Hi Tom ... yes, I was talking about print quality, not the subject or
composition of his photos. And yes, you're probably correct in
assuming that Mike knows a bit about what makes a quality print,
however, we all have different standards and preferences. I've spent
some time with a photographer who has had numerous covers, and the
technical work (print quality, sometimes lighting, sometimes exposure)
was terrible. Yet his pictures captured the spirit of the people he
photographed quite well, and some, from that POV, were exceptional.
And to put my comments in perspective (because we all know how
critical I can be) the photographer even said a lot of his work was
pretty poor from a technical standpoint. So, we'll wait and see.
tom wrote:
> Well, this is probably true. I guess I'm making an assumption. However,
> it's based on the fact that he's run a b+w lab, edited a darkroom
> magazine, looked at thousands of prints that were all assumed by their
> submitters to be their best work, and has publicly stated he's a very
> good printer.
>
> I guess he could have faked his way this far, but I'll give him the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
> Btw, we're talking about print quality, not whether he takes good or
> interesting photos.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
