> What I don't believe is that tired old saw about how a good picture will > always overcome it's technical flaws.
I agree with that statement as long as "always" is in there. While I definitely strive for technically well done images, a unique pose/action by an animal can definitely overcome some of those deficiencies. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Declined... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Roberts" > Subject: Re: Declined... > > >> Kenneth Waller wrote: >> >>>>As you say, digital images work best when they are lacking in detail >> and >>>>graphical in nature. >>> >>>Sort of style vs substance? >> >> By the way, I don't believe the statement that "digital images work best >> when they are lacking in detail and graphical in nature." That's a >> massive oversimplification at *best*. >> > > Sometimes massive oversimplifications hit the nail on the head. > I carp quite often that this picture or that is worthy of a Wisner. By > this, > I mean that the picture is deserving of the increase in technical quality > that more detail will provide. > > > William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
