I have to come down on the side of overall improved quality. Magazine
editors who don't pay a lot and are used to uneven contributions tell
me that the work is noticeably better than it was five years ago. I see
it in the web galleries as well.
On Oct 27, 2005, at 9:03 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that, while
there are
many good images out there, they are good relative to most of the
crap we see,
and there are fewer very good photographs.
I tend to agree with Herb, even the overall quality of the images
posted to the
PDML has risen significantly since the widespread adoption of DSLRs.
Content is
often of comparable quality though obviously individuals attraction to
certain
subject matter varies. There are a lot of images that I've seen posted
here in
the last few years that I'd happily hang on my wall. Of the other
non-photo
centric lists that I subscribe to I've also seen a marked improvement
in the
general quality of images presented too.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
