Neil, > May I ask that don't reply to the list with the title left on (e.g.) > <[PRODIG] Re: prodig-digest V1 #1886>
My error, I apologise for that. Getting the digest I usually do use the original title - this time my finger was too quick to hit the 'reply' button >> The current series is a direct transcript of Neil Barstow's web pages. > is that a criticism? No, It's not a criticism at all - just the opposite. I had been looking at your site and also at the 2nd issue of the series in 'Photographer' mag & noticed the similarity. I meant that although the BIPP had gone to 'the horses mouth' the article (No 2) had not covered the subject in detail, but more in overview, which is what those pages on your website do, most effectively. > That's not quite a fair comment whatever you mean by it James: Sorry you think that - unintentional > > The second piece, <7 steps> was adapted from material on my site at the > suggestion of your BIPP editor Steve Bavister, the first was especially > written for the BIPP magazine and it took quite a few hours very late > at night over a weekend as I was given only a few days notice that the > article was needed. To suggest I pulled it all straight off the site is > unfair IMO. If that was how it appears, then I apologise. I did not have the first article to hand for comparison, so may have got the wrong impression. > Yours is the ONLY feedback I've had so I suspect I'll not be writing > any more BIPP articles. You can take a horse to water - - Just what I would not like to happen. In my previous simile I compared profiling to batch testing of film, but it is so much more complex that for 'serious' photographic work it deserves serious editorial treatment, especially of the practical side. > Hey, perhaps you think my work is junk, that would be your perogative, of > course. Come on, I wouldn't be on this forum if I did! > Now, I have to admit that I can't know categorically what you read - > because no one at BIPP has been kind enough to send me any magazines! > Iv'e never seen the articles in print. That is unprofessional of the mag, to say the least. >I'm disappointed if you read my first BIPP article and still feel profiling >is only for the anal retentives. No. When I read the first article, I thought 'Just what I was looking for', but I've known some otherwise excellent photographers who never managed to get their heads around basic densitometry, goodness knows how they would cope with profiling. The fact that you have had no feedback surprises me. Or maybe it doesn't - it possibly says something about the BIPP itself, perhaps Neil, I sincerely value the rest of your posting, and no criticism of your work was intended. As far as the original thread was concerned, I was just trying to pass on my own experience of being a member of the BIPP to someone whose own technical expertise is way beyond my own. As I have little other than these non-technical matters I can usefully contribute to the forum I'll keep my head down in future. James King-Holmes Www.kingholmes.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
