Dr. Albert Knapp's Pix from "Leica and the Arts" in "Viewfinder"

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by alex_es, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Albert has asked for a scan of his photos from his article "Leica and the Arts," "Viewfinder" magazine, Vol. 37, No. 3, Third Quarter 2004. Dr. Knapp has written in a previous thread that he owns the copyright of the photos. Thank you for checking on that, Albert. Here goes the first. This is from the back cover.
    00A5Jr-20413484.jpg
     
  2. The following three shots by Dr. Knapp are from page 19 of "Viewfinder."
    00A5KQ-20413584.jpg
     
  3. The following caption appears to the left-hand side of the photograph: GARRISON KEILLOR HOSTING "A PRAIRE HOME COMPANION" Tanglewood, MA (7/2004) M7/90mm APO f/2/Provia 400 1/60 @ f/2
    00A5Kr-20413784.jpg
     
  4. The following three photographs appear on page 20 of the
    "Viewfinder."
     
  5. The photograph below is captioned as follows on the right-hand side: DUET, EUGENE ONEGIN (P. TCHAIKOVSKY) Royal Danish Ballet - Copenhagen (8/2002) M7/90mm APO f2/Provia 400 1/60 @ f/2 ("Albert B. Knapp, M.D. [copyright] 2002" appears at the bottom left corner.)
    00A5LI-20414084.jpg
     
  6. The photograph below is captioned on the right-hand side as follows: SOLOIST, MARK MORRIS DANCE GROUP - Tanglewood, MA (7/2004) - M7/90mm APO f/2/Provia 400 1/30 @ f/2
    00A5Ls-20414384.jpg
     
  7. Albert,

    Excellent exposure and composition. Very nice.

    Regards ...... Mike Webster
     
  8. In the photograph below the following caption appears on the left- hand side: ENSEMBLE SCENE, EUGENE ONEGIN (P. TCHAIKOVSKY) Royal Danish Ballet -Copenhagen (8/2002) M7/90mm APO f/2 Provia 400 1/30 @ f/2
    00A5MT-20414484.jpg
     
  9. Should mention that "Viewfinder" is published by the Leica Historica
    Society of America.
     
  10. Great collection of photographs Dr. Knapp and thank you for your time in scanning and posting Alex.
     
  11. Let me try to improve the last shot (#7) a little.
    00A5OI-20415084.jpg
     
  12. Thank you, Rusty! I think I need another go at #6.
    00A5Oh-20415184.jpg
     
  13. Still not right. One more time
    00A5P0-20415384.jpg
     
  14. And the first photo needs a tweeking....
    00A5PG-20415484.jpg
     
  15. I don't see the big deal. He was able to buy expensive seats, but beyond that, these are no more than okay shots taken with an AE camera. In the dance shots, the composition comes from the choreographer, not the photographer. In the other shots, we have record shots we've seen a thousand times. In short, YAWN!
     
  16. Hey Red, take it easy!

    The man may be a doctor, but he's just an amateur photographer sharing his work.
    Nobody made you look at all these shots.

    Don't be a hater just b/c the man has nice seats.

    Finally, there are very few unique images in the world. If you have some photos that have
    never been done before, please share. Otherwise, just take deep breath and go to the
    next thread.
     
  17. Very nice images, Albert.

    Thanks for scanning and posting these, Alex.

    Red, most of us who lurk about this forum are very proud that one of its leading
    contributors had his photos - and an excellent article on the story behind them -
    published in the Viewfinder.

    regards,
     
  18. Albert & Alex
    Thanks for showing these...always a proud moment having your work published.
     
  19. Like ensemble and Garrison shots. Nice use of the Leica- quiet and good reach.
     
  20. Albert, very, very nice pictures!
     
  21. If his magazine article is good, that's an achievement. I'm just saying that these pictures are the result of purchases, not technique or originality. I suppose I've known too many guys with MDs who buy great equipment, lab services, and access; and preen themselves as great photographers when they are actually untalented. They are so accustomed to people kowtowing to their profession that they expect applause for anything they take up. Maybe it's just a New York thing. Maybe this guy isn't like that. If he's not like that, I'm wrong in this. But I find it suspicious that he'd present such weak shots for publication.
     
  22. Red, they're not all earthshattering photos. But you're excessive vitrol says more about you than the photographs. BTW, where's your uploaded photos? I didn't see any under your "name". Funny that.
     
  23. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I didn't see any vitriol, nor do I understand why one must have uploaded photos to comment. I have shows and don't tell people they have to keep their mouths shut unless they bring photos with them.

    And why aren't you asking the people who are raving where their photos are? Seems hypocritical not to, so maybe you should go through all the responses, find the ones that don't have posted photos, and ask them.

    FWIW, these seem to be fairly straightforward shots of theater, something that can be done if one is in the proper location.
     
  24. "I didn't see any vitriol. . ."

    Than take off your rose colored glasses:)

    I get a little suspicious when someone comes on line with an identity created 2 days ago, seems to go the extra mile to basically say they think the photographs suck, derides the guy for having money to buy the equipment takes of on the medical profession and yet isn't a poster, to me it smacks of not a lurker but a troller or a dentist..
     
  25. FWIW, these seem to be fairly straightforward shots of theater, something that can be done if one is in the proper location.
    Jesus, Jeff, You'll be talking about proper photography next.
     
  26. Ooh, eee, uhh ah ah. Those pictures (sorry, I mean images) are just so wonderful that I think I'm going to have an organism right here at my computer. There -- THAT's the way that it's done on the Leica Forum, Red. We are just so thrilled to have these mahvelous pearls tossed at us visually impaired swine....
     
  27. I didn't say his pictures suck. I said they were "okay" and "record shots we've seen a thousand times." Vitriol? I dislike poseurs, but I have no idea if this guy is one of them. I also have no idea if I will ever set up a gallery on photo.net, but that has nothing to do with my ability to critique photographs. I will, however, be posting shots within threads. I have some over on the Minolta forum right now: parade shots. You can decide if they are banal or original or in between. I won't demand to see your pictures if you don't like mine. BTW, I am not offering them for publication anywhere.

    Jeff, thanks for cutting through the grease.
     
  28. "I suppose I've known too many guys with MDs who buy great equipment, lab services, and access; and preen themselves as great photographers when they are actually untalented. They are so accustomed to people kowtowing to their profession that they expect applause for anything they take up."

    I didn't see the criticism of the photographs as being ordinary as evidence of vitriol. However, the above personal attack on the photographer (and perhaps MDs in general) is vitriolic. It goes well beyond routine critique of posted images.
     
  29. Let me try to tweek #3 a little....
    00A5eW-20419084.jpg
     
  30. Nope, nope, nope. One last try...
    00A5eq-20419584.jpg
     
  31. opps...! That should be "Symphony."
     
  32. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Theatre shooting is tough. And not bad for a doctor! Thanks Albert, I appreciate them as you can't move where you want, never enough light for your focal length, subjects wont stop moving, spot lights coming and going, high iso film...way to go man.
     
  33. Red I suppose it was the "YAWN" remark made me say what I did, thought it was maybe a little insensitive. But hey, maybe I'm just a thin skinned girlie man, who mis-interpreted your post. I could be way off base... If so mia culpa.

    As far as the photos, I thought they are quite ok for what they are. True, they are not gut wrenching or particularly unusual. I think he did a good job with his position and the light etc. the fact that he's a Dr. of some kind, doesn't really have anything to do w/it does it?
     
  34. Hi guys! is it safe to come out of my foxhole yet or are the ad
    hominem attacks still going on? :)>)))) I appreciate everyones'
    constructive criticisms and agree that while these are not the
    best pictures ever taken regarding these subjects, one must
    remember that they come from the audience and are
    unsollicited. Remember, the ideal shots that Red and others
    alude to are set ups and done with the full cooperation of the
    management. My shots are true action photos and present many
    challenges of their own. I look forward to seeing some of Red's
    photographs on our site. Remember, I posted or rather Alex was
    kind enough to post them, these photographs in the spirit of
    cooperation and sharing our different experiences. I am equally
    proud of the article and hope that you will all get a chance to read
    it as well. Again, I want to thank Alex for being a great sport and
    true friend.
     
