Hi, Bruce, you make a good point! I have a clear recollection of the image and my (and other) 'too dark' responses to it. I may be wrong, again, but it seems that when a "too dark" comment was made, you indicated you were happy with the exposure. I saw the image when voting and noted it was obviously lighter. There had been others who felt it would benefit from being able to make out more detail and I, of course, thought you had acquiesced to that idea.
Jack --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An interesting issue brings itself forward when the voting is so open > like this. There have been quite a few photos shown on this list > (including a few of mine) where some of the members can't see the > deeper shadows - essentially a hardware problem - could be > calibration > or just problem monitors. So when a photo is voted on, not only are > you at the mercy of the voters, but if their monitors don't/can't > show > the subtle details, your image could get panned. A fairly recent one > of mine shown here did just that. > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/ptreyes_0137a.htm > Based on the list response, I thought this one would make it. There > were some responders on the list here who could not see the > foreground > details and thought there was too much black in the foreground. > > What I am getting at, is that the odds of a subtle image making it > through now is even harder because of variance of equipment being > used > to view the photos for judging. > > Thoughts? > > > -- > Bruce > > > Friday, November 30, 2007, 4:57:57 PM, you wrote: > > DJB> On Nov 30, 2007 7:51 PM, P. J. Alling > DJB> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I know why they were rejected, too subtle. > > DJB> Meaning, crappy.:-) > > DJB> Dave > >> > >> David J Brooks wrote: > >> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5076840 > >> > > >> > The other. > >> > > >> > Dave > >> > > >> > On Nov 30, 2007 9:30 AM, Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> any chance we can see these photos? > >> >> > >> >> David J Brooks wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> After reading a few of the latest Pentax Gallery threads, i > decided to > >> >>> enter two of my best like photos, as decided by me and others > >> >>> comments. > >> >>> > >> >>> I checked the site today and they have been rejected. > >> >>> > >> >>> At least i have my original four still there. > >> >>> > >> >>> Dave > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> -- > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> The difference between individual intelligence and group > >> intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the > >> Harvard University football team. > >> > >> -- P. J. O'Roark > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > > DJB> -- > DJB> Equine Photography > DJB> www.caughtinmotion.com > DJB> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ > DJB> Ontario Canada > > > > > -- > 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. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -- 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.
