Joyce Cary's Gulley Jimson refers to an experience that "peeled" his eyes. Along these lines I would say that one type of good photographer is one who shows us something that's been there in front of us all along but, even so, has remained unseen. A prime recent example is Lee Friedlander in his wonderful recent book, "Stems."
Well Dave, I don't believe in ignore lists. Kind of difficult to offend me but it still wouldn't get someone put on an ignore list even if they did. I'll refrain from giving examples of those who might have offended me in my virginal week on APUG.
I agree 100%, I don't have anyone on my ignore list, but I know a few have me on theirs!!!!
I have always found it better to accept even those opinions you don't like, cause sometimes you go back later and see something that makes sense, I am just old, crusty and been pushing shutter buttons to long, and have watched or been involved in the "what makes a good photographer" debate so many times now, so I guess I am a little slited or hardened to the whole thing.
What constitutes a "good" practitioner of any discipline? As offered above, passion to be sure, but also integrity, skill, talent specific to one's medium, creativity and imagination. Nearly everyone recognizes incompetence, many recognize solid performance, a few recognize all the preceding plus a giftedness way beyond the ordinary. The issue that is more german is who gets to determine the competence of the work in question. When I ask for a critique by posting to that gallery, I am professing a willingness to consider whatever is offered. Unless I request a review by a specified critiquer which isn't an option on this (or any other site I know of), I have to consider all posts.
Why would this question constitute a "can of worms"?