William Robb wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "keith_w"
> Subject: Re: PESO - Simple Macro
>
>
>> Jens Bladt wrote:
>>> Brilliant, Bruce. I like the back or side light. The cob web is a
>>> nice touch.
>>> Regards
>>> Jens Bladt
>> Not sure you're even *allowed* to like that shot on this list, Jens...
>> That nicely gathered image has garnered more criticism than a lot of
>> others, for some odd reason.
>> Many folks here simply hate slice-of-life images that reflect what the
>> photographer saw, and clamor for him (or her) to correct what THEY
>> feel
>> are distracting and obviously distressing "faults" in the image...
>>
>> I think a "Comments Welcome" phrase stirs up the pot, and brings the
>> dregs to the top...
For those who took this in a negative manner, here's a smiley ;-)
> Perhaps it's because there are some talented photographers on list who
> like the picture but think the image could be improved on.
With rare exception, I'm certain that almost all submissions could be
improved upon, in one way or another.
There are a fair number of exceptions here online, talented people
indeed and that percentage is probably rare for any photography list,
but there you are!
We have them and we're proud of them...
> Your attitude seems to be that all images as presented are sacrosanct,
> and no suggestions are welcome.
No, no, no. If suggestions are asked for, haul away, matey! I do not
have a problem with that, in any way. None.
> Sorry Keith, but that is crap.
>
> William Robb
Yes, it would be, had I intended for my comments to be interpreted as
"...all images as presented are sacrosanct."
Not at all, sir, not at ALL what I meant!
For all who feel I stepped out of bounds, let me attempt to explain,
based on my observations of image critiques made...
A number of people here, when asked to critique an image, seem to feel
they were asked to make that image over, to be suitable for an Outside
front Cover display on an issue of National Geographic.
Absolutely NO glitches or artifacts, dust particles or other 'imperfect'
entities can be allowed to exist.
It matters little if the photographer SAW that in his viewfinder, and
actually WANTED to include it in the final image!
If it's one arc-second off dead horizontal or...well, you get the point.
If it exists and pees someone off, it ought to be PS'd out of there!
If it isn't perfect, it's simply not quite right.
Are you, any of you, trying to tell me that level of nit-picking doesn't
go on here during any of the "Comments" critiques?
If you really believe that, you're not critiquing the critiques given as
much as you are the images displayed...
Just my thoughts on the matter. No umbrage taken here, and I hope this
helps to smooth things out.
Bottom line? I think *some* of those critical of images submitted let
their critical comments run away with them, and are occasionally going
just a wee bit overboard with it...
Other than that? {a Big Smiley!]
keith
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
