Who is this "Jorge" jerk and why does anyone bother responding to him?
He has quite a reputation that extends far beyond this small list. Certain aspects of his character and mindset are subject to comment and commentary on at least half a dozen or so lists that I know of.
LOL...half a dozen? funny since I only frequent the LF forum and APUG, and maybe once in a while the google rec. site. But then any reputation is better than no reputation......much like you Paddy.
Once again your reputation for not accurately reading a post shows itself. I did not say you were on that many lists , I said your (lets charitably say - somewhat negative) reputation is a subject of comment on that many photography lists
Hey Jorge, you're _Famous_!!! :-()
Yeah Rich, I am sure my reputation among digiheads is very negative, I wouldnt have it any other way... :-))
none specifically digital - some very died in the wool analogue in fact - rollei users and such
Rollei users? that is a new one, given that I have never even been involved with rollei in any way. Dont have one of their cameras and have no opinion about them....who cares anyhow? What you and your buddies have to say about me is one of the few million things I dont give a rat's ass about.... ;-)
"I wonder, how is everyone on this list communicating? Are you "typing" your messages on the list. I sincerely hope not."
Type is a great example of technologies that have changed over the years while keeping much of the same terminology. When you set digital type, you refer to line spacing as "leading" (rhymes with bedding). This refers to the strips of lead that were manually placed between rows of lead type in hand-set letterpress. The term stuck around after the late 19th century when the linotype machine took over setting most of the type; it stuck around after the 1960s when type whas being set photomechanically; and it stuck around after the 80s, when most of the type started to be set digitally.
No one's actually trying to fool anyone into thinking they use strips of lead when they design a page of type. In fact, a lot of designers don't even know the origin of the word. But for whatever reason, the word has stuck around. A lot like "sepia."
Yep, it is also a good example of two minute sound bites that sound clever but rarely are throughly thought out.
For one the content of a novel or writing does not depend on what it was written on. As much as you would like us to believe the process does not matter, the content if a photograph is greatly affected by the process or in what was "written" on.
While I am sure yo would like photography to be replaced by digital imaging and ink jet prints asap, it has not happened yet, nor do I think it will happen in the near future, so until that happens this is a moot argument.
This type of arguments on the surface appear clever but rarely can stand to a little bit of thought. In the end this is no surprise, while Jensen pays lip service to the "art" of photography, it is clear his intent is the advancement of digital imaging over traditional photography if one is to judge by his ever increasing blogs about digital.
Thankfully there are other magazines out there which are fully impartial.
A meaningful (or however you want to describe/define it) photograph may be affected by the process, occasionally it may be substantially affected by the process, but it almost never depends on it and the impact it has on the content is rarely so important as to make the process paramount.
It really matter little whether an Atget photograph is printed on obsolete (for his times) pop paper or a silver gelatin paper, the content is barely affected at all by such a change.
A silk purse is a silk purse, however you present it. And no amount of skilful craftsmanship will improve much on a sows ear.
McLuhans dictum certainly doesn't apply to photography in this context - the medium here is very rarely the message
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks