Ctein and The Online Photographer "part ways"...

[Richard S. (rich815)]

...from Ctein's latest email "newsletter":

"+ + TOP AND I PART WAYS

I am no longer participating in The Online Photographer as a reader nor a writer. Mike put forth some editorial positions that were unacceptable to me and we've been unable to find anything close to common ground, so I've left. Yes, the two of us have argued about this at considerable length, and the conclusion we have both come to is that the other is an unreasonable jerk. (An entirely unprecedented result in the history of human relationships, I mean, right?) Likely we are both right, and we are both wrong (also unprecedented, I know!), but there's no common ground and it is not an entirely amicable separation.

Mike and I may be unhappy with each other, but we're not stupid. I will continue to administer print sales for TOP as need be and expect to be having a print sale of my own thru TOP come November. Business is business for both of us, and we'd be fools to leave good money on the table.

If you feel you need more details (although I can't imagine that you would… or would want them), you may query me by e-mail."

 

[farmersteve]

What in the world? I have been reading Mike's website for 10+ years and I can't imagine what would come between those two...

 

[BrianShaw]

unprecedented

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

From the motion picture 'Tremors'...

ACTRESS: "Look, these creatures are unprecedented."
ACTOR: "Yeah, but where do they come from?"

 

[cowanw]

And Mike's take
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/07/ctein-and-top.html

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That seems like much ado about nothing.

 

[Bob Carnie]

That seems like much ado about nothing.

plus 1

 

[Eric Rose]

Ctein might be a good printer but I have always found him to be an asshat. Good riddance in my books.

 

[MattKing]

A while back I was putting something together on the subject of "sharpness" for a group I was a member of, and I wanted to use some material from Ctein's book. I approached him by email, and he couldn't have been more gracious and supportive in his response.
I think that both he and Mike Johnston are really strong characters who don't "suffer fools gladly", even when it makes them fools themselves.

 

[darkroommike]

This sounds a lot like Right TWIX vs. Left TWIX. I have always enjoyed the guest posts Ctein made to TOP, he was a lot more on topic than Michael was at times.

 

[wiltw]

My own involvement with Mike Johnston goes back a few decades, during his editorial leadership of Camera & Darkroom and Photo Techniques magazines. I recall Mike as a fairly easy going guy to deal with, and his response (post 5 link) seems more of the same. And while my interactions in the distant past with Ctein have been amiable exchanges, he does strike me as being of bit of a 'my way or no way' kinda guy...'tempermental artist' description would seem apropos. Maybe after the fur settles...

 

[Peter Schrager]

I think tmy400 is better than both of them
Lol!!...only joking got no fight here

 

[gone]

As one unreasonable jerk to another (we should start a club, or better yet, a religion....that's where all the money is), I think Mike's position is untenable, and would eliminate many of the famous works that are in museums. He's of course entitled to it.

Ansel always said that he didn't take photographs, he made them. And what about Man Ray's work? Of course, he could have cared less what you called it I suspect. Bedsides, there's already a term for totally unmanipulated images (as if there was any such a thing) - straight photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

Who cares what it is called. What changes because one piece is called a photograph and another is called photo art?

 

[dasBlute]

My only problem is with the As-If images, where photo montages are presented as-if they were made from a single in-camera image. Without explanation, it is disingenuous.

Full disclosure, I was in a show where the best-in-show 'photograph' was of a polar bear walking down a New York street. Half a dozen images in the show were obviously montages. I had no expectation of winning anything, but I was a lot more interested in the so-called straight photographs in the show.

 

[pdeeh]

, I think Mike's position is untenable, and would eliminate many of the famous works that are in museums. He's of course entitled to it.

. And what about Man Ray's work? Of course, he could have cared less what you called it

did you read the original article and comments?
he hasn't got a position that rules anything in OR out of museums.

and I think you probably mean that man ray couldn't care less ...

 

[BrianShaw]

did you read the original article and comments?
he hasn't got a position that rules anything in OR out of museums.

and I think you probably mean that man ray couldn't care less ...

His position appears to be in the prior article about photographs vs photo art. Definition quibbling only. But there is more to the story I'm sure.

 

[pdeeh]

yes, I read both.
it's clear to me at least that he is making no statements whatsoever about the validity or otherwise of manipulated images, but is making a point about that it might be worth finding a suitable vocabulary for discussing them.

many people seem to mistake observing a distinction for making a value judgment about such distinctions.
momus appears to have fallen into this trap.
perhaps ctein has too.

 

[BrianShaw]

Don't know anything about momus but with ctein there is probably a lot that has been between them for a long time, and the proverbial straw just broke the camels back.

 

[Vonder]

Mike Johnston stopped being relevant to me, personally, when he went full digital. Even before that, as now, I can only read him once a week. I visit his site on Fridays. If I need info on pool tables or Mazda Miatas or other non-photographic pursuits there are much better places to visit. His site thrives based on a loyal following of mostly ditto-heads.

Don't know much about this Ctein guy, but I've got "pretentious" vibes every time I've read anything he's written, but I'm sure he's great. I mean, he's got the artist beard thing, right?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

yes, I read both.
it's clear to me at least that he is making no statements whatsoever about the validity or otherwise of manipulated images, but is making a point about that it might be worth finding a suitable vocabulary for discussing them.

many people seem to mistake observing a distinction for making a value judgment about such distinctions.
momus appears to have fallen into this trap.
perhaps ctein has too.

I find the people that do the most manipulation, but in a non-obvious way, are the most adamant about not wanting (or seeing a reason for) a new distinction or vocabulary.

 

[Richard Man]

I know Ctein personally ("in real life") and have been communicating with Mike for probably 10 years. Sad to see this happened.

Both are great people with lots of knowledge and insight.

 

[nbagno]

Back to my beer and Jobo

 

[Ai Print]

Can't really say I have read either with any regularity, too busy making photographs....not photoart, lol!

 

[Stephen Prunier]

I read most of the debate between the two. Here's my 2 cents!
I know that the Art Association in my town, and some of the others in the area have two categories for dealing with this. If it's created using analog methods, or digital with minimum post production, ie. can't tell, looks "normal" then it falls under the "Photography" label. If it shows noticeable HDR, not natural etc. You are labeled Digital Artist. I go crazy over all this. I'm "old school" But I do use both mediums. I have a cousin who does incredible work in the Digital Art Photography world. When we have family get together's everyone ask's me, "have you seen p......s website lately? He is such a great photographer. To which I always reply, What he does is beautiful, incredible, sometimes out of this world. BUT, it's not photography to me. Going out and taking multiple captures of various subjects, then spending 40 hours at the computer to create an image, to me is digital art, and not photography. I know there's many, many more. I was surprised to see photographers like John Paul Caponigro go this route, and their still considered world class photographers. I think too many people compare analog/digital as apples to apples, when it's way beyond that now. I don't think one is better than the other. I just don't think there both apples anymore!.