Tom C wrote:
> A good 50% of the photos displayed here are nothing more than
> stinking street shots of homeless people or mere snapshots
> with very little if any consideration given to composition.
Sadly, not living in an area of great natural beauty like your good self,
it's very easy to tra
Malcolm,
I hope you would not feel reluctant to post shots here.
The pdml and PUG do have some very good photographers and pix,
but there has always been an open, welcoming group here. And
people are happy to offer comments on what is right or wrong with a photo.
Usually, comments are appropriat
All thoughts comments a while back, about only submitting images of
the utmost quality to the PUG are a crock IMHO. Post the best you can
do, and await any constructive criticism.
If I relied on the comments of friends and family, I would have
stopped trying to do better 10 years ago.
As a medioc
"those" not "thoughts"
Idiot Dave
On 12/17/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All thoughts comments a while back, about only submitting images of
> the utmost quality to the PUG are a crock IMHO.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdm
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:57:53 -, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> All thoughts comments a while back, about only submitting images of
> the utmost quality to the PUG are a crock IMHO. Post the best you can
> do, and await any constructive criticism.
>
> If I relied on the comments of
I'm with you Dave. The PUG has taught me how to be better. If you
look at some of my original PUG contributions you will see how much
worse I was. I'm just happy to have crawled up to mediocre! Average
here is a whole lot better than Very Good in a lot of places. (Even
the snapshots are a cut
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:31:41AM -0600, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> I'm with you Dave. The PUG has taught me how to be better. If you
> look at some of my original PUG contributions you will see how much
> worse I was. I'm just happy to have crawled up to mediocre! Average
> here is a whole lot bet
Yes, I've experienced the same thing. I keep feeling that some of the
prints I made five years ago belong in the trash.
Paul
On Dec 16, 2006, at 4:05 PM, John Francis wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 10:31:41AM -0600, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> I'm with you Dave. The PUG has taught me how to be bet
On 12/17/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:57:53 -, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > All thoughts comments a while back, about only submitting images of
> > the utmost quality to the PUG are a crock IMHO. Post the best you can
> > do, and await a
Bob Sullivan wrote:
> I hope you would not feel reluctant to post shots here.
> The pdml and PUG do have some very good photographers and
> pix, but there has always been an open, welcoming group here.
> And people are happy to offer comments on what is right or
> wrong with a photo.
>
> Usua
>From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sadly, not living in an area of great natural beauty like your good self,
>it's very easy to travel a very short distance and see such images which
>would easily become photos. What we have here is a photographic conflict of
>interest. You've also raised
Tom C wrote:
Hi Tom,
> I think all levels of photographers should contribute, as I
> said back then as well. I personally find the list to be
> largely self-congratulatory. In other words the vast
> majority of shots are praised whether they possess merit or
> not.
I'm glad I didn't say th
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Tom C wrote:
>
> I think all levels of photographers should contribute, as I said back then
> as well. I personally find the list to be largely self-congratulatory. In
> other words the vast majority of shots are praised whether they possess
> merit o
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:29:55 -, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I personally find the list to be largely self-congratulatory.
> In
> other words the vast majority of shots are praised whether they possess
> merit or not.
I disagree. Most photos don't get many comments, and often those
com
You needn't agree...
I don't asume anything, why do you?
Tom C.
>From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: Snapshots; was K10D review online
>Date: Mon, 18 D
John Francis wrote:
> To an extent that's because the comments are voluntary, and self-selecting.
> I don't post a "I think this photograph sucks!" message - I just pass it by.
> I suspect many others do the same thing. This means that the only comments
> you will see are those expressing positive
16 matches
Mail list logo
