On 5/26/2010 10:22 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
2010/5/26 Boris Liberman:
On 5/13/2010 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Hell, no. I'd just raid a museum, steal all their Ansel Adams prints
and sign my name to them.
I had rather different impression of you having met you in Chicago ;-).
In love and war
2010/5/26 Boris Liberman :
> On 5/13/2010 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Hell, no. I'd just raid a museum, steal all their Ansel Adams prints
>> and sign my name to them.
>
> I had rather different impression of you having met you in Chicago ;-).
>
In love and war... :-)
--
http://www.alunf
On 5/13/2010 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Hell, no. I'd just raid a museum, steal all their Ansel Adams prints
and sign my name to them.
I had rather different impression of you having met you in Chicago ;-).
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinf
On 5/13/2010 1:20 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
Friendly correction: I said Southern Gothic and the grotesque. I think
Flannery O'Connor would have liked Eggleston, and count me in as a fan
of Eggleston. As I write this it's thundering & raining like crazy here
in Chicago--most appropriate for thou
On 5/13/2010 4:19 AM, Miserere wrote:
Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a
camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes.
Thanks. You did it for me... I mean put to words what I had in mind.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.ne
Please don't squeeze the Charmin.
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling"
>
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/13/2010 8:03 PM, Miserere wrote:
On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote:
One man's charmi
On 5/13/2010 8:03 PM, Miserere wrote:
On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote:
One man's charming is another's charmin.
For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper.
But it's soft and fluffy!
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fn
On 5/12/2010 9:19 PM, Miserere wrote:
On 12 May 2010 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
appreciation f
On 5/13/2010 12:16 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Mark Roberts
Tom C wrote:
>I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the
>bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend.
>
>I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far
>vaster knowledge of phot
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Stan Halpin"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chic
>
> - Original Message - From: "Cotty"
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
>>>
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
Perhaps it's gone tits up.
Bob Sullivan wrote:
WILSON MICHAEL,
Why are you SHOUTING at us?
Regards, Bob S.
My apologies. Virginmedia has changed its webmail interface and a
number of things are cockeyed. Praise the Lord for Netscape Mail
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL wrote:
On 14 May 201
>>Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
>
> There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
Perhaps it's gone tits up.
>>>
>>> Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation.
>>>
>>
>> it was just a boob, but I can see
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
William Robb wrote:
From: "Mark Roberts"
Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
> William Robb wrote:
>
>>From: "Mark Roberts"
>>
Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
>>>
>>> There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
>>
>>Perhaps it's gone tits up.
>
> Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation.
>
it was
William Robb wrote:
>From: "Mark Roberts"
>
>>>Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
>>
>> There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
>
>Perhaps it's gone tits up.
Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation.
--
PDML Pentax-Dis
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
Perhaps it's go
p...@web-options.com wrote:
>Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please vi
Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon
B
> Maybe it's my gmail, but he doesn't come up as Mike Wilson.
> He comes up as WILSON MICHAEL in the gmail preview lines.
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola
> wrote:
>> For the non-Amer
> On May 14, 2010, at 12:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>
>>> The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions
>>> blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a
>>> crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette
>>> and
>>> renders me spe
That was definitely dry and witty. :-) Laughing.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola
wrote:
> For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent.
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> WILSON MICHAEL,
>> Why are you SHOUTING at us?
>> Reg
p...@web-options.com wrote:
this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions
blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a
crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette
and
renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase.
palate
LOL oh sorry, lol
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola
wrote:
> For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent.
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> WILSON MICHAEL,
>> Why are you SHOUTING at us?
>> Regards, Bob S.
>>
>> On Fri, May
Maybe it's my gmail, but he doesn't come up as Mike Wilson.
He comes up as WILSON MICHAEL in the gmail preview lines.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent.
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10
For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent.
Dan
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> WILSON MICHAEL,
> Why are you SHOUTING at us?
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL
> wrote:
>> On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote:
>>
WILSON MICHAEL,
Why are you SHOUTING at us?
