Some more photographs by Al Kaplan

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by belledeux (diana), Apr 4, 2005.

  1. My daughter Elena named her new puppy Gabrielle after the director of the day care center she attended at Miami-Dade Community College. She's a bit over 2 years old here in 1973 and was playing in the back yard shortly after getting the dog. Elena is now a tax attorney in Atlanta. Taken with an M Leica and a 19mm f/3.5 Canon lens
     
  2. THAT is a fantastic image ... just precious....
     
  3. There's a rock pit (man made lake) across the street from the old Florida East Coast R.R. station in North Miami a few blocks from my house. One summer the neghborhood kids, probably with some adult help, managed to get this rope tied to a high branch of a tree along the shore and for a glorious few weeks had great fun swinging on the rope and cannon balling down into the water way out from shore. Then of course safety minded adults cut down the rope, the cops kept patroling, and by the following summer a six foot chain link fence surrounded most of the lake. Again, this was the early 1970's, M Leica, not sure which lens I used.
     
  4. She had your looks.
     
  5. Al: which lens did you use on the last photo? By the way, I am impressed.
     
  6. My wife, daughter, and I spent a week at the Brighton Seminole Reservation on the south shore of Lake Okeechobee in central Florida back in the early 1970's. This is cattle country and the Indians rode horses, tended their cattle, and dressed a bit like the cowboys that they were. We stayed with Janice and John Wayne Huff (his real name!).
    Janice was the older sister of Robert, Donna and Spencer Tiger that appeared in an earlier thread about the Miccosukee Indians. Leica M photo, don't remember the lens.
     
  7. Like I said, I'm not really sure about the lenses used. I'd guess the 19 Cannon on the swinging on the rope pic and most likely my 90mm Elmarit for the Seminoles.
     
  8. Al, did you ever happen to meet a photo teacher named Dave Read in
    Miami back around then? I can't remember what school he taught at...
    but I know Winogrand came to his school once to speak.
    Sound familiar?

    -John
     
  9. beautiful.
     
  10. I love the "Swinging on a Rope" picture Al. I wish we had more tropical lushness like that in Miami.
     
  11. Wonderful photos, Al -- enhanced by your commentary. You old pro. . .
    00Bjpn-22710384.JPG
     
  12. oops: Al's portrait with his M2, 35 Summicron. "Jimmy's," 2/2004.
     
  13. Number two does it for me. Brilliant.
     
  14. All three are very nice indeed. I think that picture of the rope swing brings back memories for everyone. I don't think the timing or composition could be any better! Thanks for showing them.
     
  15. A little heavy-handed on the moderation, eh? Or is there a force field around Al that I can't see?

    Here is what I said before my comment was zapped. Not a single one of these is in clear focus. All three are murky, ie., the tonal range is poor. At least one shows obvious dodging/burning. 30 seconds of Photoshop could fix points 2 and 3. A camera that allowed one to focus accurately could have fixed point 1. What is wrong with saying that?
     
  16. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Yeah, kind of heavy-handed on posts that do nothing but antagonize, for sure. Please don't do it. 'nuff of that lately.
     
  17. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    It's really not that important. I think it's nice to see Al's photos posted. If they're flawed in some way and you can offer constructive critisism, fine. Just think how much his scans will improve over time as he becomes more comfortable with the technology?
     
  18. I'm all about gentle, constructive criticism, Tony. Even Luddites were people too.
     
  19. Sorry Tony, but as usual, Al's stories about his pictures are better than the pictures.

    And the reason Al gets so much of this is that so many of his posts are busy telling other people how to shoot, (the old ways are best; fiber paper is a real print; digital is junk) so what goes around comes around, I'd say.

    I like the mood of the first shot. There was a 'decisive moment' in the second, I'd guess, but Al missed it. The third is run of the mill. They all suffer from poor scanning and preparation for web display, which is the common ground we all must learn to deal with.
     
  20. Not a single one of these is in clear focus. All three are murky, ie., the tonal range is poor. At least one shows obvious dodging/burning.
    Can we assume, AK, that your criteria for a good photo are razor sharpness, nice tones and no post-production work?
     
  21. What could possibly be the point of criticizing photos that were taken thirty years ago?!
     
  22. Heck, or even yesterday. I... I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
     
  23. Noboru, you have to understand that the motivation behind their criticism has little to do with the photographs.

    Certain contributors to the Mutual Admiration Forum (a/k/a Street and Documentary) appear to be mounting a series of drive-by attacks on any thread that contains a photograph by Al Kaplan, basically because of prior arguments over Al's preference for film-based photography.

    For relief from the obligatory oohing-and-aahing over each other's work on the MAF, they use digi-skeptical Al as a whipping boy over here.

    I always assumed their mantra, "It's the photographer...," was a statement about art, but apparently it's a basis for their criticism as well.
     
  24. rj

    rj

    Well said Johnathan. The shot of the boys and the rope is a good capture.
     
  25. No, it's not. The swinging boy's head looks like it's right up his ...

    But maybe that's what Al intended?
     
  26. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Certain contributors to the Mutual Admiration Forum (a/k/a Street and Documentary) appear to be mounting a series of drive-by attacks on any thread that contains a photograph by Al Kaplan, basically because of prior arguments over Al's preference for film-based photography.
    I'd like to see some documentation of this. Everyone on the S&D Forum has spent time on the Leica Forum.
    More of the standard "insult when you've got nothing to say" response that seems to be popular now. Just like the personal insult on the other Al thread, but nobody here seems to care about that.
     
  27. My mistake. The swinging boy's head is simply a dark blob lost amongst the background foliage.
     
  28. The swinging boy isn't the only one who seems to have his "head up his a.."
     
  29. Jeff, if you took my comment as an insult rather than an observation, you have my apology.

    As to the observation itself: Have you really not noticed that the same group of four or five individuals seems to condemn everything Al Kaplan posts, be it a comment or a photograph? And that these people are not equally critical of comments and photographs by other contributors?

    When critical of others, their remarks seem to be good-natured and collegial. When critical of Al, their remarks seem, at least to me, to be meanspirited.

