>As you say, digital images work best when they are lacking in detail and >graphical in nature.
Sort of style vs substance? Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Declined... > >> >> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2007/03/05 Mon PM 01:47:29 GMT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Declined... >> >> mike wilson wrote: >> >> >> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> >> >> >46! I have to get busy. >> >> >> >> I think I've submitted about 22 so far. I'm trying to be selective, >> >> though; I'm only going with images that I think are very strong >> >> graphically, so they stand out as thumbnails as well as being good >> >> photographs when seen in detail. >> >> >> >> We'll see how it works out. >> > >> >This approach is known in NGO circles as "funding led" and is >> considered a baaaad thing. 8-) >> >> I don't think I understand the reference. But if anything in my life >> were "funding led" I'd have no life at all. >> Now that I think about it... >> > > "Funding led" means 'rearranging' your principles to attract the highest > amount of funding. As you say, digital images work best when they are > lacking in detail and graphical in nature. If your previous images were > more inclined to hold a lot of detail and subtle nuance, changing the > output to more graphical appearance in order to sell more might be > construed as being funding led. > > The comment was meant mostly in jest but I think it is a valid concern as > to the direction of photography in general. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