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote:
>> On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> One man's charming is another's charmin.
>>
>> For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a br
On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote:
> On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote:
>>
>> One man's charming is another's charmin.
>
> For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper.
I really should apologise for being so harsh. But I just couldn't
pass up the straight line. Mea maxi
On May 14, 2010, at 12:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>> The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions
>> blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a
>> crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette and
>> renders me speechless, to
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful.
> This one, for example, is downright charming:
>
> http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html
>
> Dan
Great.
Now I'll have to poke my eyes out with hot needles.
On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote:
>
> One man's charming is another's charmin.
For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper.
--
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
--
PDML Pentax-Disc
On 2010-05-13 14:12, Jerry in Arizona wrote:
The ongoing discussion only reinforces the idea that there is no
universally accepted definition of a "good" photograph.
Not only there isn't, but there literally can't be one in any "universe"
of more than a few people. It's too subjective.
--
T
Remember John, I said some may chose to consider such a vote imbalance as a
measure of what's good or bad. I don't take it for granted.
Jack
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: John Sessoms
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph?
> To: pdml@pdml.net
>
@aol.com
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 12:13 PM
> A good photograph is one *I* like.
>
> Marnie aka Doe ;-) Finis.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
You'd make a good judge.
Jack
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
> From: eactiv...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 12:13 PM
> A good photograph is one *I* like.
>
>
Mark!
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> One man's charming is another's charmin.
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
From: Jerry in Arizona
Beauty continues to be in the eye of the beholder.
That's why I always wear safety glasses.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the di
From: Jack Davis
The Pentax Photo Gallery accepts and posts images wherein twice as
many viewers voted them worthy as felt them unworthy.
Some might interpret incidence of emotional arousal as one measure of
"good."(?)
Out of how many votes minimum?
I don't think two for & one against makes th
>
>>
>> Knowing that you will be the only one to ever, ever see your pictures,
>> would you still bother to make them?"
>
>
> For me there is a problem with the scenario.
>
> Fist of all, it's a pretty unrealistic, artificial scenario that takes
> all the people away but leaves all of their possess
A good photograph is one *I* like.
Marnie aka Doe ;-) Finis.
In a message dated 5/12/2010 6:45:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
caka...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer wrote:
>OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly
makes a g
My conclusion was the opposite ;-)
Basically this is the photo-existensial version of the
if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-and-no-one-is-there-to-hear-it-does-it-make-a-sound
question.
The reason why I answered 'yes' is because I realised that there are
shots that I make just for me -heck I have com
From: Fernando
I see lots of arguments here defining "good" or "bad" around the
"viewer". This reminds me of this discussion I read some time ago,
it's a simple thought experiment that got me thinking about why I
shoot what I shoot.
The premise is simple:
"Let's say you just emerged from a cave
- Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas.
Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and
like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is
Right, it depends upon the number and composition of the viewers..which will,
forever, be the case.
Jack
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Tom C wrote:
> From: Tom C
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph?
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 10:
>> this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions
>> blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a
>> crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette
>> and
>> renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase.
>
> palate, surely? O
Le 13/05/10 19:51, Mark Roberts a écrit :
Fernando wrote:
Knowing that you will be the only one to ever, ever see your pictures,
would you still bother to make them?"
Hell, no. I'd just raid a museum, steal all their Ansel Adams prints
and sign my name to them.
I think I would .
The ongoing discussion only reinforces the idea that there is no universally
accepted definition of a "good" photograph. Beauty continues to be in the eye
of the beholder.
BTW, Adams was also a consultant and early tester for Polaroid. He also shot
35mm.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDM
Now that makes perfect sense. :-)
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Fernando wrote:
>
>>Knowing that you will be the only one to ever, ever see your pictures,
>>would you still bother to make them?"
>
> Hell, no. I'd just raid a museum, steal all their Ansel Adams prints
> an
Fernando wrote:
>Knowing that you will be the only one to ever, ever see your pictures,
>would you still bother to make them?"
Hell, no. I'd just raid a museum, steal all their Ansel Adams prints
and sign my name to them.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/li
easure of
> "good."(?)
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steven Desjardins wrote:
>
>> From: Steven Desjardins
>> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph?
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 10:21 AM
>
The simple answer is "No".
Images are a means of communication. If there's no one to communicate
with, the image is useless.
Now if I had repair the still that was in the cave, and I wanted to
make sure that I remembered how I took it apart, so that I could
reassemble it correctly, I'd take photo
ns
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph?
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 10:21 AM
> Yeah, let's talk about what makes
> good pornography. ;-)
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jerry in Arizona
> wrote:
> >
Yeah, let's talk about what makes good pornography. ;-)
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jerry in Arizona wrote:
> I don't know if this is an original thought, but a good photograph is like
> pornography, I know it when I see it.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://
omposition really suits the
>>> > subject
>>> > matter best? The rule of thirds is not the only game in town, and the
>>> > same
>>> > can be said for any other compositional/sharpness/exposure/color habit
>>> > we
>>> > get i
From: Mark Roberts
Tom C wrote:
>I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the
>bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend.
>
>I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far
>vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do.
>
>And in the en
ut a number of them, like the bags of garbage and the oven
> > interior...
> >
> > I suppose I feel as Mark said. ?OK, maybe his work is interesting in
> > some respects, but I saw a big disparity between what he actually
> > produced and the amount of adulation recei
From: Doug Brewer
Tom C wrote:
> Hi Doug, (take everything I say as not an argument, but more or less musing)
>
> I don't know the history of Eggleston or how/why he became famous.
>>From the exhibit I saw, I suspect either some beatniks in a coffehouse
> somewhere or some art professors who
A tired quip,I know, but..."To be known as a great photographer, you must throw
away those that are only good."
Sorry if a thread distraction!
Jack
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Jerry in Arizona wrote:
> From: Jerry in Arizona
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Ch
John, I think you are right on the money.
From: John Sessoms
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Message-ID: <4bec1a38.2040...@nc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Stick my two cents in here ... for whatever it&#
sitional/sharpness/exposure/color habit we
> get into.
Yes, I deliberately tried NOT to articulate the reasons why I would
consider a photograph good, and leave it open to interpretation. :-)
Why? Because I KNOW, that sure as grass is green, if I elaborate on
some specific criteria that someone
I don't know if this is an original thought, but a good photograph is like
pornography, I know it when I see it.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the direct
Yes there were certain images I did like but the ratio was about 1 out
of 15. The drink on the airplane tray was a very good image. I also
liked the low angle tricycle and the portrait of the man in western
garb with the bright bowtie. Probably a handful of others.
If there was something about t
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful.
This one, for example, is downright charming:
http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.
uced and the amount of adulation received.
>>
>> Tom C.
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan"
>>> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
>
M, William Robb wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan"
>> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
>>
>> I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas.
>> Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect
On 5/12/2010 4:45 PM, Tom C wrote:
A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to
look at again.
Tom C.
Tom, I am thinking (in fact I am recalling having been told by someone
else) that unsuccessful photograph (notice, not bad per se) is one that
a viewer will forget very
Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan"
> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
>
> I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas.
> Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and
> like a whole lot at best. Getting their philo
p...@web-options.com wrote:
[...]
dang. It's tough being an Art Snob around here.
No doubt Mark! will pick that one up all on his ownsome without my help.
Don't worry too much about it, Doug. I'm shoulder-to-shoulder with you on
this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with
Mark Roberts wrote:
It's as if, after years of dismissing color
photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they
liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating
for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't
deserve it.
Seems Mark!is
Tom C wrote:
>On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
>> is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
>> Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
>> appreciation for h
On 13 May 2010 06:20, Christine Aguila wrote:
>
> Friendly correction: I said Southern Gothic and the grotesque.
I stand corrected and humbly bow down to your prodigious memory.
