Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:31:00 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>I post more messages in this NG, and in others, than anyone else, and
>>very few people complain about my posting style.
>
>
> I imagine two reasons account for much of that. First, as I said,
> the excessively long posts occur in threads that are skipped by most
> of the rpd readers, since they're off topic. Secondly, most of the
> people posting in those threads are just as likely as you, if not
> moreso, to post similarly.
>
>
>
>> I don't have either the time, or the inclination, to spend hours a day
>>editing out parts of someone else's posts to save you a few minutes reading.
>
>
> It's a given that you don't have the inclination, but as for not
> having the time? Pure BS. The number of minutes it might add could
> be counted on your fingers, possibly using only one hand. Hours?
> No way. You do know how to exaggerate, but it's all for defending
> your position, not for accuracy.
>
>
>> If you don't have a newsreader that will let you go to the bottom
>>of the message to see only my reply, I can direct you to one.
>
>
> Bogus argument. I can quickly go to the bottom of even a thousand
> line reply, but as I pointed out before, not all of your replies are
> appended to the bottom. You do occasionally intersperse your
> comments within the quotes. Going directly to the bottom can't be
> relied on, but nice try.
>
>
>>If the time taken to download the excessive verbiage in a quote is a
>>problem, then you might want to set your newsreader to not display
>>messages beyond a certain size.
>
>
> Witty. But more muddying the waters. I haven't complained about
> the time taken to download anything. You must be thinking of
> typical arguments from BBS'ers 10, 20, maybe 30 years ago, when
> modem speeds ranged from 110 to 9600 baud. Your overly defensive
> reply was expected, and you came through as I thought you would.
>

I thought perhaps you were a dialup user, and they might not want to
download a 200 line message. I rarely post interspersed, so you can
probably disregard those messages. Perhaps you want someone to read all
the messages for you, and present you with a synopsis, verbally with
your morning paper? Sorry, I have better things to do. Judicious
editing of a fairly long post can take several minutes, counting the
addition of my own thoughts. Since I post 100 or so messages daily, you
might want to see how many hours that adds up to. Given that I already
spend 40-45 hours a week on the internet, I don't think I want to spend
that much more time with editing. Like I said, feel free to just NOT
read my posts, and there is no problem. You seem to be a committee of
one on this subject.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Stacey wrote:
> >
> >> Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't exist.
> >
> >The "techies" are laughing themselves sick at the so-called artists who
> >can't bring themselves to learn about spherical abberation.
>
>
> Those who really understand spherical aberration [sic] are of course
> aware of the dangers of over-correcting for it in an unthinking rush
> to claim ever-higher MTF, an arbitrary measure of lens quality if ever
> there was one.

I am not sure what you mean by over-correcting for spherical
aberration, it is not like using unsharp mask where you can do to much,
you would alway like to reduce spherical aberration to the point where
it is not a problem.

Particularly when the modulation that people are looking at is in the
range of 10%, this give very little information about how well a lens
will work.

Scott

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:31:24 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>ASAAR wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:51:52 -0500, a cranky Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you have trouble deciding what I am replying to, then feel free to
>>>NOT read my posts. Believe me, I can live with that.
>>
>>
>> You make it difficult for everyone (not just me) to follow some of
>> you posts. Not all. Not most. But a good number of them. Maybe
>> you don't want to change because you resent being told what to do.
>> But whatever the reason, you still appear to have an attitude of
>> doing what's most convenient for yourself, and others be damned.
>>
>> As for not reading your posts, you've said that before, and it's
>> not hard to figure out why. I assume that you recall where that
>> led.
>>
>
>I VERY rarely read posts with 200 lines, and even more rarely reply to
>them, so I can't see that what you complain about is valid. As I have
>said before, I don't have time to delete every non-essential word in a
>post before replying.

Typical Ron Hunter misdirection. He has no valid reply to your
reasonable request for snipping, so he adds the (not said by you) bit
about "every non-essential word" so he can seemingly justify his lack
of consideration for others.

Yo, Ron!!! Read up on "strawman argument". Everyone else
except you knows what it is.



