Hi Paul, Yes, but that's not a portfolio per se. It's a a paid shoot where the buyer basically has the 'right' to see all the material generated. It's not like presenting a portfolio on a cold call, where one had better show only their best.
Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: Looking at Pictures >Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 23:09:54 -0400 > >Working in the ad biz, I've seen the full results of shoots from top >pros. Believe me, they include plenty of clunkers. Very little >editing is done before the goods are delivered. Why? It's part and >parcel of getting your money's worth. When you pay 50 grand for a >two day shoot, you want to see the whole program. No one is perfect. >Every photographer produces some bad shots. >Paul >On May 9, 2007, at 7:26 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: > > >> Depends a lot on your purpose. > > True. I believe we were talking about pro photogs not camera club > > members. > > > >> A commercial photographer can over edit and lose sales because > >> someone may > >> have liked those photos. > > True, but I would then contend that he hasn't got a good enough > > feel for his > > potential clients needs. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Looking at Pictures > > > > > >> Depends a lot on your purpose. A commercial photographer can over > >> edit > >> and lose sales because someone may have liked those photos. A fine > >> art > >> photographer needs to be more selective. A camera club member > >> needs to > >> make sure his photos look like everyone else's in the club. This > >> list is > >> more like a camera club than not, but is a bit more open minded. > >> > >> -graywolf > >> > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >>>>> They've learned to largely relegate their emotions, prejudices, > >>>>> and > >>>>> personal attachments to the back >seat when deciding which > >>>>> images are > >>>>> worthy of display and may enjoy potential success. > >>>> I call that critical editing, IMO one of the best ways to > >>>> improve my > >>>> photography. > >>>> > >>>> Kenneth Waller > >>>> > >>> > >>> That's my feelings. One never becomes perfect at this but I find it > >>> coming > >>> full circle now. I can look throught the viewfinder and think, > >>> "No that's > >>> not it", or "Yes, maybe this it". > >>> > >>> To tell the truth, for almost any image I see displayed on this > >>> or any > >>> other > >>> list that is widely panned, it's the fact that it did not receive > >>> critical > >>> editting by the photographer, or if an attempt was made, it still > >>> slipped > >>> through. > >>> > >>> In short it's very often the ability to say, "I took this picture > >>> and it > >>> sucks", instead of "This picture is good because I took it". > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> Tom C. > > > > > > -- > > 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