  35. And thank you, Albert! This is the first time I've ever scanned from
    a publication. Quite a learning experience.
     
  36. Thanks to Alex and Albert.
     
  37. Way back in 1964 I married a pretty young thing who soon wanted her own Leica III-f and quickly learned to become a talented darkroom tech also, including making her own Cibachromes and type C prints. Eventually, after having two kids, we split up but she's still a good and talented photographer. Along the way she photographed for the yearbooks of the various schools that she attended ~ Miami-Dade Community College, Barry University, and the University of Miami School of Medicine (class of '82) where she was also photo editor of the yearbook, and she's had a fair amount of photos published elsewhere.

    Being a doctor doesn't preclude one from taking good photos. On the other hand I've seen plenty of published photos by professional photographers that were nothing to brag about. Nice photos, Albert!
     
  38. And thank you, Travis. Nice to hear from you, Al. Right about MDs. Chekhov was an MD and wrote stories and plays. William Carlos Williams was an MD and wrote poems, stories, novels, plays and essays. I cannot leave this alone. Here is #4 improved (I hope).
    00A5p0-20425084.jpg
     
  39. Red-
    I don't see what being an MD has to do with photography. Would his pics be better, in your opinion, if he wasn't?

    Personally, I think #5 is one of the best shots I've seen on photo.net. If I had a copy of it I would frame it and hang it on my wall next to my Vermeer prints. I do agree, however, that kudos should also be given to the performers and especially the set designer.
     
  40. Okay #5 done over.
    00A5pJ-20425284.jpg
     
  41. I'd be really pissed if I paid big bucks for a nice neat to enjoy a performance, and was constantly disturbed by another patron making photographs. It is distracting to the rest of the audience, no matter how quietly it is being done.
     
  42. No so bad with an "M" Leica though?
     
  43. I also agree that the quality of the lighting and staging are both
    INTEGRAL and important parts of any production and key to
    ones' overall photographic success. I make this point in the
    accompanying article. The lighting and set directors are unsung
    heroes.
     
  44. Bill has an excellent point about disturbing patrons: I
    acknowledge this in the article and go to great efforts to avoid
    this. That is why the M is such an asset: it is tiny, silent and
    unobtrusive. I have gone to many performances all over the
    world and never had a complaint! Patrons don't know/care that
    you are shooting as long as you don't invade their visual space.
    Furthermore, the true afficionado is so focused (pardon the pun!)
    on the event that they don't care. As I stated in the article, if a
    patron were to complain, I would stop immediately. Why get
    thrown out at intermission!
     
  45. Finally, in regards to the photos themselves, I now realize how
    the act of transferring the image from slide to page to computer
    screen can cause deterioration of the image. All seven slides
    are very sharp in their original form with the exception of the
    ballet dancers' left hand in the Onegin's "Dream or Blue scene."
    this was the backcover of the Viewfinder or photo #1 here. Most
    of the degradation came, IMHO, from the film to paper phase. At
    the Viewfinder, they asked for the original slides (or negs) and
    printed from them. I wonder whether they would help the cause
    by allowing the photographer to submit a DVD or CD. In addition,
    the photograapher could crop the photo. These changes may be
    most beneficial for everyone.
     
  46. Interesting question, Albert. Wonder what kind of setup they have at Viewfinder.

    I've applied Photoshop 7 to these, correcting color balance and highlights. I really think that a CD or DVD from the photographer would be extremely useful to the editors. Question is whether they could handle it.

    I've published photography along with a number of my articles and essays and have been less than 100% happy with the results in the past before I got Photoshop and began to slowly learn the art and craft of the desktop darkroom. (I am still learning.) Before I was totally at the mercy of others. Now I feel considerably more editorial control. Still, the process of what you give your editors and how it turns out on the printed page is a tricky one.

    I ought to be subitting to Viewfinder sometime soon and will see what the story is.
     
