Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 3

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

Just an added note here. Bokeh does exist and can be measured with graphs.

Firstly the roundness of OOF highlights, some might not mind polygonal
shapes, I suppose that's opinion but they are unnatural so if you want
that, it's a special effect like a starburst filter or the look of
grainy B&W film. Round apertures make more technically perfect bokeh.

Secondly the evennes of OOF highlights: worst is bright ring edges or
donuts, neutral/evenly illuminated is in the middle, softened edges are
best. All these can be measured by graphing intensity across a
controlled point light source at a given distance and aperture and are
effected by the design of the lens. Even when the circles are not
obvious, harsh edges cause a subtle busy-ness in the out of focus areas.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

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

Ton Maas wrote:
> Mike Henley <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I disagree here, and this is something that I've read books about
>> lately; as I said in my other post in this thread, art had been
>> formalised since antiquity and it has its conventions and language,
>> and those from a background of "fine arts" are well versed in them.
>> What you're referring to as being in the eye of the beholder is
>> more
>> accurately referred to as "taste". Someone knowledgeable in "fine
>> arts" will appreciate the artistic merits of a piece or art, not
>> matter what his tastes are. The chances are though that the more
>> you
>> know about fine "art", the more "refined" your taste becomes. To
>> use
>> the wine analogy again, if you're knowledgeable enough about wine
>> you'll appreciate the subtleties in the taste of a "fine wine", and
>> appreciate it as a no-mediocre-thing and the work of a master
>> winemaker, whether you like its taste or not.
>
> Gregory Bateson, the British anthropologist and biologist,
> observed -
> in his great article called "Style, Grace and Information in
> Primitive Art" - that Balinese painters use skill or "technique" to
> convey to the viewer that what he or she sees, isn't trivial or
> coincidental, but rather purposive and "intended". It works however
> both ways. The viewer too needs to be skilled in order to be able to
> perceivie the artist's skill.
>

Communities expend resources in the physical trappings of "Justice" so
subjects see it as serious business: nearly all Court functions could
be accomplished in bare auditoriums. The existence of oak panelling
and robed practitioners is part of the background lending poignance to
appreciation of the "art" of Justice.

--
Frank ess

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

> 1. bling bling
> n. synonym for expensive, often flashy jewelry sported mostly by
> African American hip-hop artists and middle class Caucasian
> adolescents.
>
> v. to "bling-bling;" the act of sporting jewelry of a highly
> extravagant gaudy nature.
> n. "Man, I gots tha bling-bling, yo."
>
> v. "Damn Johnny, you sure be bling-blinging it tonight!"
>
> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1 [...] lines=true
>
> If I recommember correctly, the context was Upgrading Cameras as
> adornments for neck-hanging.

Got it.

If you're hip it's cool to wear bling. But if you're not hip then
wearing bling makes you a bling-bling, which in turn makes you a
target for a good bitch slapping. ;^)

Jeff

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:36:04 -0500, Ron Hunter had the Galt to
wrote:

>> Ah, now I get it. Your characteristic overquoting isn't the
>> result of laziness or not having time to trim. You're an artist!
>>
>>
> My quoting is due to wanting to avoid confusion, and the lack of time
> for editing every reply.

No, I don't think so. Previously you said that you don't trim
because you are such a prolific poster (in this and other
newsgroups) that you don't have sufficient time to trim. My point
is that when I encounter one of your 2 or 3 line replies tacked onto
the end of a 200 line post, there can be confusion trying to figure
out which part of the quote your reply is in reference to. And the
time wasted trying to locate it is multiplied by the number of
people reading your replies. As I see it, that's a very selfish
attitude to take, caring little about how you inconvenience others.
Unfortunately, the "me" decade, where the Golden Rule doesn't apply,
has lasted far longer than 10 years. I'll bet Ayn Rand is looking
down on you with a proud smile on her puss.

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

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news1uia19q509mhkssai99fccd8me7vem1cu@4ax.com...
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>But surely darkroom work is a part of photography....
>
> Yes, of course. I greatly enjoy working in the darkroom.
>
>>At least, in the past
>>this was true. My dad spent many hours in the darkroom striving for good
>>print quality. The film was just the beginning of his photographs.
>
> But you have to start with a good photo. You cannot make a silk purse
> out of a sow's ear. At least not with my darkroom skills ... ;-)
>
> If you want to do some abstract art that's based on a photo, that's
> fine. But once the non-photographic aspect(s) begin(s) to dominate,
> it is no longer photography.
>
Yes. - It seems to me that a lot of, "abstract photographic art" is just bad
photography. But then, so is a lot of abstract painting.....Unfortunately,
being on the, "outside" as it were, my opinions don't seem to count for
anything. And some of the people whose opinions DO count, control the
taxpayers money.......

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3gsqq4Fe3dirU3@individual.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > Stacey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that
these
> >> people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't
boil
> >> down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as
far
> >> as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
> >> exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
> >> exist.
> >
> > "Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify
>
> Which is why many techies downplay it's importance. They can't measure it.
>
>

I'm a techie and I don't downplay it's importance. Nice bokeh is important
to me which is why a couple of months ago I posted samples from the same
lens, one with ugly bokeh and the other with nice bokeh. I may not be able
to quantify it but I sure care about it.

Greg

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:36:04 -0500, Ron Hunter had the Galt to
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Ah, now I get it. Your characteristic overquoting isn't the
>>>result of laziness or not having time to trim. You're an artist!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My quoting is due to wanting to avoid confusion, and the lack of time
>>for editing every reply.
>
>
> No, I don't think so. Previously you said that you don't trim
> because you are such a prolific poster (in this and other
> newsgroups) that you don't have sufficient time to trim. My point
> is that when I encounter one of your 2 or 3 line replies tacked onto
> the end of a 200 line post, there can be confusion trying to figure
> out which part of the quote your reply is in reference to. And the
> time wasted trying to locate it is multiplied by the number of
> people reading your replies. As I see it, that's a very selfish
> attitude to take, caring little about how you inconvenience others.
> Unfortunately, the "me" decade, where the Golden Rule doesn't apply,
> has lasted far longer than 10 years. I'll bet Ayn Rand is looking
> down on you with a proud smile on her puss.
>
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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

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.

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

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. 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.

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


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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
news8c1aa$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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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>.

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.

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!

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.