On 1/17/2011 12:29 PM VOR-DME spake thus:
In article ,
says...
by golly, what wonderful spin to duck the issue rather than address
it. More and more red herrings.
You remind me of the Woody Allen joke of a man creating a libel suit against
the publisher of his own autobiography! I created this thread, which was
intended to be a lighthearted commentary on a situation in which I found
humor, and now I find myself being accused of "ducking the issue" and "red
herrings"! Good Lord! I am really at a complete loss as to what you are on
about - perhaps another reader could step in and set this straight?
Elucidate? I am not going to publish pages and pages of Photoshop tutorial
here, and I’ve explained why. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on what a
twenty-something photo student is looking at today, and I’ve gone into this in
some detail. If you want to discuss this, but you insist on excluding the
issue of after-capture software, then I’m afraid you are the one who is
ducking the issue.
Well, ahem, if I can just step in here for a second: I think you put it
pretty well when you said that you and Lawrence were having two
different conversations here. I think that's what they call "talking at
cross purposes", right?
Lawrence apparently wants to play by a certain set of rules here which
you are choosing to ignore. Fair enough on both sides, and ultimately no
harm, no foul. He wants you to tell him how you can make the images he
describes with a phone camera but with "no after images manipulation",
to quote from his most recent reply.
I guess I have to side with you he basically, who gives a ****? The
results can be easily gotten with post-capture processing, so the whole
question of whether this device (phone camera) can actually *capture*
such images, unassisted by subsequent software manipulation, is
exceedingly academic.
Especially to those 20-somethings you most risibly describe, which as I
saw it was the whole point of your point in the first place.
I was also going to say that my own tendency is to bristle at such
suggestions that you make, that they (the wet-behind-the-ears students)
can get the same result with their stupid phone cameras as someone
behind the ground glass of a view camera. But even if you believe, as I
do, that film is superior in many respects to crappy digital processes,
I have to agree with your analysis.
In fact, one can look at it this way: given that images produced on film
do have inherent limitations and artifacts as you described, that have
shaped our perception over the last century or so, both of the world
itself and of captured images of that world, isn't it a bit presumptuous
to expect present-day photography students to artificially force
themselves into the same constraints imposed by a view camera? And
furthermore, wouldn't that actually be a further insult to classical
photography, or at best a back-handed compliment, by making digital
image-making into a perverted simulacrum of ancient wet processes?
As much as I love antique photography, and as much as I despise much of
what passes for "art" nowadays, especially WRT digital photography, I
realize that this is the future, and it's as futile fighting it as it is
trying to stop earthquakes.
--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:
To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.