Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> If you like it, it's good art. If you just respond to it as the
> artist intended, it is better. If you respond to it but NOT in the way
> the artist intended, it didn't get the job done.

I don't agree with that last part. The response to a piece of art is the
result of a collaboration, of sorts, between the artist and the viewer
(listener, recipient, whatever). I as the artist don't get to tell you
how you're supposed to respond; your experiences, feelings, and state of
mind may be completely different from mine, and could result in my work
speaking to you in some way I didn't even contemplate. In that case, I'd
say I did an even better job, being able to create something that can still
mean something to you even though the meaning I had in mind didn't apply
to you.

Insisting that you should take the same meaning from my work that I did
would be pretty arrogant, I think.

--
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:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If you like it, it's good art. If you just respond to it as the
>>artist intended, it is better. If you respond to it but NOT in the way
>>the artist intended, it didn't get the job done.
>
>
> I don't agree with that last part. The response to a piece of art is the
> result of a collaboration, of sorts, between the artist and the viewer
> (listener, recipient, whatever). I as the artist don't get to tell you
> how you're supposed to respond; your experiences, feelings, and state of
> mind may be completely different from mine, and could result in my work
> speaking to you in some way I didn't even contemplate. In that case, I'd
> say I did an even better job, being able to create something that can still
> mean something to you even though the meaning I had in mind didn't apply
> to you.
>
> Insisting that you should take the same meaning from my work that I did
> would be pretty arrogant, I think.
>

Artists are often a bit arrogant, but the point is that with art, they
are trying to communicate something. IF the communication doesn't make
it to the viewer, the art fails, at least to some degree. It may be the
viewer's fault, or the artist's, but the communication didn't take
place. Of course some works are intended to work on several levels.
The sculptor in my examples was often able to make works that said one
thing to some people, and quite something else to others. It made his
work quite interesting.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

It doesn't
Art is art
Marcel


"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6ivda1l9jgv74mtvqbsok5o4igq7jbh32v@4ax.com...
> On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
> <chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
> <1118228604.175364.208440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Cameras wrote:
> >> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts
people
> >> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as
an
> >> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures
and
> >> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
> >> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to
present
> >> etc.
> >
> >Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
> >Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
> >recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
> >that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
>
> How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?
>
> [snip]
>
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
> a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
> there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
> end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
> or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

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

> If you want to be a 24/7 artist, then you better make it palatable to
> the public so they buy it.

Ah... there's the rub: beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;-) Some will
consider you an artist, others won't.
Marcel


"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:d8c1aa$283$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Ton Maas wrote:
>
>
> > That may be true, but in teaching art students I have often experienced
> > that they consider viewer's reactions as irrelevant, possibly as a
> > defense mechanism against frustration. Many of those students, when
> > confronted with an interactive view between artist and viewer, remarked
> > they weren't interested in "theatre".
>
> Passive aggressive, I guess. It sounds like the latest popular excuse
> that has made the rounds on the internet and is taken up by art students
> as an escape.
>
> It *is* a defense mechanism against responsibility. If an artist works
> X hours a week at a non art job to support himself, I really don't care
> what he thinks about his own art wrt being viewed by others.
>
> So let's get right down to brass tacks:
>
> If you want to be a 24/7 artist, then you better make it palatable to
> the public so they buy it. No more government grants, no handouts. And
> if the public isn't sophisticated enough for your art, well that's okay,
> you can starve knowing that you are more sophisticated. That's art too,
> right?
>
> Artist, feed thyself.
>
> (And Tom, the above is not aimed personally. I'm just very frustrated
> with money wasted by the governemnt on artists who produce nothing of
> value. Artistic or otherwise. )
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:31:24 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> 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. 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.