  47. <<Nice to hear from you, Al. Right about MDs. Chekhov was an MD and wrote stories and plays. William Carlos Williams was an MD and wrote poems, stories, novels, plays and essays.>>

    That's right. And not one of them tacked on "M.D." after his name when publishing or distributing non-medical writings. They were artists, and knew that their works would stand on their own without crutches.

    But I have to admit that, in the case, Albert seems to be onto something. In assessing these dull photographs, you guys really ARE influenced by his medical degree. Otherwise you wouldn't be lining up to kiss his boots over this stuff.
     
  48. Get a life, Red! Albert worked his ass off for several years to get the right to add the Dr. before and/or the M.D. after his name. You should try keeping up the schedule of doctor doing his/her residency, try to find the time to maintain a semblance of family life, some days even to get through an uninterupted meal. Now, please, tell us your credentials as art critic.

    Sure, some of those photose could have been improved by a bit of cropping. Viewfinder's policy is to submit uncropped negatives or slides, and for whatever reason, they run them full frame. Most publications prefer loosly framed images so the editor or art director has a bit of leeway in putting together the layout, oft times cropping more for the overall look of the page than for the optimum presentation of an individual photo.

    Also, Red, please start a new thread for your art critic credentials so as to leave plenty of room for everybody's fawning comments. Thanks!
     
  49. Might as well tweek the first one....
    00A5uT-20426784.jpg
     
  50. Cheers, Al. I think Dr. Knapp has earned his evening at the theatre. It's 2:19 a.m. and I am having way too much fun at this ungodly hour...
     
  51. <<Albert worked his ass off for several years to get the right to add the Dr. before and/or the M.D. after his name. You should try keeping up the schedule of doctor doing his/her residency, try to find the time to maintain a semblance of family life, some days even to get through an uninterupted meal.>>

    Great. And if I'm his patient, I'm glad to know all that. But none of it is relevant to his photography, even though he reaches for it. If you think it is relevant, get a brain.

    Gee, Al, you don't know what I went through to get my education, do you? Maybe Albert should try walking my path. Oh, and my credentials as an art critic? Well, my current credentials certainly aren't enough for you guys. I need to get an M.D.

    But next time I publish a critique, I'll put all my degrees after my name. Then I won't have to work so hard on the critique.

    Give it up, Al. You're not smart enough to deal with me.

    And you other guys. I know you're praising those shots in an effort to annoy me. But be careful: Albert will take it seriously!
     
  52. Give it up, Al. You're not smart enough to deal with me.
    This from a guy who claimed that a particular lens "resisted diffraction" when stopped down. Smart enough to explain that?
     
  53. You're quite right, Red! I'm nowhere near smart enough to deal with you. Nobody is. Henceforth I'm requesting that all the rest of the stupid uneducated slobs here like myself completely ignore your postings, not respond to them in any way whatsoever! This will leave you with ample time free to continue constructing the pedestal around which we lesser beings can gather, bring gifts, and kneel down, heads bowed, in honor of your greatness. Please, I humbly beseach you, forgive our boorish prior transgressions.
     
  54. Fellas, fellas, c'mon.
    Albert took some very enjoyable photos, even more impressive given that they were taken from a seat in the audience (decent seat, I'd guess). And Alex did a very gentlemanly and generous thing in scanning and posting those photos.
    Both deserve our appreciation.
    And Red, despite your bluster and your feigned don't-give-me-any-of-this-MD posturing, my research reveals that you've actually got an "MD" after your name, too. Just holdin' out on us, weren't ya?
    By the way, Al is way smarter than the average bear. Knows quite a bit more about photography, too.
     
  55. Add Eliot Porter,MD to the list.
     
  56. Dr. Red, n'est-ce pas? Why rant about a title when YOU know it
    has nothing to do with the final product. The beauty and strength
    of this forum lies in the fact that we are: all equal, all interested in
    photography (with a penchant for Ms and Rs...), all respect
    everyone else as both people and photographers and
    consequently treat people with the courtesy and encouragement
    they deserve. Remember one thing, Dr. Red, the equipment and
    the location can improve upon the photograph BUT.. in the end
    run, it is the photographer's talent/luck that produces the image.
    It behooves you to remember this and not demean a fellow
    enthsiast. I am glad that the photographs have been enjoyed by
    the overwhelming majority of my forum-mates. Alex, good luck
    with the Viewfinder. You will find Bill Rosauer a prince of a man!
     
