Re: [OM] Nathan's PAD 17/12/2013: selfie with fisheye

[John Hudson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Nathan's PAD 17/12/2013: selfie with fisheye


> On 12/19/2013 2:05 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>> How does / did the photo editor rationalize her assertion that "all 
>> fish-eye
>> photos look the same and are boring."?
>
> IF she is a good editor, she knows what sells, and bases her opinions on 
> that criterion. If not, why bother with an editor?

This sort of reminds me of the circumstances surrounding Robert Pirsig 
flogging his manuscript to scores and scores and scores of book publishers 
in the early 1970s only to be told by "good editors" that the script was a 
dud, was boring and wouldn't sell. His book has now sold millions, has never 
been out of print and is an American cultural classic.  So much for 
editors:-)

jh


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/