Cut the guy some slack - this is, after all, just part one of a three-part article. The prescriptive stuff comes later, as alluded to in the final part of this initial article.
Sure, it's nothing earth-shattering. But it's a reasonable set of definitions, laying the groundwork for later columns. On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:07:46PM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Agreed. I found George's rankings mildly interesting, but not > particularly valuable. They're more descriptive than prescriptive. > Paul > On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > > > On 26/01/07, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Interesting reading, well written, that most of us could benefit > >> from. > >> > >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml > > > > Personally I think George should stick to being a physician and give > > up on the self appointed post of sage photographer. > > > > -- > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > -- > > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
