Peter Figen wrote:
It\'s kinda like pornography - you know it when you see it.
That\'s not a definition.
You\'re coming across angry because there are people who can see things that perhaps you can\'t at this moment. That\'s fine. There are people who can see the differences and those differences do affect how they perceive their images.
And you\'re coming across arrogant because you want to see things that make no difference to me--and by the looks of it, quite a few other people as well--when it comes to answering the question, \"what is a meaningful photograph?\"
My whole point is not that the differences do not exist. I even SAID as much but it is typical snobbery to go about talking as if they actually MATTER in a way that has any relationship to the artistic process of making a photograph. Because if things you can\'t even define matter to you--or anyone else--then sure, you took a sucky photo. But not for the reasons that you think.
Dude, I don\'t see a web site under your name with your images out there to see. Mine is out there in the open for anyone to look at. Judge for yourself.
I don\'t publish online out of choice, not out of lack of ability. What I do put out there every now and then is my business. Your insinuation that I don\'t parade my name and my work about because I am unwilling to open myself to critique only reflects your insulting and combative attitude, and ultimately confirms the truth of what I said. I didn\'t single you out in my previous post, never even implied that anything I wrote was even directed at you. And yet you took my comments personally.
Statements like this are, well, I won\'t even go there...
Maybe because I\'ve dared to call certain people out on their pretentiousness regarding making compelling images and for some strange reason think that has something to do with you?
I think it is terribly tragic that in some individuals\' eyes, photography is reduced to a technical exercise about which lenses and bodies and systems capture some nebulous effect, as if the ability to catch this \"look\" is what gives their images value. And not because I feel it must be a miserable existence for the afflicted photographer, but because I feel bad for all the others out there who buy into this misguided attitude and automatically think they cannot take a compelling and beautiful image that reflects their unique aesthetic vision, simply because they don\'t have the \"right\" equipment. In the face of this, do things like CA, field curvature, and 1 stop dynamic range even matter? Do you really believe that the great photographic legacy of all who have come before us amounts to taking pictures with the greatest possible fidelity and detail?
Art is not limited by your tools but by your imagination.
Jun 14, 2010 at 01:54 AM
Previous versions of wickerprints's message #8566826 « 5D2 looks "digital" compare to 5D? »
