Photography: Artist vs technician - Page 2

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

On 9 Jun 2005 01:27:43 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
<chadwick110@hotmail.com> in
<1118305663.564735.314730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> 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?
>
>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.

I guess by your notion I should find a "photography compared to
painting and sculpture" group. You made an assertion about
photography, I was trying to suggest that it was not particularly
about photography, but about most arts. Except for the verbal arts
(poetry, fiction, but not theater), all art has a technical side.
Photography does not straddle that boundary since all of the arts have
science on their "side". A photographer (still and movie) has to
understand the camera and the film, a sculpture has to understand
clay/bronze/marble and the kiln and so on. A painter has to understand
paint and canvas and brushes. Etc.


--
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.

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> : To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
> : compensate for a lack of vision.
>
> And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
> in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
> capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
> ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
> producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
> many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
> of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
> Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
> some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
> the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.
>
> While I do believe in the "I know what I like" viewpoint, I try not to
> belittle some other image that may not be to my taste, as there will
> likely be someone who will like it. If nobody else, the person who
> produced it.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>

Viewer response is often the point of art. I know of a statue outside a
chapel that is a rather abstract piece, and when people see it for the
first time, they look at the statue, look up, and then comment on how
ugly the statue is. But they had the response the artist intended. I
know, because I discussed it with the artist. Very few people LIKE the
statue, but almost everyone responds to it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

Dick R. 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. In many ways they
> > sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
> > Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
> > flames on the cutaway fenders.
> >
> Hey Tony,
> I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
> Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
> strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
> by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
> the technical expertise to make a great photo.

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.




> Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
> flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)
>
> Take care,
> Dick R.

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

Siddhartha Jain wrote:


>
> So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> that attracts people with different leanings?

Sure, you only have to read the posts here to see that.

Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test shots",
study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in measuring
the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their work, mostly
seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also seem to be
people in the IT world or similar professions.

Others seem to look more at the "total image" and ignore many of the small
details (technical aspects?) as long as they aren't distracting. They seem
to shoot a wide variety of subjects and focus on the ends rather than the
means.

Neither one is 'right' just different goals.

--

Stacey

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

Mike Henley wrote:
> Dick R. 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. In many ways they
>>>sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
>>>Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
>>>flames on the cutaway fenders.
>>>
>>
>>Hey Tony,
>>I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
>>Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
>>strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
>>by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
>>the technical expertise to make a great photo.
>
> 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.
>
Hi Mike,
Please know that my tongue is firmly in cheek. I certainly agree that
a "fine art" appreciation class might help a person appreciate some of
the classic and contemporary artworks, but I maintain that there are
exceptions.
Take, for instance, the "artist" who frames a blank canvas and receives
accolades from people who appreciate the simplicity of the artwork.
If I were an acclaimed "artist", I'm sure a gallery would display my
"cowpie on a rocking chair", and many people would love it!
Taste: A lot of this "art" isn't very tasty to me, but that's JMHO.

Take care,
Dick R.

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

Mike Henley wrote:
>
> Dick R. 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. In many ways they
>>>sound like the guys who put a supercharged bored and stroked mill into a 36
>>>Ford -- right after they destroy the lines of it by chopping it and painting
>>>flames on the cutaway fenders.
>>>
>>
>>Hey Tony,
>>I certainly won't disagree with your observations, but what is art?
>>Jackson Pollak and Leonardo Da Vinci produced "art", but it's
>>strictly in the eye of the beholder. Currently, I look at photos
>>by people like Jim Brandenburg, who have an artistic "eye" and
>>the technical expertise to make a great photo.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Hate to say it, but I would love to have that supercharged, chopped,
>>flame painted 36 Ford in my garage. :-)
>>
>>Take care,
>>Dick R.
>
>
I have seem some art I definitely didn't 'like' but then some art is not
INTENDED to be 'liked', but to evoke a response. If it does, it is
good, if not, well, maybe the next observer will respond. It is not
necessary to like art to appreciate it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
>And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
>in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
>capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
>ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
>producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
>many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
>of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
>Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
>some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
>the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.


If most of the "vision" is applied at the post-processing stage, we
are no longer talking about photography.

I suppose we could call it "digital art with some input from
photography" but it ain't photography.

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Some people are solely into the technical side. They do mostly "test shots",
>study the results with a microscope and seem mainly interested in measuring
>the measurable aspects of their results. If you look at their work, mostly
>seems to be buildings and other man made objects. These also seem to be
>people in the IT world or similar professions.
>
>Others seem to look more at the "total image" and ignore many of the small
>details (technical aspects?) as long as they aren't distracting. They seem
>to shoot a wide variety of subjects and focus on the ends rather than the
>means.
>
>Neither one is 'right' just different goals.


