Paul ...
You read way to much into what I said, and this is the second or third
time you've done that in the last week or so.
> I think characterizing the portraiture on
> PUG as "someone looking into the camera and
> smiling" is condescending and judgmental.
Although I wrote those words, I did not ~characterize~ PUG portraits
in a condescending and judgmental way. That's your own conclusion.
However, the fact is that many of the portraits on the PUG are just
that (including your recent contribution of Amy) - people looking into
the camera and smiling. Nowhere did I judge or condescend, say that
they were of poor quality or of little value. I just stated something
that seems to be obvious to me and compared what's seen on the PUG to
that which is found elsewhere. I think you know me well enough to
know that, if I want to characterize something in any way, I'll say it
in a straightforward manner.
> I also felt it was incorrect for you to
> state unequivocally that documentary style
> photos "tend to be a lot more dynamic and
> interesting."
How can my ~opinion~ be incorrect? Please tell me what my correct
opinion should be. I think your opinion is incorrect ;-) 8-P
Further, I did ~not~ say, in any way, shape, or form, that
"documentary style
photos 'tend to be a lot more dynamic and interesting.'" To save you
the trouble of having to go back and read what I wrote, I'll quote it
here: "There are almost no "flower" type pics on the list, and the
people photos tend to be a lot more interesting and dynamic ..."
You'll note that there is no reference to any style of photography,
including the documentary style you mentioned.
So, in conclusion, please quote me correctly when chastizing me, don't
read more into my words than or on the screen, and have a nice
weekend.
--
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 .
