That’s very true. Many are irreplaceable whether they are good photographs or not. They are personally meaningfull. And legal documents too, even though most of those are replaceable. And pets. But to estate administrators (or whatever one wants to call those who have to dispose of someone else’s earthly goods) much less is meaningful.
"Photography IS Film"
-
- Thread starter ReginaldSMith
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon D610 & Nikkor AF-S 58mm f1.4
- Started by Oldwino
-
Want to Buy Mamiya M645 WLFer
- Started by wjlapier
-
For Sale Photography books
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale 11x14 photo paper
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
OP
OP
First, I am not "frustrated" by anything. I'm interested in the future of photography. Secondly, with your example of billions of burgers served at McDonalds, and Michelin 5-star gourmet restaurants, I believe that supports my view. Who will remember one of the thousands of burgers they ate at McDonalds, versus their rare 50th anniversary dinner at the "French Laundry"? Those cheap nothing-burgers go down without remarks, just like the nothing-snaps pouring over the transom on social media.
The growth in “non significant “ photography does not dilute the value of “significant “ photography, but only makes the difference between the two more evident.
Same with food and cars.
Same with food and cars.
That's true, but it still has little influence on the aesthetic quality of the photograph. YouTube channels that flirt with photography and away from technology see their viewing figures plummet.
Gear is objectively quantifiable and its pleasures democratic, throw enough money at the problem and you too can have bigger ISOs, less noise, more pixels, wider lenses. By contrast defining a great photograph requires familiarity, taste, historical awareness, a willingness to challenge old shibboleths, a curator's nose, a love of the medium and a damned good eye. A fine photo can be made on a plastic point and shoot for 99p or a Leica for £9k. Who's going to navigate the stormy seas of subjective taste and personal failure when they can have a lens that goes up to 11 (or f1.1) and earn the envy of their friends without all the soul searching?
There's a reason camera clubs are called camera clubs. It's the same reason their judges still look for things like shadow detail and sharpness long after either have ceased to have any bearing on technical attainment or individual creativity. They're islands of certainty in an ocean of opinion.
Last edited:
I agree, the OP is being over sensitive. In all the years I have posted comments with BrianShaw I have not found him to be insulting. He states things as he sees them and sometimes he disagrees with me.
OP
OP
Perhaps you don't mind being referred to as weird or elitist. Everyone has their own unique tolerance for that kind of low-brow nonsense. I fail to see how your experience with someone should override my sense of decorum though? Or maybe you just didn't read his post to me? Either way, decent etiquette online is not actually hard to learn. Just about anyone can.
Steve rides a shorter horse perhaps. Ha ha ha.
Get over it Reg... let’s move on.
Get over it Reg... let’s move on.
At the same time we neither assume that every shoebox is saved nor every image a keeper. We are subject to idiosyncratic curation from having no thought to edit all the way to a sacred treasure.
OP
OP
A very interesting essay on the ethics of manipulated images. Covers, most of the topics broached in this thread: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/digital-manipulation-the-ethics-of-photography-media-essay.php
That resonates but I don't thinK that the news as a data source is without problems. These folks are about telling a story with human interest a major value. If pets were killed I bet that is mentioned first.
Old story...I have a photog friend who was living in a home under imminent threat from a wildfire and was ordered to evacuate. I recall seeing him on the news: "you look around....waddaya take? Waddaya take? I grabbed my cameras and ran."
Boy, that was a slog. I don't think it is worth the hour it would take to critique.
You makin' fun of my height, stumpy?
Yes, it does including adding and deleting significant images such are removing hunting dogs tails and adding sharks appearing to leap at helicopters.
MattKing
Moderator
Actually, I think the reference was to the ideas you promulgated in a particular post.
Many of us who have posted in this thread disagree with many of the premises you have sought to promote in this thread.
Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we are being low-brow and nonsensical.
I was at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery earlier this week. One gallery featured pictures of lynchings where the victim was skillfully removed. Very moving.
https://insider.si.edu/2018/06/by-r...-artist-emphasizes-those-erased-from-history/
Last edited:
OP
OP
Actually no. The references are NOT to the ideas. Here's the quote for you to read: "I’m seeing a rather anti-photography sentiment here. Unless photos are relevant etc in certain folks minds, then photography isn’t worthy. Weird and elitist attitude." Notice please, the reference to "certain folks minds" - to which he means mine, and his use of "attitude" which is a trait of a person, not an idea. And that personage he was pretending to disguise was of course me.
I guess it is just too much to expect people to have the basic knowledge of logical fallacies,, and how to disagree with someone's ideas. Here, I looked it up for you all, and present it here for your edification. It's called an ad-hominem argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem.
And you know, I don't care how many of you fail to see ad-hominem arguments when they occur, or have no understanding of logic, or want to reinterpret what the fellow said. Ignorance of etiquette is not an excuse for anything. Period. Can't follow decent etiquette? Need everyone to make excuses for you? Maybe philosophy just isn't your thing.
Reg... you are becoming your own worse enemy. How long are you going to stay butt-hurt? Get over it. Let’s get on with life. Your going to give yourself apoplexy. Stop taking it personally. If I wanted to call you names I would have used your proper name. I’m too old to play games like you are accusing. Matt read it right. The issue referred to is stated: a sentiment. If you call that name calling or ad hominem... you have too thin a skin or too vivid an imagination. You recent replies speak more about you than it does me, BTW. A wee bit of paranoia or hypersensitivity? Nobody here needs to defend me. In fact, nobody here knows or likes me enough to defend me unless they are speaking their own mind. Get over yourself, please.
Last edited:
Wow! You must have little idea of how your voice comes out from your writing.
Talk about basic circling the drain. We are talking about Ken Rockwell of all people.
It was never about Ken Rockwell... that was just a set-up.
That many have been unable to arrive at the intent of this thread speaks volumes.
Perhaps the intent was just a bit too obtuse...
During the late 1980’s when I was a system development engineer working on the Kodak Premier System (which was a ‘film in - film out’ system), marketing insisted it be called The KODAK PREMIER Image Enhancement System and NOT The KODAK PREMIER Image Manipulation System.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 3,308
I searched Ken Rockwell's site and could not find where he ever said what is attributed to him.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |