Your opinion on Philip Greenspun's work?

<p>I browsed the 'learning' section on portraiture, architecture, landscape, etc.<br>

I think he has some good photos but overall I am not very impressed.<br>

What do you think?</p>

 

<p>You should then impress us</p>

<p>What does this have to do with Canon EOS?</p>

<p>Mr. Wang...</p>

<p>I see you are new here. What do I think? I think the average long time Photonet user considers Dr. Philip Greenspun to be a most accomplished photographer.</p>

<p>I've had the pleasure of corresponding off and on with Dr. Greenspun since he originally created Photonet on the MIT University main frame. I consider him to be an extremely highly proficient person in mathematics, computer science, photography, creative writing, engineering, and aviation.</p>

<p>If you'd like to read up on someone whom you're not impressed by, please see the following on Wikipedia:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun</a></p>

<p>Confucius say: "Putting brain in gear facilitates removing foot from mouth." Or maybe it was Burke's Law (for those of you who are old enough to remember the TV show).</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. I looked you up on the net and couldn't find any reference to your accomplishments. Would you be kind enough to provide an http tag to the proper site. Boy, I'd sure like to read that!</p>

<p>A.T., does this need to become an emotional pissing match? I find your response much less appropriate and far less civil than the original question.</p>

<p>We see comments from people all the time who aren't impressed by some famous photographer or other -- including many who are far more accomplished as photographers than Dr. Greenspun. Surely expressing an opinion on his work and asking what others think is no more offensive than doing the same in regard to Ansel Adams, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, or anyone else.</p>

<p>We all owe Dr. Greenspun thanks for creating photo.net, but that's a separate issue.</p>

<p>Chill buddy. I am not comparing myself to Mr. Greenspun. <br>

I just joined this site and randomly browsed some photos, and found that those photos in 'Gallery' section much more pleasing than those photos in 'Learning' section. But that's probably just me.<br>

Apologize for posting at a wrong forum.</p>

 

<p>"What do you think?"<br>

<br>

I think this is a very unseemly and inappropriate question, posted in the wrong place. You might consider an apology in an attempt to redeem yourself and your reputation as a forum participant. Then consider your actions carefully and try a very different approach.<br>

<br>

Since you asked...</p>

<p>A few pictures taken during a recent trip to Antarctica with an entry level DSLR. (I didn't say I took them.)</p>

<p>Okay in that case I will leave this forum. </p>

<p>And apology to my inappropriate comment to Mr. Greenspun's work. </p>

Since when did photo.net turn into North Korea? The OP is entirely appropriate.

<p>The question is entirely appropriate. The same can't be said for some of the answers.</p>

<p>We should be welcoming newcomers, not driving them away.</p>

<p>Context especially regarding time frame ought to be considered, Greenspun's work was done in the late '90s and early 2000's. I think PS was in existence, but it was very, very rudimentary at the time. People have it so easy today...Besides, his web work (PN) was ahead of its time:) </p>

<p>good writer</p>

<p>+1 for Bob</p>

<p>I don't think that either the subject or the tone of the original post was remotely offensive, and I hope I can answer it the same way. </p>

<p>Philip Greenspun did some great work for Photo.net in the early days and its fair to say that Photo.net woiuld not exist without his energy, work, and finance. His involvement and influence has declined markedly since as his interests have moved on and Photo.net has required greater resource. I can't say that I regard Mr Greenspun's photography as pushing any envelopes either creatively or technically. Its competent travel and people/animal based documentary of a nature that zillions of people do. I'm sure that he could have used Photoshop at the time though I'd doubt whether what he was trying to achieve would have needed much work in post. IMO his photography is not on this site to exemplify the best work being carried out by PN contributors, but reflects that Photo.net is an archive and that photographs posted will generally stay till the owner decides to take them down, and also out of respect for his achievement.</p>

 

<p>Is there any connection between this thread and another recent Casual Conversations discussion?<br /> http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bQIF<br /> Just to be clear - I am a fan of Philip Greenspun and came to PN through the Large Format page of his website when it was transferred here.</p>

<p>Exactly what I was thinking but couldn't find a form of words to hit the right tone.</p>

<p>Welcome to the forum Rui and please don't take this thread as typical of Pnet - it's just the gang closing ranks again.</p>

<p>Some of those example images are up to 23 years old and could do with freshening up to be honest.</p>

<p>When I first came here in the late 1990's I thought Greenspun's photos showed him to be an interesting writer. His photos were an accompaniment to his writings. They went together quite well.</p>

<p>I think the tone of the OP's question was quite neutral. I think the tone of several answers were very inappropriate. This is a photo forum not a Greenspun fanboi site. I appreciate the work, the time, and the money he put up to start this site just like I appreciate the work of Bob Atkins for his work on the rec.photo sites.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since when did photo.net turn into North Korea? The OP is entirely appropriate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 Very astute comparison, BTW.</p>

<p>The OP was intentionally confrontational and provided no basis for discussion other than "overall I am not very impressed". I can't see that the question was "neutral" at all.</p>

<p>In any case, tutorial images are there to communicate methods, etc., and aesthetic judgment is of secondary importance.</p>

<p>Given the stimulus, the responses were not "inappropriate". Have references to North Korea now replaced references to Nazi in polite discourse?</p>

<p>JDM, I interpret the N Korean reference as being to frenzied and frantic praise for a community's leaders. Therefore, I think it's an astute comparison.</p>

<p>And I'm afraid I don't agree, at all. I can't see that anyone has much right to crow about this discussion.</p>

 

<p align="center">Evil communications corrupt good manners</p>

<p align="right">St. Paul after Menander</p>

<p>So is the original post much different from...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Your opinion on Pablo Picasso's work?</strong></p>

<p>I was browsing the Internet today and looking at examples of Picasso's work. I think he has a few good paintings from his early days, but I'm really not impressed with most of his work. What do you think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Note here: I'm not picking on any photographer, so as not to offend anyone here, and indeed I'm picking on a painter whose work I greatly enjoy.</p>

>>> And apology to my inappropriate comment to Mr. Greenspun's work.

 

Your comment was not inappropriate, and no apology is needed.

 

>>> The OP was intentionally confrontational and provided no basis for discussion other than "overall I

am not very impressed".

 

Hardly confrontational - and certainly not intentionally. Just someone new here with a question on something that he didn't understand,

and who was looking for insight and views of others.

 

People need to lighten up. A lot.