Brad_

>>> Scott Reither "...pushing fine art on a Las Vegas clientele caught up in “impulsive behavior while visiting Sin City" quoted again for emphasis. >>> So we know Lik will stoop pretty low to sell; ... We do? I certainly don't. Perhaps *you* do? That Lik sells art to people who may be impulsive and have lots of money to spend is hardly an indictment. There are many galleries in large cities, San Francisco included with dozens, whose clientele are people with money to spend and are looking for a pleasing painting or photograph. That is hardly stooping low to sell and hardly news. It may be shocking to some that most art (paintings, lithos, photographs, sculpture) sold at "downtown" galleries, say in the range that Lik's work was sold ($800 - $4500 in Vegas), does not have a secondary market. People still purchase because they're moved by the work and want to hang a piece over the sofa. You will not find such work in Bonhams or other auction catalogs. That's not necessarily bad. It's a fact of life and how the gallery system works for the most part in cities, selling to people who are not serious collectors.

I wonder how some people draw conclusions about a photographer/artist not caring and helping others simply because he made a great sale. Projection? Not knowing Lik I would not draw such a conclusion.

What Ian said. Nice to see hard work over a long period of time handsomely rewarded.

>>> But often 3rd party software relies on those to work, either because it's not well written or because of some wrong assumption, or whatever. In those cases, it will break. And... Many 3rd party developers design their software to go it alone in certain situations using non-public APIs or modifying/controlling the system software/drivers directly - a potentially dangerous security situation for end users. Of course that's not supported, and then in the future when Apple or other OS manufacturer updates their OS (i.e., Mavericks to Yosemite), those 3rd party software products can potentially behave badly or fail.

>>> Is Photography really a serious Art? I don't see why a particular medium should not be included. Consider, for example, a wood rocking chair by Sam Maloof, a Ruth Asawa sculpture made of wire, a glass basket by Dale Chihuly, frames created by Roy De Forest to wrap around his paintings, or Newcomb College Pottery vases designed by (relatively) unknown artists. I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but can't imagine a field or medium that would be necessarily excluded.

<center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/MacArthur%20BART.jpg"><BR> <i> Oakland • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

I guess I'm missing something; even after reading the above. Still not getting what "gaming the system" achieves.

I don't participate in the critiques here. But I am curious what the purpose would be, or what one gains trying to game the system?

I've updated three computers to 10.10.1 and have had no issues with apps. Safari is faster, and, I like the new features, especially related to handling SMS texts and answering phone calls through OS X via a nearby iPhone on the same network. AirDropping files now works between iOS devices and OS X computers. And best of all, skeuomorphism is dead and buried. The new UI is smartly designed and looks/works great.

I'm holding out for a Sultan of Brunei-like gold edition, housed in a handmade Bubinga wood presentation case, with the scanner gently seated in supple Mirrabella gold metallic lambskin leather. Should Jeb win in 2016 perhaps one will be created to celebrate the family dynasty?

<center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Occupy%20Saks.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> And the Amon Carter's display of Avedon's American West series breathed humanity back into that already potent work. The full gallery display made it clear these weren't misfits, losers or freaks, but real people who seemed very familiar. Yeah... Regular people. With revealed "imperfections" most try to keep hidden. Far from the picture-perfect glamorized "West" stereotyped via Hollywood at the time.

Also... <P> One reason I like Fuji cameras in general: Frequent and useful firmware updates.<P> <a href= "http://reframe.gizmodo.com/fujfilm-stuffs-the-x-t1-with-a-zillion-new-features-in-1660781104/all">Here's a doozy</a> that's coming soon.

>>> I would still like to know why O'Leary thought it was better to cash out @ $14M than to build the company further for even greater equity - clearly he's seeing limits to the business or he's simply not the guy with enough ideas to take it to the next level. Or... Maybe he thought that $14M was enough to be able to jump off the treadmill, kick back a little, and enjoy life.

Needs to fit in your pants pocket: Sony RX100 Needs to be smaller/lighter than a Canon dSLR: Fuji X-T1 I've been very happy with both.

Thanks, William. That was a most welcome "rant!" Be easy and get well...

