Rubbish.The great 19th century photographer Peter Henry Emerson had a crisis of confidence in the aesthetic worth of photography after talking with a painter. The painter asserted that painting will always be superior to photography. Given the same scene the photographer's version could well contain 100000 points of detail while the painter's version may include only 100. But, according to the painter, those 100 details are the ones that matter and make the picture worth looking at while the extra 99900 details offered by the photographer are mere clutter and rubbish that obscure and dilute the impact of the picture. Emerson took a long time to get over this revelation and take up the camera again. This just before the rise of the Fuzzy Wuzzies.
A man barely alive... We can rebuild him!across the room ?!
DREW WILEY must be a pen name, are you STEVE AUSTIN ?
Occasionally, Ansel and his crowd were wrong. This was one of those times. I am sure there were others.......Regard!A man barely alive... We can rebuild him!
A man barely alive... We can rebuild him!
squiggle = squeeze + wiggle?No, I squiggle my nose, and think to myself, Stinkjet !
Very nicely put.John Austin sounds more related to Steve Austin than me. Van Gogh put incredible intensity into every single brush stroke, while nobody who tried to fake him can. Same for Jackson Pollock and his every drip. They felt it, and I guess that explains why anyone capable of that level of intensity has to be half-nuts to begin with. A pixel does none of that. It's unfeeling. And there is no such thing as an abstract photograph if it contains discernible subject matter. Just wannabee. That's why I halfway agree with Emerson. Photography will never be painting. But painting will never be photography either; so I prefer Emerson when he was still doing what he is best remembered for. ... Yes, across the room, Steve. It has nothing to do with relative detail. I need reading glasses for that. I was referring to surface quality, tonality, etc. Inkjet ink looks like ink. It has an opaque color palette quite different from optical color print products. Otherwise, I'm rooting for all the coyotes starting to invade the burbs of Techie Land around here. They're good at catching fuzzy little beady-eyed pixels, eating them, and keeping their numbers down.
John Austin sounds more related to Steve Austin than me. Van Gogh put incredible intensity into every single brush stroke, while nobody who tried to fake him can. Same for Jackson Pollock and his every drip. They felt it, and I guess that explains why anyone capable of that level of intensity has to be half-nuts to begin with. A pixel does none of that. It's unfeeling. And there is no such thing as an abstract photograph if it contains discernible subject matter. Just wannabee. That's why I halfway agree with Emerson. Photography will never be painting. But painting will never be photography either; so I prefer Emerson when he was still doing what he is best remembered for. ... Yes, across the room, Steve. It has nothing to do with relative detail. I need reading glasses for that. I was referring to surface quality, tonality, etc. Inkjet ink looks like ink. It has an opaque color palette quite different from optical color print products. Otherwise, I'm rooting for all the coyotes starting to invade the burbs of Techie Land around here. They're good at catching fuzzy little beady-eyed pixels, eating them, and keeping their numbers down.
exactly !
" Drew Wiley squints his left eye a little bit ( ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ) and exclaims " INK JET!"
No, I squiggle my nose, and think to myself, Stinkjet !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?