Wetlook World Forum

1.  The photographer isn't aware of the differences in brightness between his subject and the back-lit background. The human eye is capable of compensating for all sorts of things which film, digital imagers, lens systems, and exposure controls cannot. You don't notice the difference in color temperature as you step indoors from natural daylight to incandescent light. You don't notice the enormouse difference in light level between the sky/water surface and the face of your backlit subject. You don't notice the depth of field between your subject and background, or even between different elements of your subject. All because your eye and your brain apply compensations without you even being aware of it. So, the untrained/inexperienced photographer thinks he's got some great stuff in his camera when its really got problems.

2.  Not enough "bracketing" raw material. Maybe an expert doesn't need it, but if you're not sure of the conditions, a little fudging could allow you to salvage a shoot (sounds like what Ray was talking about below). Perhaps some amateurs go out, shoot a half-dozen pics, thinks they'll all be good and posts everything regardless of how well (or how poorly) they turned out. At the very least, I'll bet most amateurs aren't aware of how much raw material a pro will often shoot to yield just a handful of "gems".

3.  Don't want to get the feet wet. Or... don't want pics of the car/house/parking lot/illegal dump in the background. I can understand the desire to shoot against a clear horizon (or something neutral like trees) if it avoids capturing an eyesore in behind the pretty girl. I can also understand the motive to protect the gear. Maybe wasn't the best choice of location if you don't have the experience and/or gear to cope with a lighting challenge.

4.  It's art. If it's shot for art's sake, you can't complain about it making poor wetlook.

That's my 2 cents, anyway...