Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
Put the image away. Come back to it in months or years. If it still has impact for you then, then it will probably have impact with others as well.
I have some shots that impressed me not in the least when I snapped them, but I later came to appreciate more. I have many more of the opposite (don't we all)
The major issue, I think, is that we experience more of the scene than actually gets recorded on film.
Very well said ... and well worth keeping in mind.

I call the revisiting and discovery "Seeing thorugh fresh eyes". After an amount of time passes, we lose - modify much of our preconditioning, and from a different point of view (at times, radically "different") the "aesthetic" (Note 1) seems - IS different, and with me, usually is "better".
Call it "Not being able to see, because we are too close".
Something like Scot's Whisky - none are "bad" - it's just that some are better than others.
That is one of the great disadvantages of "the other side" (not to be mentioned; "d*****l"), images cannot be revisited after they are sent to "bit heaven".

The widest lens cannot capture all those things. The photo can trigger vivid memories of all that for us... but not for others who weren't there.
Very true. A photograph is a condensation, a summary of the event. Hopefully, the necessary brevity contains the vital essence of the event.

Note 1. I don't mean to be pretentious - this is the only word I can think of that fits.