On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 07:51:39PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > And you have made my point, Tom. The results of a print from an improperly > exposed negative and one that is properly exposed are different. true, the > results may be "acceptable" and in some cases the differences subtle, but > that acceptance often comes at a lower standard of quality. > > While i can accept that rational from a lot of people, I find it > disheartening coming from someone who's a member of a photography list, > who, imo, should be striving for excellence rather than making an excuse > for mediocrity.
Well, that's one opinion. Not everybody regard a photograph as unacceptable if it's short of perfection by any given metric anyone might choose to apply.
