al_kaplan1 Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Hey guys, my dad had me reading Stephen Potter's books when I was maybe ten years old. Give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 What's wrong with Harry Potter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Ah Stephen Potter.... "Donsmanship. The art of criticizing without actually listening" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 More Stephen Potter.... "If you have nothing to say, or rather something extremely stupid and obvious, say it, but in a 'plonking' tone of voice - i.e. roundly, but hollowly and dogmatically." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Shakespeare is rather apt in this instance Al... For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Pete you don't get out of it that easily. You decided to climb in the barrel so that makes you one of the monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 From here Al is not a personality type. He is an 'abstract' to me like you all are. He is print on a screen as we all are. All of these threads are glorified Turing tests (or Chinese room tests) and Al and all the other characters are just abstracts. As abstract as Roy's "lens signatures" and your monkeys and all the galaxy of genuine contributors (and the trolls) as well. You and I are just heiroglyphs on the internet. Unless we should ever meet. Ray's thread was interesting in this regard because he gets near to the essence of the Turing test... "with communication only by symbols, gives a way of separating intelligence from other human characteristics" Ray just chose to use the subject of 'lens characteristics' to flush out the intelligent. He asked... "I want to be moved, or impressed, or at least see something out of the ordinary, or well crafted, or with a compelling subject.." The symbols were to be pictures. We have mostly chosen words. (I posted some comparison pics but I dont if they fitted Ray's criteria) So we have failed and yes Pete is right. The rest was a barrel of monkeys. We have not satisfied Ray but we have satisfied the Turing test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 i'm up way too late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasilis Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Peter, words and photographs have something in common they are as reliable or interesting as the person that uses them. The problem with the words is not in the outside (real) world. The problem is here in the internet that everyone has only them to express their views. As in internet we have no identity and we are abstracts (as Trevor said) our words usually not only carry our opinion but also an identity. And the more insecure someone is, more he tries to force a character or an image in a text that should only carry a simple opinion. So we are starting with a simple thread which is self-evident (that lenses matter, but the photographer is more important) and we end with a monster-thread.....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasilis Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasilis Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 <br>a critical element too ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 <I>Nah, no sense wasting it on the unappreciative. </I><P> Looks like no pix from Al's recent "shoots." Without seeing any, one is left to assume they take on a look similar to his recent self-portrait body of work. No argument on characterizing that as a <I>signature</I>. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Brad, I've been doing this long enough that I don't feel like I have to justify my life or my photography to anyone, let alone an uppity digital troll who shows up on the Leica Forum just to create dissent. A lot of what I've shot for money would be of little interest, or create ethical problems with the clients should it be posted here. I've photographed medical procedures, childbirths, accident victims, accident scenes. Oft times those things are best shot on film and I'm under oath that they weren't, as you put it, "post processed". Or are you just upset, nay JEALOUS, that another thread today features my name in connection with the 15mm lens? Goodbye Brad! Get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Al, why so insecure? A digital troll? No, just someone who loves photography. No one is asking you to justify your life. Why not post some photos in the spirit in which Ray's original post was offered? You're coming off very angry about this. Again, this thread is not digital vs film, as you apparently want it so badly to be. It's about lens nuances. Digital cameras require lenses as well, by the way. Try and understand that "post processing" isn't unique to the digital domain, but applies to film as soon as you do something as simple as burning and dodging. Go forward with an open mind and you might learn something in the process. But, on the other hand, your statement that you've "been doing this long enough" speaks volumes on how receptive you might be. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 6, 2005 Author Share Posted December 6, 2005 Guy guy guys, you're supposed to argue on the new thread! Isn't "Get a life" a personal attack? In respect for technical quality and competence, I have to say seeing other people post pics with the VC 15mm on that thread made me realize it's a pretty capable performer, something your self-portraits were a long way from doing, Al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 <I>...eeing other people post pics with the VC 15mm on that thread made me realize it's a pretty capable performer, something your self-portraits were a long way from doing, Al.</I><P> I rest my case: Good (or bad) content, good (or bad) light, and good (or bad) post-processing swamp out any benefits a lens' signature might provide. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 "Isn't "Get a life" a personal attack?" so is troll. Do you think I could say, "AL, get a life, troll!" and get away with it without a time out in the corner for a month? And they want subscriptions over this? No wonder everyone is over on flickr...without being badgered for for a bit of chump change. Hi Tony...I'm not sure why you like this, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I never claimed the self-portraits were great art, Ray. I never intended to keep going with it after the first few. They are popular, and I've sold a bunch of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now