One can write (I have written): "I don't get it. What are you trying to do with this shot?" If the photographer is "pretty decent", it is likely I'm missing something instead of the photo being "merde du chien".
Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Wed, 6/30/10, William Robb <[email protected]> wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Rick Womer" > Subject: Re: Feed Us Your Photoblog--The Solution > > > Well said, Bill. I would welcome more > constructive commentary, as long as it is respectful. > That doesn't mean that a pile of dogshit is called a golden > egg, it just means that you don't call =the photographer= a > pile of dogshit. > > > > Not this gets to the heart of things (Christine, I'll email > you after we have this sorted out). > What happens if the photographer normally puts pretty > decent work up and for some reason puts a turd up for our > viewing pleasure? > Calling the turd a pile of excrement is all well and good, > and doing it respectfully can probably be done in French, > but is one allowed to question why the image was submitted? > Is one allowed to say: "Is this the best you can do?" > Is one allowed to pass on his disappointment in the > photographer? > > The Shel fiasco was more or less that. > It may have gotten jacked past that, but my recollection is > that it started out pretty much that way. > > William Robb > -- 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.
