Tom C wrote: > To your last point, I agree, but ask, who is striving for > adequate? Maybe some are. Adequate means the vacation shot > gets included in the family album. If that's what I'm > shooting for, fine, but I'm generally trying to achieve > something beyond that.
I have three categories of photography. 1. Photos I take when I'm dismantling something and need to know how it goes back together. As long as the series of pictures show what I need to know, adequate is just fine. 2. Selling on eBay. Over the last couple of years I've seen three images appear, where I have been surprised to see not only something like a picture I took for an item, but it sitting on my table and on my carpet! I got all three images removed but what annoys me most, is that if someone had asked if I would mind if they used my image, and said that it wasn't their picture (but mine) and what they had was very similar, I would have been happy for them to use it. To digress slightly, I said before in another thread on people taking pictures and claiming (or at least implying the work was their own) one of these people admitted he didn't have a camera and it was just as easy to take and use one from the web somewhere! For the last few months I have therefore purposely taken non-perfect pictures for this use; clear enough to see what is for sale but not good enough to steal for someone else to use. I presume if you intend to nick one for your own use, you take a good one, as I've not had the problem since. 3. Photographs for pleasure. Here I don't strive for adequate. I do occasionally do silly things like look at the back of an LX to see how a picture came out! I am slowly over time using digital more. There are however, times where I do strive for adequate. Malcolm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