  57. I shot ballet in the Teatro Saudo in Matanzas/Cuba last saturday and the monday before.
    Of cause photography was not allowed, but all those whose digicams tried to iluminate the stage with those tiny flashes distracted everyone from my Contax TVS on monday and G2 on saturday :).
    Now I can't wait for the negatives, hopefully there is something usable.

    Nice pictures Albert and thanks for sharing, mine won't come close!
     
  58. About my MD...

    You're very droll, Michael. That's one MD that makes for better pictures! :)

    Actually, my degrees are A.B., MFA, and Ph.D. See, Al? See how lucky you are to even have me around? And my degrees are in the ARTS! On the signal, KOWTOW NOW!

    <<This from a guy who claimed that a particular lens "resisted diffraction" when stopped down. Smart enough to explain that?>>

    Sure. The Summaron, when stopped farther and farther down, shows very little loss of quality through refraction. "Resisted" is metaphorical. We in the arts tend to be metaphorical.

    Man, some of you guys are like pigeons flapping around the SKYSCRAPER OF MY INTELLECT. (That's another meta..., you know)

    Note Albert's last note, guys. See? He's taking all that praise seriously. I know that you can't practice medicine without a strong ego; but in areas where you are amateur, a little humility is in order.

    But then again, maybe I'll join 'em rather than lick 'em. I'll resign from photo.net, then rejoin with my degrees listed after my name. Hey, I feel my photography improving already!
     
  59. <<Why rant about a title when YOU know it has nothing to do with the final product?>>

    That is exactly my point! And if you recognize that yourself, you are being inconsistent in putting M.D. under your photographs. Indeed, it has nothing to do with the final product, so why wave it at people? Do you put M.D. on your laundry stubs? Monogram it on your shirts?
     
  60. You know, I've just been using too many words. I should have said only this: Albert, don't put MD under your photographs. It looks amateurish and insecure.
     
  61. Nice job Doc Red... in hijacking the thread. Why don't we just rename it. Subject: Formerly Dr. Knapp's Pix..etc, Now all about Red. . .You could even throw in some pictures, wow that would be soooo cool.
     
  62. You want traditional, original, or sleazy?
     
  63. Dr. Albert, if You don't go to enjoy the performance, why don't you just stay home?
     
  64. Wait. Did I actually say "diffraction," or was I misquoted? I meant "refraction." I get those two words mixed up. I'm absentminded the way Einstein was sometimes.
     
  65. For the benefit of anyone interested in reading Dr. Knapp's article, last week I scanned and OCR'd it along with the images, emailing Albert the lot, but despite my best efforts to lead him step by step through the fine science of uploading them to the forum he resisted. ;-)

    Flu prevented me from uploading it earlier but as of this afternoon it's appended to the original thread.

    I'm sorry for the backposting but I missed this header. Anyway, do follow the link and read the article. I believe it's better than the pics, which aren't bad, BTW.
     
  66. Did I actually say "diffraction," or was I misquoted? I meant "refraction." I get those two words mixed up. I'm absentminded the way Einstein was sometimes.
    Robert/Randy/Red, it's just as nonsensical to say a lens resists refraction when stopped down as it is to say it resists diffraction. (I know this doesn't matter when your objective is trolling, but it would be a shame if the folks interested in photography were misled.)
     
  67. He still can't understand metaphorical language, and he thinks I'm a dentist. Another pigeon flapping around that skyscraper.
     
  68. I understand the metaphor "skyscraper of my intellect" (though it brings to mind another metaphor: making a mountain out of a molehill). "Resisting diffraction" or "resisting refraction" when stopped down aren't metaphors--they're simply nonsense.
     
  69. empty vessels make the most noise. Joo Joo Joo.
     