--
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enl
- Original Message -
From: "Miserere"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
I did come away with one thing, though. Like Christine said, Eggleston
has a knack for Ame
[...]
>
> dang. It's tough being an Art Snob around here.
>
No doubt Mark! will pick that one up all on his ownsome without my help.
Don't worry too much about it, Doug. I'm shoulder-to-shoulder with you on
this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions
blazing to tell
Miserere and I had a brief discussion about Eggleston's work while we were
wandering through. It got me to thinking rather than just feeling. Thanks
Miserere!
First, I don't study art, I don't read art critics' stuff, and I may have once
heard the name Eggleston but had no clue who he was and wh
- Original Message -
From: "Miserere"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a
camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes.
Having read Stephen King's assessment of ho
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons.
This is the most he's written to the list in years.
I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas.
Both Doug and To
Miserere wrote:
On 12 May 2010 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
appreciation for his work after seeing i
On 12 May 2010 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
> is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
> Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
> appreciation for his work after seeing it in pers
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
> is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
> Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
> appreciation for his work after seeing
Tom C wrote:
>I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the
>bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend.
>
>I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far
>vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do.
>
>And in the end, even discussing the
what he was shooting for,
>>> he achieved it.
>>
>> Well, they do have a discernible style; He doesn't shoot like anyone else.
>> Intent is there, but you (generic you) have to be open to it.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I deliberately tried NOT to articulate
Excuses, excuses.
We always like to hear what you have to say.
Regards, Bob S.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Bob Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons.
>> This is the most he's written to the list in years.
>> Regards, Bob S. :-)
>
> I'm be
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons.
This is the most he's written to the list in years.
Regards, Bob S. :-)
I'm between sessions and don't have to shoot anything until tomorrow.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pd
like anyone else.
> Intent is there, but you (generic you) have to be open to it.
>
>
>> Yes, I deliberately tried NOT to articulate the reasons why I would
>> consider a photograph good, and leave it open to interpretation. :-)
>>
>> Why? Because I KNOW, that sure as
s is green, if I elaborate on
some specific criteria that someone will argue the opposite or the
exception, and point out to me (as if I'm a total idiot) that I cannot
be the sole arbiter of what makes a good photograph (and I can't). So
I did not fall into the trap. :-)
I don't th
Tom C wrote:
As I said, I think the PDML exhibit in Chicago was a far better
collection of images than the Eggleston exhibit. That's my opinion.
For instance I saw nothing artistic or good about the photographs of a
pile of garbage or the black porcelain interior of an oven.
There were half a
Hi John,
Are they really snapshots? Do you not expend some effort reaching the
locale, getting set up, in the right spot, using a desired focal
length lens, and then set aperture and shutter speed, and compose,
then fine-tune?
If so, then they're not really snapshots, to my way of thinking. Whil
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 01:40:06PM -0400, Tom C wrote:
> Hi Doug, (take everything I say as not an argument, but more or less musing)
>
> I don't know the history of Eggleston or how/why he became famous.
{snip, snip]
> I called his photographs crappy because I found them largely devoid of
> any
ific criteria that someone will argue the opposite or the
exception, and point out to me (as if I'm a total idiot) that I cannot
be the sole arbiter of what makes a good photograph (and I can't). So
I did not fall into the trap. :-)
I do however agree with your statements above. The
Tom C wrote:
We and I may be mixing up the terms art and good in this discussion...
oh well...
We can save the discussion about whether photography is art for later. I
asked what makes a good photograph.
There can be be no single answer to the question because photographs
are taken for
I think the approach you guys are using to analyse this might be
flawed for some type of work, some photos need to be evaluated as part
of a whole, and even in an intended sequence (e.g. Robert Frank's "The
Americans"). These are the photos that evaluated individualy are
mundane but are elevated to
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer wrote:
>OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly
>makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not this..." or "a
>good photo is >not that..."
>Fire when ready.
Thought about in my sleep. :-)
I'll cop
93 matches
Mail list logo