> I also feel that doing that often leaves one
>confused as to what the OP said. I MUCH prefer that those who reply to
>my posts NOT cut them as they are usually quite concise, and snipping
>will likely change the meaning.

Oh, sure -- you're such an artiste with your prose that
snipping a precious word would leave the rest of us feeling bereft.
Arrogant pissant.


>
>But, as I said, no one forces you to read my posts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:31:00 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>I post more messages in this NG, and in others, than anyone else....


Buy Lomotil.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:59:25 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I thought perhaps you were a dialup user, and they might not want to
> download a 200 line message. I rarely post interspersed, so you can
> probably disregard those messages.

But you recommend using a newsreader that can immediately jump to
the bottom of your messages. *Everyone* following your suggestion
would miss those rare interspersed gems of yours. And anyone
capable of disregarding those would have to know that your
interspersed tidbits exist. The problem arises because nobody other
than you would know.


> Perhaps you want someone to read all
> the messages for you, and present you with a synopsis, verbally with
> your morning paper?

Perhaps you realize your arguments are weak and your excuses are
flimsy and so have to resort to speaking as a child? Correction.
Most self respecting children wouldn't demean themselves that way.


> Sorry, I have better things to do. Judicious editing of a fairly long post
> can take several minutes, counting the addition of my own thoughts.
> Since I post 100 or so messages daily, you might want to see how many
> hours that adds up to. Given that I already spend 40-45 hours a week
> on the internet, I don't think I want to spend that much more time with
> editing.

Nonsense. Or as our friends on the other side of the pond would
say, Rubbish! If you append your reply immediately below the
relevant passage, it takes all of 2 or 3 seconds to delete
everything above. No more than another 2 or 3 seconds to delete
what follows, but you may prefer to read that first. That probably
amounts to far less than 5% of the time you spend thinking about and
then composing your reply. Your arguments are, as I said,
incredibly weak. I'd say pathetic if I though you really believed
them and were incapable of seeing otherwise. But I don't think
that's the case. You're just incredibly stubborn and may have a few
splinters remaining from where you once proudly displayed chips
borne on your shoulders.


> Like I said, feel free to just NOT read my posts, and there is no problem.
> You seem to be a committee of one on this subject.

You've even got that wrong. The few times an outsider commented
on our semi-private discussions, I do believe that you were the one
not encouraged or supported. And as I said once before, I have no
reason to ignore your posts. Someone has to keep you accountable.
There's only one drawback. Think of all the extra hours that
replying to you cuts into my online time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

>
> Someone has to keep you accountable.
> There's only one drawback. Think of all the extra hours that
> replying to you cuts into my online time.


Then one wonders WHY do you do it?

Added time for clipping above, more than 30 seconds....

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >Stacey wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
>> >> exist.
>> >
>> >The "techies" are laughing themselves sick at the so-called artists who
>> >can't bring themselves to learn about spherical abberation.
>>
>> Those who really understand spherical aberration [sic] are of course
>> aware of the dangers of over-correcting for it in an unthinking rush
>> to claim ever-higher MTF, an arbitrary measure of lens quality if ever
>> there was one.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by over-correcting for spherical
> aberration, it is not like using unsharp mask where you can do to much,
> you would alway like to reduce spherical aberration to the point where
> it is not a problem.

If you've ever seen the Bokeh from Mamiya vs. Pentax 645 lenses you'll know
that something's going on. The sharpness-at-any-cost landscape types prefer
Pentax, but the bokeh is classical bad bokeh: circles in which the edges are
brighter than the center. Bokeh on the Mamiya lenses is amazingly smooth.
That's why Mamiya is the 645 camera of choice in the portrait/fashion
segment in Japan.

> Particularly when the modulation that people are looking at is in the
> range of 10%, this give very little information about how well a lens
> will work.

Yes. Pictorial photography requires much more than 10% MTF. That's why
Velvia 50 is so popular: it has a big MTF boost in the 5 to 15 lp/mm range.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:59:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Then one wonders WHY do you do it?

I assume there are many things you waste time wondering about.
Time that could be put to better use, such as, uh, trimming posts?



