I guess you do. I see it as very artistic. It's almost a painting. In
fact I think art-wise it's the best I have seen of Dave's pictures (if I
were to dare act as judge and jury). I wish it was in my portfolio. Serene
maybe, but not boring.
How can you think a blurry poorly composed dog picture has an anything
artistic about? Just curious.
The dog picture makes me ask why the photographer kept the picture, why he
submitted it, and why it was chosen.
I don't think you can look at a picture and tell if it was taken by a camera
club member. And why would it matter?
Tom C. (rattle, rattle)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: No prizes for second place!
> Interesting comments here. Guess I look at things
> differently than most of the list. My ratings:
>
> Artistic/emotional appeal. 3,1,2
> Technical ability. 2,2,3
>
> In long, technically the first picture is a total wash out.
> Artistically your picture, Dave, is just another pretty
> camera club shot. It would look nice on a calendar, or on
> the wall of my shrinks office but it is boring. The bikes
> are an interesting combination of stark jagged shadows and
> ordinary every day street. The dog makes you ask what is
> happening here, but as I said it stinks technically and
> should have been disqualified because of that.
>
> This is why I seldom do critiques but there were so many
> comments here that it rattled my chain <grin>.
> --Tom
>
-
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 .
