Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, Shel - you could say that viewing a small 600 pixel square pic on a computer screen that was originally a print from a 10x8 neg is not paying tribute to the original, either.
I, too, made the same mistake as Marnie, and (at first) did not bother clicking on any of the thumbnails to investigate further - which is really strange for me as I almost always give the benefit of the doubt. However, I did, and soon saw the error i made. The pics are fine studies of the human being seemingly ad hoc, on a daily basis. I really liked them. maybe this is what the internet does to us, makes us a 'must have faster and faster' society? I am ashamed to say that I am slowly falling into that trap. Patience is indeed a virtue. best, >I understand that. However, criticizing a person's work without seeing it >is a bit odd and disingenuous. One needn't spend hours to click on one or >two thumbnails. > >I suppose it irks me because i wouldn't want my work judged on a thumbnail, >and I know you wouldn't. > >Shel Belinkoff > > >> [Original Message] >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Shel, we don't all have time to spend hours looking at photos. What I saw >of >> the thumbnails turned me off enough that I didn't want to click on any of >them >> to enlarge them. >> >> If the bigger photos are better composed, then his thumbnails should >reflect >> that. >> >> Marnie aka Doe IMHO. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
