necessary? My opinion is that if judged artistically, a photo ought to stand on its own. I agree that a suitable title can enhance a photo, but I think that's the exception rather than the norm. I'm still undecided about establishing the historical context of documentary photos. If you're going to judge them as pure art then I think that a wider context is irrelevant and therefore a title is unnecessary. I don't care if it was taken on the moon, it's just a picture of a guy in a funny suit :)
Perhaps I'm just a little cynical from having seen so many badly-titled photos in the same competitions. Or the recently acquired habit of the local paper to add a title to all their captions, as if their readers are too thick to judge context (or even content) for themselves, or have too little time to even read the caption (so why buy the paper in the first place?).
FWIW I did not join the local photographic society. I didn't like the formalised structure. It would have been nice to get the occasional critique, but I doubt many of my photos would impress the judges. I have a tendency to shoot boring old postcard nature scenery. I'm more destined to be a commercial sellout than an avant-garde artist, and I'm quite comfortable with that.
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
