Ten point summary

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Mike K. employs sarcasm to make his point:
> 
> >Then it's a complete waste of time to try and improve one's photography
> >or to even bother to take off the lens caps, because the result will
> >be as good as any other no matter what the image is?
> 
> >Hey!  This is easy!  

Hope the sarcasm was taken with the humor that it was written with!  :-)

I think things have been gotten a bit off the deep end.

Clearly (IMHO):

	1) 3D photography can be used for artistic purposes.

	2) 3D photography can be used for non-artistic purposes

	3) Many/most don't really care if their image is categorized in #1 or #2.

	4) Images are *not* all equal.  With only one possible exception,
           everyone who takes pictures think some of their own is better than
           others of their own -- and therefore some are indeed superior than
           others.  Each person will have an opinion about other's work as well.

	5) That which makes one superior to the other is in the eyes of the
           beholder (and only at the time of beholding).  Only to a blind 
           person, are they perhaps all equal.  If one person thinks 'A' is
           better than 'B', and another person thinks the opposite, both are right.

	6) Short of extreme examples, there isn't inherent worth or quality
           in any image.  There are individual judgements and there is perhaps
           a consensus -- which is the judgement referred to, if not otherwise
           stated.  Or at least an assumed consensus.

	7) In the case which I joked about, there is some truth in his position.
           An image that all but one person thinks is trash is actually good
           "art" (or whatever) for that one "other" person.  However, images which
           100% think is bad or trash -- is trash, and isn't "good" in any way.  :-)

	   If he had said that "all images submitted by people who think their
           image is a good one are indeed no worse than good", then I think I'd
           go along with it.  That person may change their mind later, but during
           the time where that person enjoys the image -- it is indeed good.  Even
           if all others think it not.  If that's what Dr. 'F' meant, then I agree.

	   Note that saying that something is "good" doesn't mean there isn't 
           anything better.  Or worse, for that matter.  Nor does it mean that
           other people have to think it good.  Just that it is good for the person
           or persons who think it so.
	
	8) Because of #6, "explainations" of an image can be important -- and lack
           thereof is a weakness in a "competition" that doesn't include at least
           some explaination, or even a title.  "Quality" is in the eyes of the 
           beholder, and the beholder is influenced by knowledge of the image being
           looked at.  Like knowing the rock picture isn't "any old rock", but one that
           proves Martian life.  Difference may may not make a silk scarf out of a
           sow's ear, but it may make it into a a polyester scarf.  Explainations 
           have greater effect for non-artistic images than for artistic ones.

	9) The "judging FAQ" being talked about is a form of "generic #8".  Sort of.

	10) Don't quote me on these, I'll change my mind next week.  Just like
            everybody changes their minds about the quality of one of their images
            or images that someone else took.  Quality is subjective and relative,
            and is only to a partial extent, absolute.  Whether it's "art" also
            is subjective and can be different for each person -- even for the same image.
           


Mike K.



------------------------------