As any accomplished photographer can tell, my images are borderline at best. Some are pretty good and some show the raw edge of inexperience to hasty posting. Yet, despite all that, I can philosophize with the rest of you. What is an image? A visit to the local museum of art held several rooms of glass work by Dale Chahuly. Sure, most of the actual work was done by studio staff blowing, forming and coloring the glass. Still, the work of a master permeated the event in presentation and what was presented. There was a guiding force and a talented one behind it all. In a side room was another exhibit, wood sculptures. These crudely wrought and splatter painted assemblies were to me a place to laugh! Still, someone must have found worth in that stuff to have it in the museum. Perhaps the author of that work finally made enough noise to get some cheese with the whine. Where even interesting and whimsical did not fit the wood stuff in my opinion, the words total experience and moving well fit the Chahuly event. So, with a photo image: If it does not capture the natural scene then there is less or perhaps more. The image can leave the natural and enter a world of dreams where emotion, heart and soul may each be touched and joyed, perplexed, dismayed or even taught something of beauty and ugliness. These last qualities are much based on the individual who is viewing the image. So, some universal accepted rules determine a great photographer? Perhaps. A really great image is difficult to dismiss and seems to convey on its own that very greatness. I try not to analyze the reasons for or themes and sub-themes very deeply. Such analysis is often the fodder of the critic. The photographer may then have to wonder, who did shoot this image? I shoot what I like, what I dont like, what in essence is a capture I just might miss if not taken. Sometimes there is substance to it. Sometimes, it is simply a move into a nice dreamy world.