The lists name is PDML not PCDML. So in my book Pentax photography (photography techniques and photo "philosophy") is on topic. General photography is also on topic as long as what is discussed can be related to Pentax photography.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I've only been here a year and a half. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of graywolf Sent: 11. januar 2007 16:24 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Introduction (Raw work flow) Let's put it more bluntly, this is a Pentax Camera list. The photography techniques are somewhat off-topic, and the photo-aesthetic stuff is completely off topic and actually belongs on some other list. The PDML has always been very tolerant of off-topic posts, but the suggestion that the on-topic stuff should be eliminated because someone is not interested in it is so far out it is rather humorous. -graywolf Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 11/01/07, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, let me then amend my post: I think he's more a technician than a >> photographer concerned with the aesthetics and creativity involved in >> photographing a subject. I believe Mr.Papanfuss has stated that as well, >> at least to some degree. >> >> Further - and this just may be me - I don't recall ever seeing any of his >> photographs posted here, although he does talk a lot of technical stuff. > > I guess given that it's a photographic list in which the participants > have essentially come together on the basis of a brand of equipment > then you have to expect a reasonable amount of purely technical > discussion. If it were a street shooters list I'd expect the technical > content to be less prevalent, though it may not be the case. And IMHO > the fact that someone elects not to share their images with the list > shouldn't deny them the label of photographer. There could be hundreds > of reasons why it's not appropriate or it could be down to simple a > lack of confidence. > >> IMO, one may record a scene and be considered a photographer by some - and >> maybe just holding a camera and pushing the button makes one a photographer >> - but I think there's more to it than that, that some creativity beyond >> just recording a scene and looking for an accurate color reproduction >> contributes to the making of a photographer. But then, I have often been >> called an elitist snob > > Consider St Ansel, his style of technical picture making quite easily > fits your criterion of what you may allude to as a not necessarily a > photographer, however as you know for some that would be a near > blasphemous suggestion :-) > >> Of course, Rob, you're very technically oriented, and might that not color >> your opinions just as my limited technical expertise may color mine? > > I generally strive to manage to produce images that may be interesting > to myself and potentially an audience and so I obviously have to > consider the artsy side of the equation whilst capturing the image. > However the areas of image making that I have control over I like to > exercise full control over. I can't understand why anyone who has made > a great effort to capture an image wouldn't wish to ensure that it was > treated optimally throughout the remainder of the image making process > should it be viable for them. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
