Well, you've said you have Photoshop Elements, and also that you
despise Adobe. This leads me to believe (and please correct me if I'm
wrong), that you actually don't know shoot from shinola about, say,
CS4 and its capabilities. Your self-imposed blinders aren't narrowing
your view, they are obscuring it. This suggests to me that you
actually don't know much about what you're talking about. You are, as
they say, interpolating. Free form interpolation. Personally, I think
you're doing a piss-poor job of it, but that's just me.
But that's not even my real point. The thing that irritates me about
more and more of your posts is the enthusiasm with which you describe
your film passions, and then the transference of that enthusiasm to
denigration and disparagement of those who don't see it your way.
Maybe not directly, or personally, but the implication is laid bare
for anyone who cares to see it. It is not necessary to curb your
enthusiasm. My intent here is to suggest that it's not necessary to
follow up any statement of the wonderful qualities of A with a
sledgehammer exhibition of your perceived shortcomings of B.
May I quote you?
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> But for the crazed digirules-filmdrools crowd, doing everything in
> post-production and pretending that it's "just as good as the real
> thing",
> there is no convincing them that they are sadly mistaken.
Are they? Really? "Sadly mistaken?" Who says? You? Who are you? And
what's "the real thing?" Does the digital darkroom emulates exactly
the effects of the wet darkroom? No. But then what you do in a wet
darkroom is far beyond what Matthew Brady did. Can't you just imagine
Brady on this list railing against you young punks and your modern
techniques? Eh?
Having spent last week studying, up close and personal, prints made by
Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and other Grand Masters, and some digital
B&W conversions made by people who knew what they were doing, I'm
advancing the notion that the differences are, to be precise, not so
much. Are there differences? Of course. Do they matter? I'm not sure
they do. (Not unless you're interested _only_ in process.)
More importantly, is one "better" than the other?
I don't think so. The point, after all, is the impact of the image.
How does it resonate in the viewer? What does it make the viewer feel
down deep inside when he or she looks at the print? How many people
know or care about the differences between a black and white print
made in a wet darkroom and one made by an accomplished digital
printer? You may know, and you may care, but few others do. Matthew
Brady's photos have a quality that those who came later never
achieved. But the tools available to Brady and those who came after
him were different. The limitations were different.
You are placing self-imposed limits upon yourself. That's fine. That's
your choice. I applaud and support your choice. I enjoy looking at
your images. But my choice isn't your choice, and I'm down to my last
nerve listening to your run it down.
--Bob Whitmire
"Art's just fart without the eff."
www.bwp33.com
On Dec 8, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>
>> And you, of course, are the Lord High Poohbah of the filmrules-
>> digidrools crowd. Did you ever stop to think you might be as full of
>> horsepucky as those you are so fond of denigrating? If you haven't,
>> you should.
>>
>
> Of course! Now, is that horsepucky, shoot or excrement? What kind
> of enema
> should I use?
>
> If I've gotten my facts wrong in that post, please let me know.
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|