Ken said, > Again, I'm not generalizing, I'm speaking about the three Pro's I familiar > with.
That's different. I may not have read your original message. I might have seen only the reply. Nature photography is indeed a style of its own, and most of it strives for absolute realism and control. Which can be a good thing. "Professional" photography, on the other hand, covers a wide spectrum. Paul > >To generalize about what a "professional" might do is like pissing into the > wind. > Paul > > I hope you didn't get wet. <VBG> > I'm speaking from the standpoint of Outdoor Photography. > > I personally know 3 Nationally prominent Pro Outdoor photographers. While > they > have been known to spend time perfecting an exceptional image after capture, > their credo is to get it right in the camera at the time of capture. > > >Some tinker endlessly with images. > Than I guess they're not very productive. > > >Some think blown out highlights are cool > Not the Outdoor people I'm thinking about. > > >Some think oversaturated colors are cool. > Agreed, that seems to work more in outdoor photography. > > >To generalize about what a "professional" might do is like pissing into the > wind > Again, I'm not generalizing, I'm speaking about the three Pro's I familiar > with. > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: May 20, 2005 2:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PESO: Invitation to Hike > > Professional photographers are every bit as diverse as any other group of > people. Some tinker endlessly with images. Some won't take the time for that. > Some think blown out highlights are cool. Some think oversaturated colors are > cool. To generalize about what a "professional" might do is like pissing into > the wind. > Paul > > > > >a "professional" photographer would not print/show it with the blown/white > sky > > > > One of the "rules" of critical editing. Keep/show only your best. > > > > >..those that are more professional would fix/do it differently. > > > > Actually for a working professional, they don't want/can't spend the time > > getting it right after capture. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: PESO: Invitation to Hike > > > > In a message dated 5/20/2005 5:56:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > This is a nice composition & subject with good exposure & focus and aptly > > fits your title. > > As posted it does a fine job of relaying the lay of the land so to speak. > > As > > something more than that, i think it fails. > > IMHO, I wouldn't have taken the shot as is, due to the blown out sky. Don't > > know if there was a way to get a 'similar' view with no/less sky, but I > > would > > have tried if I really wanted this shot for more than info. > > Perhaps another time of day or a different day with less direct light. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > Thanks for posting > > > > Kenneth Waller > > ============= > > You know, I look at it and think it's okay. But I also look at it and think > > a > > "professional" photographer would not print/show it with the blown/white > > sky. > > So I guess there are different levels of standards. It was overcast that > > day, > > so the sky was whitish anyway. It would have been better shot on less white > > sky day to begin with. > > > > I find the reactions interesting, actually. Though now versed in PS would > > correct it with masking stuff, those from a strong film/slide background > without > > being that PS proficient are not bothered so much, and those that are more > > professional would fix/do it differently. Or maybe those are my conclusions > from > > the reactions, but that seems to be it. > > > > I probably will tweak it when I am more up on PS. > > > > Thanks for your input. > > > > Marnie > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > PeoplePC Online > > A better way to Internet > > http://www.peoplepc.com > > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
