Trixie

Well, I said I'd do only one of your critique requests before having a nap attack. I had a momentary lapse. I looked at this one. It got a 3/3. Are you seriously wondering why? Someone gave it a 3/3 because they thought it was just a slightly below average photo, which it is. I have photos just like it of my own dog. I loved my dog. But my love of my dog did not make my indifferent snapshots better.

You've got blown highlights without any real detail in the face. A dog's expression is all in the eyes, which are barely visible here. That's the only saving grace of a pet photo, other than a cute pose like lying on its back with its junk dangling for the camera.

And the whole lower left corner looks fogged or something. Looks like it was taken with a Holga with a serious light leak issue. Hey, I enjoy the low tech snapshot aesthetic approach. Really, I'm no highbrow where photography is concerned. But you can't submit photos like this for critiques and seriously expect everyone to like it. How many people are willing to risk being flamed and harassed by e-mail for bluntly explaining why they don't care for a photo that's technically mediocre, maybe worse than mediocre, and doesn't even show the dog's junk hanging out in some comical fashion? They won't do it. That's why it got a 3/3. I'd have given it worse, probably a 2/2, if that. Because even tho' I love flawed snapshots, it has to compensate for technical flaws with some real punch - a cute or disturbing pose, a naked zombie chick, something... anything. I don't see it here.

If you want to know what a 7/7 dog photo looks like, look here:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8662313

If my dog photos were half that good... well, they'd technically be 3.5/3.5 photos. Which mine are.

So now you know where 3/3's come from.