Well, that certainly got your attention, didn't it - using a Dutch title! (Double Dutch to you, no doubt...)
Don't bother using Babelfish or something like that to find out what it means, that doesn't give the best translation - although it comes close, admitted, with its translation "uniform entity". But "sameness" or "boring uniformity" would be much better.
Why this title? It comes from Koen's ( belgikskenikske ) comment on my blog entry from yesterday, "Not EPZable" .
Yesterday I quoted some prominent EPZ members who said they don't post everything in the ePHOTOzine gallery because some shots just aren't EPZ material. One, for instance, doesn't show us his bird shots - only landscapes, portraits, etc.
Koen commented: "I tend to post whatever I like though... don't think too much in not-epz-material terms. I consider that 'their' problem rather than my photo's problem. Too bad though to read that people don't post what isn't epz material in their opinion. It only makes the site look (even) more like 'eenheidsworst'."
So - keeping in mind that with "eenheidsworst" he means that there's too much sameness, too much boring uniformity, we could ask ourselves if we are somehow contributing to this.
Why do some conclude that certain pictures aren't EPZ material? Are we only giving a particular kind of shot attention?
It's been suggested before that in order to get attention in the Gallery, you have to upload a particular type of moody landscape. Now, I don't see anything wrong with moody landscapes, I quite like them myself.
But question is: If that's what we prefer, is that what we give our attention to? Don't we look at, and comment on, other types of pictures? Or not enough?