jjs wrote:

In article . net,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

A-t (the word that must not be spoken in rpx) is
reputedly in the eye of the beholder.

I find this work to be pretentious -- a heavy handed attempt
to 'make something' from an inner vacuum.

The cover picture is interesting in that its truly ugly subject and
gutwrenching terrible lighting contradicts the intention of the early
photography the print seems to represent. Early portratis strove to
glamorize or emblam the subject in its best terms with good lighting.
Perhaps the cover doesn't represent the rest of the collection. I'll know
when I get the issue, but after looking at the cover I'm not really
looking forward to it.

Oh well each to his/her own I suppose. I enjoyed the cover and the other
work by Gerlach. Ugly subject? We looking at the same issue? Terrible
lighting? Looks like a classic butterfly to me. I thought the lighting fit
the subject very well.

I did think the reproduction in some of the articles was very poor although
several articles were interesting. I especially liked the Sandy King piece
on carbon. Also enjoyed the ULF articles. However, the quality of
reproduction was especially poor in the article on digital negatives for
silverprinting. If the reproductions are even remotely representative of
the true appearence of the prints, I would never try the method. Looks
horrible in the copy I have.

But the thing in the otherwise good issue that really made me want to hurl
was the awful Epson ad of the Howard Schatz "spider." Gak! I'll take that
"ugly" cover any day.

All in all the best issue (for my tastes) that I've seen from VC in awhile.
A nice mix all around.

Joe

(Switch the vOwEl in my email address to reply.)