my web site
olivier.desmats
Hi,
this is my new web site ( I'm a young french photograph )
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats/
comments are welcomes, thanks
--
------------
olivier
128 rue du chemin vert 75011
06.65.21.86.16
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
Celcius
Pas mal du tout ;-0
Could you please tell us more: the camera you're using, lens, post
photography "massaging" (Photoshop?), etc.
I would have liked to tell you which shots I preferred, but there are
no captions...
Cheers,
Marcel
UC
olivier.desmats
explain....!!!!!!
and sign..... your post !!
--
------------
olivier
128 rue du chemin vert 75011
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1134742140.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
olivier.desmats
I use different material, contax G1 with 90mm, leica with 40 mm, praktica
with 28mm and rollei for 6/6, and before I was using some reflex minolta,
nikon, now some randgfinder camera and 1 reflex.
I scan with with a minolta dual scan IV, massaging with photoshop for the
high light and the low light, contrast...
for the laboratory , film process is rodinal or calbe 49, sometimes ilfotec
lc 29 and always push prosess for every film ( kodak Tri X 400 ) to
1600-6400 iso.
thanks for your comments...
cheers
--
------------
olivier
128 rue du chemin vert 75011
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
"Celcius" <celc...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1134735314.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
olivier.desmats
--
------------
olivier
128 rue du chemin vert 75011
06.65.21.86.16
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
"Adrian" <leehol...@nospam.here.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
pko5q1targ5f18tqp...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:23 +0100, "olivier.desmats"
> <olivier...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>comments are welcomes, thanks
>>--
> instead of chains and spikes bag over the head would be more
> appropriate and artistic for what the ??female models.
Celcius
> olivier.desmats wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is my new web site ( I'm a young french photograph )
> >
> > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats/
> >
> >
> > comments are welcomes, thanks
> >
> > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
>
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134742140.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> More crap from another moron.
>
UC,
You don't seem to ever put two words together without being insulting:
"Moron, fuckwit. pretentious tripe", ad nauseam... (see below). I've also
been on many other newsgroups you participate in and it's the same story. I
find your attitude boring. There's practically nothing you say that's
constructive. I wonder why you participate in those groups. I suppose your
wife is castrating and you get it out on newsgroups ;-)))))) People like you
are long on insults and short on imagination and wit.
Cheers!
Marcel
EXAMPLE:
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Photography: Artist vs technician
> UC wrote:
>> I find the sort of photos that the vast majority of amateurs and even
>> pros who fancy themselves 'fine art' photographers to be utterly
>> vacuuous and boring. Pretentious tripe.
>> UC wrote:
>> Anybody who disagrees with me that anybody who buys a digital SLR is a
>> complete fuckwit....is a fuckwit....
"UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
UC
physically associating with photographers.
This way, I am protected from the stench.
Yes, most people's work is execrable.
UC
It's pretentious, ill-conceived, vacuous, and ugly.
They obviously took a lot of work and dedication, all, of course, to no
avail.
Mark W. Oots
"Celcius" <cos...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:sqidnWl2At9...@rogers.com...
>
>> olivier.desmats wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > this is my new web site ( I'm a young french photograph )
>> >
>> > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats/
>> >
>> >
>> > comments are welcomes, thanks
>> > olivier
>> >
>> > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
>
>>
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Text deleted, because I'm not inerested...
> UC,
> You don't seem to ever put two words together without being insulting:
> "Moron, fuckwit. pretentious tripe", ad nauseam... (see below). I've also
> been on many other newsgroups you participate in and it's the same story.
> I
> find your attitude boring. There's practically nothing you say that's
> constructive. I wonder why you participate in those groups. I suppose your
> wife is castrating and you get it out on newsgroups ;-)))))) People like
> you
> are long on insults and short on imagination and wit.
> Cheers!
> Marcel
>
>
>
> EXAMPLE:
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> Photography: Artist vs technician
>
>> UC wrote:
Text deleted, since I don't want to repeat his tripe....
The solution in Outlook Express is <Message><Block Sender><Yes>...in other
words (PLONK!)
Mark
Jasen
<UC, your comments are execrable.
<UC, you are pretentious, ill-conceived, vacuous, and ugly.
<UC, you obviously didn't take a lot of notice at all, of course, to no
avail for your dysfunctional brain.
Oliver...I liked it. Very interesting work. Some people are simply idiots,
like UC.....does that stand for "Utter Cvnt"??!!
Keep up the excellent work Oliver.
Jasen
>I participate because this allows me to discuss photography without
> physically associating with photographers.
>
> This way, I am protected from the stench.
>
> Yes, most people's work is execrable.
And I suppose yours isn't......whats your website address, if any, so we can
see once and for all!
NER
You can judge for yourself whether "UC" (i.e., Michael Scarpitti) is in any position to label the works of others as "execrable, pretentious‚ ill–conceived‚ vacuous‚ and ugly crap" by viewing his images at: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Michael+Scarpitti
N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com/
--
NER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-166269.html
Send from http://www.photographytalk.net
Celcius
"NER" <NER.2...@no-mx.photographytalk.net> wrote in message
news:NER.2...@no-mx.photographytalk.net...
>
> You can judge for yourself whether "UC" (i.e., Michael Scarpitti) is in
ill-conceived, vacuous, and ugly crap" by viewing his images at:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Michael+Scarpitti
>
> N. Riley
> http://normanrileyphotography.com/
>
>
> --
> NER
>
>
Ner,
Are you sure that Scarpitti is really UC?
If so, it's not bad. Mind you, it lacks imagination. Shooting in B&W doesn't
necessarily make a photo a work of art.
On the other hand, I love what you do. I also liked the way you give
information on your photos.
It's hard to say which are my favourites. I liked "Pacific Coast",
"Zaltbommel - Holland" (I relate to this after 2 trips in Holland, both in
the North and South), "Mono Lake"... They're all special. This is what I
call art. There's a definite mood which permeates you photographs. I've
earmarked your address. I'm not up to scratch compared to what you do.
However, apprecxiating it, I think, is a step in the right direction.
Thanks
Marcel
uw_wayne
in your images. There are plenty of photographers who will give you
really knowledgeable critiquing of your work. To hell with those people
whose best images look like they were with a P&S camera.
UC
That stuff is pretentious crap and you know it.
uw_wayne
anything over time? UC, maybe you are different than the rest of us. We
grew our tastes, experiences, and preferences in art over time.
Criticism is fair game for any of us who choose to make what we do
public.You may not like his work, but it is a far cry from your assault
as "crap".
NER
Marcel,
Thank you very much. Yes, I am certain of UC's identify. Michael distinguishes himself by his unique conduct in every forum he visits. In reality, he is a peddler of fonts:
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6618
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.photo.technique.art/msg00196.html
http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-33462.html
http://www.myfonts.com/person/scarpitti/michael/
http://www.fontcraft.com/scriptorium/bios.html
UC
I see the same crap over and over: grain, blur, excessive contrast,
etc. It gets REALLY old after a while.
Yes, I did some experimenting and pushing when I was young, but I never
produced anything like this crap.
UC
NER wrote:
> Marcel,
>
> Thank you very much. Yes, I am certain of UC's identify. Michael distinguishes himself by his unique conduct in every forum he visits. In reality, he is a peddler of fonts:
>
> http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6618
> http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/rec.photo.technique.art/msg00196.html
> http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-33462.html
> http://www.myfonts.com/person/scarpitti/michael/
> http://www.fontcraft.com/scriptorium/bios.html
The fonts are based on Roman sources.
NER
UC
NER
To make just one good photograph before my time is up.
Celcius
bit of it, an old "fuddle duddle" with the future in his past ;-)))))))
The blasé. The "I have seen it all". Dude, you said it all.
Merry Xmas just the same. In a way, you are becoming sympathetic...
Marcel
UC
The trouble is, as each generation goes through this phase, the crap
gets worse...
Floyd Davidson
>Hi,
>
>this is my new web site ( I'm a young french photograph )
>
>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats/
>
>comments are welcomes, thanks
After seeing some of the idiotic insults... I decided to
actually look and see what you had.
Here are the ones I happen to like,
Portraits: 2nd from top, and 2nd from the bottom
City: 3rd from top
City 2: 6th from top
Stage: 1st, 5th, 6th, and 10th down from top
Stage 2: 2nd, 7th, 8th from top
I really don't like many of your images. Which is hardly
amazing, but given that... Your perception of art is clearly
very different than mine so it really surprized me to see you
both displaying some of those images that are so far from my
tastes, and yet have so many that cross over into what I do
like.
Which brings up a couple of questions... what kind of details
go along with your images? What kind of film? What are you
doing to emphasize all of that grain? (I can't do darkroom work
anymore, but once upon a time I spent a few years playing with
35mm Tri-X developed in Agfa Rodinal. Won't say I miss
chemicals, but I do miss the effects of Rodinal.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd Davidson
>
>for the laboratory , film process is rodinal or calbe 49, sometimes ilfotec
>lc 29 and always push prosess for every film ( kodak Tri X 400 ) to
>1600-6400 iso.
I missed this before posting my other message, and it answers all
of my questions. But brings up another: calbe 49 ???
I tried searching with google, but you can rest assured that your
English is better than my French or German. It is also a large grain
developer?
Floyd Davidson
>You can judge for yourself whether "UC" (i.e., Michael
>Scarpitti) is in any position to label the works of others
>crap" by viewing his images at:
>http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Michael+Scarpitti
Wow. That does explain why he is so jealous of a young fellow
who displays a good bit of talent.
>N. Riley http://normanrileyphotography.com/
Oh, my. That explains why *you* can be generous to that same
youngster.
Too many good images to point them all out, of course. But
"JNR01, 1983", the child with a flute, is breathtaking. "ASB11,
1985" and (one that the link for a larger image does not work
on) the portrait of a man in the uppper left corner of page IV,
also standout.
olivier.desmats
yes it's a large grain developer, it's the same composition as rodinal agfa,
and^push process with ilfotec lc 29 ( like triX at 6400 iso )
cheers.
--
------------
olivier
128 rue du chemin vert 75011
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats
"Floyd Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
87hd8zr...@apaflo.com...
UC
Floyd Davidson wrote:
> NER <NER.2...@no-mx.photographytalk.net> wrote:
> >You can judge for yourself whether "UC" (i.e., Michael
> >Scarpitti) is in any position to label the works of others
> >as "execrable, pretentious, ill--conceived, vacuous, and ugly
> >crap" by viewing his images at:
> >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Michael+Scarpitti
>
> Wow. That does explain why he is so jealous of a young fellow
> who displays a good bit of talent.
Talent? TALENT? You're demented. It's pure, unadulterated crap.
> >N. Riley http://normanrileyphotography.com/
>
> Oh, my. That explains why *you* can be generous to that same
> youngster.
Riley is a hack. But at least he does not stoop as low as that moron..
UC
Floyd Davidson wrote:
> NER <NER.2...@no-mx.photographytalk.net> wrote:
> >You can judge for yourself whether "UC" (i.e., Michael
> >Scarpitti) is in any position to label the works of others
> >as "execrable, pretentious, ill--conceived, vacuous, and ugly
> >crap" by viewing his images at:
> >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Michael+Scarpitti
>
> Wow. That does explain why he is so jealous of a young fellow
> who displays a good bit of talent.
What TALENT does it take to make crap like this:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats/city%20life.html
Tell me!
UC
Floyd Davidson wrote:
>
> I really don't like many of your images. Which is hardly
> amazing, but given that... Your perception of art is clearly
> very different than mine so it really surprized me to see you
> both displaying some of those images that are so far from my
> tastes, and yet have so many that cross over into what I do
> like.
Photographs ARE NOT and CANNOT BE works of art! When these morons get
that through their THICK SKULLS, then maybe, just MAYBE they can make
some good photographs!
Photoart
wrote:
>Photographs ARE NOT and CANNOT BE works of art! When these morons get
>that through their THICK SKULLS, then maybe, just MAYBE they can make
>some good photographs!
>
People like you always give me a good laugh. So please keep making
stupid statements like this so I can keep laughing.
Floyd Davidson
Speaking of a thick skull...
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>> NER <NER.2...@no-mx.photographytalk.net> wrote:
>> >You can judge for yourself whether "UC" (i.e., Michael
>> >Scarpitti) is in any position to label the works of others
>> >as "execrable, pretentious, ill--conceived, vacuous, and ugly
>> >crap" by viewing his images at:
>> >http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Michael+Scarpitti
>>
>> Wow. That does explain why he is so jealous of a young fellow
>> who displays a good bit of talent.
>
>What TALENT does it take to make crap like this:
>
>http://perso.wanadoo.fr/olivier.desmats/city%20life.html
>
>Tell me!
It apparently takes more talent than *you* have.
UC
The joke is on you. You haven't te elightest clue what you're talking
about. You're just like all the other imbecile photographers.
Uneducated poor white trash from trailer parks.
NER
Michael, you need to double up on your halperidol. Afterward, perhaps you could tell us why photography cannot be an art, vs. merely asserting your curious and minority point of view on this matter. How is it that two individuals using essentially the same materials and having equivalent skills (e.g., you and Oliver Desmats) produce vastly different results (we can all plainly see that his results are vastly superior to yours). As for being classified as a "hack" by you, I should consider that a compliment. You did, afterall, at Cafe Ilfopro, label A. Adams as a "bearded lunatic."
UC
NER wrote:
> Michael, you need to double up on your halperidol. Afterward, perhaps you could tell us why photography cannot be an art, vs. merely asserting your curious and minority point of view on this matter. How is it that two individuals using essentially the same materials and having equivalent skills (e.g., you and Oliver Desmats) produce vastly different results (we can all plainly see that his results are vastly superior to yours). As for being classified as a "hack" by you, I should consider that a compliment. You did, afterall, at Cafe Ilfopro, label A. Adams as a "bearded lunatic."
Adams did more to damage B&W photography than anyone in history.
Of all the things you have EVER said, to say that his results are
"vastly superior" to mine means that you are criminally insane and need
to be locked up. His suff is crap, through and through. Excrement.
You, as a mere photographer, have no knowledge of philosophy. You don't
have the right to make the slightest pronouncement about whjether
photography is art. You don't have the qualifications or education.
It is the belief that photography is art that leads so many
photographers, such as Olivier, astray.
I have repeatedly given an account on why photography is not art.
Photography is not art for the same reason that a fossil is not art. A
fossil is an impression of something else. It depends on some other
thing for its content. It is causally linked to something else. So also
with photography. A photograph is always a photograph of something
else.
Paintings and sculptures (which are works of representational art) do
not depend on, and are not causally connected, to anything else. Even
if a painter paints a scene before him, there is no causal connection
between the scene and the painting. The connection is intentional, not
causal.
You of course won't understand a word of this, because you are a
photographer, not a philosopher.
You would need several courses in aesthetics to catch up.
You can start by reading this:
http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html
Please be sure to read carefully. Scruton uses philosophical terms such
as 'represenetational' that are different in meaning than in ordinary
language. A photograph is not a 'representation' of a scene. Its
relation is iconic, not representational. By 'ideal' photograph, he
does not mean a high-quality photograph, but merely a photograph in the
abstract.
"In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
representational art, it is important to separate painting and
photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting
and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from
actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
methods of painting.
By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not
an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it
is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in
the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear
from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal
photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I
begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or
false.
The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical
Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick
M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11;
and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J.
Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965).
-----------------------------
The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a
photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here
causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a
photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x
is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the
photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the
subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing
the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is
characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked.
Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it
is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and
the causality of the other are quite irrelevant to the standing of the
finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of
representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject
in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of
paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the
quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or
being tempted to believe that x is y.
---2---
Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x
represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is
designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that
was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of
any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient
for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to
define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on
the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation
between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the
photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin
by....."
(end of quote.....)
Gordon Moat wrote:
> uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > There is an entire chapter in The Aesthetic Understanding that
> > discusses WHY photographs are not works of art.
> >
> > http://www.rogerscruton.com/books/aesthetic_under.html
>
> He is writing an opinion piece about philosophy as he applies it to the world of
> art. He is not now, nor has he ever been, an artist.
That's right, and irrelevant. Artists are not aestheticians.
> He does not get any mention
> from anyone major in the world of art, nor is his writing a textbook in any art
> degree courses at any major universities.
True, and again irrelevant. This is a question for aesthetics, not art,
and so you're simply arguing in a completely irrelevant manner.
>
> Depending upon how good your grades were in college, you may have learned something
> very important. That namely would be there is never just one source for anything.
> When, or if, you are presented with only one source, then that shows bias. I would
> have expected anyone with a reasonable GPA to have learned that.
