browe, it's not post processed; that's how it was. thanks for the comment. i hadn't considered that observation :-)

King, yeah that's what really caught my eye about it. thanks for the comment :-)

kadenjack, thanks for the comment. mucho appreciado! :-)

I gotta love the fact that currently this rates as follows:

* Relevance: 3.31
* Impact: 3.38
* Composition: 3.77
* Technique: 3.92
* Quality: 3.69
* Overall: 3.614

I'd love to be able to go into people's minds to understand why Composition, Technique, and Quality aren't any higher.

And a 3.31 for Relevance? That means it's basically a C+ in Relevance. Huh? The theme is "isolation, abandonment, things that have been left behind, people without ties, meditation, silence..." Isn't this image strong on "meditation" and "silence", not to speak of "alone" in general? I realize not all have rated it so low, but I still find it curious :-)

George...I'm laughing because the photo I took with my flat-bed scanner is rated higher! LOL. It's number 98, and it won't be featured, so please, folks, assign me some low ratings and read the comments--I won't mind.

I find your image to be similar to and superior to others that have been featured, so go figure. I agree with the remark you made on the WS Google group--I think it was you who said that you don't need much help with the definition of "Alone" and that you would interpret it your way.

I think that the definition is one of the things that is wrong with this theme. There does not appear to be a consensus as to what it means. Folks who attempt to illustrate a less popular interpretation are doomed to low ratings for relevance and few comments.

I don't think that's the case in this instance. I don't remember the ratings I gave you, but I'm sure there was nothing lower than a four in any cagtegory. Are you thinking that the ratings you posted above are Low? or just lower than expected? Are you wondering why this photo is not featured? or why it isn't more highly appreciated. All of your comments are favorable, IMHO.

It seems that folks assign high (or low) ratings across the board for photographs that they especially like (or dislike), and this is one of the reasons that I think the current rating system is broken.

Apparently I don't know anything about technique and quality...may have something to do with my monitor that gets in the way of proper evaluation. However, the composition is fine. It's a little eccentric and that may be it's downfall...it's not eccentric enough. If you cropped right through the middle of the refraction in the lenses, some folks would probably wet their pants while giving you straight 5's (sorry if I offended anyone).

King, I'm laughing out loud at your comment. Ha haaa! A good day was just made even better. Thanks :-)

To answer your questions: yes, I think the ratings I posted are low AND lower than expected which obviously explains why it's not featured.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta run over to 98 and continue to have a chuckle. I haven't seen it, yet, don't know if I'll rate it, but if I do it'll be in the spirit of having some fun :-)

(I'm still laughing...thanks...)

George and others,

To my embarrassment, my image #98 got featured with the 14 ratings it had received simultaneously as I wrote the above.

I think my contribution may have kicked it over the edge... :-)

George...Thanks, but no. I was keeping track. It wasn't featured with 14 ratings, then it was featured with 14 ratings and the same overall average. You know how it is.

I appreciate your positive regard toward my photo, but I would feel terrible if I drew your attention and was featured because of it...that's why I specifically asked for 3's or lower if folks wanted to peek at the conversation.

King, you're a terrible human being for drawing my attention and getting #98 featured in a fashion I have now only come to discover was nothing more than sneaky and underhanded.

You Fat Bastard, you.

I should add that I now realize this image of mine is nothing more than boring and insipid. Well actually, I wish it was boring and insipid. At least then it would rank at an extreme...but this average crap really just gets my goat. Okay, not really, just kinda, but I'm feeling playfully dramatic as I hear the narration and music of a program my wife is watching/listening to on PBS called "The Vatican City and the Papacy," and there's all this religious singing and Ave Maria-ing going on. Well...there it is.

Good night.

George, picture the words to Ave Maria floating above this fellow's head and you've got a masterpiece. Boring & insipid? Perhaps...to boring & insipid people.

Fat Bastard

King, You do realize you're flirting with being referred to from here on out as Fat Bastard?

I appreciate your sense of humor, and the fact that you don't take yourself too seriously.

Thanks again for the laughs.