It depends on the thread. The ones that are on-topic tend to be
of reasonable length. The often acrimonious OT posts that end up
here due to crossposting (political/religious) are a different
story. An example would be this thread:

> Subject: Re: US laughs as the Koran is flushed down the toilet

One of your replies in it consists of a single line tacked onto
the end of a 239 line followup reply. Shortly after that (in thread
position, but posted 2 days earlier) you posted a 217 line followup.
At least in that one you contributed 11 lines at the tail end.
Oops. After that you added a 214 line followup, where your entire
contribution, at the bottom of multi-level quotes from Chris Hayes,
Mark², La N,"Matt Silberstein" and "Omega" consisted of the single
terse line containing only "No. Why?" To say that you didn't have
time to delete every non-essential word in this reply, and that if
you did it would have changed the meaning could only be believed by
the most gullible or those unable to distinguish between reality and
fantasy. I skipped several other replies in that thread whose
lengths were between 100 and 200 lines.

Nobody is asking you to, as you say, take the time "to delete
every non-essential word in a post before replying". That really
would be excessive and take a lot of time. But by putting it that
way you divert attention from what could and should be done. Nobody
carefully trims hundred line posts carefully scrutinizing them word
by word. But most people have the ability to recognize and quickly
snip irrelevant pages and chapters. I don't expect that you'll be
convinced to change your ways, but by the same token, don't expect
me to accept the defense of your posting style that is based on spin
and not substance.

 

[Guest]

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 03:31:24 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>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. 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.
>
>
> It depends on the thread. The ones that are on-topic tend to be
> of reasonable length. The often acrimonious OT posts that end up
> here due to crossposting (political/religious) are a different
> story. An example would be this thread:
>
>
>>Subject: Re: US laughs as the Koran is flushed down the toilet
>
>
> One of your replies in it consists of a single line tacked onto
> the end of a 239 line followup reply. Shortly after that (in thread
> position, but posted 2 days earlier) you posted a 217 line followup.
> At least in that one you contributed 11 lines at the tail end.
> Oops. After that you added a 214 line followup, where your entire
> contribution, at the bottom of multi-level quotes from Chris Hayes,
> Mark², La N,"Matt Silberstein" and "Omega" consisted of the single
> terse line containing only "No. Why?" To say that you didn't have
> time to delete every non-essential word in this reply, and that if
> you did it would have changed the meaning could only be believed by
> the most gullible or those unable to distinguish between reality and
> fantasy. I skipped several other replies in that thread whose
> lengths were between 100 and 200 lines.
>
> Nobody is asking you to, as you say, take the time "to delete
> every non-essential word in a post before replying". That really
> would be excessive and take a lot of time. But by putting it that
> way you divert attention from what could and should be done. Nobody
> carefully trims hundred line posts carefully scrutinizing them word
> by word. But most people have the ability to recognize and quickly
> snip irrelevant pages and chapters. I don't expect that you'll be
> convinced to change your ways, but by the same token, don't expect
> me to accept the defense of your posting style that is based on spin
> and not substance.
>

I have, recently, limited my participation in OT threads to a bare
minimum. Like I say, if you don't want to read them, don't. I am sure
you will save a lot more time not reading them than you would if I
trimmed them before replying, right?
I post more messages in this NG, and in others, than anyone else, and
very few people complain about my posting style. 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. 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.
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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6ivda1l9jgv74mtvqbsok5o4igq7jbh32v@4ax.com...
> On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
> <chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
> <1118228604.175364.208440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Cameras wrote:
>>> I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
>>> with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as
>>> an
>>> ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures
>>> and
>>> come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
>>> traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to
>>> present
>>> etc.
>>
>>Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
>>Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
>>recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
>>that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.
>
> How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

From my point of view p s or weaving require far more talent and skill.
Photography is for those with a creative streak who wish to express
themselves but don't have the motor skills to produce 'master pieces' the
traditional way. For me it turned out to be the technical side of it all.
I was given my grandads old halina when i was 11. The auto had failed and
the meter had gone. The focusing was by the symbols on the front for head
and shoulders, whole body, group of people, or mountain range. It also had
a full aperture ring on it. I exposed by using the little guide you find
inside every box of film.

