Bye folks, read only from here on out!
PKM,
It's your call, of course, but I think that seems like an overly extreme reaction to a small group's bad behavior.
As Edmund Burke once said, all that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men[1] to stop posting on internet fora. Or something like that.
-NT
[1] He did in fact say "men", alas. I do not endorse the sexism of the people I paraphrase.
...apug used to be known as "the most polite forum on the internet"
... not this
There are rare bragging rights that accrue from such an internship. Less famous photographers rely on such interns. Also, it is much cheaper for the intern than most colleges and photographic schools. After all, McCurry is seeking interns, not students for expensive workshops.
Even so, this is a pretty tame forum with some pretty nice people who share common interests... thankfully. These kind of htings happen periodically, as you well know, and then they go away - either the offensive member goes, or the issue dies down and goes.
Yes I remember how polite Jorge was every day.
Yes, me too... but he left. He and a few other characters really left an impression, eh?
I will say this ... Dinesh is by far the biggest pain in the ass on this site, he is a real trouble maker, he is lucky I never bump into him on the street.
Uh oh.....it's ON!
I don't understand all the fuss in this thread. This Forum SHOULD be about a photographers PERSONAL CHOICE. It is every bit as ridiculous to criticize someone for choosing to shoot digital as it is to criticize someone who chooses to only shoot film (and besides, from the comments I've read here over time, it appears most of us here shoot both).
actually a lot of things mentioned in that article are wrong ..
first and foremost, before the 1920s it was not turkey, turkey did not exist
it was the ottoman empire which in its height spanned from asia to venice.
only now noah's ark considered to be in turkey.
i wish the racists would not comment in threads it ruins it for the site as a whole.
...apug used to be known as "the most polite forum on the internet"
... not this
I don't understand all the fuss in this thread. This Forum SHOULD be about a photographers PERSONAL CHOICE. It is every bit as ridiculous to criticize someone for choosing to shoot digital as it is to criticize someone who chooses to only shoot film (and besides, from the comments I've read here over time, it appears most of us here shoot both).
...... he is lucky I never bump into him on the street.
Well, this is the internet.
Well, this is the internet.
Well, this is the internet.
McCurry loved Kodachrome; he later loved using the E100 Ektachromes. I believe his choice to go digital was largely a pragmatic one, and I won't criticize him for it.
The only thing I could be critical of is forsaking a medium which made him. Of course, it's all about the content - but I tend to doubt Afghan Girl would have lost something had it not been on Kodachrome.
I guess what I'm saying is of course there's "I don't really use film for commercial work" line of view and then there's the "I don't use film, ever" line of view that personally rubs me the wrong way. He can do whatever he wants, but I'd imagine if one was shooting film for 30+ years, it'd be an old friend - not a divorced wife.
Digital or film is irrelevant when discussing McCurry's trademark image, Afghan Girl. He had a camera. He was there are the right time and the right moment, AND he had refined sense of empathy and association with the subject that allowed him, for a few brief sections to capture that cold, haunting stare, he then moved on. Twenty hears later he re-photographed Sharba Gullut, Afghan Girl, with the same empathy and associative qualities that made his first image. The only big difference was that the resulting image was nowhere near as hauntingly beautiful as the first, but we can understand that: age and the incessant weariness of war would take its toll on the hardest of hardened Pashtun, the feared ethnics to which Gullut belonged. I have viewed several later works of McCurry and don't think those works are anywhere near as moving as the one that put his name up in lights, even though decades later very few people can associate the image with the photographer by name. Luck, timing and preparedness, together with people skills would have delivered millions of similar images in the decades since, whether on film or digital. Good on McCurry for using what is best for his professional needs irrespective of what others think. That's what we all do.
That why I say I think it's largely a pragmatic decision. His world (the one of photojournalism) changed around him. Salgado went to digital, with a stated reason being the difficulty of getting film safely through airports.
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?