In a message dated 5/3/2007 8:18:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
Dave
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer for.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
-
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer for.
Blame the Aussies, they are the ones who foisted Men at Work and Dire
In a message dated 5/4/2007 7:56:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer for.
Blame the Aussies, they are the ones who foisted Men at Work and
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer for.
Blame the Aussies, they are the ones who foisted Men at Work and Dire
On 5/4/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer for.
Blame the Aussies
On 5/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/4/2007 7:56:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer for.
Blame
David Savage wrote:
On 5/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/4/2007 7:56:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 08:09:58AM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
True, but then the 80's came along and wrecked everything, music wise.
=
Sad, but true. MTV has a lot to answer
On 5/2/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this phenomenon is more with the younger set. Where I live,
most of the book stores have gone out of business - just Borders is
left and an odd store here and there. They all seem to sell more
music, videos and gifts than they do books,
other helpful folks.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Speaking of judging photos...
OK, please stop sending me your ratings, as I already have enough of them.
Thanks a lot to you all! Now I'm
Message -
From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Speaking of judging photos...
Dario,
I looked at your review data and the pictures. To me, almost all of the
pictures were well crafted. Just for fun, I added a column
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/01 Tue PM 08:04:39 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
mike wilson wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye
From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/01 Tue PM 07:23:24 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
mike wilson wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/01 Tue PM 07:30:29 GMT
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/01 Tue PM 09:37:34 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
Tom C wrote:
I think that's part of Mike's point possibly. The web now seems to be,
pretty much, the defacto presentation medium for many
That could be true Mark.
Many of the people i know around here have PS's and are always
hitting the local Wally World or Shoppers Drug Mart and printing out
all of their pictures as 4x6's except one would quess, the clunkers.
Volume rates are $0.19 per, with no developing fees, so i suppose they
Well if you watch TV instead of reading. As for no one reading, how do
all those book stores stay in business. However, I will agree that there
are a lot of so called technical books that kind of give you
ionformation that way, and without the sound bites.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Didn't this
It is interesting that everyone has a different idea of who
photographers are. To you, Dave, they are the mass of snapshooters. To
Mike they seem to be the average camera club Joes, and to Mark they are
the art elite. I would submit that the perceptual cultural level of each
of those groups
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:08:33 -0400
It is interesting that everyone has a different idea of who
photographers are. To you, Dave, they are the mass of snapshooters. To
Mike they seem to be the average camera club Joes, and to Mark
I think this phenomenon is more with the younger set. Where I live,
most of the book stores have gone out of business - just Borders is
left and an odd store here and there. They all seem to sell more
music, videos and gifts than they do books, though.
It is even in the technology. When we
I don't recall being asked anything like this. So I'll answer on-list
here...
Dario Bonazza wrote:
To make things as simple as possible, just fill the complete list of all 25
entries (below) with your score for each picture (1 = lowest, 10 = highest).
Please try and use all the figures 1 to
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 10:47:13 -0700
I think this phenomenon is more with the younger set. Where I live,
most of the book stores have gone
I think this phenomenon is more with the younger set. Where I live,
most of the book stores have gone out of business - just Borders is
left and an odd store here and there. They all seem to sell more
music, videos and gifts than they do books, though.
It is even in the technology. When we
Hell, when I was young we had to go visit someone who had somekind of
instrument Two sticks as I recall, we all had to go over to his tree.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I think this phenomenon is more with the younger set. Where I live,
most of the book stores have gone out of business - just
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Overall - it was a pretty interesting experience. I always imagined
judges looking at my photos like I look at them - pouring over them for
a long time, looking at the nuance and detail. I should of put 2 + 2
together - when you consider the numbers
mike wilson wrote:
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Overall - it was a pretty interesting experience. I always imagined
judges looking at my photos like I look at them - pouring over them for
a long time, looking at the nuance and detail. I should of put 2 + 2
together - when you
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average photographer
has become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe that this is
generally true. With film, only those who did their own darkroom work had
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average photographer has
become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe that this is
generally true. With film, only those who did their own darkroom work had
absolute control. Now nearly all advanced photographers can take
IOW, 'geek challenged'. ;)
Jack
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average
photographer
has become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average photographer
has become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe that this
is generally true. With film, only those who did their own darkroom work
had absolute control. Now nearly all advanced
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average
photographer has become more concerned with technical perfection. I
believe that this is generally true.
