Ya know, I was actually trying to make a statement. It seems to have passed almost entirely unnoticed, though Marnie came close. Now it may be clichéd, it may have missed the mark, it may have been completely misinterpreted, but I thought it was well exposed composed.
Tom C wrote: >> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> ----- Original Message ----->From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Subject: Re: PESO -- Sunset Over W__*Ma__ >> >> >> >> >>> Beautiful sunset, but not so hot foreground. In fact, it looks a bit >>> >> like >> >>> a >>> Wal-Mart ad, unfortunately. >>> >>> I have seen countless beautiful sunsets... right outside our Safeway >>> >> when >> >>> shopping for groceries. I no longer try to bother to take them. >>> >> Good decision. >> The majority of the pictures that get posted here fail simply because the >> scene, while it may have a couple of nice elements, is ruined by >> distracting >> elements or technical flaws. >> If the picture can be fixed, I'll use the one of the sunglasses that Igor >> posted the other day, then great. It isn't a really strong picture, but at >> least it holds together in a cohesive manner. OTOH, Bruce posted a shot the >> other day of a bit of a building. The shot had some nice elements in it, >> but >> failed because of poor technique, in that there wasn't enough depth of >> field >> to keep what needed to be in focus in focus. >> I realize it was a framing element, but because it wasn't sharp, the >> picture >> went from one that had the potential to be pleasing to a sub par image that >> was annoying. >> I realize that it may have been impossible to secure sufficient depth of >> field with the equipment he was using, even if he had bothered with a >> tripod, which means he was using the wrong equipment. A view camera would >> probably have been a better choice, but that is work, which no one seems >> willing to do anymore. >> >> Sometimes the best choice is to not push the button, and look elswhere for >> a >> picture. >> >> William Robb >> >> > > I agree with this and my comments that follow will be sure to ellicit the > ire and wrath of some. Oh well, what's new? > > My assumption is, probably because it's been my desire ever since starting > in photography, that most everyone here that shows photos is striving to > improve as a photographer. Is that a valid assumption? I hope at some > level it is. > > What I see here seldom bears that out. Not picking on anyone in particular. > A pretty sunset with a ho-hum unappealing foreground, is not a great shot. > Plenty of those have been displayed, often to much praise. A different > image, a landscape with an obvious skewed horizon and poor focus, meets with > similar applause. Another photo with a blown out background, and consequent > underexposed main subject, unlevel, and poorly composed is also praised. > > I often wonder if the criteria for showing an image is simply because it was > the best of an even more lackluster collection. I believe I'm leaving > plenty of room for subjectivity and personal taste, but I could always be > wrong. > > It seems that very few look at their photography with an analytical, > critical eye. And even fewer beholders appear to do so. > > Sure, let's share photos of our personal lives that don't meet the bar for > being a great image, we do that, I've done it. But let's not fool ourselves > into thinking that every image warrants praise just because we've taken it. > > The only way to improve one's skills is to realize failures for failures, > pleasing scenes with failures as failures, and really exciting shots with > failures as failures. Otherwise we doom ourselves to mediocrity. > > Tom C. > > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
