Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 <I>you've got a lot of nerve accusing me of slamming Ray's thread.</I><P> Are you saying you weren't disruptive here, taking down a pretty interesting tread, into the gutter, with name calling and all? <P> Or that you have, but it's OK because you have special license to take your gripes to other threads because you don't like me? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 with the exception of a few spit-balls, this has actually been a good thread. thank you Ray for your indulgence. what can be learned? that photographers have different points-of-view, differing objectives, can see the same image and find a unique interpretation. that digital-processing from DSLR or scanned-negative, can be used to explore expressive possibilities, easily and inexpensively. I am not sure I understand the resistance to taking an image that lacks somehow, and exploring opportunites to brings something out of it that serves the image better. it seems to me, the photo either 'works' or doesn't. why it does 'work', shouldn't be held hostage by the methods used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 "it seems to me, the photo either 'works' or doesn't. why it does 'work', shouldn't be held hostage by the methods used." yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 "I've always wanted to say this, but never could get the nerve in fear of being lamblasted. 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness. to critique an image on its dynamic-range is a portend of photographic-immaturity." Daniel, I agree that some particular photgraphs may be enhanced, and important elements accentuated, by removing shadow detail. But that's not what you said above. I still think your statemnt that "'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter..." is absurd. And in the photographic style that I criticized "shadow detail" is not just selectively under-emphasized... it is mostly entirely obliterated. I like your shot of the knives... Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Brad: If you are so concerned about maintaining the integrity of Ray's thread, why do you persist...? Bottom line is that you still think the photography here is "dreadful" and that yours is much better. I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. However, you seem to be operating under some illusion that you are entitled to espress your opinions, regardless how offensive they might be, and I am not entitled to express mine. It appears to be that you can dish out criticism pretty good... you just don't take it very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Yes, thank you Ray. As atonement for the way this thread has gone, I'll let you borrow my 10-22mm lens for a month. :=) One thing I'd like to point out, is Dennis' notion that any sort of high-contrast post- processing done is an attempt to rescue an otherwise bad photo. There is nothing further from the truth. When I go out and shoot, I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to capture, and how I want it to look - before I release the shutter. The 95% bad photos I don't even open in photoshop. His claim that all those that post on the S&D forum do the same sort of safe thing, is of course ridiculous and denies that those photographers have any sort of vision beyond rescuing failed photos. That is amazing and myopic beyond belief. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 <I> If you are so concerned about maintaining the integrity of Ray's thread, why do you persist...?</I><P> Persist at what? Explaining why I shoot the way I do? That was the title of the thread. You're the only one needing to resort to insults. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 "When I go out and shoot, I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to capture, and how I want it to look - before I release the shutter." You're actually imagining metallic bronze skin in a black and white photo? LOL... "The 95% bad photos I don't even open in photoshop." 95% of what? 3,000,000? ;>) Pretentious BS... LOL... Brad, don't post this drivel if you don't want anyone to call you on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 <I>However, you seem to be operating under some illusion that you are entitled to espress your opinions, regardless how offensive they might be</I><P> Have I been offensive at all on this thread? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Gosh dang! This is still going on? Amazing! It ahould be perfectly obvious to anyone who's looked at photos on this forum over the past month or so that the only really creative great images here are those self portraits I did with my 15mm lens on the Bessa L. It has nothing at all to do with shadow detail or post processing. Not with film or digital. It's a matter of being a great photographer and feeling completely at ease with your subject matter ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 "Have I been offensive at all on this thread?" Brad, since you hold us and our photographs in such low regard, and have said so before, your very presence on this forum is offensive to me. Just being honest... ;>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Dennis, again, this thread isn't about you and what you like - take your battles elsewhere. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=489236 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Dennis, you'll have to picture me sitting in the cockpit of my sailboat, getting bounced around by wind, the ferry wake, and boats docking nearby. I tend to type rather fast and not always in sync with my brain! that wasn't the most well-crafted sentence, however what I wanted to say is that too many times on photo.net, there is an obsession, an overbearing importance placed on exposure-metering and printmaking to preserve shadow-detail at all costs. I think it is more important to place more emphasis on the mood, the story, a sense of drama, juxtaposition, contrasts, metaphor, etc. shadow detail may, or may not, serve those objectives. my personal photographic objectives tend toward minimalism and subtraction-methods of removing data that diffuses from more important elements. I also favour, in contrast to most everyone here, almost zero depth-of-field. it is another subtractive process that helps remove what I am not interested in. I love large-aperture lenses, and I love the Noctilux for this very reason. these heated-philosophical discussions can be uncomfortable at times, but strong opinions are valued, and I think I would be more aligned with photography made by those with expressive temperments than those hiding in the 'shadows' and playing it safe. sorry about that. and thanks to everyone for their contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 <I> "The 95% bad photos I don't even open in photoshop." 95% of what? 3,000,000? ;>) Pretentious BS... LOL... Brad, don't post this drivel if you don't want anyone to call you on it...</I><P> Dennis, what is there to call. That's the way I shoot. Probably more like 30,000 than 3M. Please explain what is drivel and why it is pretentious BS? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 <<< ... Have I been offensive at all on this thread? ...>>> Not chuckling solely at your expense, Brad, but that reminds me of a case I worked on many, many years ago against a trusted person who'd taken money from an employer. As I recall it, of his answers to one of my questions, when read back, came out about like this: "Well, I didn't take any money that wasn't mine .... that week." Nearly all of us have made remarks on the internet that we might not make -- and hopefully would not make -- face to face when introduced to a person who shares enthusiasm for one of our favorite hobbies. What's the old biblical phrase: Let he who is without sin ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Daniel - Picture of the knives is very good. Suits the thread and my post, to some extent, I'm afraid -:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 I dunno. I think I've been pretty civil and transparent here. Talking about how I shoot, my workflow, the look I'm going for. I've answered a lot of questions. I haven't resorted to insults, or called Dennis a joke, his work crap, etc. From his knowledge-base, the way I shoot probably doesn't make a lot of sense to him, but he should be still rather than condemn it. I think he's still steaming from the past - and wrecking a thread in the process. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_santos Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Oh - please don't stop now guys, I 've found all of this very entertaining, then again I like jock itch too. I actually feel a little stupid for actually reading this entire thing. But I couldn't look away. Just think if you all took all that time and energy in crafting these responses and did something creative an productive. You might have actually accomplished something. Thanks again- please continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 There are some fine photos on this particular Leica thread, but if you browse you will find that 75% of what's posted in the Leica Forum is marginal snap-shooting, accompanied by angst about Russian lenses or bokeh or simple preening by poofteurs etc. In other words, there seems to be no valid argument for film or for digital on aesthetic basis. The people who argue the loudest either way seem to be mediocre photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Brad, I guess you don't want to back away from your opinion that the stuff here is "dreadful". You are entilted to your opinion. Brad, as I am entitled to do, when I see one of your pics here I may comment on it (Then, I may not.). People comment on mine... no big deal. You may have my assurance, though, that I will, as I always do, give an HONEST appraisal of your work. If you don't want people giving you an honest appraisal of your work then you may re-consider whether you want to post here. All I'm trying to do, Brad, is to ensure the improvement of the "dreadful" quality of photos here. And we can only do that by giving brutally honest assessments of each other's work. ;>) I have heard of another forum where the opinions rendered about each other's photos is much less critical. Have you tried that forum? ;>) Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 <<<... poofteurs ... >>> Great sound to this word. Say it a few times -- you'll see what I mean. On behalf of all of us poofteurs [-:)] may I ask: What's the formal definition, John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 i guess Dennis would rather carry on arguing than post a pic or two images he's made that uphold his standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Dennis, you are really losing it. As you know, I don't post here. The two pics I posted above were to answer Ray's questions. You can comment all you want - that's never been an issue. Some of the statements you make about my workflow, motivations, processing, etc are false, which I've responded to. But you keep going with the personal insults. A sign of loosing it, I think. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 24, 2005 Share Posted April 24, 2005 Eric, I can't win.. I posted stuff (above) that I think is crap... and some people think it's GOOD! Go figure... ;>) Thanks all the same for your invitation for me to post more but I think I'll just hold off posting for a while and just wait to see Brad's. ;>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now