There is a third category, that of the technicians who think that mere
compliance with myriad "Rules" defines some kind of "vision".

Still, as long as they enjoy it ...

;-)

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure, you only have to read the posts here to see that.
> > Some people are solely into the technical side. They do
> > mostly "test shots", study the results with a microscope
> > and seem mainly interested in measuring the measurable
> > aspects of their results.
>
> This is an equipment group Stacey. That is the subject, and people will
> do as they please. Very few of my photos are "test shots".
>


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.

--

Stacey

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

Mike Henley wrote:
>
<snip>
> "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
> thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
> "art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
> admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
> more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
> aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
> akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
> more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.
>
As an person untrained in 'art', but as a long-time photographer, I have
some difficulty in accepting that statement, at least at its face value.

I have seen a number of 'art' exhibitions, some of them controversial in
their content. One springs to mind immediately - a piece in an
international touring exhibition that came to New Zealand some years
ago.

This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.

Myself, I am an agnostic, I follow no particular religion, but to me in
my untrained plebian state, that piece was an entirely distasteful
juxtaposition of components, designed purely to shock and revolt
viewers. The curator of the gallery that exhibited this display was
inundated with demands to withdraw the item, but he refused, defending
the "artist's" right to exhibit what he wanted. People tried to destroy
the piece, and the gallery had guards on duty to prevent people from
getting too close.

I infer from your remarks above that you would have admired it because
of your formal art training, your appreciation of its subtleties. In my
artistically uneducated state, what I saw in that piece was grossly
insulting even to me, let alone the Catholic believers in the
population.

I cannot believe that a fine art educated person can view such a piece,
with their 'artistic appreciation', and not experience the disgust and
revulsion evoked in ordinary people.

This sort of thing is typical of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome
displayed by 'artistic' types - expounding all sorts of nonsense about
artistic merit etc., and ignoring the plain fact that the piece is not
art; it is junk. Insulting, demeaning junk. Wannabe artists know that
their work 'should evoke a viewer reaction'. The easiest reaction to
evoke is revulsion, so that's what they do.

In my plebian mediocrity, It seems to me that the word 'fine' in fine
art applies not only to the degree of expertise of the artist, but also
to the quality of the intended response to his art. 'Fine art' should
not evoke dislike or revulsion in the majority of viewers.

'Fine art' that does not please is an oxymoron.

Colin

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

Colin D wrote:

A virgin Mary encased in a condom? The artist calling the icon a dick?
Or was the just putting a test of faith to the religious nuts? Let
them squirm.

> 'Fine art' that does not please is an oxymoron.

The point is to communicate, not to please. The real world is more
than just puppy dogs, laughing children and happy endings for movies.
Your sentiments are just as kooky as the art critics you (rightly)
criticize...

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

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 but I don't know of anyone
who says it doesn't exist. A number of people question the importance
of its qualities it in an image (or some kinds of images), and that is
their right to do so. While I might not really pay attention to
reasonably smooth bokeh, I might react to harsh bokeh if it doesn't fit
the style of the image.

So, we'll see you in the shoot-in? Even the current mandate may be of
interest to you and you have 10 days left to do it...

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/africa

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?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
newsudha1515iuhd7koj95l9rpcg6uum6f0p3@4ax.com...
> Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>>
>>And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
>>in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
>>capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
>>ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
>>producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
>>many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
>>of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
>>Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
>>some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
>>the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.
>
>
> If most of the "vision" is applied at the post-processing stage, we
> are no longer talking about photography.
>
> I suppose we could call it "digital art with some input from
> photography" but it ain't photography.
>
>
But surely darkroom work is a part of photography....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.

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:11ah9n4irq2pj7e@corp.supernews.com...
> Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
>> have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.
>>
>> I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
>> hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.
>>
>> Am I weird?
>
> I don't think so. It's because you're a photographer. If you were a
> painter, you'd probably feel just the opposite. I know plenty of people
> who want to hang photographs in their houses; I am not one of them, and
> none of them is a photographer.
>
> I don't even like having "snapshot of a friend" pictures that I didn't
> take myself. Am I weird?

But there are some things that you can't take yourself....If you were into
astronomy, (for example) you might have a photograph of the Horse's Head
Nebula taken by Hubble hanging in your house somewhere......

