Re: Professional Results, What Are They?

["Ira Beckoff" <imbeck@adelphia.net>]

Does this topic coincide with some cycle of the planets.
Is there some astrological phenomenon that triggers this space time loop.

Haven't we been through this again and again and again and
.....................

Pleeeeze !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not again.

ira
imbeck@adelphia.net


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Greer <mgreer@cwixmail.com>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Professional Results, What Are They?


>
>
> Rafe B. wrote:
>
> > At 02:10 PM 6/10/99 -0700, Mike Greer wrote:
> >
> > >Getting paid is the only objective standard that exists.
> >
> > Jeez, Mike, I wouldn't have expected that comment
> > from you.  Another poster recently made the statement
> > a few days ago that:  "PROFIT IS KING!!"
>
> Don't get these 2 things confused Rafe.  They're totally different. When
> I write that getting paid is the only objective standard, it's only in
> regard to defining a yard stick for "professional results", or
> "professional quality". In oher words, if your work is worthy of
> somebody paying for it, then it is of "professional quality". Note, I
> made no comment about how discerning the paying customer might be.
> That's up to them.
>
> But that wasn't the point of my post. I just provided the definition to
> highlight that no universally acceptable definition exists. It's the
> definition I use to evaluate my work. I ask myself, "would anybody pay
> for this?".  If "yes", then in my mind I rate it as professional
> quality. If "no", I don't. When the "experts" pontificate about what is
> "necessary" to produce "professional quality", it's bunk because the
> term has no accepted definition. That was the point of the tirade.
>
> > Which provoked the same rather sick and queasy feeling
> > in my gut.
>
> Sorry about your feeling. I hope you understand the meaning behind why I
> use that definition for me. In all walks of life, whenever the term
> "professional" is use, it implies a paid service. In Webster's,
> "professional" is defined as participating for gain or livelihood in an
> activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amatuers. Clearly, the
> term is meant to seperate paid activities from unpaid activies.
>
> I hope the meaning of my post doesn't get misunderstood. It was
> anti-elitist. It was meant to convey that much of what many people
> (amatuers) do on this list for fun and enjoyment, is worthy of pay.
> Therefore, in my opinion, their work is of "professional quality". Even
> though they might not be using what many "pros" consider to be
> "necessary" tools. Even though the tools they may be using only cost a
> fraction of what "professional" tools cost, they can still produce
> "professional" level work. That was the point of the post.
>
>
> > Perhaps, in the realm of "professional" work, your
> > standard is appropriate.
>
> But Rafe, it is with the "professionals" that I've had this argument
> before when discussing "professional" tools. Most of them reject the
> definition, but they don't provide an alternative.
>
> > In that case, I'm happy to NOT consider myself in that category.
>
> I'm afraid you may have missed the point. I'm on the side of the guy who
> wants to produce high quality work for his enjoyment, but is not sure of
> what he needs to do so. He reads that he "needs" all of the most
> expensive tools in the various categories because the pros/experts
> write, "for professional results you need blah, blah, blah". Therefore,
> he becomes convinced that he "needs" to spend "x" thousands of dollars
> to produce results that he can be proud of. This is total nonsense. I've
> come across this time and time again. I've actually had to inform people
> that already own Corel Draw, that the little paint program that also
> comes in the box is actually a powerhouse that can do what they need.
> One guy thanked me for informing him of this because by reading the
> various forums he had become convinced that he needed to spend an extra
> $600 for Photoshop. When I instructed him on what to do in Photo Paint
> to get done what he needed, I told me he had no idea that Photo Paint
> was so capable. THAT makes me sick because I know what it's like to be
> ignorant about something and depend entirely on somebody else for
> insight.
>
> Before other people have a baby and claim that I'm bad mouthing
> Photoshop, I'm not. The point is not to convince somebody to buy/use
> this product other that product. The point is to objectively inform
> people of their options with all of the pluses and minuses for each
> option. Then THEY can make an informed decision on what's best for THEM.
>
> --
> Mike Greer
>
> Come visit my web site on digital photography and other
> interesting topics at http://www.greer.simplenet.com .
> I have been extremely lazy, so many of the topics are
> not finished yet. But they will be, some day.
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
> http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.