----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kopp" <mkopp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 15 January, 2003 02:49 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] were you just baiting us?
> At 11:40 -0700 15/1/03, James N. McBride wrote:
>
> >Michael Kopp said:
>
> >> > If a great photographer talks about light they're not a great
> >> > photographer.
>
> James McBride said:
>
> >Absolute statements like this are usually wrong. Galen Rowell talked
about
> >light and his work is considered to be "great" by most people. /jim
>
>
> Kopp replies:
>
> My absolute statement was a response to another absolute statement, that
> great photographers talk about light.
>
> Obviously you didn't get it.
>
> Galen Rowell was a fine photographer. He may even have been considered
> "great" by "most people" -- but if so, "most people" don't understand the
> meaning of the word "great", or they are using it -- as most people use
> language today (there's another almost-absolute statement) -- in a
degraded
> way.
>
> Greatness in photography means something transcendent about the images.
>
> For all their beauty and depth of feeling about nature, Galen Rowell's
> pictures are not considered "great" by people who judge photography
> according to principles of artistic merit -- most of which have nothing to
> do with light.
>
> This is not to downplay the importance of light to good pictures or great
> images.
>
> But light, like all the other variables with which the photographer works,
> is totally secondary to content, meaning and expression.
Michael .......... I think you should step back and reconsider what you just
said; "..........light is totally secondary to content ......"
Without light, you do not have a photograph. Ergo, light is the absolutely
first variable! No light, no photograph regardless of whatever maybe lurking
in the darkness.
jh
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|