- Apr, 24 2007 11:04pm
Who ever rated this image with ** stars,mast be totally wrong!****
- Apr, 24 2007 11:04pm
I don't really unrerstand,why we still have some not fare under-raters here?If some one rated such an image with ** stars,i really need explanation,why this image is so awful ,to rated with ** stars!
- Apr, 25 2007 01:04am
I believe this is just individual taste. From the logs I can tell you that the same person has also rated other pictures of misty with 4 stars. So there is no personal underrating here . I rate it ***
- Apr, 25 2007 05:04am
Boris/Amanda I rated this ** [2.4] which is almost half way between 0 and 5! I always consider the WHOLE range of rating posibilities and refuse to rate randomly, then only 5* like some old ladies do!
- Apr, 25 2007 05:04am
I find 90% of Amandas pics excellent enough for publishing in a magazine. This one was worthwhile uploading too. The quality is good but I just can't find anything interesting in the scene, nothing!
- Apr, 25 2007 09:04am
I'm happy with individual taste; I rate everyone's pictures based on what it evokes in me. I lke this picture because it shows sandy hills yet vegatation growing - not brilliant but to me nice.
- Apr, 25 2007 09:04am
Rudi,Andreas-thank you much for the reply.But taking into consideration the quality of this image,i'm personally still thinking,that rating this image with ** stars is a bit too low.
- Apr, 25 2007 10:04am
Oh,yes,Amanda-this is information for people like me-thinking of Tunisia as of only arid region,but here we have a slowly flowing clean river,a watering supply for plants and animals,who live near by.
- Apr, 25 2007 10:04am
I think it's more like a man made lake, as they have stopped the flow of water going down the valley.
|