Hooray)))))))))))) I'm glad you showed up, I was starting to worry you'd all left too.
Snapshot

The reflection is interesting, but in my opinion, tomorrow shouldn’t be in the frame.

The reflection is interesting, but in my opinion, tomorrow shouldn't be in the frame.

Bluejay, is this a personal prejudice of yours or is there some other justification?

Vlad (ytrewq), Personally, I think when photographing reflections, the author shouldn't be visible; it ruins the photo. That's the trick to photographing them. Here's a series of reflections. Only in one is the author visible, and only his hands, as it was intentionally removed. Sorry, I'm an expert at reflections, and it's one of my favorite genres. And don't be so sensitive to other people's opinions.
I invite you here: https://dex.photos/author.php?id_auth=21419&works=21419#id_auth_photo=21419&id_serie=7100&page=2

Bluejay, you're wrong. I didn't react nervously. I wanted to understand. It's not mockery or anything else. It's just a question. In a neutral tone. Got it?)

Now, let's move on. Looking at the photo. It's clear you're a master of reflections. You have some very beautiful works with reflections. That's true. But in this photo, in my opinion, the author is very much in the frame. The surrealism immediately becomes apparent. A real person in an unreal, illusory world. In my opinion, this sets this shot apart from a series of simple reflections and transports it to a different, more interesting plane.

Vlad (ytrewq), Sometimes, but not here. Give reasons.

Give me your reasons.

Bluejay, Are you kidding me?

Vlad (ytrewq), Excuse me, what? I asked you to explain your point of view regarding the author in the frame with the reflection. I was simply continuing the conversation. What did you think?

Vlad (ytrewq), Sorry about what? I asked you to explain your point of view regarding the author in the frame with the reflection. I was simply continuing the conversation. What did you think?

Bluejay, I wrote everything above.

Vlad (ytrewq), Not convinced. The bright blue spot with the author focuses attention on it, killing all the multifacetedness and complexity of the delicate colors and events in the reflection. Conversely, it will be seen as an illusion. In other words, it puts an end to the significance of the entire reflection, as if someone had disrupted the mosaic.

Vlad (ytrewq), You're not convinced.

Bluejay, When has anyone ever convinced you of anything? Don't make me laugh. I wasn't trying to convince you otherwise. I was simply expressing my perception. In contrast to yours.

Vlad (ytrewq), I added something there. It's probably better to express your opinion directly to the author about their work, rather than in contrast to someone else's opinion. Many people here on the site, quite politely, say and hint that it's unethical to interfere in other people's conversations, which I've been listening to for a while now, if you've noticed.

I like reflections of myself...
I always ask them (the reflections): "Will you ever remember what I was like? Or am I just a synthetic clone?"

The bright blue spot with the author focuses attention on it, killing all the multifacetedness and complexity of the delicate colors and events in the reflection. And, conversely, one will see it as an illusion. That is, it puts an end to the significance of the entire reflection.

[b]Bluejay, that's right, but the author killed the "multifacetedness of delicate colors" and so on, completely deliberately, because he doesn't like excessive pathos, since you can snap a dozen such "significant reflections" in a single walk. And a certain self-irony, in the author's opinion, removes the pseudo-significance and turns everything into a game, unburdened by unnecessary meanings and significance. This is just a fleeting "selfie," with no pretensions to "great art."

Beautiful!