I didn't really read it before. You mean that he knows nothing about light, shadows, highlights, noise, dof, blur such that he would know what would constitute a 'good' photo. It reminds me of a phrase, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like". If I were to buy art, I'd be careful that I wasn't about to buy anything that I might later dislike.
Fother Frank is flabberghasted that John Craven was picking the finalists.
Sorry, I'm confused too - which one is flabberghasting (is that a word?)
An indication of the meaning of the word "flabbergasted"; http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/txt/s1497767.htm
- and there are many more to be found doing a Google search
Ok guys... The "judges" to select the 12/13 for the calendar, from the thousands of shots sent in, were John Craven [Countryfile presenter] Chris Packham [photographer] and Jo Brand [female comedienne]. It's now down to the public to "vote" for their favourite from those selected by the "judges" to win the over all prize + a runner up...
Of the thousands of shots sent in [yes... an extremely difficult task to select 12/13 from] one of them was the slug shot [the action being "eating" the foliage
] appealed to John so that was one of "his" selections
- and he said; "Do you think they'll forgive me for choosing it?" ! A SLUG
"eating" --- yet some one had photographed two weasels meeting/fighting in a lane... The THEME of the comp being IN ACTION and there were other ANIMAL action shots
For "me" it makes a mockery of the competition and is a slap in the face for those that put in the effort to find animal action
shots to take and did send in action
shots. In it's own way the slug shot IS a good composition etc., but to class it as an action shot