Is this the most overused word when critiquing a picture?

elTwitcho wrote in post #2626266
I'm surprised someone would say this onsidering it's IMO a pretty valid critique.

If you're trying to do a bridal portrait and there is a naked man masturbating in the background, it's distracting. Distracting elements ruin photographs. It seems like a valid critique to me

Once the shot is taken and displayed, how would we know if the man was the distraction or the bride? or if it was one artist's comment on marriage and intimate relationships?

I guess context is the answer. Not sure how that photo would fly in grannie's keepsake album. . . depending on the granny, of course.

I hate it when someone "hijacks" a thread.

I took that shot and he is still paying me blackmail. Got a new 20D and lenses.

Maybe some folks are just easily distracted?

Radtech1 wrote in post #2626284
D'Oh -

I think it means that the POTN Spell Check Database was written by CDS !

Wow, CDS gets no respect around here does he? I've even picked on him and I don't even know the guy.

I like to cruise the Buy/Sell forums here and at FM and the term "minty" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. What's wrong with, "FS - 35L in mint condition"??

I'm sorry, but your minty fresh photograph does nothing for me. The image is spot on and tack sharp but most distracting, mainly because of the overly creamy bokeh. Not being one to nit pick, IMHO there is just no pop to your pic and I can't help but ask "Does this work?"

Radtech1 wrote in post #2626204
Oh, and don't even get me started on this:

"I saw this really kewl effect once where a whole picture was black and white, but the rose (car, eyes, lips, cat, baby, etc, etc, etc.) was in color. How do I do that?"

AAAARRRRRRGGHHHHHH!!!!​!!!!!

HERE! It JUST HAPPENED AGAIN!

7 Minutes ago, in RAW, Post processing and printing . This time is was roses.

Rad

Woolburr wrote in post #2628231
I'm sorry, but your minty fresh photograph does nothing for me. The image is spot on and tack sharp but most distracting, mainly because of the overly creamy bokeh. Not being one to nit pick, IMHO there is just no pop to your pic and I can't help but ask "Does this work?"

Life is way too short to worry about this stuff. But it is funny to see some of the responses.

At the same time, it's disheartening when you first look at a photo, think to yourself, "Wow" only to see it slammed in the comments that follow. Actually, the reverse also applies.

...I got to get me some sense of aesthetics.

I think people complaining about some insignificant part of the background spoiling what is quite obviously a snapshot is churlish. It seems that many people require all photos to be absolutely perfect. This is fine if the shot is staged, but if it's (say) some PJ shot of a riot or an explosion or something, it's really quite crass to complain about the litter that's half a frame away from the subject.

I've made several post addressing this very topic. I didn't think to make a thread of it.

I don't quite mind someone posting about problems with images that are obviously snapshots. I figure that if you take the time to post an image, why should I leave out fundamentals in my critiques just because its a snapshot? Some people don't care about the art of photography, they want to take somewhat decent photos of their kids to send to the local drug store for printing - I have a lot of these types in the family. I don't think that fits most of the beginners here, if you are here reading, learning and posting your photos you probably want to move from beginner/snapshooter to the serious amateur.

Exactly what Giles said If I force myself to be serious for a minute.... ok minute over.

milleker wrote in post #2630576
I don't quite mind someone posting about problems with images that are obviously snapshots. I figure that if you take the time to post an image, why should I leave out fundamentals in my critiques just because its a snapshot? Some people don't care about the art of photography, they want to take somewhat decent photos of their kids to send to the local drug store for printing - I have a lot of these types in the family. I don't think that fits most of the beginners here, if you are here reading, learning and posting your photos you probably want to move from beginner/snapshooter to the serious amateur.

A lot of critiques using the word "distracting" to describe an element of a great photo are just being [B]anal though. It happens way too often, IMHO [] because more often than not, whatever they're calling distracting isn't really distracting.