>
> You have chosen to follow the opinion of one man. That people more well regarded in
> the world of art do not share his opinion reflects how well his statements are
> regarded. That you choose to pick one source, states more about you than it does
> about critical thinking.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
You still are clueless.....
UC
as a photographer or as a debate opponent.
You are singularly unqualified to debate issues you raise.
Olivier's work is crap. Part of the reason it is crap is that he
thinks, like so many other deluded photographers, that he is producing
'art'.
Once we rid the Earth of this notion, photography will radically
improve.
Certainly Olivier is capable of producing good photographs. The problem
is the way he thinks about what he is doing. We have to educate him.
Paul Furman
represent the scene accurately without personal bias???
UC
Paul Furman wrote:
> So what should a photographer strive for UC? Technical only, trying to
> represent the scene accurately without personal bias???
Depends on what kind of photography one is doing. If one is ostensibly
recording something of interest for posterity (aka reportage), one
should strive for clarity, intersting angles, good exposure, and
interesting lighting. The best photograph is one in which the
photographer has not attempted to manipulate the image beyond the
barest minimum. (minor burning or dodging).
Take a look at Sebastio Selgado, for exemple.
By the way, I'm writing a book about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In commercial work, for magazine ads or catalogues, who cares what you
do? The purpose there is to sell a product. The kind of imagery Olivier
uses might be appropriate for commercial work, but certainly not in
reportage.
Paul Furman
What if you don't care about accurate reportage or sales allure, but
just like interesting meaningful artistic imagery? You seem to suggest
that's an aesthetic sin of some sort.
UC
Paul Furman wrote:
>
> What if you don't care about accurate reportage or sales allure, but
> just like interesting meaningful artistic imagery? You seem to suggest
> that's an aesthetic sin of some sort.
It's just pointless and stupid.
Do you ever look at old photographs? Ones that are at least 50 or 100
years old?
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~amylee/images/Geography/New%20York/1900%20Brooklyn%20Bridge.jpg
http://www.midmanhattan.com/graphics/EasterParade/EaPar1900.jpg
http://officemuseum.com/photo_gallery_1900s_ii.htm
What is useful or interesting about them? The fact that they are a
record of what was around then, and the fact that they're reasonably
unaltered from reality.
What if the photographer then was just interested in making the kind of
garbage Olivier is doing? You would not even preserve them. People need
to think long-term, and stop this self-absorbed nonsense. It's not art,
and cannot be art. It's photography, dammit!
UC
(Scroll through the images)
UC
UC
Paul Furman
UC
UC
Paul Furman wrote:
> That is a strange one!
>
Do you get my point? Find something interesting to photograph, and
don't screw it up with stupid artistic pretensions!
Imagine if the photographer here took this the way so many of Olivier's
are.
Wouldn't you want to throttle him?
DBLEXPOSURE
There is something special about the un adulterated photograph however, You
can't toss all other images into the Crap file just because the have been
manipulated. If that where the case, you might as well throw all of
vangough's images or Michael Angelo's as well, they are not true
representations of anything.
Now you may have no interest in art for the sake of art but that is your own
business. For me, if it is interesting and thought provoking then it is
worth it, however it came to be.
But as I said at the top, There is something sweet about the pure
photograph, Simplicity obscured by complication, ??? Or should that be the
other way around? Anyway, if that is your thing, the, rock on with it.
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135880077.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
UC
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> Chiming in with my two cents....
>
>
> There is something special about the un adulterated photograph however, You
> can't toss all other images into the Crap file just because the have been
> manipulated.
Given the technical quality of today's films and optics, it is criminal
to do so.
> If that where the case, you might as well throw all of
> vangough's images or Michael Angelo's as well, they are not true
> representations of anything.
What on Earth are you talking about? I'm talking about PHOTOGRAPHY, not
ART!
>
> Now you may have no interest in art for the sake of art but that is your own
> business.
I certainly do have an interest in art. But photography has nothing to
do with art.
UC
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> Chiming in with my two cents....
>
>
> There is something special about the un adulterated photograph however, You
> can't toss all other images into the Crap file just because the have been
> manipulated. If that where the case, you might as well throw all of
> vangough's images or Michael Angelo's as well, they are not true
> representations of anything.
They certainly are representations . Photographs are not
representations at all. they are impressions of something else. You may
not get this, because these are philosophical technical terms.