When i finally went to college my teacher said i took very good quality
photographs but was not good at making and taking pictures. Whereas the art
students come up with great stuff but usually ruined it by not knowing what
they were doing. I got an A in the Alevel exam simply through perseverance
and hard work. Oh and i was probably the only one who took the written part
of the exam seriously. I also acknowledged my artistic weakness by asking
my teacher what would be a good technique to use to gain extra marks. He
said "do infra red, if you achieve any decent results at all they will throw
marks at you" so i did. I had to travel all the way to london and jessops
to get a roll of film. Also had to buy a deep red filter. Read a few text
books on the subject and then started blasting away. I also had a very
thorough and methodical approach to printing. This was quite necessary when
i processed the film.

I am very pleased to say that half of my submitted work didn't come back.
It was kept back by the examiners to be archived as an example of what
standard of work an A grade requires.

 

[Guest]

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

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118305663.564735.314730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>> How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?



> Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
> or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
> heading. That way you might be on topic.

Arrogant arsehole! Photography Artist vs technician. Precisely on topic.

 

[Guest]

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Mpsqe.1165$Ub4.982@fe06.lga...
> Sometimes the viewer is the important factor, especially when the art is
> abstract. The college I went to had an art building, and there was a
> small atrium, with a work by one of the professors. Everyone seemed to
> buy the title of 'the trinity' for the piece, but every time I looked at
> it, I saw an orgy. Ok, so raging hormones may have influenced my
> viewpoint, but there is it. Sometimes the viewer gets to interpret the
> work. If you like it, it's good art. If you just respond to it as the
> artist intended, it is better. If you respond to it but NOT in the way
> the artist intended, it didn't get the job done.

My club hosted a reivew of the East Anglian Federation exhibition. A formal
judge and member on the selection panel recorded an AV presentation that was
sent round the club circuit. The one that i remember was an abstract with
nudes in it. "This one is a very abstract and has many images of the
uncovered female form. As usual i don't know what the photographer is
trying to say here but i'm sure it will do well".

Over here the turner prize for art recently hit the headlines "Its the first
time a proper artist has been considered for the award for years"

I have seen some absolute frauds submit an unmade bed complete with dummy
representinga passed out drug addict, Rows of sand with neon strip lighting
laid down it, An entire house filled with concrete then the house torn down
to reveal the odd shaped lump of concrete. A sheep sawn in half and then
embalmed in the artists own piss. This year a landscape painter is actually
being considered.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11akplia7k532@corp.supernews.com...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> If you like it, it's good art. If you just respond to it as the
>> artist intended, it is better. If you respond to it but NOT in the way
>> the artist intended, it didn't get the job done.
>
> I don't agree with that last part. The response to a piece of art is the
> result of a collaboration, of sorts, between the artist and the viewer
> (listener, recipient, whatever). I as the artist don't get to tell you
> how you're supposed to respond; your experiences, feelings, and state of
> mind may be completely different from mine, and could result in my work
> speaking to you in some way I didn't even contemplate. In that case, I'd
> say I did an even better job, being able to create something that can
> still
> mean something to you even though the meaning I had in mind didn't apply
> to you.
>
> Insisting that you should take the same meaning from my work that I did
> would be pretty arrogant, I think.

That would merely mean that the feeling and message that you were trying to
convey succeeded. Merely trying to provoke a response usually of shock
value where even you don't know what the meaning of the piece is is an act
of lazy pretentious nonsense.

If i take a picture of some nudes using a weird fisheye perspective crop
and paste some stairs that lead nowhere and have a few stairs upside down
with a door hanging in mid air i would probably find a market for it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:k4Upe.18012$QX1.6882@fe06.lga...
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> "David Hare-Scott" <false@apocrypha.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't differ at all.
>>>
>>>A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere
>>>virtuosity,
>>>these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
>>>cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
>>>communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
>>>may be something in there somewhere - but where.
>>>
>>>The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
>>>capture it in their chosen medium.
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree 100%. Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just
>> as there
>> is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
>> both a great visionary *and* a great technician. I suspect that a good
>> many great artists have (had) great vision but
>> only moderate technical ability. I also suspect that few, if any
>> great artists have (had) only moderate vision but great technical
>> ability. To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can
>> ever
>> compensate for a lack of vision.
> You describe the difference between 'art' and 'craft'. One can certainly
> learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the brain.

usually the beer soaked part.

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:e9fea1te78qki07a8tkc2cgk5sc6bjb2sl@4ax.com...
> On 8 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
> <losttoy@gmail.com> in
> <1118252101.618168.176190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> >So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>>> >that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>>> >IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
>>> >at the most identify 5-6 colours.
>>>
>>> Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
>>> Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
>>> indigo.
>>
>>What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
>>of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
>>black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
>>them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
>>and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )
>>
> Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
> males.

They also think they drive better. cook better, shop better, better dress
sense, etc...

 

[Guest]

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

ian lincoln wrote:
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:e9fea1te78qki07a8tkc2cgk5sc6bjb2sl@4ax.com...
>
>>On 8 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Siddhartha Jain"
>><losttoy@gmail.com> in
>><1118252101.618168.176190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>>So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
>>>>>that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
>>>>>IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
>>>>>at the most identify 5-6 colours.
>>>>
>>>>Say what? This is a form of color blindness I am not familiar with.
>>>>Either that or you are making a comment about the non-existence of
>>>>indigo.
>>>
>>>What I meant is that I can't tell the difference between various shades
>>>of a colour. So if I looked very closely at raven black and charcoal
>>>black, I might be able to tell the difference but I can never remember
>>>them. Same goes for say lemon yellow and some other yellow or magenta
>>>and red (much to the chagrin of my gf ;-) )
>>>
>>
>>Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
>>males.
>
>
> They also think they drive better. cook better, shop better, better dress
> sense, etc...
>
>
Modify that to 'some women' and 'some males', and I will buy it.
Blanket pronouncements such as that are always flawed.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Blanket pronouncements such as that are always flawed.
>

As is this! But you also make a good point.

--
John McWilliams

 

[Guest]

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

"Ton Maas" <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1gxy1x4.66rcbu7ivk8cN%tonmaas@xs4all.nl...
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
>> males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint
>> for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You
>> will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do
>> better.
>
> Agreed 100%. Language is an important tool in learning to make
> distinctions and being able to verbalize/memorize them. Philosopher
> Martha Nussbaum did some research into the matter of gender and found
> that whereas relational/emotional subjects are discussed in detail with
> little girls, they are often dealt with in short hand in the interaction
> between parents and their young sons.

won't, can't, shan't, wannit, gimme, bigmac, happy meal, feedme, now, mine,
food!

 

[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: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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:xt2dnS2ppraKWDffRVn-hg@rogers.com...
> > If you want to be a 24/7 artist, then you better make it palatable to
> > the public so they buy it.
>
> Ah... there's the rub: beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;-) Some will
> consider you an artist, others won't.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but art is in the eye of the creator.

Greg

 

[Guest]

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

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:KTzqe.137406$g12.117792@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> Over here the turner prize for art recently hit the headlines "Its the
first
> time a proper artist has been considered for the award for years"
>
> I have seen some absolute frauds submit an unmade bed complete with dummy
> representinga passed out drug addict, Rows of sand with neon strip
lighting
> laid down it, An entire house filled with concrete then the house torn
down
> to reveal the odd shaped lump of concrete. A sheep sawn in half and then
> embalmed in the artists own piss. This year a landscape painter is
actually
> being considered.
>

Sounds like interesting stuff I'd be happy to pay money to see. Who needs
yet another landscape artist?

Greg

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Stacey]

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

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..

Car designers do the same thing to get horse power numbers, the kill bottom
end torque and the car's -real- performance just to get high HP numbers for
magazines... Sure if you rev'em to 5,000 RPM and drop the clutch they go
but how often does anyone do that? The honda S2000 is a prime example of
this type of HP queen.
--

Stacey