On 5/11/04 John Douglas wrote: >Maybe I was not clear, that was meant to be an answer to a previous >post. > >What I was trying to imply, is there are some clients today who do not >want to pay for a quality product/image, but are very willing to take >a "knockoff" at a lesser price. Why pay for quality when "good enough" >will do. Of course some would not recognize quality or even desire to, >whether in photography, furniture, clothes, etc.
Yes, sorry John, I did realize I was taking your 'good enough' comment out of context, and should have said so. I was using your post to just pass a little personal comment of mine about the 'good enough' concept. As an ex London still life photographer I routinely used to be at the studio at 9 in the evening, giving some undeserving swine 110% when 105% would have done. My point is that, actually, 100% is enough. I think working digitally has shown some of this wrong thinking for what it is; I've found that, with digital, if it's good enough, it's perfect. And, just in case I'm misunderstood, it's only good enough if it IS perfect :-) -- Best wishes Paul Bradforth http://www.paulbradforth.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