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:hw6qe.63627$tf4.288641@wagner.videotron.net...
> Colin D wrote:
>
>> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
>
> This just sounds to me of an artist trying to get notoriety, as in
> "there's no such thing as bad publicity'.
>
> I could care less if an artist puts a statue of the "virgin" Mary in a
> condom. It is not controversy to me. I doubt it's art either.
>
> There was an "artist" in Toronto hanging chunks of meat and calling it
> art. I don't care what he calls it but it pisses me off that the
> government is giving him grants.
>
> It pisses me off that the Canadian government paid a couple million bucks
> for an American artist for a piece known as "Voice of Fire":
>
> http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
>
> Put it up for auction. As far as whatever value it has (other than art,
> because that's a big fat $12.93) will be better determined there.
>
> Is it fair to determine the value of art by the price received for it?
> Probably not. But it isn't fair for tax dollars to go to waste on what
> could be best described as rotting meat and badly executed wall paper.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

This letter was the best:

"P.T. Barnum was certainly right when he said 'There's one born every
minute.' But how come so many of them get to spend our tax dollars?" a woman
wrote in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix.

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> Colin D wrote:
>
>> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
>
>
> This just sounds to me of an artist trying to get notoriety, as in
> "there's no such thing as bad publicity'.
>
> I could care less if an artist puts a statue of the "virgin" Mary in a
> condom. It is not controversy to me. I doubt it's art either.
>
> There was an "artist" in Toronto hanging chunks of meat and calling it
> art. I don't care what he calls it but it pisses me off that the
> government is giving him grants.
>
> It pisses me off that the Canadian government paid a couple million
> bucks for an American artist for a piece known as "Voice of Fire":
>
> http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
>
> Put it up for auction. As far as whatever value it has (other than art,
> because that's a big fat $12.93) will be better determined there.
>
> Is it fair to determine the value of art by the price received for it?
> Probably not. But it isn't fair for tax dollars to go to waste on what
> could be best described as rotting meat and badly executed wall paper.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
I don't think governments should try to promote art with taxpayer money,
period. If they must buy art, then it should have the broadest possible
appeal, which would certainly leave out the 'abstract' pictured.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:09:08 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Also, not all art is 'enjoyable'. I saw a painting many years ago that
> was an abstract, labeled 'crucifiction'. Looking at the painting was
> literally painful. Almost everyone who looked at it seemed repulsed,
> and uncomfortable. I sincerely hope I NEVER lay eyes on it again, but I
> am grateful for the experience. That was ART.

Ah, now I get it. Your characteristic overquoting isn't the
result of laziness or not having time to trim. You're an artist!

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

"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.

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

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.

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

>>
>> Today, the artist would probably create a sculpture of a Koran
>> sitting in a toilet bowl.....:^)
>>
> No, THAT would cause riots, and violence, with the artist being
> marked for death. Recall Simon Rushdie?

Getting OT here, but part of the issue with the VM/condom is almost
cynical comedy (condomy?) wrt the Catholic Church' wide use of icons and
images. All despite clear instruction in the Old Testament regarding
graven images.

Desecration of the code (Bible, Koran) is a form of book burning and an
attack on religious beliefs and freedom of expression. It is no
surprise that it would cause strong upset amongst the faithful.

Salman Rushdie did nothing wrong, of course. He played at the edges of
questions of faith and illustrated the tension of a person wrt their
faith (IIRC). Honest writing that did not attack Islam, but put
questions to it. Islam is very intolerant of questioning the faith...
and this will eventually result, as it did for the Christian faith, in a
reformation and an outbreaking of intelligence in the leaders of the
faith ... in 500 or 1000 years or so.

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?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Viewer response is often the point of art. I know of a statue outside a
> chapel that is a rather abstract piece, and when people see it for the
> first time, they look at the statue, look up, and then comment on how
> ugly the statue is. But they had the response the artist intended. I
> know, because I discussed it with the artist. Very few people LIKE the
> statue, but almost everyone responds to it.

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".

Ton

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

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.

Ton

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Browne wrote:

>>>"Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify
>>
>>Which is why many techies downplay it's importance. They can't measure it.
>
>
>
> Some techies even use stupid names for it, like "Schmuckle", to
> demonstrate their contempt for something they simply cannot
> understand.

Rather just good humor over the name, but Tony Polson will of course
turn any little thing that offends him into the basis of personal
attacks on others. Not that it's effective.

Were Tony Polson to post some evidence of his ability as a photographer,
respect for Tony Polson might grow a smidgen and perhaps, just perhaps,
erase bad memories of his few pathtically bad images posted a few years ago.

I suggest Tony Polson begin by posting his Paris Match cover from the
1970's (along with the photo credit) as being a constructive credibility
builder.

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?)

tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas) wrote:

>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Also there are periods in which technical abilities are appreciated more
>or rather less. Take the golden age of oil painting versus the
>expressionists and impressionists of the nineteenth century. Most of the
>latter's work wasn't exactly made with a long life span in mind. An art
>conservation specialist once told me that he and his colleagues feared
>the time in which 20th century artworks will have to be preserved. Works
>with markers on paper are nightmare to them.


It's already a problem with 1960s and 1970s acrylics, which are
deteriorating extremely rapidly unless professionally conserved.

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