I certainly don't. A few geeks? Yes. Tha average photographer? Nah.
From what I've seen in judging
Mark Cassino wrote:
snip
After judging the GFM Nature Photography Weekend contest with Doug
Brewer for several years, I can definitely emphasize here. It's a
pretty intense experience.
Last year was the contest's first Digital year and to my surprise (and
I think to Doug's as well), the
...I've asked five or seven members of this bunch, known for their
involvement/interest in street photography, to help me choosing some BW
pictures out of 25 entries for a mini-exhibit at Pentax Day next May 20.
Sadly, one week later I've only got one useful reply (thank-you, Juan). Sure
I've
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average photographer
has become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe that this is
generally true. With film, only those who did their own darkroom work had
absolute control. Now nearly all advanced
On 1/5/07, Dario Bonazza, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sadly, one week later I've only got one useful reply (thank-you, Juan). Sure
I've done something wrong when asking that favour, as I don't think that
simply rating 25 pictures is too heavy a task for anyone contributing daily
to the list.
Oops, that should have gone to Dario off list. Apologies.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 5/1/07, Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average photographer
has become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe that this is
generally true. With film, only those who did their own darkroom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think he means that with the switch to digital, the average photographer
has become more concerned with technical perfection. I believe that this is
generally true. With film, only those who did their own darkroom work had
absolute control. Now nearly all
Doug Brewer wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Overall - it was a pretty interesting experience. I always imagined
judges looking at my photos like I look at them - pouring over them for
a long time, looking at the nuance and detail. I should of put 2 + 2
Didn't this already start to happen when Velvia came on the scene to
give us that over-the-top punchy color in slides? I'm sure our
viewing mediums have had some impact, but so has our social
environment. Today, information is thrown at us in a very fast,
concentrated way. All the media types
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye colour and graphic
composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical
evidence
mike wilson wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye colour and graphic
composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical
evidence for, but two people on this list in the last month have
Volume judging is a matter of quick elimination by seeking out even a
subtle negative impression. Sometimes the matting or framing cause
rejection. As the offerings are culled of quick rejects, the process
slows to an eventual series of compromises between perhaps a panel of
judges. I suspect that
mike wilson wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye colour and graphic
composition.
I don't think this is happening. One might get the impression that it
is so only because we see so many images on the web: On
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
I suspect that it often comes down to a matter of a convincing
presentation by a judge coming
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:04:39 -0400 (EDT)
mike wilson wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost
Tom C wrote:
I think that's part of Mike's point possibly. The web now seems to be,
pretty much, the defacto presentation medium for many photographers,
Nope. For most average joes, the print is *still* king, thought it
might seem surprising to us. And at the other end of the spectrum,
pros
mike wilson wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye colour and graphic
composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical
evidence for, but two people on this list in the last month have
HAR! I had the same thought.
Jack
--- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
I suspect
Message -
From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:15 PM
Subject: Speaking of judging photos...
...I've asked five or seven members of this bunch, known for their
involvement/interest in street photography, to help me choosing
@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: Speaking of judging photos...
OK, please stop sending me your ratings, as I already have enough of them.
Thanks a lot to you all! Now I'm going to put all of them on a xls file
and
then you can see how much different tastes
Mark Cassino wrote:
I tend to agree. I don't think it's so muyh digital photography as
web-based presentation (recognizing that the two are linked to some
extent.)
