I have to agree, I submitted a few shots and got reviews like: "I did curves
on it and liked it much better" or " I did an auto levels and thought it
took out some of the..." and others, I was under the impression that each
photographer is the artist, or at least seen his/her own vision as to how it
should be, if some one doesn't like the way it looks that's fine but as for
me don't "correct" my vision
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Talbot" <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Gallery of 30th July - Jim's Hawk
I prefer the corrected but blatantly satanic blue sky version.
Greg
I think I've made a mistake in messing about with other people's
images. It was supposed to be by way of illustration - "a picture is
worth a thousand..." and all that - but in a way it's treading on
someone else's toes.
Jim put his shot in the gallery because that's how HE liked it and
ATEOTD it's his shot.
Emily likes the hazy blacks-free look of her images.
Steve no doubt likes the blown out highlights on his peppers.
I'd thought about doing a review of the whole gallery but thinking
about it ... well I could say WOW to Pini's shot (I really liked
that). I could comment that I was drawn to something in Jeff's
without understanding what it was. But the lesson is also - if the
author has placed the shots there as they want them to be viewed what
business is it of anyone else to tell them how they should have been
done?
I was tempted (as Vlad's insistence) to clone in a fluffy little dog
onto Jeff's shot (to soften the harshness) but I think that would be
missing the point ...
Barnet