  70. Red- you are not funny. In fact, as a physician, I feel bad for you
    as you obviously have some major inner conflicts going on. You
    insult me because I have MD after my name. Did you ever bother
    to ask why or is that to much of an intellectual leap? The answer
    is simple: I use my name with title as most of my emailing is for
    professional purposes and I don't see why I should have two
    identities. What intrigues me is your inappropriate degree of
    vitriol not only toward me but toward anyone else who dares to
    criticize you. Furthermore, your flights of fancy, couched in
    puerile, maudlin, sophomoric and grandiose metaphors, are
    indicative of, to put it politely, a major "loose screw." Here is
    some free medical advice, consult your local psychiatrist and get
    some help. While my colleague is busily loading you up with
    Prozac or Celexa,I entreat you to disappear back into your
    metaphorical skyscraper and desist polluting this thread.
     
  71. Alex,
    You have come a long way. I still remember when Sandy was trying to coach you on the steps of posting an image on PN. Now look at how far you have progressed. Good work. Do you know where Sandy is by the way? How come he doesn't join us anymore?
     
  72. Thank you Gabriel! That's nice to hear. I still have a lot to learn about the digital darkroom. The hardest part was uploading that first awful image.

    Don't know what Sandy's up to. Maybe if he is watching over us he'll give us a sign.

    Hoping he can look to the positive things about this forum and let the dreck pass. "Skyscraper of my intellect" my ass.
     
  73. Alex and Jorge: my thanks once again for posting my images. I
    plan to purchase a scanner sometime next year but in hte
    interim, you were both so kind to do this for me.
     
  74. Albert, it was fun! Highly encourage you to get a scanner. Also Photoshop 7 (or whatever the latest is). Jorge and I can walk you through the uploading process, also give you digital darkroom tips. Carry on with your great work!
     
  75. Well, Albie, you don't have to use MD when you sign up for photo.net, so that's no excuse. As for the rest of your heated message: I'm glad you've got more life in you than your photographs.
     
  76. Al Kaplan lecturing someone on having a semblance of a life. Too funny!
     
  77. It's dirty work indeed but somebody's got to do it.
     
  78. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    i hardly read any threads anymore that don't tailspin into the gutter.
     
  79. are you saying theres something wrong with the gutter?
     
  80. Alex,

    >> Jorge and I can walk you through the uploading process, also give you digital darkroom tips. i>

    No go... already tried to; ten days ago that my copy of the VF arrived, I emailed dear Albert the materials (OCRed text and scans) I also emailed him a step by step procedure on posting them to PN himself. However Alex seems afraid of breaking something in the process, not that Photonet is that robust, BTW, last Friday night the system was down for ages. In any case, I can understand his reluctance to trying out new techniologies, he is a Leica user after all... ;-) LOL!

    Albert,

    Prozac's no good. I'd Rx a liter of Tequila. ;-) Best pacifier on earth.
     
  81. Albert,

    >>You insult me because I have MD after my name. Did you ever bother to ask why or is that to much of an intellectual leap? The answer is simple: I use my name with title as most of my emailing is for professional purposes and I don't see why I should have two identities.i>

    With all due respect, the apparent reason (at least my guess) for the vitriolic vengeance that many forumites display when coming after you by cause of the MD appendage to your name in Photonet, is that this portal is a photography forum, and of course you understand that academic titles are totally irrelevant to the central purpose of this web portal.

    The fact is that there are many members who hold academic degrees of various types (FWIW, I myself an MBA plus Master of Economics with a number of extra diplommas in the biz area; Carsten is a Dr. Ing., and you know how adamant Germans generally are about prefacing their names with academic achievements, as well as other Europeans and Latin Americans). However, you will seldom see in the internet "places" for fun, academic titles of any kind unless they are relevant, and mentioning this, relevant here might be BA's and Photo specialties, which you don't see either. Summing up in one line, it's considered faux pas or gauche.

    Aware of your meager computer savvy, I understand that you didn't do it as a pretentious or standoffish measure. You failed to grasp that whatever you choose to name yourself around here, "Tripe Al" for example, should you have the perversion to mimmic all the clowns, er... folks that use a "nom de plume" to mask their identities from the less computer able, doesn't have any bearing on your email identity. You can change your Photonet ID and still be albertknappmd in your email.

