 What's most important to me is that there's an emotional quality to the image. I think particularly in this area of subject matter, it's super important for it to be there so that you can't look at images clinically, that you have to experience them in some way. I actually do have a background in public health and epidemiology and I've been working with photography for the last 20 years as a curator. It's sort of a perfect fit for me. My interest in photography is reading about how photography can draw attention to important socio-economic and socio-political situations, of course health is central to all of that. You have a combination of very technical people in the photography field and then a combination of health folks as well. And it's really interesting to see what the differences in opinion are and I think in terms of trying to find a way to come together and answer that, it's been a process. I think each discussion is individual and fluid based on the merit of each individual picture. It's a very interesting discussion that we're all having and I don't think there's anything that there is not one real factor that puts a photograph through. It's a multi-factorial thing that depends on, you know, 100 factors whether or not it's going to be a good photograph or not. I want to look at the poetic magnitude of an image, but I also really, and this is maybe a debate within myself, I also want to look at the clarity of, you know, how much of a punch does this give? And I want to learn something, perhaps even higher ambition to change something about the way I perceive an issue or a subject. I won't have a sense of the kind of underlying psychological territories of what that author is trying to reveal.