mrraz

<p>"This sort of argument, which I see many of my artist friends as well as viewers HIDING BEHIND, ignores the rational, intelligent and aesthetic evaluation and response that one can bring to bear and experience on perceiving and understanding a work of art and which, in many cases, justifies either its acceptance or rejection by the viewer. Thankfully, the value of great art is not based uniquely upon the emotional response."</p>

<p>No, your "artist friends" and viewers aren't hiding behind an emotional argument that negates the rational, intelligent and aesthetic evaluation and response Arthur. It may be all of us have taken a step into an intuitive realm where we are free to excercise our emotions the way you might operate in the rational. Neither is right or wrong just different. However, they do in the end achieve the same purpose, a connection to a particular painting, drawing, sculpture, concerto, symphony or sonnet. However great or insignificant its value may be.</p>

<p>"If that were true, we wouldn't be able to communicate about it."</p>

<p>I don't feel that is necessarily true. While viewing the Monet Retrospective exhibit at the Chicago Art Institute some years ago, I was looking at one of the few vertical paintings he'd ever done. It was one of his earlier works. The couple next to me were going on and on about what a marvelous painting it was. When I expressed my sentiment that it was not very good, we had a discussion about what I felt were its shortfalls.</p>

<p>Pointing out why I felt the composition was flawed and lacked much of his trademark use of light in a way as to create a great discordance in the frame. Once they studied it beyond Monet's technique of applying paint, they came to agree. They thank me for for providing them with an insightful explanation because all they saw was a well applied paint.</p>

<p>We continued through the rest of the exhibit discussing Monet's work and came away with new insights about his work over a lifetime. Before this exhibit I wouldn't have said there was work by Monet that I didn't like. His great paintings are clearly that, but he also produced a great deal of boring humdrum work which I do not like.</p>

<p>I grant you that art is in the eye, ear or head of the beholder as is pain, joy, etc. and therefore subjective, to a point. As to coming to concensus about what may or may not be art; any "definition" put forth by anyone is intellectually subjective. The painter that produces a picture may consider it no more then work that satisfies a creative itch. Much the way I feel about my photography. However, the person/s that view/s that work may see it as art. The individual viewer/listener gets to make the determination for themselves.</p>

<p>I make every effort not to use the term "art" because I have no real idea of what it is to anyone else. I'm not even sure I understand what it means to me. I will discuss specific works produced by painters, sculptors, composers, etc. but do not classify it as art during the conversational give and take. This way a common ground is created to appreciate the qualities or flaws of a specific painting, drawing, sculpture, photograph, sonnet, symphony or concerto. No, there isn't any mysterious concept hovering above us while it happens. Your point is valid here.</p>

<p>"I guess some people prefer to be in awe in ignorance and some people prefer to be in awe in understanding."</p>

<p>Why is it necessary to be in awe at all when experiencing any particular piece of art Patrick? I can count the times I've been in awe personally on six fingers, and not one of those had anything to do with art. They were all related to seeing my newborn children and grandchildren.</p>

<p>When I view a painting, drawing or sculpture, does that piece of art communicate with me subconciously? If it doesn't, I move on to the next on. When a work of art talks to me (reaches out and grabs my emotions), I know the person that produced that work has touched me. I don't need to understand it beyond that point.</p>

<p>We are after all arguing about subjective ideas regarding the appreciation of art for which there cannot be a common fit for more then a single individual.</p>

<p>It isn't really necessary to understand a work of art to enjoy it no matter what its form. A work of art must be experienced through some sort of interaction where understanding is not part of the equation. I think Wilde was saying that understanding kills the experience of interacting with a work of art.</p>

<p>My old manual Zuiko OM lenses are every bit as good optically as any of the new Zuiko autofocus lenses, and they'll be around for a lot longer also. They're all multicoated models. I use the 50mm f/3.5 macro on my E-500 and 510 to copy my old 35mm negatives and slides because there's no loss of image quality.</p>

<p>The sharpest small camera manual lens I've ever used was a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 I bought in Hong Kong in May, 1966. On a Nikon F body it couldn't be beat at any f/stop. It went into the South China Sea along with myself while I was shooting special operations training near Nha Trang the same year. It took a rise in fresh water along with the camera body, air drying in the sun and being relubed by the Air Force to get everything working perfectly again.</p>

