One of the issues is sometimes, it's okay to do things in a non-standard way for effect. The other issue is it seems to think the only thing that matters in ph

One of the issues is sometimes, it's okay to do things in a non-standard way for effect. The other issue is it seems to think the only thing that matters in photography is depth of field. For example, this kind of generic picture of my son during the fall got an 8.2: http://imgur.com/a/SOFE0 http://imgur.com/a/SOFE0 Where as this other picture I took, one I think is technically superior recently got a 7.1: http://imgur.com/a/VeEL9 http://imgur.com/a/VeEL9 And then there was this one I took in Rome, which got a comment of "not enough blur" which is the exact opposite of what I wanted. This is a fiat in rome, the background is the entire point. rated at 6.2 http://imgur.com/a/zLStt http://imgur.com/a/zLStt Compared to this pretty generic musuem pic... that's not really interesting in any way, but managed to get an 8.2 (probably because of the blur) http://imgur.com/a/Szc9I http://imgur.com/a/Szc9I