When someone answers the fundamental question, "why do I take photographs," which might have a seemingly abstract but essentially very significant answer, like that of Garry Winogrand, who said, "I photograph to see what things look like photographed," which essentially means I sense that there is something beyond what I see in the world, hence the transformation achieved by photography remains for me a continuous revelation of things we do not see at first glance. If we start from there, then our next question will be resolved relatively easier. The next question is what photographs we consider good and by what criteria. The criteria are multiple. The first criterion, which no one can dismiss, is the photograph that has been taken, meaning our teachers are all the great photographers of the past, at least those we admire. You cannot advance in art if you do not admire someone, if you have not first realized what something great another photographer, another artist, has done, and based on that try to make your own proposition. The second is your character, your life, your childhood, your beliefs, all these constitute criteria with which you gradually judge your photographs. And, finally, by judging your photographs you create a body of work that previews the next, meaning your own work becomes a criterion for accepting or rejecting the next photographs. You set your own limits which you exceed and limits with which you not only need to compete but also be kin. Gradually, you carve a photographic path for yourself. Therefore, the criteria are not arbitrary, they are absolutely personal, and in this context, when you choose people who advise you, teachers or friends, you choose those with whom you think you can have a meaningful dialogue, not just anyone. Thus, the choice of your influences is a personal choice, hence fitting into the criteria you can apply to your photographs.