I agree generally. :-) But I don't generalize and say everything is relative. :-)
Tom C. >From: Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Cut or Keep? A Question About Editing >Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:57:20 -0400 > >C wrote: > > > I think most everyone produces mediocre images, even utter failures more > > often than not, myself included. I think few people look objectively at > > their own work though. > >Like so many things, competence, incompetence, mediocrity, all boil down >to statistical references. Competent/incompetent/mediocre compared to >what? Judged by/measured against what reference? My photos now are >enough better than my photos 10 years ago that the old ones can only >aspire to the current level. Does that mean they're good? Hardly. > > > To your last point, I agree, but ask, who is striving for adequate? > >Adequate is also a statistical reference. Adequate in what way? >Measured against what metrics? I'm pretty sure that your baseline, your >metrics, are different than mine. Not criticizing, just stating fact, >as I see it. > >I spend my life inside these sort of arguments, much to my dismay. I'm >a software developer by trade, but the arguments are no less acrimonious >for the supposedly "fact based" venue. > >The bottom line is, that even reportage is art, in this context. At >least if you leave out the captions. :-) People get out of a photo what >they get out of it. Different people get different things. It's a lot >like faith. :-) > >-- >Thanks, >DougF (KG4LMZ) > >-- >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. -- 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.