    I don't know Al Kaplan personally but, by nature, I have to come to the defense of someone who, in my opinion, has been one of the most unselfish contributors to this forum but, despite this, has become the victim of needless piling-on every time he shows up around here.
     
  30. Jeff -- Let's turn the tables: Please show me one thread -- just one -- where a photographer has put up a few scans (among his first scans, by the way, and actually done by a friend, as you know) and gets this kind of treatment.

    Folks, you like the photos, fine. You don't like 'em, fine. Say so and move along. I've never met Al either, but I believe some of this treatment *is* mean-spirited and *is* personal and I plan to continue to point that out, whenever I become aware of it. And as I've come late to this thread and seen Tony's remark, I'm evidently not the only one aware of it.

    Kevin - I've been reading the forum posts for awhile. Kindly point me to the one where Al said "digital is junk." That's what you wrote, Kevin, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding it. And as you're looking, be mindful of that old saying about what to do when one is in a hole....
     
  31. oh what a bunch of nonsense you Leica forumers like to spout. Go ahead, find one-- a single solitary thread- where in my three years on PN I so much as participated in or posted on an Al Kaplan thread. You won't because it hasn't happened. I certainly have read them, because IMHO Al is proud of being a dinosaur and makes no bones about saying so. Power to him, I say. He's exactly right too: using a simple camera and TriX and a Durst enlarger and silver halide (all of which I have and can use WAY better than what is posted here and certainly better than the numbnuts who jump to Al's defense) you CAN produce very nice images. The problem is Al and the other dinos around here apparently have no conception whatsoever about how to effectively process an image-- whther in silver halide OR digitally, at least judging from these and some other samples I've seen here. When I see grungy lookin, badly focused photos that are obviously not meant to be grungy looking or unfocused (Stuart K you are , as Peter A aptly noted, a moron to look at my deliberately roughed up photos and sneer at me), then I feel like I can speak up. This forum is now the home to the most banal, crappy photography I can imagine being produced by any equipment. Congratulations, you must all feel right at home with each other.
     
  32. I wasn't referring to you, Andy, but why don't you tell us how you really feel. -:)

    And if this Forum is as bad as you say, one does wonder what you're doing here?
     
  33. rj

    rj

    Please, tell us how you really feel, A. You must really feel better about yourself to call others numbnuts and morons.
     
  34. Michael S., if you're not familiar with the history of the Leica forum, I'm not going to dig thru the archives to bring you up to date.

    I was hoping things might improve around here after the dust from the latest skirmishes settled, but that hasn't happened. People continue to post god awful pics (did you see Paul Neuthaler's self portrait in a mirror? Yikes!) while crowing about the virtues of Leica cameras. The disconnect is frightening. FWIW, I'm still a Leica owner, and I believe the cameras have some advantages, too. But not enough to make up for poor exposure, missed focus, bad scanning and a generally lackadaisical attitude about the photographic craft.

    Change the name of the forum to the Leica Camera Club and I have no beef. You guys can polish your shiny knobs all you want, then.
     
  35. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Wow, we're so friendly today I can't stand it. Please, somebody, put me out of my misery. Say something negative. Please, I beg you.
     
  36. Jeepers Tony! What are these guys going to do when the movie comes out featuring Marc Williams photo of me on everything? It did get a bit crazy today. I took the liberty of clicking on a few names of my detracters to see what came up. One of the gentlemen had only a banal street scene with the most blown out high lights I've ever seen coming from film, or maybe it was digital. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

    Well, this is getting us all nowhere. I guess I'll go ahead and post some more crappy scans of my amateurish photos because it's good for my ego to see them on screen ;-) They must be pretty horrible because they earned me a living all these years. My house, boat, truck and Leicas are all paid for, free and clear, with money made from those lousy pictures. Disgusting, ain't it?
     
  37. Al, Just keep on digging up your "old shots" and post them for us to enjoy. Also, work on the book!
     
  38. for web presentation, all u need is a little unsharp mask from PS. It'll pop the pic somewhat.
     
  39. Let's see...

    Brad first notices the poor quality of the John Anderson photo and playfully asks if it is a
    bad scan, or was the guy seconds away from self-combusting.

    Al jumps in and says nobody else sees any artifacts or smoke

    Jeff comes in and says he sees it; and if they're good prints, the scans have problems.

    Ian jumps in with an insult.

    Brad asks Al how he knows no none else sees the problem.

    "Belle Deux" jumps in with with six paragraphs of pompous self-serving patronizing drivel
    obliquely criticizing my motives.

    Others jump in and confirm there's indeed a problem with the photo. You would think at
    this point, Al would say, "Hmmm, OK, how about someone giving me a hand to
    understand the problem." Brad even asks Al for permission to repost his photo where the
    problems can be highlighted. No response, other than excuses.


    And somehow I'm attacking Al. Amazing. The real issue here is no one has any pride of
    quality or workmanship. Hey, if the print looks a little weird, try and get beyond that - it's
    your display. There is ZERO curiosity about what the problem is, or how to solve it. Just a
    bunch of excuses why the photo is really OK and somehow I'm just being too fussy.

    That's the sad thing, nobody cares. The next scans will no doubt be just as grimy, after all,
    it's not that big a deal ...
     
  40. I've never met Al, but anybody who used to have a funky VW camper bus is OK by me, especially one who also has--and uses, not collects--funky ol' Leicas. Yeh,the first photo of Elena and Gabe won't win any technical awards, but the child's expression is quite touching. As for describing the kid on the swinging rope as "having his head up ...," well that's pretty sophomoric to say the least. If the author has a better photo let him post it. Otherwise, give us all some slack.
     
  41. Great shots Al. Really like the first one.
     
  42. Brad: "That's the sad thing, nobody cares"

    Well, it's kinda curious but I'm not sure that it's actually sad. You should just stop banging
    your head against a brick wall and let the people here live out their strange fantasies of
    photographic supremacy - they're not actually harming anybody. Failing that, if you want
    to fit in here maybe you could sign up for one of Raid's photo classes in Japan, I'm sure
    you'll end up seeing things in a whole different light once the professor's shared his
    wisdom with you. Personally, I love Leicaland, a place where in return for the modest price
    of admission (an a la carte MP?) we can all be a photo genius and put those digiclowns in
    their place. Love, peace and Leicas, Doris.
     
  43. Al, I love to see your pics and listen to your behind the image stories. I hope you will post more. I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. Hopefully, I can eventually meet with you and do some fishing. GOD BLESS.
     
  44. I very much like the first picture, incredible atmosphere, and would have never guessed it was shot with a 19mm. BTW I am not a friend of Al, or anybody else on this forum, just here to share information, learn from constructive photo-critique, exchange tips, ... Don't forget to enjoy life - Regards
     
  45. a kochanowski , apr 05, 2005; 05:57 p.m.
    oh what a bunch of nonsense ...zzz... Congratulations, you must all feel right at home with each other.

    Oh dear. Another egg-shell-ego.
     
  46. Al:

    I have been studying your first photo, of the girl and dog, and the more I look at it the more I believe it is an exceptional image.

    The serious expression of the girl and the way she cradles the sleeping dog suggests a determined maternal protectiveness and a maturity beyond her years. While I am sure the photo must have sentimental value to you, as it is your daughter in the picture, to me, as an objective observer, the photo manages to convey the sense of the girl's love and protectiveness for the animal while avoiding a sugary, overly-sentimental effect.

    My only criticism is that the photo seems distractingly unbalanced from top to bottom... i.e. there is too much space at the bottom of the frame. I would suggest some cropping from the bottom, and you might even want to perhaps consider making it a square image.

    With regards to comments about your scanning technique, ultimately it is the print that counts and not a small scan for the purpose of internet viewing. While I am not saying that one should be satisfied with sloppy scanning (and I'm not suggesting this scan is sloppy), an internet scan is nothing more than a facsimile of an image that must be printed to be fully appreciated... and even scans that may look technically acceptable on your computer screen may look (technically)terrible (for reasons that are beyond my comprehension) when posted on the internet. It is the content of the image that is paramount... not whether an internet scan displays razor sharpness that is free from digital artifacts.

    If I were you I'd pull this negative and get back to the darkroom and play around with it because I think you have an extraordinary image here.

    Best regards,

    Dennis
     
  47. Doris, if there are a few people here posting crummy pix with expensive
    camera, what's the harm? No-one is extolling their virtues that I can see -
    they're generally damned with faint praise, which is probably appropriate.
    <p>
    Granted, if this forum contains only crummy photos taken with expensive
    cameras, then it's pretty pointless. Personally, I miss threads like the ones you
    used to post, turning us on to interesting photographers, and I suppose recent
    events mean that we will end up with two boring forums, rather than one
    diverse, often intriguing one.
     
  48. I would most likely say in comment to Al's punishment (for being against digital...and I'm not really sure he is...he is just cautious about an industry we've all been paying to develop....who else bought a 1.2 megapixal camera when that was the biggest....and computers..whoa, I remember thinking, "Why can't this work like a refridgerator...just plug it in....well, with a Mac that's possible......: )........and I think when the time is right, and the camera is right, from what I gather, he would not at all be against a digital format for certain jobs....I don't think any photographer interested in showing goes completely digital...do they?...unless, like video artists..the medium is the message.......,and also, for those who chide Al for his total silver gelatin Leicaness with a side of Brooks Plaubel Veriwide 100 , all I can say is.... Stand back if Al ever decides to go digital......
    But I would also like to say, that the posts are interesting and it looks like a good lot of "us" (PN) have a lot of "airing out to do".....so "blasting it".....clearing out the systems, will make for better friends....those of the intelligence quotient who are ready for that after a good blast, ....getting to know you....to know him(you) is to love you.....kind of thing.....might make us a more cohesive group.....so I would say blasting is good for growth.....just don't forget to grow.....the good analyst will tell you, the problem is always within your self....otherwise you wouldn't have noticed......
    For my part, in a forum, about photography, technical or aesthetic, a little personality thrown in is good....it makes a forum more conversational......and discussions are better than "Posts", n'est pas?
     
  49. Gee, when did I become such a preacher....(no pun intended, Al! : )
    ....the rhythm of speech gets to me sometimes and I forget what I'm saying...or not saying...so much for the Luddites....huh?
    I love the sense of humor that is expressed sometimes in "bad posts" and must laugh myself.....but I do like them lite!
    Anyway, I wasn't around in the old days for Doris' posts, but they sound great.....would love to join a forum for like that.....I apologize for my pomposity, but at the same time, walk away...sneak away?...grinning and smiling, because of Brad's humor in his list of critique, he really gave it to me good...and right on.... I think I got the best of the deal.....and a big head...from it....it was too good and too "on"!
    (....Okay, okay...shut up, Belle Deux....!)
     
  50. Its amazing how hard people try to find fault in a photograph by someone they despise. I actually really do like that rope shot. I think the "murkiness" or darkness of the background makes the kids stand out better and brings more attention to their actions. I'm sure if it was the 1 billionth shot of NYC commuters on a sidewalk or in the subway and Al used an alias it would receive a better reception from the "Al-haters" Life is a great thing if you actually have one to enjoy. I suspect some that have posted in this thread don't.
     
  51. Golden rule number 1.... Don't stick your neck out there!
    00Bkwy-22728384.jpg
     
  52. If you talk about photography and do not post pics you will be flamed.

    If you DO post up photographs, you will sometimes be flamed.

    I post pics of things rural, local, churches, colour, B&W, film, digital, rangefinder, P&S whatever. I can guarantee some degree of negative feedback because there is always something in that list to upset someone.

    Al has started posting photos (and having them posted) and I have no doubt this will be just the start of a very rich seam of interest both historical, cultural and photographic.

    So he has "stuck his neck out" hence my point.

    It is inevitable that some of the 'young turks' will want to cut it off. Please continue to post more photographs Al.
     
  53. Thanks Trevor. I have a long neck but tough hide. Yeah, I have a very large file of B&W photos from all kinds of various asignments going back years and years. I might not have the greatest of computer skills but one way or another I'll keep posting. Belle still has a few more scans to post maybe later today, maybe tomorrow.

    As for that cute chick the minister is talking to outside the store at night, just remember it ain't 1969 no more, she's 36 years older now, likely long ago traded her cute figure in on children and grandchildren, and is doing something else for a living these days.

    James, if you're so hot to trot for some Johnny Cash photos, how 'bout next time you're in town YOU look through the contact sheets. I think I have some with him and Dylan playing together.
     
  54. <<< Al has started posting photos (and having them posted) and I have no doubt this will be just the start of a very rich seam of interest both historical, cultural and photographic.>>>

    Correct, Trevor. In the first 24 hrs, we've gone from a US President (and a VP) to a streetwalker, with a stop at a seniors' costume party for a breather. Thus far we've got street, photojournalism, and family.

    I guess this man must've taken (and published) a few pictures after all -:)
     
  55. Al, why did you ever give up the M4 that took most of these pics?
     
  56. I bought a new M4 when they first came out, added a double stroke M3, then a button rewind M2 followed by a brand new M2-R when they came out. Eventually the M4 got a bit ratty looking and I ran into another in great shape at a good price. I sold the first one. The second M4 was stolen a few years later.
     
  57. Paul:"Doris, if there are a few people here posting crummy pix with expensive camera,
    what's the harm?"

    I don't think there is any harm, which I actually said in response to Brad's comments. I also
    never attack people just for posting bad pictures, that's more Jeff and grant's turf -
    one of the first times I posted here it was to actually rescue somebody on the wrong end
    of a tag team bullying session courtesy of J and g. If I mildly challenge somebody it's in
    response to them spouting actual misinformation - the Kaptain falls firmly into this
    category. Al says strange things about a medium - digital - that he doesn't understand
    and in turn provokes strange threads like this one. Half of the people here reward him for
    his attacks on digital (by massively overpraising his images) and the other half punish him
    (by being overcritical of his images).

    "I miss threads like the ones you used to post, turning us on to interesting photographers"

    Sadly, the tumbleweed blows through posts like that. People really would rather talk about
    Baldigi lizard skin cases and the pros and cons of black or chrome. Rene found this out to
    his cost when he began his threads linking to images at Magnum, very few people posted
    and most of those that did only did so to ridicule the work of photographers who were
    foolish enough to disregard the rule of thirds. Anyway Paul, check out this link and let me
    know what you think:

    http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?
    Stat=Portfolio_DocThumb&V=CDocT&E=2TYRYDAEYHMT&DT=ALB

    He's one of the very few genuinely original photographers to become a nominee in recent
    years.

    "I suppose recent events mean that we will end up with two boring forums, rather than one
    diverse, often intriguing one"

    I guess one persons intrigue is anothers tedium......
     
  58. jtk

    jtk

    IMO it's worthwhile to actually look at the work of people who have whined here about technical issues, ignoring the merits of Als images.

    The individuals who leaped to comment on the scans aren't anywhere near Al's level as photographers. Look at their photos.
     
  59. John, since you are making such a big point of comparing photographs of different photographers, apparently solely because you seem to have a casual attitude about quality and workmanship of one's work, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions - in the spirt of your comment above, that those that take a position on their craft, need to have their photos compared with others.
    Are you a photographer? Can we see your photos for comparison? I have a feeling the answers are "no" and "no."
     
  60. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Certain contributors to the Mutual Admiration Forum (a/k/a Street and Documentary) appear to be mounting a series of drive-by attacks on any thread that contains a photograph by Al Kaplan, basically because of prior arguments over Al's preference for film-based photography."

    No Johnathan, we're just kinda sick of this mentality you and others display. There's too many here that can't walk with their talk; that become a braver and meaner person with a keyboard. I gravitated over there and started many threads to jump start an alternative to avoid tossers like you here and hopefully build a community on embracing diverse interests that use many methods of photographing. Many from here are now there. I haven't witnessed any flames or insults or any mean spiritedness. It's refreshing. There was never an intent for a division between that place and this place, but merely just a reluctance to be continually blasted here by below average photographers and shooters with expensive and elitist gear that still seem to think they own and invest in a dominant brand.

    With the deletion of grant, the lack of input Tony had in a few threads about the shape and direction of this forum, and Bob suddenly sticking his nose into it, it became evident that this place isn't for me and many others now.
     
  61. When I see grungy lookin, badly focused you have only to look at the work of kochanowski.

    Refreshing to hear the words of the masters.
     
  62. Refreshing to hear the words of the masters.
    And calling the other place the Mutual Admiration Forum, without first taking even a tiny peek in the mirror here, is just too funny...
     
  63. I can only humble my unworthy self at your feet great masters. Please excuse my unworthy presumptuousness?.
     
  64. With all due respect, what I've observed is a group of competent photographers with similar styles who share some sort of collective fantasy that they comprise an elite corps of cutting edge shooters. In truth, one can throw a rock out of one's back window and probabaly strike a competent photographer. It seems to me plain arrogance to deride the offerings of others here as "dreadful" and other such adjectives, particularly coming from photographers who've yet proven themselves.

    With respect to Al Kaplan, I am too old and cynical to be anyone's disciple. However, I (and I suspect others as well) have been drawn to Al's defense simply because the attacks on him have been so peristently mean and personal. And over what? Because Al is digital averse? Because you believe some of the things he says are incorrect? I've never met Al in person but I have communicated with him by e-mail over the years and he seems to be a truly kind, humble and helpful man. I suspect that many others here who have met or otherwise communicated with Al have reached the same conclusion and that is why they jump to his defense.

    It's a shame that this forum has devolved into the snake pit it has. I know I had to take a break from it. I was truly happy to learn that those who felt this forum did not meet their exacting standards had found a venue to their liking. But why are some of you still here then?

    Dennis
     
  65. Many good photographers here. Many nice people here willing to help. Many people who don't shoot but talk about gears. It's really ok you know guys.

    Brad---good photog, knows his stuff.
    Eric--charismatic, good-looking, nice gf(s), good photogs
    Al---good photog, knowsa his stuff, don't like digital, sometimes mis-interpreted stuffs from digital friends, likes film, oh well let that guy be.
    Doris----knowledgeable, apparently too much knowledge...i look out for his postings, sometimes very funny, like Jay....really wish to see some of his work(not a challenge, but curious).

    I don't know sometimes wtf are you guys jabbing each others so much. If only I had that much knowledge to impart as some of u guys, I'd be very fortunate.

    Al, well, he's just a film guy. Face it. Whenever he talks about digital, take it with a pinch of salt. I correspond with him and I find him very likable. Sort of like a father-figure. Isn't that's what's about? Making friends and sharing stories.

    At the end of the day, when we all pass, it's not how good a photog or what gears you got that we remember, but some of this jokes/stories/experiences we gathered via this big family.


    Help each other out, be open minded, learn from people things u don't know, be humble, make friends. Stay cool.

    If you see a fondler, let him be. If u see a shooter, check out his works. Only Mike Tyson do jabs.

    We are cool people.

    ;>
     
  66. Dennis, good to see you back - I missed not hooking up with you in NO. I brought up the
    scan issue because on my calibrated monitors an otherwise good photo looked really bad.
    If that happened to me, I would want to know about it pronto.

    Is it really necessary to bring old stuff up just to stir up the current pot? I recall this one,
    from you, that I found pretty amazing as well:

    Subject: Does a talent for insulting others come with every Leica?

    "... What really irritates me, though, are: 1. The people who post amateurish photos and,
    expressly or tacitly, invite comment; and then are offended when others trash their pics;
    2. The people who post photos and also find a need to express their philosophies and to
    speak authoritatively about every aspect of photography as though they are the second
    coming of HCB. Quite frankly, some of these folks must be delusional. ..."

    Shameful...
     
  67. what really irritates me is my baby wanting mum's milk every 20 mins! nothing else matters at this moment of my life.
    00BlPh-22737084.jpg
     
  68. Quite frankly, some of these folks must be delusional. ..."

    Shameful...

    You should all listen to the master. The master is always right.

    Thank you blessed merciful master.
     
  69. Brad, I am flattered that you find me so interesting that you have at your immediate disposal every post I have ever made here. If you would be so kind as to provide me with the date and thread in which these comments were made it would be appreciated so that I can see the context in which the comments were made.

    It is a fact that there are different levels of experience and talent on display here... and some work may be, quite frankly, amateurish. Others' work may be quite good. While it is true that at one time I found it troublesome that there were people who were somewhat delusional about their talent level and who became upset when others offered critiques of their work. That was a while back as I recall. I am happy to say that my views have evolved pretty much and that I believe everyone should be able to post his/her pics without fear of disrespectful attack. I have even expressed those views consistently on this forum.

    But my question was essentailly this: if this place is so god-awful bad and the photography so "dreadful" (your adjective) that you don't even want to post your work among them, then why are you still here? The impression you give is that you simply come here to attack, antagonize and cause trouble.

    BTW, did you tell Al that his photograph was "an otherwise good photo"? I don't think so...

    Best regards,

    Dennis
     
  70. Eric, sometimes you have to look at how a dispute began before deciding who's right and who's wrong.

    Four or five people regularly pile on Al every time he appears on Photo.net, yet you accuse me of becoming meaner and braver behind a keyboard when I come out of the woodwork to defend him.

    Al makes it no secret that he has gotten much of his equipment for a song at estate sales, and many of the posts here are complaints about the price of new Leica equipment, yet you try to position Leica users as some sort of elitist group.

    The name of the forum is Leica Photography, yet you seem to feel that there is something wrong with participants being more enthusiastic about Leica equipment than other brands or other ways of making pictures.

    I really don't understand where you're coming from. I'm not trying to be cute here. If you're trying to take the high ground, why aren't you defending Al against attacks, instead of attacking those who defend him? Why deny Leica enthusiasts the simple pleasure of "talking shop"? If you really think that the photographers here are "below average," why not make some helpful suggestions?

    And please, before you answer -- if you choose to answer -- think about how it all started, and not about just trying to get the next shot in.
     
  71. Brad, I haven't looked up the comments you cited but since making the above post I now recall that my comments you cited were actually intended for one person in particular. It was Alfie Wang, and I am sorry to bring up his name and cause him embarrassmenr. Later, after Alfie had been long gone, I recanted my comments and specifically praised Alfie for his enthusiasm for photography. Alfie was well intentioned and was not mean-spirited. Many people considered Alfie a royal PIA... but in hindsight I'd take Alfie, bad photographs and all, any day over some of the arrogant people here today who believe they are photographically superior to everyone else.

    Best regards,

    Dennis
     
  72. " I gravitated over there to jump start an alternative to avoid tossers like you... I
    haven't witnessed any flames or insults" <p>
    So you just come to this forum to indulge in the kind of insults that never
    happen 'over there'? How kind! <p>
    Doris, thanks for posting that link. Intriguing. A bit like my dreams (I was
    brought up a Roman Catholic, obviously). Please post more. I always enjoyed
    Rene's posts, too - perhaps the problem, as with so many things, is that when
    people like it/are interested, they often don't comment. They're always more
    vocal about the things they dislike.
     
  73. Eric, sometimes you have to look at how a dispute began before deciding who's right and who's wrong.
    Fair enough, it began with a comment on Al's scan. No attack there...
    Four or five people regularly pile on Al every time he appears on Photo.net
    That is a huge exaggeration...
    ...think about how it all started, and not about just trying to get the next shot in.
    Again, it began with my comment on Al's scan.
     
  74. Brad, let me make a suggestion...

    You must admit that you have a history of directing pointy comments to and about Al. It should come as no surprise to you from now on that whenever you make any critical comment about or to Al that it will be interpreted as having malicious intent.

    My suggestion is this: Why don't you e-mail Al and get everything off your chest... even educate him about digital photogrqaphy if you must. Start a correspondence with him. What you will discover is that Al is actually a pretty good guy and knows a lot about photography.

    Give it a shot... and let's have some peace here.

    Dennis
     
  75. You must admit that you have a history...
    I must admit...??? You're pretty funny. And what are you going to admit on my insistence?
     
  76. jtk

    jtk

    Check Brad's posts, look at(for) his photos. You will be able evaluate his personal merit and photographic ability with total accuracy.

    Nobody needs to post photos to speak *positively* about Al's work, as I mainly do, or about other REAL photographers....

    ...OR to suggest people check the competence and personal merit of poseurs who live to attack.

    And I'll speak positively again here: "street photographers" sometimes DO something worthwhile in Japan, and in Russia too. And Iceland, I've seen great stuff from Iceland! And Chile!

    Those who wonder what "street photography" actually is should check that photo.net Forum. Not like photojournalism, a common misperception, more like perpetual student work. Perpetual students are fine people as long as they buy film.
     
  77. And what are you going to admit on my insistence?

    He's love and devotion for you master. I've already instructed him in rear kissing techniques master.

    Hope you are pleased.

    Nice pictures Al. Best not show the master he gets a bit touchy.
     
  78. Brad, maybe you misconstrued that phrase. It was not a directive or command that you had to admit anything but merely a rhetorical phrase that prefaced my intended remarks. If I was not clear that was my fault.

    My point, though, was that because you do in fact have a history of going after Al pretty good that now whenever you post anything even the least bit critical of Al people will assume your motivations are not pure and that your comments are unfair. You're in a no win situation in that regard. Why don't you consider burying the hatchet with Al? Have a cyber beer with him. E-mail him... please.

    Dennis
     
  79. jtk

    jtk

    How come critics are such bad writers?
     
  80. Thanks for taking Dennis's suggestion to email me directly. So far nobody else has succeeded in elucidating the mysteries of unsharp masking techniques, as well as the theories behind it, as thoroughly as you did. I honestly think that after reading through it a time or two and playing on the computer I'll have it down pat and finally be worthy of posting on the Street Forum. I also appreciated the links you sent to those stunning portfolios of your photos of gorgeous girls. I do wish, however, that you'd warned me ahead of time just in case there were any kids in the room when I opened them on screen! Where do you find so many cute young females willing to pose like that? Or do you shoot them in the studio and move them out into the real world via photoshop? Anyway, fantastic work! You should be proud, extremely proud of your talents. Surely you must have some tamer stuff you could post on the Leica Forum? Don't want to give any of us old fuffy duddies a heart attack now, do we?

    Also, thanks for your cell number. I'll probably give you a call tonight if I can't master the unsharp mask thing right off. You can walk me through it like you suggested. Seriously, thanks Dude! From the heart!
     
  81. "Have a cyber beer with him"
    Good suggestion, but better still, have a real beer (if you both drink).
    Sheesh, half the problem with internet forums is that participants cannot interact properly, cant see nuances in a persons face, cannot convey humour properly etc.
    Most of the people involved in these web disagreements would most likely get on well in the real world. We all have a common enthusiasm for photography at the end of the day, dont we?
    Have fun, A
     
  82. My point, though, was that because you do in fact have a history of going after Al pretty good...
    Going after Al pretty good? Let's see... I posted about the bad scan. That was terrible of me. A week ago Al said that that music today is largely recorded on analog tape. I weighed in that there are no manufacturers of analog recorders or analog tape today. That was awful...
    Dennis, you quit the forum and ran away a few months ago. It appears you came back solely to get in trouble again. Why is that?
    Al, on your last post (4:17P), I have no idea what you're talking about - I don't have any portfolios of girls. Anyone else know what he means? BTW, I'd give you some suggestion about making your first photo above markedly better, but Dennis, stirring up trouble, would accuse me of impure motives.
    And John and Michael, where are YOUR photos?
     
  83. Good to hear.

    Brad has been helpful to me as well.
     
  84. Good suggestion, but better still, have a real beer (if you both drink).
    Good idea Andy. In fact when I was planning my New Orleans trip a few months ago, I invited Dennis to meet up and go shooting with me. Well, after hemming and hawing, and the rest of the forum egging him on, he reluctantly said he'd meet for a drink - he apparently didn't want to shoot with me. So it was going to be a get together over some beers - that's fine. But then right after that, he disappeared. Odd.
     
  85. My comment is not a joke.
     
  86. Mutual Admiration between Al and Brad! I like it!

    And I promise to retire the M.A. phrase, as it seemed to get under some people's skin (understandably).

    I'll also try to learn how to work my scanner well enough to start posting pictures, though I'm not making any promises in that department.
     
  87. OK maybe I shouldn't have gone public with telling folks you're really a nice guy. I suppose you've got an image to protect, the tough street fighter, whatever, when really you're an OK guy. Forgive me. I'll never praise your good qualities in public again! And that last bunch of scans? WHEWWW!!!! The monitor is still smokin'...
     
  88. And John and Michael, where are YOUR photos?
    Michael Bridges, just be clear...
     
  89. Brad, I waited for you. You never called. You never wrote. I was crushed... ;>)

    BTW, I showed Tom Abrahamsson around New Orleans last Saturday. Very interesting guy. I'll try to post something tonight about that.

    Dennis

    P.S. Isn't it a bit embarassing for a bunch of grown men to be carrying on like this on the internet?
     
  90. What's embarrasing, Dennis, are the photos on those websites! More like disgusting! Probably the only one who looked embarrassed in the photos was the dog, but hell, that dog had class. I'll email you the links later.
     
  91. If you talk about photography and do not post pics you will be flamed.
    If you DO post up photographs, you will sometimes be flamed.

    My humble pathetic efforts would be a stain to the masters eyes.
     
  92. Well, Michael B... Dozens of others here and on the other forums manage to do both and
    somehow make it through the day. Why not eschew the attitude and give it a try.


    Al, still have no idea what you're talking about.
     
  93. So it was going to be a get together over some beers - that's fine. But then right after that, he disappeared. Odd.
    Odd?
    Having a drink with you would be like pulling teeth. Kudos to Dennis.
     
  94. Why not eschew the attitude and give it a try.

    Master i beg your forgiveness i'm one of the unclean. An unworthy Leica owner. Please help me master and lead me into tne blessed realm of your forgiveness.
     
  95. The forum tradition continues; lead by Stuart and Michael B. When you have nothing to
    contribute or are short on words, just hurl some insults.
     
  96. The forum tradition continues; lead by Stuart and Michael B. When you have nothing to contribute or are short on words, just hurl some insults.
    bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat- bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-bleat-
     
  97. "Sheesh, half the problem with internet forums is that participants cannot interact properly, cant see nuances in a persons face, cannot convey humour properly etc.

    Most of the people involved in these web disagreements would most likely get on well in the real world. We all have a common enthusiasm for photography at the end of the day, dont we?"

    It reminds me of when good and/or smart and friendly people get in their car and turn into Mr./Ms. Hyde on the road.

    Please Al, keep posting. The CONTENT is worth much more than the "poor" presentation (yes, I saw the artifacts), but I'm sure the actual prints are quite nice. Do you have a catalog/website? Oh, and please send me the links you were referring to, pretty please?
     
  98. Stephen, I agree. I think that people on the Forum would get along much better in person. I met Al before I knew a lot about him on the Forum, otherwise I might be taking pot shots at his dusty scans or coughing at the smoke around the pics others have taken of him. Instead, I have a wealth of friendship and excellent prints from a truly first-rate photographer and humman being. And Brad has some great shots too. He's a very talented photographer. I think of this: I don't remember the last morning I woke up and looked at a photograph hanging on my wall and said, "I did not dust you today." Photographs are behind that and stand up to any residue that slightly mars their presence--especially on a computer monitor. That ain't what it's about. Al is a classy guy and a terrific photographer. That's what matters.
     
  99. I guess that I was agreeing with Andy...
     
  100. I think we need Dr. Phil around here.
     
  101. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BgKW

    This thread has some really bad scans, not sharp, totally blown highlights and murky inky featureless shadows, way too much contrast. Well, at least there's no "smokey" artifacts, but them my monitor might just not be picking them up. Be a mensch and help this guy. Thanks! ~Al
     
  102. Well, Al, you got me...

    It is definitely not up to the same level of interest and excellence of that public persona
    press photo shot you got of John Anderson speaking behind a lectern - that any
    competent photographer intern working in a rural town newspaper would have snapped
    with the rest of the press corp. I know you must have some more non-press shots of him,
    before or after his speech that are more casual, personal, and interesting? Please share!
     
  103. Nice picture at the top of the page - the best I've seen from Al so far. The press work is no more than competent, but this personal image is far more interesting. It would be nice to see more of this sort of thing.
     
  104. Jeff taking a picture of Brad taking a picture of Jeff's picture.

    LOL
     
  105. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Johnathan,

    Eric, sometimes you have to look at how a dispute began before deciding who's right and who's wrong.

    I wasn't deciding or taking any sides in this issue. My rant was in regards to my general feelings on how this place has deteriorated over the last two years.

    Four or five people regularly pile on Al every time he appears on Photo.net, yet you accuse me of becoming meaner and braver behind a keyboard when I come out of the woodwork to defend him.

    Again, I wasn't taking sides. Just tired of seeing this crap. Brad made a simple observation and people pounced. I'm not sure what you are defending, but merely pointed out your tact as you have reverted to insults and inaccurate generalizations.

    Al makes it no secret that he has gotten much of his equipment for a song at estate sales, and many of the posts here are complaints about the price of new Leica equipment, yet you try to position Leica users as some sort of elitist group.

    Not sure of the reference to Al here or what it has to do with your disgust of a certain amount of photographers that you've mentioned and left to enjoy each others company over on another forum.

    The name of the forum is Leica Photography, yet you seem to feel that there is something wrong with participants being more enthusiastic about Leica equipment than other brands or other ways of making pictures.

    You're making things up.

    I really don't understand where you're coming from. I'm not trying to be cute here. If you're trying to take the high ground, why aren't you defending Al against attacks, instead of attacking those who defend him? Why deny Leica enthusiasts the simple pleasure of "talking shop"?

    Again, I'm taking sides in this issue. I've never attacked Al and ignored, for the most part, his inaccuracies in regards to digital and todays modern cameras. My post was in response to your dribble. That's why I cited it before my response.

    If you really think that the photographers here are "below average," why not make some helpful suggestions?

    I guess you don't pay attention to my posts. I've helped many here with tech info in regards to film and dev procedures.

    And please, before you answer -- if you choose to answer -- think about how it all started, and not about just trying to get the next shot in.

    The next shot in? hmm...so much for adults being found here.
     
  106. Well, Eric, I understand your point of view and, I hope, you understand mine.

    I hope we meet again under more pleasant circumstances in another thread.

    It's sunny in New York today, and I'll be out taking pictures.
     
  107. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    This thread has some really bad scans, not sharp, totally blown highlights and murky inky featureless shadows, way too much contrast
    That thread has no scans. Maybe it would be better to know what things are before criticizing them...
    But thanks for the free publicity!
     
  108. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I also appreciated the links you sent to those stunning portfolios of your photos of gorgeous girls
    Where? I'm looking but don't see any in Brad's portfolios.
     
  109. Bill and Michael B, where are your photos? You are photographers, right?
     
  110. I don't know you Al. But I do like your pics, they bring back a lot of memories of the times, shame you couldn't have made a couple bucks off of them. ;-]
     
  111. Brad, we're still waiting to see your great photographs. 3,500 postings and not one photo??? And BTW what model Leica do you prefer?
     
  112. Owl Ink: I've probably posted at least a thousand pix here over the last couple of years. Says something if you can't find even one.
    Anyway, here are some snaps from two Fridays ago in SF. Now let's see some of yours.
     
  113. "competent photographers with similar styles who share some sort of collective fantasy that they comprise an elite corps of cutting edge shooters."

    That's crap, Dennis. I'm surprised to see you stoop so low. Who on the Street/Doc forum claims to be an "elite" photographer? As if anyone actually would.
     
  114. Brad: Sorry, but I never heard of you before. I clicked on your name which took me to your page here on PN, but as you have no photos there now, I have nothing to judge your comments by. Since your link is not to PN, I believe my comment stands as valid. I just want to see some of your work with a Leica since you are on the Leica forum. The link you were kind enough to provide doesn't say what kind of camera(s) you use, but evidently you manipulate your images heavily with PS. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it doesn't give me an idea of what you're capable of without a computer. I'm trying to get a handle on this discussion, not attack you personally. If you click on my name you will be taken to my page here on PN and you can click on some of my photos that are listed there. BTW, I haven't posted anything with a Leica there yet, but I have four of the beasts from Wetzlar; an M3, a Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, and a Leica IIIF (not that I like to brag, I just want to verify that I feel that qualifies me to be in the Leica Forum.) I have learned a lot here, as there are many old pros in this group who have forgotten more than you or I will ever learn. Mostly I just read and learn and don't comment unless I feel I can add something positive to the discussion. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
     
  115. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Since your link is not to PN,
    Photo.net provides an interface that many photographers don't like - it's terrible to showcase your work to outside photographers. Note that Al Kaplan doesn't have any posted in the photo.net galleries either, but I don't see you complaining about that, do I?
    It's simple enough to click on Brad's name and look for threads that begin with "NW", but that seems to be beyond your capacity, so maybe you should just call it a day and find someone else to harass. Like Al, click on his name and you won't find any photos either.
    Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it doesn't give me an idea of what you're capable of without a computer.
    You ask people who scan their prints what they could do without a darkroom? You asked Al for scans that didn't use a darkroom? I haven't seen you ask that question, what's up with that? Some sort of elitist double standard? Hmmm....
    "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
    Given your comments here, great advice. Take it.
     
  116. >Photo.net provides an interface that many photographers don't like -
    Then why do they post here? And why don't they like it? Please share your wisdom. Contribute something positive, if you can.
    >it's terrible to showcase your work to outside photographers.
    Again, WHY? Because they are capable of actually critiquing a photo instead of fawning over one another?
    >Note that Al Kaplan doesn't have any posted in the photo.net >galleries either, but I don't see you complaining about that, do I?
    Why should I? His work is visible here, he has scanned and posted it on this thread, something I accurately pointed out that your friend failed to do. Mr K has demonstrated his abilities. I've seen his photos of Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, Joan Baez, Greatful Dead, etc., etc. I was asking to see some of examples of Brad's work. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?
    >It's simple enough to click on Brad's name and look for threads that >begin with "NW", but that seems to be beyond your capacity,
    You presume to know what my capacities are, please be good enough to share your insights with us lowly mortals. I said I was trying to get a handle on this discussion and understand what was going on in order to hopefully contribute something or maybe mediate what seems to be just a common "bitch" session, not make vain, childish attacks like you are doing.
    >so maybe you should just call it a day and find someone else to >harass.
    Whom am I harassing? I was asking for information to make an informed decision. Instead I get a ration of bull from someone who I wasn't even speaking to. I do not appreciate false accusations and rest assured I will report your harassment to PN's monitors.
    >Like Al, click on his name and you won't find any photos either.
    Any idiot can see his photos here in this thread.

    >You ask people who scan their prints what they could do without a >darkroom?
    No, I didn't. Reread my post.
    >You asked Al for scans that didn't use a darkroom?
    Where did I do that? You are making false accusations again.
    >I haven't seen you ask that question,
    At least that's one thing you got right. You didn't see it because I didn't ask it.
    >what's up with that? Some sort of elitist double standard? Hmmm....
    Elitist? You are the one who is pontificating here, not I. You are comparing apples with oranges, making a "straw man" argument to knock down later. Pathetic. Working with film is entirely different than working with digital.


    >"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth >and remove all doubt".

    >Given your comments here, great advice. Take it.
    You are the one who is making rude, childish accusations, not I. No one was speaking to or about you. It would appear that Brad and you are more than just friends. Regardless, you have already removed any doubts I may have had about you. (Who are you anyway, and why should I care? Answers: Nobody, and I don't.) It appears to me you are unable to contribute anything to this thread other than your overly inflated ego, your admiration for Brad and your distaste for Al Kaplan and anyone who questions your self-assumed superiority. Maybe you and Brad can start a mutual admiration society where you can both gush over each other. Good luck.
     
  117. BTW, I never did get an answer to the question I asked about what model Leica(s) does Brad use? Can someone please give a civil answer without being childish, or is that too much to ask?
     
  118. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Because they are capable of actually critiquing a photo instead of fawning over one another?
    I have to say that this comment epitomizes how ridiculous this response is. The rest of the response, complete with its unreadable formatting, continues in this vein.
    As to who I am, exhibiting, published, etc etc. A photographer.
     
  119. Dudes engage in social intercourse with a little guy called grunt over in the street forum. They are all are rather fond of each other. They usually join together to bad mouth other photographers.
     
  120. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "No one was speaking to or about you."

    will you take your own words and drop out of this thread too, Owl? For a guy that doesn't even know that Brad posts tons of pics, your opinions aren't qualified here.
     
  121. > Brad posts tons of pics

    can you judge images by their weight?
     
  122. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    yours are pretty heavy Brad...
     
  123. time for a new thread, Al. With more pictures!
     
  124. Travis, I'll try to pick out some photos and get them posted in the next day or two. Today I'll be spending most of the day running more Tri-X through my Leicas on a paid assignment that I picked up as a result of my lousy inept amateurish badly scanned and poorly post processed photographs that appeared here on the Leica Forum. Thanks!
     
  125. "lousy inept amateurish badly scanned and poorly post processed photographs that appeared here on the Leica Forum. "


    it's all part of learning Al. We all go through that stage. Looking forward to your next instalment(sp).

    PS: Sometimes you don't win war of words by responding. It's often best to step back, and let the guys through. Trust me, you'll feel better.
     
  126. can you judge images by their weight?
    Yes! Images printed on 30 mil paper are three times better than those printed on the pedestrian 10 mil stuff.
     
  127. rj

    rj

    Last word
     
  128. > Images printed on 30 mil paper are three times better than those printed on the pedestrian 10 mil stuff.

    very true, but will they float? that's the true measure!
     
  129. Jeez, give it a rest, what a lot of old cobblers.
    00BmzT-22773984.jpg
     
  130. Right on Allen.
     

Share This Page