william_todd_faulk

Just as the previous thread, nothing stated. A collaboration of self gratuitous echos whispering in each others ears.

It's threads such as this that make me wonder.

Hipshooting at MickeyD's, wonderfull.

Al, it appears that you are not very familiar with Davidsons work.

 

WTF

<b><i>"You've seen my work, or if you forgot go to chaospress.com"</i></B>

<p>

Interestingly, if one had forgotten your work than your work is not exceptionally moving or especially memorable to begin with.

<p>

In my most humble judgment both Mark and Ray should direct their focus on improving their own work to the levels of Trevor or Kent.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

WTF

Eric, thank you for posting the link to their pictures it is most invigorating to see their work again. Of particular note I found it rather surprising that Edmo has begun working in color and it even appears to be digital. Though his color work bears the same dark and lonely feel that his black and white work had. It would be most interesting to peer inside his head to learn what demons and spirits reside there. To me at least I have found his work as intriguing rather than that of an explanatory narrative nature.

<p>

I found his recent <b><a href=" http://www.flickr.com/photos/63361458@N00/sets/1229752/">subway</a></b> work particularly enjoyable.

<p>

Grant on the other hand, while I have enjoyed his photography came off as a crass and vulgar individual with a demented demeanor and a mental capacity that would rival those of the dead rats that he shoots. I feel as if I can speak for the forum when I say "Good riddance".

<p>

Respectfully,<br>

WTF

Peter, my sincerest apology for it appears that even I am guilty of living in the past.

Peter, many thanks for your truly entertaining and laughable post <i><b>'Peter A; Prolific Poster, nov 30, 2005; 05:51 p.m.'</b></i>. Without question the most amusement I have witnessed in this forum since the Al Kaplan vs Edmo debacle. If it is meant in jest then your sarcasm shines, if you are utterly serious about this then your ignorance bewilders.

<p>

Interestingly you praise Vogue a part of the publishing industry whose <i><b>'tools'</b></i> include Adobe software products for everything from comps and layouts to imaging and produced <i><b>'hacks'</b></I> using Macs and not PC's as you say.

<p>

While yet on the other hand you scoff Magnum who use the likes of Jim Megargee and Brian Young for their analog printing needs.

<p>

Speaking of Young and Megargee it should also be noted that they are the <I><b>'end means'</b></I> in the <I><b>'ttotal workflow'</b></I> for the likes of such <I><b>'fluke artists'</b></I> as Gene Richards, Chris Anderson, Larry Towell, Bruce Davidson, Andrew Gottlieb, Susan Meiselas, James Nacthwey, Eli Reed, Gordon Parks, Clifford Ross, Uimonen Ilkka , David Turnley, Shelby Lee Adams, Leonard Freed, Cornell Capa to name a few.

<p>

<I><b>'stop staring at Magnum site every day and pinning for the nostalgia of the 50's most of you people are so stuck in the past...'</i></b>

<p>

Naturally you must be referring to Majoli, D'Agata, Parke and their contemporaries, all born too late to partake in being <I><b>'stuck in the past'</b></I>.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

WTF<br>

<p>

ps: As far as what Marc Williams is doing, anyone capable of setting a 28mm lens to f8 and holding the camera in one hand while a flash in the other is capable of producing the same look.

<i>If people don't at some point show some examples, then that provides confirmation to my assumptions...</i>

<p>

A sensation only victory may bestow upon us. Bravo Ray, you win.

Interestingly enough it appears as if I have haphazardly stumbled upon a thread predominately inhabited by avid collectors devoid of much if any understanding of photography or technology for that matter.

<p>

<I>"Why not just take video grabs for photos when the technology is capable."</I>

<p>

Or stills from film for that matter much in the manner that Robert Frank had done many decades ago.

<i>Look at Robert Crumb, and you might see the photos of Al fall into place, and the big picture emerging.</i>

<p>

Ms. Deux,<br>

<p>

Word on the street has it that even Mr. Crumb no longer partakes in expanding his vision through the use of pharmaceuticals. After reading what you had penned I might propose that you ponder the same. One has to look no further than Maxon too see where that path may lead.

<p>

Your analogy of associating Mr. Crumb to Mr. Kaplan is entirely absurd and outlandish. A more accurate correlation could be illustrated as a creative genius and the village... well I presume that you know what I mean.

<p>

If Mr. Kaplan's self portraits are genuinely imaginative and creative then we must identify any drunken frat boy to ever point a disposable camera in his own direction as such also.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

WTF

I am assuming that as mentioned earlier we'll be playing for film? Possibly a propack per contestant.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

Billy Todd

<I>You're all talk...</I>

<p>

Interesting that when there is nothing to be lost that most everyone around here is "all talk".

<p>

<I>I'll pass; it wouldn't be worth my time...</I>

<p>

Just as I thought you would.

