Some more photographs by Al Kaplan

[jtdnyc]

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.

[rj]

Well said Johnathan. The shot of the boys and the rope is a good capture.

[kevin m.]

No, it's not. The swinging boy's head looks like it's right up his ...

 

But maybe that's what Al intended?

[Spearhead]

<i>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><p>

 

I'd like to see some documentation of this. Everyone on the S&D Forum has spent time on the Leica Forum.<p>

 

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.

[kevin m.]

My mistake. The swinging boy's head is simply a dark blob lost amongst the background foliage.

[billsr]

The swinging boy isn't the only one who seems to have his "head up his a.."

[jtdnyc]

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.

[michael s.]

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....

[akochanowski]

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.

[michael s.]

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?

[rj]

Please, tell us how you really feel, A. You must really feel better about yourself to call others numbnuts and morons.

[kevin m.]

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.

[Tony Rowlett]

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.

[al_kaplan1]

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?

[pensacolaphoto]

Al, Just keep on digging up your "old shots" and post them for us to enjoy. Also, work on the book!

[travis1]

for web presentation, all u need is a little unsharp mask from PS. It'll pop the pic somewhat.

[Brad_]

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 ...

[icuneko]

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.

[Prof-K]

Great shots Al. Really like the first one.

[doris_chan]

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.

[c_d5]

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.

[fran_ois_courtois]

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

[barefoot]

<i>a kochanowski , apr 05, 2005; 05:57 p.m.

<p>

oh what a bunch of nonsense ...zzz... Congratulations, you must all feel right at home with each other.

</i>

<p>

Oh dear. Another egg-shell-ego.

[dennis_couvillion]

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

[paul t]

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.