I've been looking through the first set of shots, and of the 109, there are fourteen that hold some promise. Not all of these are good as-is, but the germ is there. I need to back out and do more hard shooting, this time without the three-hour appointment break in the middle.
Outdoor exposure settings is a priority, if the sky agrees. If not, there's still a lot of interior work I can do. Honestly, the "preview window" isn't as good as it could be, but I can learn the differences between the preview and the final result, with enough practice. This is as much about learning as it is about output, after all.
Speaking of "output"...
I really take issue with these... I guess I'll have to call them "moos", because most of them are... that castigate anyone who may ask "Is my output good?" or "Is my output worth my asking price?" Their reply of "Your output is art because you made it" doesn't fly with me. I offer, in response, an example rather close to home, namely me. My output is a commodity
. My output is a commodity precisely because I offer it for sale
. Whatever intrinsic value it may have pales in comparison to the value it has to a potential buyer. Not only am I justified in wondering if my output is any good, I am required
to perform self-review. The point of the exercise is simply "If nobody wants my output, why in all Hell am I producing it?
What is it, then, that raises the moo-hackles? Given the almost fetishistic concern these people have with issues of self-uh-steem, could they be afraid
of critique? Do they fear critique of their own work because an unfavorable opinion would challenge their existences? Do they fear someone else seeking critique because, if their requests are valid, it is also valid to critique their own work, and there we are back at the self-esteem again?
I'm not sure how it works, but one thing of which I am certain is that I have a lot of work and a lot of learning ahead of me.Crossposted to dclarion.livejournal.com/