Buy film, not equipment.

Tom Phillips wrote:



Course we don't know how many self styled "photographers"
around here actually have good photographs. Including the above
poster.

Do you mean Peter or myself ?


peter. Just saying there's a lot of people posting minus
good work. Scarpitti, for example. One just doesn't always
know.

Tom sure is friendly. Thanks for saying that I don't produce good work.
You've seen it, then? I haven't seen yours, so I won't comment on it.
Thanks also for linking me with Scarpitti, even if it's only
rhetorically. Remember, always attack and personally denigrate someone
who disagrees with you on something. That's what a decent person should do.

-Peter De Smidt

Tom Phillips wrote:



Course we don't know how many self styled "photographers"
around here actually have good photographs. Including the above
poster.

Do you mean Peter or myself ?


peter. Just saying there's a lot of people posting minus
good work. Scarpitti, for example. One just doesn't always
know.

Tom sure is friendly. Thanks for saying that I don't produce good work.
You've seen it, then? I haven't seen yours, so I won't comment on it.
Thanks also for linking me with Scarpitti, even if it's only
rhetorically. Remember, always attack and personally denigrate someone
who disagrees with you on something. That's what a decent person should do.

-Peter De Smidt

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


How you do it is
irrelevant. Whatever technical distinction you make, it won't support a
denigration of the aesthetic value of an image. "Wow, look at that
image! It's amazing!" "But Sir, it was made with an inkjet printer!."
"Oh, then I guess it sucks. I can't imagine why one second ago I found
it to be so moving." Yeah, right.

-Peter, who mainly does large format bw photography with traditional
means, but who has nothing against people who make images with other
techniques.


Like I said and what you mindlessly ignore, there is a difference
and if you don't think so just try to sell your inkjets without
telling people they're inkjets and not silver prints. You'll be
laughed out of the gallery...

Thanks for the ad hominem. I ignored the technical differences because

It's not just a "technical difference. The idea of "it's a picture
that hangs on the wall" as the defining value and/or concept of
what's photography is ludicrous. No one who deals in photographic
works thinks this. Only superficial calendar buyers.

One has to _think_ about these things and get educated before
making such superficial generalizations and comparisons. It's
the process that is defining.

the distinction does not support a normative judgement of whether an
image is aesthetically valuable or not.

Yes, It does. "Aesthetically valuable"? To who? To your grandmother's
scrapbook? Anything can be "aesthetically valuable" to anyone. It's
real world value is something else entirely. No inkjet has the value
of a real photograph. No digital image file has the tangible value
of an image on film.

That's the important issue,
which you ... ignore. The fact that the different technical
requirements lead to different market prices in no way changes the main
point.

Of _course_ it does. They are based on the differences in the
_process_ and the process defines the image...

In any case I know of a number of fine galleries that specialize
in photography which sell inkjet prints. The practice will increase.

And they are called...?

I'm now going to spend the day in darkroom. You can continue your
unfriendly and useless discussion by yourself.

Maybe it's getting unfriendly cause I'm waery of endlessly debating
with people who insist there's no difference between various
processes producing "images."

"It's a picture, so there." Have it your way...

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


How you do it is
irrelevant. Whatever technical distinction you make, it won't support a
denigration of the aesthetic value of an image. "Wow, look at that
image! It's amazing!" "But Sir, it was made with an inkjet printer!."
"Oh, then I guess it sucks. I can't imagine why one second ago I found
it to be so moving." Yeah, right.

-Peter, who mainly does large format bw photography with traditional
means, but who has nothing against people who make images with other
techniques.


Like I said and what you mindlessly ignore, there is a difference
and if you don't think so just try to sell your inkjets without
telling people they're inkjets and not silver prints. You'll be
laughed out of the gallery...

Thanks for the ad hominem. I ignored the technical differences because

It's not just a "technical difference. The idea of "it's a picture
that hangs on the wall" as the defining value and/or concept of
what's photography is ludicrous. No one who deals in photographic
works thinks this. Only superficial calendar buyers.

