Oh well, lets see now....lets give it the DaveSpruce treatment...
1. There are no kites in any of these shots
2. These angles and "action" shots are common as muck
3. if not for the captions they would really of very little interest to anyone except the photographer, the ppl in the shots, or photo zealots who will typically want to know all the technical meta-jumbo too.
4. Anyone who spends enough money can take crisp, well lit, multi-sequence shots like these. It demonstrates nothing particularly meritorious.
5. A good photo has little or nothing to do with technical quality. A good photo is art.
Before you all start, I am well aware that the photos were not posted to invite a condescending technical appraisal, but some people just dont see that. They just have to offer their unsolicited technical assessment. Which is just fine if your photos are the "same old, same old" technically excellent crap that these "experts" think so highly of.
But if you post your everyday el-cheapo camera happy snaps here for yer mates (etc) to see, then expect to get a whole heap of useless advice from cashed up yuppies who think their $10,000 camera collection makes them an expert on photography.
There was a shot published in the Age (I think) a week or two ago showing a father and his 2 kids, one of them naked on his shoulders, looking at what seemed to be a sunset with huge dark storm clouds coming though. On closer inspection it was the middle of the day and they were looking at the smoke from the Victorian fires. I initially though it was a painting someone had done to dramatically convey the incredible sense of loss. It took quite a while before I realised it was in fact a photograph. It was very real.
Like I said - A good photo is art. A good photo will move you out of your comfort zone. These are just happy snaps taken with an expensive camera.
)
