C wrote: > I think most everyone produces mediocre images, even utter failures more > often than not, myself included. I think few people look objectively at > their own work though.
Like so many things, competence, incompetence, mediocrity, all boil down to statistical references. Competent/incompetent/mediocre compared to what? Judged by/measured against what reference? My photos now are enough better than my photos 10 years ago that the old ones can only aspire to the current level. Does that mean they're good? Hardly. > To your last point, I agree, but ask, who is striving for adequate? Adequate is also a statistical reference. Adequate in what way? Measured against what metrics? I'm pretty sure that your baseline, your metrics, are different than mine. Not criticizing, just stating fact, as I see it. I spend my life inside these sort of arguments, much to my dismay. I'm a software developer by trade, but the arguments are no less acrimonious for the supposedly "fact based" venue. The bottom line is, that even reportage is art, in this context. At least if you leave out the captions. :-) People get out of a photo what they get out of it. Different people get different things. It's a lot like faith. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