I blogged on this last year:
http://tinyurl.com/2e4c84
or
On 02/05/07, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the possible subtleties of chemical pictures are being
lost/abandoned in favour of smack'em in the eye colour and graphic
composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical
evidence for, but two people on this list
Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:15 PM
Subject: Speaking of judging photos...
...I've asked five or seven members of this bunch, known for their
involvement/interest in street photography, to help me choosing
some BW
pictures
Mark Roberts wrote:
After judging the GFM Nature Photography Weekend contest with Doug
Brewer for several years, I can definitely emphasize here. It's a
pretty intense experience.
Given the volumes of images - you gotta do what you gotta do...
Last year was the contest's first Digital
LOL ... I would be much more concerned if all the judges handed in
very similar rankings! ;-)
Godfrey
On May 1, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Here are the submitted ratings:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/Street.xls
Have you seen that quite many pictures rank among the best
OK, please stop sending me your ratings, as I already have enough of them.
Thanks a lot to you all! Now I'm going to put all of them on a xls file and
then you can see how much different tastes there are around. Very
interesting!
Thanks again to all folks helping me.
Dario
What you didn't
Exactly. I rarely look at anything at 100%. And I don't give a hoot
about images on the screen. The print is all that matters. The screen
is useless if it can't predict the print. I'm even leary of photo
contests that call for digital entries. I want to make my print.
Paul
On May 1, 2007, at
- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino
Subject: Re: Judging Photos
To cut to the chase of that article - does Moonrise, Henandez, MN, work
at web-size?
http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/pdf/monrise.pdf
Personally, I think it looses something
On 02/05/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The forground looks sharp, which isn't the case with the Adams original that
I saw in a gallery in Santa Fe..
Moonrise is one of Adams prints that does absolutely nothing for me,
not something I'd put on my wall regardless of the technical
Dario,
I looked at your review data and the pictures. To me, almost all of the
pictures were well crafted. Just for fun, I added a column with the
variance VAR(). Some of the pictures that I liked the best had high
variances.
In thinking about how I judge pictures, I think I put them in three
Had a new experience last Saturday. A consortium of camera / photo clubs
in SW Michigan had their regular photo contest at the local community
college, and I was invited to sit as one of the judges. I've entered a
fair number of contests, but this was the first time I ever judged one.
The
Interesting observations Mark.
I'm sure Mark Robertas and Doug Brewer will chime in , as they are
part of the judging at GFM, but i think they will agrre with you fo
rth emost part, at least from what i got from the late night
conversations i heard.
I often wonder what judges look for myself.
Interesting.
What was the background of the other judges - teachers, photogs ?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Judging Photos
Had a new experience last Saturday. A consortium of camera / photo clubs
in SW Michigan had their regular
Actually it is a pretty good way of sorting your own photos. A quick run
through to kick out the junk (if you go slow you tend to start thinking
about how you felt taking the picture, and will not toss it). Then a
couple more passes to select the best, preferably after letting some
time pass
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Interesting.
What was the background of the other judges - teachers, photogs ?
Kenneth Waller
They were both photographers - I don't know their backgrounds in detail.
I had the impression from speaking to one that she pretty much
specialized in portraits / people.
David J Brooks wrote:
I often wonder what judges look for myself. Photos 100's of people
like, seem to be dismissed, and photos i throw in at the l;ast minute,
seeem to do well.
The thing I came away with was that even a small technical glitch can
undermine a solid or image - I think I tend
graywolf wrote:
Actually it is a pretty good way of sorting your own photos. A quick run
through to kick out the junk (if you go slow you tend to start thinking
about how you felt taking the picture, and will not toss it). Then a
couple more passes to select the best, preferably after
Yeah, the process has to move pretty quickly. Otherwise you get
bogged down and hold up the rest of the show.
When we were still judging slides, it seemed like it took forever
just to get the slides on the boxes for the first pass. Some of them
didn't even get all the way on the box before
69 matches
Mail list logo