> Added time for clipping above, more than 30 seconds....

Very few people are that slow or incompetant. It's quite easy to
get whatever result you want to demonstrate, such as OJ discovering
to his, and everyone's surprise the "the gloves don't fit". So all
I can say about it taking 30 seconds to trim a short reply is,
riiiight. At that rate the entire reply must have taken 5 or 10
minutes to type, too. You're an amusing wriggler.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118347647.711685.208960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>>> Tony top-posts:
>>>
>>>> Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about
>>>> is
>>>> an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers.
>>>
>>> I don't need a room full of art kooks^H^H^H critics to tell me what is
>>> or is not good. Do you?
>>
>> I often find interesting new perspectives in the prose of
>> people who have dedicated lots of time to thinking and learning
>> about art.
>
> Well, I'm saying it all reads like noise to me. But then again, I was
> so disappointed in what passes for "school" in these parts when
> "English" was revealed not to be a study in the structure of the
> language (ie, linguistics), but warmed over psycho-analysis of
> characters that don't even exist.

There's a difference between the study of English Literature and the study
of English Grammar. Most elementary schools focus on the later, with middle
and some high schools focusing on both, and if the high school is big
enough, then it becomes like college where you can elect to take either a
literature or a grammar course. And "warmed over psycho-analysis of
characters that don't even exist," as you put it, is akin to discussing what
a photograph is about. You know, what's the story there, or the metaphor,
that impacts the viewer. I may be biased, with two degrees in English
Language and Literature, but I think it's a worthwhile effort. If nothing
else, it teaches a person to be analytic and forces them to make sense of
abstract ideas.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Some techies even use stupid names for it, like "Schmuckle", to
>> demonstrate their contempt for something they simply cannot
>> understand.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Well, I thought this way until someone (you, I think) pointed out to me that
>the lens designers can actually design good bokeh into their lenses. That
>puts a whole new aspect on it........


The introduction of the word "bokeh" did much to help draw attention
to the "look" of particular lenses, and to those lens manufacturers
who worked hard to ensure that their lenses had a particular "look".
Way back in the 1970s, the professional photographers I trained with
knew which lenses had the "look" and which didn't, but they could not
express precisely what that meant.

"Bokeh" changed all that, and the subject is now being discussed far
more widely than ever before. I'm glad that I helped encourage the
discussion, and that those individuals who worked hard to ridicule the
idea that bokeh mattered, or even existed, did not get their way.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Bokeh" changed all that, and the subject is now being discussed far
> more widely than ever before. I'm glad that I helped encourage the
> discussion, and that those individuals who worked hard to ridicule the
> idea that bokeh mattered, or even existed, did not get their way.

So am I, but I still think "bokeh" is a stupid-ass word.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Bokeh" changed all that, and the subject is now being discussed far
>>more widely than ever before. I'm glad that I helped encourage the
>>discussion, and that those individuals who worked hard to ridicule the
>>idea that bokeh mattered, or even existed, did not get their way.
>
>
> So am I, but I still think "bokeh" is a stupid-ass word.


Brokequet: "The bouquet of the broken part of the image" <g>.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Stacey blathers like an idiot:

> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Tony Polson wrote:
> >
> >> Those who really understand spherical aberration [sic] are of course
> >> aware of the dangers of over-correcting for it in an unthinking rush
> >> to claim ever-higher MTF, an arbitrary measure of lens quality if ever
> >> there was one.
> >
> > You are ignorant of what you speak.
>
> That's exactly what causes it. I've seen to many "ugly" lenses that the
> designers took this "shortcut" to win resolution tests..

You have no idea whatsoever where the "under" and "over" terminology
actually comes from, do you? You are, in fact, completely ignorant of
what spherical aberration actually is, aren't you? Why not just
educate yourself minimally before you babble on senselessly in public?
I mean, a few minutes on the web is all it would take. This is so
simple is it to aquire the requisite knowledge that your idiot claim
about these "lenses" strikes me more as a lie than simple ignorance.
This is because for equally "under" and "over" corrected optics, the
_in-focus_ performace (image of the 'best' PSF), and resulting MTF,
etc, is _EXACTLY THE SAME_.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

> Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> Those who really understand spherical aberration [sic] are of course
>> aware of the dangers of over-correcting for it in an unthinking rush
>> to claim ever-higher MTF, an arbitrary measure of lens quality if ever
>> there was one.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by over-correcting for spherical
> aberration, it is not like using unsharp mask where you can do to much,
> you would alway like to reduce spherical aberration to the point where
> it is not a problem.

