Good points. You also don't show those photos where you've merely strived for and achieved adequate, those where you were merely trying to record an image, expecting critiques, or positive feedback.
I can appreciate adequate. When we were buying our house the real estate photos did not show mountains around the house at all. Nor did it show off any of the architectural styling of the house. It showed the house, looking straight at the garage, and behind it appeared to be a dry barren flat field. The picture was entirely misleading. :-) Tom C. >From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <[email protected]> >Subject: Striving for adequate; was Cut or Keep? A Question About Editing >Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:26:03 +0100 > >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. -- 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.