    Obviously, this has also been overlooked by the rest of the forum denizens who see your postings and lures many pranksters to prick you.

    As mentioned above, this with all due respect and the sole intention to shed some light and help if at all possible.

    Regards,

    Jorge (my true name, FWIW).
     
  82. Jorge,

    You are a true gentleman: you are giving Albert the benefit of the doubt. I tend not to do that because I've known so many preposterous, pretentious, doctor/"photographers." If you ever meet someone of this stripe, you will feel instant nausea, I promise. They are usually pseudo hipsters who wear sweaters with holes in them or sleek grayheads who wear suede jackets, soft shoes, and even while shooting pictures, can't stop talking about how their land in Flah-ri-duh that they bought for nothing is now worth a fortune.
     
  83. OK, gentlemen, this is running in circles. Doctor Knapp is a nice friendly sort of guy, and what the "eff" difference does it make either way. Do we have THAT many insecure personalities here on the Leica Forum? It sure seems that way! Will anybody get upset if I start using Captain Al Kaplan? I have the license. Perhaps just a friendly Capt. Al?

    What all you blowhards fail to realize is that the rest of us aren't laughing at Albert for using his title. We're laughing at all of you poor insecure souls who are? What? What is your problem? Talk Leicas. Talk optics. Talk film. Talk printing. Stop wasting time and space on off topic B.S.

    Capt. Al
     
  84. Actually, Doctor and Captain are nothing. If I could have any title, I would choose the former hereditary titles of the King of England, from the olden days:

    "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland"

    "Defender of the Faith" [that's one of my favorites]

    "Elector of Saxony"

    and "High Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire" [now there's a title]

    Did leave out "Emperor of India"

    :)
     
  85. Well, Captain, there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who aren't overwhelmed by doctors and those who suck up to them. Which do you think are "insecure"?
     
  86. Eliot, I award you the title of 'treasurer of the Holy Roman
    Empire." It is that simple. Do I have a seconder out there?
     
  87. I'll second!

    As for Red, he emailed me earlier and told me that he was going to cut out the BS under that name and two others he's been using. So much for honesty.

    Red, I was married to a doctor, I have friends and fishing buddies who are doctors, and I don't feel any need to suck up to them. Only insecure pompous asses crave suck-uppers. Get a life!

    Capt. Al
     
  88. Hi y'all.

    Albert, we like your pictures, interesting lighting.

    Eliot Rosen,
    High Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire
     
  89. Wait. If Eliot wants to be a Holy Roller, is it too late to demand a roll call?
     
  90. This must be the hairy chests anonymous thread. Always wondered where they met.
    00A7M8-20463084.jpg
     
  91. Mine's bigger.
     
  92. My tummy is bigger...

    Al,

    >>I was married to a doctor, I have friends and fishing buddies who are doctorsi>

    I have diving buddies that are doctors. That's a kind of buddy that needs to be dependable. :)

    Doctors in Mexico might be different than the US variety, so my view might be influenced. They tend to be very down to earth folks that work their sorry asses from dawn to midnight for an income that wouldn't entice even a NY cabbie (exceptions do exist in the large cities but not aplenty), drive five y.o. Hondas or Nissans of the cheapest type and are slowly paying for their homes. They do attend all professional semminaries and clinics and try to keep up in their trade, which they usually do. And they drink beer.
     
  93. PS, forgot to mention, they (Mexican doctors) shoot P&S digital Canons and don't even know what a Leica M is. ;-) I have many good friends in the profession. BTW, my paternal grandfather was a Doctor, the kind that made home visits in his youth on horseback --died in 1951 at age 97.
     
  94. Will anybody get upset if I start using Captain Al Kaplan? I have the license.​

    Upset? No. Will your irrelevant appelation result periodically in comments about it being supercilious or pretentious in a photo forum? Perhaps so, just as we see with Doctor Alberto.
     

Share This Page

1111