<p>

Enjoy your day,<br>

Bill

"Methinks" that should I and I do extend the same offer of an anything goes nightime shootout with Ray for a couple of pro-packs that he would run down the same cowardly path as Maria had imposing a variety of restrictions and excuses.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

George Billy Bob

<I>...humiliate me --</I>

<p>

You are doing more than an adequately with out any additional assistance.

<p>

<I>...isn't very sportsmanlike...</I>

<p>

Hopefully I shall sleep tonight.

<p>

Respectfully,<br>

Billy Todd

<I>And if you shoot good pics and never show them to anyone, that's not very helpful now, is it?</I>

<p>

A parallel thought one could consider also is that if you shoot very weak photos and do post them here yet assert your photographical proficiency that it is not very helpful either.

<p>

Sincerely,<br>

Willie

"<I>What was there in the rules that you didn't like --</I>"

<p>

Seemingly your issues extend beyond clear-cut Leica envy and anxiety and delve into the depths of reading comprehension or lack of. I acknowledged my dislikes with your self-righteous regulations in my prior posts and find no need to reiterate them in this one.

<p>

Interestingly enough I am to a certain degree confounded by how you can ascertain as too how much actual shooting I or anyone else does.

<p>

No Maria, I cannot and do not blame you for having fun considering the photographic ineptness that runs rampant in this forum as evidenced by the photographs in this thread. Though I do find myself at total ease in laying blame on you for generalizing and judging people without you yourself having even the slightest capacity or clue.

<p>

Respectfully,<br>

Wild Billy Todd

Chickening out? My dearest Maria by imposing regulations and now which participants may take part in your sophomoric and insignificant little competition it appears as if it is you that is perhaps anguishing from a little apprehension.

<p>

Would you not be more comfortable to just go to a local playground and seek out your challengers there?

<p>

Regards,<br>

Bill

Ah, now it is deceptively apparent, insecurity and anxiety obscured beneath the pretext of rules and convention.

<p>

Freedom of expression and creativity be damned, a Bush sympathizer no doubt.

<p>

Disappointing in the least and rightfully so I will not be participating in any Fascist sponsored competition.

<p>

Enjoy,<br>

Bill

Cleaning supplies? Hardly what one would identify as being even tenuously enticing. Typically I allot the pleasure of procuring said supplies to the cleaning woman, gives her an undeniable sense of reward and satisfaction, a feeling of fulfillment and accomplishment. Any "dusting" I shall do will be performed with the use of Leica glass.

<p>

Perhaps a pro-pack or two of TRI-X would be deemed more alluring, possibly all contestants throwing a pro-pack into a kitty and the winner would take all.

<p>

Regards,<br>

Bill

It is quite likely that should the wager or ante be attractive enough to gratify my tastes that I would contemplate in partaking in this affair.

<p>

Sincerely,

WTF

The two can and are disassociated. As suggested previously, the 'why' is impertinent amongst important, proficient and proven photographers. Do you earnestly believe or perceive that HCB, Robert Frank, Diane Arbus, Robert Doisneau, Josef Koudelka, Sebastiao Salgado amongst several others question themselves as to 'why' they shoot? More presumably than not they acknowledge the fact that 'shooting' is a necessity in as much as eating and breathing is. Thus permitting their attention to focus on the 'what'.

<I>Why is arguably more important than what.</I>

<p>

At an elementary level this is accurate. Yet as one achieves increased experience and perspicacity one discovers that the 'what' is equally if not more significant than the 'why'. Initially photographers much like painters grapple to come to terms with the 'why' and why they elect to choose the 'what'. When one embraces the fact that the 'why' is inconsequential inasmuch as of the certainty that it is truly a 'prerequisite' then they possess the capability to concentrate on the 'what'. One who 'must' or has no alternative but too shoot has a unfettered mind than one who is occupied contemplating on 'why' one shoots. In all cases the 'what' is the same and is each own individuals interpretive view of their own personal life experiences and on the final day judgement shall be passed.

<p>

<I>IMO, the most important decision, is the one in which one decides to get off of one's tail end and go make a photograph.</I>

<p>

Agreed.

No Travis, you are assuming that I am assuming and yet you feel it's your place to tell me to stop assuming. A rather interesting but perplexing stance, one of authority or the need to put others in their place I would suppose.

<p>

Once again (actually the third time) I merely stated that the only reason one would by one of his images is for his autograph where as I still stand by that, it's my 'opinion'. The reason I asked you was to confirm the fact that you agree with me that the price of the prints is too much and you did.

<p>

One more assumption before I leave the thread to you. After your comment I assume it safe to assume that you would walk away from one of Eggleston's prints for 2.7K?

What am I assuming? Nowhere in this post have I made any assumptions and have only stated my opinion as we both are entitled too.

<p>

I asked you a rather straightforward question and you responded by stating that you would not pay $2,700.00 for a photograph by Andy Summer or anyone else.

<p>

Now, I will make my assumption that you agree with me that $2,700.00 is too much for one of his photographs.