<p>I sold it along with the same Nikon F body in the early '80s, when I needed money, and the economy was in the toilet. The current owner to whom I sold it is still using both. Let's see one of the modern wonders last that long.</p>

 

<p>Can't say I've ever been camera shy, but because I am behind the camera so much I'm rarely in any pictures.</p>

<p>Getting around camera shyness in a subject may take some doing on your part. I've always found talking to them about general things can loosen someone up, but it can take time. Generally, I just start shooting as I talk to them. Once they start to feel more comfortable, some very good shots can be achieved.</p>

<p>It's a little like speaking in public. Just keep working at it until it seems natural for you and the subject.</p>

<p>I'm with Leandro on this. My wife uses an E-410 and loves it. It's light and compact. I'd say go with the 2 lens kit if you decide on the E-410. The lenses are very compact to go along with the small body size.</p>

<p>While I haven't used a RF for some time, I've always been able to use either eye when shooting any kind of camera even with my glasses. I'm generally ambidextrous, so I've never given it much thought before. I do tend to use the right eye most often because I also like to be able to anticipate what's going to happen on the street.</p>

<p>Here's my version using your original full image. I've cropped the frame to what looks good to me, cloned out some distractions and lowered the contrast and brightness about 8%.</p><div></div>

<p>Nothing</p>

<p>There are no ugly lenses, just as there are no beautiful lenses. They are nothing but a product of form following function. When conversations start about how equipment looks instead of what it does, the photographers need to refocus their energy in a more productive area, shovel snow or mow the lawn, depending on where you live. ;-)</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=830669">My people portfolio</a> has examples of a variety processing, but with the exception of my angelic grandson ;<) there is little of what I consider overly processed. Most of it falls into the street category from my perspective.<br>

How does this sit with you Chris? I think there's a lot of blemished reality there.</p>

<p>I use a variety of OM mount Zuiko lenses on both my E500-510. The 50mm f/1.8 works beautifully as does the 50mm f/3.5 MC macro. The zooms are a little more finicky for focus on moving objects. It took some time to get used to the focus, but now I use a lot of guesstimates just by judging distance to subject when I'm on the street. I also use zone focus outside in bright light. Nothing like set and forget.</p>

<p>It's amazing that Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford never issued any warning about using Stop Bath and its affect on grain. I can't believe it was because they would have lost market share for a product, acetic acid, that could be purchased in any drug store.</p>

<p>In all those years I shot film, thousands of rolls of Tri-X and Plus-X, I never had any problems. Every studio I worked in required stop bath when processing B&W film. There was a high demand for quality. Taking short cuts were not allowed.</p>

<p>It seems someone would have noticed a problem during more then a century of professional darkroom work. This late in the game for a well established process makes this conversation rather humorous from my perspective.</p>

<p>Have a happy holiday whatever it may be.</p>

<p>Well, she got me through puberty. She'll always have a special place in my heart.</p>

<p>Fred, We have different ways of viewing the world and the people in it. For me there is no right, wrong, good or evil. There are only points of view based strictly on perspective or religion. I have the distinct feeling you've spent a great deal of time experiencing the world second hand, through books or study. I draw this conclusion based on the stridency of your words and thought patterns.</p>

<p>I, on the other hand, have spent most of my time in direct interactive observation of the human condition. If I seem disingenuous, it's probably because I really am. I don't see it as a flaw but find it to be a very functional survival mechanism.</p>

<p>Applying convenient labels, evildoer/monster/neo-con, to individuals no matter what their position, beliefs or actions places an impediment, like a wall, to understanding what they do and for what reasons.</p>

<p>I try to never make moral judgments or moral decisions, since both seem to require a belief in the supernatural. That is something I cannot claim. I can only be responsible for my own actions and their consequences. I am far from the perfect human, so living with everything that I have done keeps me from judging anyone else too harshly.</p>

 

Fred, My life experience has shown me that everyone is capable of monstrosity under the right circumstances, even

John. It's not likely to happen, but it could.

 

Morality is very much like a grey scale. Black and white at the ends, the rest is very grey. It is also

contextual in application. What is moral is one place might well be immoral in another.

