Tue May 8 15:06:23 EDT 2007

Ahh yes, the freedom to be intolerant. ;-)

Tom C.

>From: pnstenquist at comcast.net
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>Subject: Re: Re:
>Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 18:57:54 +0000
>
>I generally don't comment on photos I don't like. That's why my responses 
>weight heavily on the plus side. And if you're paying attention, you'll 
>notice that when I do comment, I frequently offer a suggestion. If someone 
>really wants a thumbs up or thumbs down, I always reply  honestly. I gave 
>Tim's three birds a thumbs down the other day, and I was probably the only 
>list member who didn't like Ken's Cardinal. And I consider Ken a personal 
>friend. If I was tossing bouquets, he would surely get one. Yes, I am 
>entitled to my own tastes and opinions. But that doesn't stop you from 
>critiquing them. How rude. Go back to worrying about Pentax finances.
>
>No, wait. Don't.
>Paul
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
>From: "Tom C" <cakaltm at hotmail.com>
> > Paul,
> >
> > I'll speak my mind and hope you don't take offense, because none is
> > intended.  You and Frank seem to like almost every single photo that's
> > shown. Maybe you're just two terrifically positive individuals. :-)
> >
> > To some though, it may come across as undiscriminating.  When my son was 
>2
> > or 3 years old and brought me a crayon-scribbled mess on a sheet of 
>paper
> > and said "Look Daddy. Isn't this a pretty picture?", I said yes and 
>praised
> > it unconditionally, as I knew he was doing his best.  I'd likely not 
>praise
> > that same picture if he just produced it at age 10, and likely he 
>wouldn't
> > have the same emotions about a picture he drew when he was 3 either.
> >
> > If my 16 year old showed me some artwork and I praised all equally, and
> > especially if I praised what he clearly perceived was inferior as much 
>as
> > the work that excelled, my praise would quickly start to lose it's 
>value.
> >
> > Personally, when I comment on a photo here, I must really like it to 
>give it
> > praise.  If I see something that could make it better, I'll sometimes 
>offer
> > that.  More likely than not, if I don't like it or think it's just 
>average,
> > the lack of feedback will be my implicit comment.
> >
> > You of course, are entitled to your own tastes and opinions.
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> > >From: pnstenquist at comcast.net
> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
> > >Subject: Re: Re:
> > >Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:44:19 +0000
> > >
> > >At least two viewers. Frank and I both said we liked it. I find it 
>quite
> > >fascinating. The juxtaposition of the person and the dog adds interest. 
>The
> > >jacket that separates the two is sharply in focus, as the head and the 
>dog
> > >become slightly softer background and foreground elements. Social
> > >commentary is irrelevant. The pic is good because it's compelling and
> > >unique. BTW, I frequently cut off the tops of heads on purpose. If this
> > >shot wasn't packed tightly into the frame, it wouldn't be nearly as 
>good.
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > >From: Jack Davis <jdavisf8 at yahoo.com>
> > > > The was, in some unique way, especially meaningful to one viewer. 
>That
> > > > doesn't, necessarily, validate it to anyone else.
> > > > I think that's what every photographer and viewer has to realize.
> > > >
> > > > Jack
> > > >
> > > > --- Tom C <cakaltm at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What?  Is Godfrey in a 3rd grade photography?  :-) Sorry to appear
> > > > > rude.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is good about this picture?  I don't find anything appealing
> > > > > about it.
> > > > > I don't see that it took any more effort than haphazardly raising 
>the
> > > > > camera
> > > > > to one's eye and pressing the shutter release, maybe not even 
>looking
> > > > >
> > > > > through the viewfinder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not only  is the main subject not in clear focus, the secondary
> > > > > subject is
> > > > > not either, and both are cut off.  I'm not a believer that some 
>sort
> > > > > of
> > > > > unspoken social commentary, makes a photograph a good photograph.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is the kind of image that constitutes an incredible
> > > > > photograph, then
> > > > > by God, every person that ever picked up a camera and pressed the
> > > > > shutter
> > > > > release a half dozen times is a good photographer, and we should 
>all
> > > > > stop
> > > > > trying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom C.
> > > > >
> > > > >  >On 08/05/07, Paul Stenquist <pnstenquist at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>I missed this as well. Beautifully captured. Very moving.
> > > > > >>Paul
> > > > > >>On May 7, 2007, at 5:50 PM, frank theriault wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > On 5/5/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren at mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>   http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/22.htm
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I missed this first time 'round.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > In incredible photograph.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Just incredible...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > cheers,
> > > > > >> > frank
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > > > >> > PDML at pdml.net
> > > > > >> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > > > PDML at pdml.net
> > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> >_______________________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > > > ____
> > > > Never miss an email again!
> > > > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
> > > > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > > > PDML at pdml.net
> > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > >PDML at pdml.net
> > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML at pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML at pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net