----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob W"
Subject: RE: Don't need no stinkin' filters!
I don't know if you deliberately misread my post, or have decided to become
obtuse all of a sudden.
Herb's comment was "a photo that won't sell has not passed tests of
composition, exposure and originality".
I still don't see where this statement is wrong, excepting the occassional
bad photo that depicts something so important that it will sell no matter
what.
If a photo is badly composed, poorly exposed and not original, do you really
think it is going to sell?
Composition, at least, is an aesthetic criterion, not a commercial one.
Originality and exposure are not commercial criteria either. One is
technical, the other is historical.
At what point did I say otherwise?
Commercial quality really has nothing to do with any of the 3 factors that
Herb mentioned.
Commercial quality certainly does. An exposure that is so technically bad
that a recognizable print can't be made from it isn't going to sell, if the
composition is esthetically challenged beyond redemption, it isn't going to
sell.
Originality is the exception, as people tend to migrate to what the rest of
the herd is doing, and generally buy the same bland pap that their peer
group is buying.
Even at that, an original take on an overdone to death subject will likely
sell better than a picture that is the same as the thousands of others that
depict the same subject.
Pornography is the big exception, pretty much anything pornographic will
sell to someone.
The statement also clearly implies that the only way to test these
criteria
is to see if the photo sells, which is horseshit of the first order.
The statement clearly says that a photo that won't sell hasn't met certain
criteria.
Whether it may sell or not is another story, since not all salable photos
are put up for sale.
William Robb
------------------
--
Cheers,
Bob
>
> It must be a very bleak experience to inhabit a mind that
thinks sales are
> a
> measure of aesthetic quality.
I think it's more a measure of commercial quality.
Why is this criteria any less valid than any other?