Polson, Stacey, etc, are just making it up as they go along. In the
vernacular, they are artists -- bullshit artists.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

>>Polson, Stacey, etc, are just making it up as they go along. In the
>>vernacular, they are artists -- bullshit artists.
>
> There goes another Schmuck(le). Plonk!

Oooooohhhhh .... make the terrible pain stop ... make it stop! To live
in the realm of some proven nitwit's killfile ... the agony is
unbearable!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:

> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118347983.564362.69390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Mike Henley.
> > But first, let me pose you a question: Is Henley actually concerned
> > about any of us, or does he just want to take credit for others'
> > accomplishments?
>
> I've never met him. So why would he be concerned about me? I'm really not
> interested in personal attacks. Take your bile somewhere else. I will make
> my own mind up about Mr Henley.

I guess Mr. Henley figured out what I was saying and you didn't. Here
is your single clue:

http/www.pakin.org/complaint/

Please go back and re-read his remarks re: art, my comment, his
response and my riposte in light of the above URL.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Scott W wrote:
>
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>>
>>> Those who really understand spherical aberration [sic] are of course
>>> aware of the dangers of over-correcting for it in an unthinking rush
>>> to claim ever-higher MTF, an arbitrary measure of lens quality if ever
>>> there was one.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by over-correcting for spherical
>> aberration, it is not like using unsharp mask where you can do to much,
>> you would alway like to reduce spherical aberration to the point where
>> it is not a problem.
>
>Polson, Stacey, etc, are just making it up as they go along. In the
>vernacular, they are artists -- bullshit artists.


There goes another Schmuck(le). Plonk!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118692960.138944.167110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ian lincoln wrote:
>
>> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118347983.564362.69390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Mike Henley.
>> > But first, let me pose you a question: Is Henley actually concerned
>> > about any of us, or does he just want to take credit for others'
>> > accomplishments?
>>
>> I've never met him. So why would he be concerned about me? I'm really
>> not
>> interested in personal attacks. Take your bile somewhere else. I will
>> make
>> my own mind up about Mr Henley.
>
> I guess Mr. Henley figured out what I was saying and you didn't. Here
> is your single clue:
>
> http/www.pakin.org/complaint/
>
> Please go back and re-read his remarks re: art, my comment, his
> response and my riposte in light of the above URL.

nope keep your little vendetta on the appropriate forum or whatever.

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:

>
>
> Tony wrote:
>> Some of us got into photography because we didn't have the drawing skills
>> we wanted.
>> What I have noticed over the years though is that relatively few
>> photographers are interested in it as art. They have never studied art,
>> don't look at art and talk only of the technical aspects.
>

>
> I think in photography it would be useful to distinguis between the
> "craft", and the "art". The "craft" is all issues of equipment and
> "technique", particular to photography, but photography really has *no*
> "art" that should set it apart from drawing, painting, sculpture,
> architecture, cinematography or any visual medium; "art" is just "art",
> and to be illiterate in it, and too many are, won't be changed by a
> practice of the "craft" of photography, however long or frequent,
> regardless of how many cameras you own or years you've used them for.
>

Exactly. There are plenty of people who are good at a craft (which is
something I respect) but what they produce it's "art". IMHO that doesn't
make it any less interesting, just different.
--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:

>> I guess Mr. Henley figured out what I was saying and you didn't. Here
>> is your single clue:
>>
>> http/www.pakin.org/complaint/
>>
>> Please go back and re-read his remarks re: art, my comment, his
>> response and my riposte in light of the above URL.
>
> nope keep your little vendetta on the appropriate forum or whatever.

Little man, I do not need your permission to say what I want to say,
when I want to say it, or where it will be said.