>>> I have no doubt that Frank is aware of this exhibit but is he aware of how some of these prints look, and more importantly does he care? He was likely aware. Although the exhibition was mostly drawn from the Cantor archives using around 100 of the 150 photographs in their Frank collection, many of the remaining prints in the exhibition were loaned by Frank himself. For me, those were the most interesting and evocative, The Americans prints aside. Perhaps due to the way the prints were acquired by the Cantor in the 1980s (that’s another story) and readily available, I came away feeling it was an interesting sampling with a more-or-less equal representation of both powerful and good individual prints, and a look into how he worked, but not a show where I came away strongly moved. There was a single print from his Peru and Bolivia travels - too bad "America" was not opened to South America with respect to the title of the exhibition, and of course nothing from Beirut - even though the intro spoke to his work before, during, and after The Americans project. OTOH, I went into the exhibition with modest expectations remembering (and viewing multiple times) The Americans exhibition at SFMOMA in 2009 as a superbly curated (mirroring his book) poetic visual essay of an outsider's view of America in the 1950s and included a large body of supporting material. For me that was SFMOMAs finest exhibition, and making an impossible comparison to the Cantor exhibition. The Cantor show is worth a second look since I live nearby. As an aside, last week there was a free panel discussion about Frank's work at the Cantor auditorium where Frank made an unannounced appearance, and a friend was able to snag a photo of him.

Super photo, Steve

I usually don't "go out to shoot" as a planned activity. But I always have a camera with me and will make spontaneous photos when I see something interesting when out. The exceptions are when I'm working on a project, which isn't very often, but very much planned at the time. Or fleshing out a project idea for the future, where I periodically return to an area that greatly interests me, and make photographs to get a feel for future project potential - I view that as more opportunistic rather than planned.<P> Here's an example of an unplanned spontaneous photo: <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/bluecoat.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center> Here's a planned photo from a previous project: <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Edward.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center> And here's a photo I made in an area that interests me a lot where there could be future project potential: <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Ocean%20Beach%20copy.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Well, it is an interesting rant. It has strong parallels and similar tenets with other rants periodically posted to this forum lately by several others, and also to a very recent post about street photography and post processing in the Philosophy Forum. I do think Dan South's point #6 up above hits the nail on the head.<P> With respect to myself, I usually put thought into most of the street photographs I make, whether candids or street portraits. There's really not much more I can say about that. Thought was put into the candid street photo below, shown as an example. I see absolutely nothing wrong if others choose not to. Why would I be bothered if someone chooses to think or not think when shooting with their camera? Everyone is different with their approach to their photography.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Trees%20Civic%20Center.jpg"><BR> <i> UN Plaza / Civic Center, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> How much does facial express matter to your perception of a portrait photo? Does a smile, scowl, or neutral expression matter?<P> Very much so. To both. <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Delondra%203.jpg"><BR> <i> Delondra • Street Portrait, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Are photographers and "artists" allowed to think? On the pages of PN, I've seen again and again claims that photographers don't participate in this very human activity, as if it's possible not to. I haven't seen this personally, either in real life or on photonet. Are you really suggesting serious photographers (meaning people that have adopted photography at least as a regular hobby or endeavor - as opposed to, say, perhaps a relative taking yearly family holiday snaps) put no thought into the photos they make? Also, not sure what you meant by "artists" (in quotes), but the artists I know personally and am aware of put an incredible amount of thinking into their work. >>> I'd say more often than not a lack of thought in general shows in one's photos, often to the detriment of those photos, though for some reason people assume it sounds pretty cool not to think. Again, I don't know who these people are, but if that's their choice (whether thinking or not is cool in their eyes), why does it worry you so? I'm fine letting anyone do what they want their camera.

Why is "artist" in quotation marks?

JDM, I was looking at your photo up above and was wondering what makes it "documentary." Can you elaborate?

>>> Not surprised also that you would root around to find something to criticize. Huh? Where's the criticism? Just up above you made a point of no one looking at your site in the context of verifying that you actually practice what you preach. I'm just genuinely *curious* how you determined that. So please, if you will, let us know. I believe most here have looked at your site. >>> Since your photography isn't bad, I had hoped you were better than that but if this is the kind of antagonism that typifies the way you and the others treat people who don't agree with you, it is not surprising that most of the critiques are you guys giving back rubs to each other. You seem very sensitive and become easily upset if people express views not in alignment with yours. Why? Again, genuinely curious.