One has to _think_ about these things and get educated before
making such superficial generalizations and comparisons. It's
the process that is defining.

the distinction does not support a normative judgement of whether an
image is aesthetically valuable or not.

Yes, It does. "Aesthetically valuable"? To who? To your grandmother's
scrapbook? Anything can be "aesthetically valuable" to anyone. It's
real world value is something else entirely. No inkjet has the value
of a real photograph. No digital image file has the tangible value
of an image on film.

That's the important issue,
which you ... ignore. The fact that the different technical
requirements lead to different market prices in no way changes the main
point.

Of _course_ it does. They are based on the differences in the
_process_ and the process defines the image...

In any case I know of a number of fine galleries that specialize
in photography which sell inkjet prints. The practice will increase.

And they are called...?

I'm now going to spend the day in darkroom. You can continue your
unfriendly and useless discussion by yourself.

Maybe it's getting unfriendly cause I'm waery of endlessly debating
with people who insist there's no difference between various
processes producing "images."

"It's a picture, so there." Have it your way...

Peter De Smidt wrote:

John wrote:


Actually I've never found an inkjet print to be really "great"
but then I've found a lot of photos to also be mediocre technically.

And have you looked at some of the work from the best printers? I've
seen some of George De Wolfe's prints a few years back. They were made
with an old epson 3000 and piezography inks. They were terrific. I
expect that the stuff he produces with newer equipment is even better.

An inkjet is an inkjet is an inkjet.

Search this nsg for inkjet and you'll find discussion ad nauseum
on why this is so.

Peter De Smidt wrote:

John wrote:


Actually I've never found an inkjet print to be really "great"
but then I've found a lot of photos to also be mediocre technically.

And have you looked at some of the work from the best printers? I've
seen some of George De Wolfe's prints a few years back. They were made
with an old epson 3000 and piezography inks. They were terrific. I
expect that the stuff he produces with newer equipment is even better.

An inkjet is an inkjet is an inkjet.

Search this nsg for inkjet and you'll find discussion ad nauseum
on why this is so.

Tom Phillips wrote:

Maybe it's getting unfriendly cause I'm waery of endlessly debating
with people who insist there's no difference between various
processes producing "images."

I never said there was no difference. Maybe you, to quote you, should
become more educated. Perhaps knowing what a strawman fallacy is would
be a step in the right direction.

Plonk.

-Peter De Smidt

Tom Phillips wrote:

Maybe it's getting unfriendly cause I'm waery of endlessly debating
with people who insist there's no difference between various
processes producing "images."

I never said there was no difference. Maybe you, to quote you, should
become more educated. Perhaps knowing what a strawman fallacy is would
be a step in the right direction.

Plonk.

-Peter De Smidt

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:



Course we don't know how many self styled "photographers"
around here actually have good photographs. Including the above
poster.

Do you mean Peter or myself ?


peter. Just saying there's a lot of people posting minus
good work. Scarpitti, for example. One just doesn't always
know.

Tom sure is friendly. Thanks for saying that I don't produce good work.
You've seen it, then? I haven't seen yours, so I won't comment on it.
Thanks also for linking me with Scarpitti, even if it's only
rhetorically. Remember, always attack and personally denigrate someone
who disagrees with you on something. That's what a decent person should do.


Better read it again. I said "you don't know." In general.

_I_ don't know what sort of work you produce. There are in fact
posters to this nsg who rag endlessly on photography and don't
produce good work.

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:



Course we don't know how many self styled "photographers"
around here actually have good photographs. Including the above
poster.

Do you mean Peter or myself ?


peter. Just saying there's a lot of people posting minus
good work. Scarpitti, for example. One just doesn't always
know.

Tom sure is friendly. Thanks for saying that I don't produce good work.
You've seen it, then? I haven't seen yours, so I won't comment on it.
Thanks also for linking me with Scarpitti, even if it's only
rhetorically. Remember, always attack and personally denigrate someone
who disagrees with you on something. That's what a decent person should do.


Better read it again. I said "you don't know." In general.

_I_ don't know what sort of work you produce. There are in fact
posters to this nsg who rag endlessly on photography and don't
produce good work.