 

"England and Harman and Graner are one person...as prison guards and soldiers everywhere and forever, they

abandoned individual identity at the door."

 

How many soldiers to you know personally John? I have to guess not a single one based on your statement. Yes,

they wear the same uniform, but that doesn't remove their individual identities. Soldiers are a diverse group

that must act in concert to survive.

 

The primary mission of any soldier is to kill. That is what one learns, when one puts on the uniform. That's the

reason for the training they receive, to learn to kill. They aren't trained to be unthinking robots as you

continue to suggest.

 

As to the current administration, what they have done is wrong. They started a couple of theaters of combat

without any idea of what they were doing or how to end it. It isn't monstrous, just stupid. I can look at the

situation dispassionately because I really do have a core understanding of the waste of it all. It's Vietnam all

over again.

John, Your characterization of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld being "monsters" gives them far too much credit for their actions. They are merely inept humans with a belief structure very different then your own.

 

Humans have and will continue to be inhumane to each other because they can. We are evolved animals with the power to rationalize ours or others actions. Remember, even you might be a "monster" in the right circumstances.

I'm also old but grumpy. I'm still using a bag I bought in the late '80s. It holds just so much, 2 bodies with lenses/assorted filters/spare memory/spare batteries, so I don't get to carry useless.

I think you'll find this to some extent with any zoom lens. It is not something to worry about, unless there is a

performance problem related to focus or zoom. It doesn't occur with primes because the lens elements are moving

to provide focus alone.

A professional photographer buys whatever is necessary to get the job done for the customer. There are many pros that have gone to 4x5 scanners. It would reinforce on argument. There are also pros shooting large format >5x7 transparencies, so they can be scanned to digital. Some colors can only be accomplished with film.

 

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry has already claimed all the honors for these feats of prevarication. I know guys that used their SLRs strictly to profess a degree of professionalism. They didn't survive then, they won't survive now.

 

Since I still shoot for money from time to time, I guess I can call myself a semi-pro. I use 8 and 10 MP cameras from Olympus. I use the standard grade lenses. The biggest and best are not always necessary to do professional quality work.

 

I don't think worrying about every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to help your search for photographic knowledge. Let them follow the formula composition and lighting. Follow your own path, and your work will never be tainted by mediocrity.

"Here,with E-510,the shots are made to test the camera as is,and not my photographic knowledge or abilities."

 

Photis, Before I buy anything, I use every feature on the camera. If you don't challenge the camera with your knowledge of photography, how will you ever learn whether it will work? Using the automatic settings provides nothing but an average image. The camera should be tuned to your style through experimentation with the various setting in raw.

 

I use both a E-510 and an E-500. I still use the original kit lenses, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 and 40-150mm f/3.5-5.6, on both bodies. I also use have a 70-300mm /f 4-5.6 and a 35mm f/3.5 Macro. I also have a number of well used OM manual lenses that operate perfectly on the modern hardware. I wouldn't personally shoot a wedding with anything no matter what the price.

 

The E-510 is reliable well made camera. The kit lens is rated standard/consumer grade by Zuiko. Put the extra money into the pro grade 12-60mm or 14-54mm II f/2.8-3.5 lens. You'll get the sharpness that you expect.

One thing I see in both your shots of the city, a great deal of haze in the distance. At infinity the image becomes considerably flat as a result. That will cause a perception of softness, however neither shot is what I would call OOF. Both shots seem to lack contrast in the distance, but I can still make out identifiable structures at the greatest distance, towers on the top of the hill in the BG.

 

Were these shot as jpgs, and were you using a UV filter? It would have a affect on how the shot looks. I think you might realize a better result using raw. You could then process the image to the look you want. I did copy the image and play with it in PS 7. A bit of sharpening and a 20% boost to the contrast provided a much better image.

I doubt whether these are country folk. They look more like vacation shots at some lake retreat or fishing camp

in the early 20th Century. The clothing styles are not Victorian at all. Many fraternal organizations maintained

these kinds of facilities where members could visit during the summer and experience the wilderness.

 

The rustic setting was little more then a sign of the times. Once outside a town or city there were no

conveniences. The bare feet seem to indicate the one that was launching the boat. He was saving his shoes. It was

more practical then waiting for them to dry.