Moonrise Hernandez 2007

[bigdog]

A favorite place of mine, even as it is. A kind of pilgrimage point. ... I have never come up with an image there that was much more than documentaion..

I have had a similar experience with another Adams image also in the "Examples" book: Arches, North Court, Mission San Xavier del Bac.

The first time I tried to duplicate this picture (I admit it ), there was scafolding all around the dome. The next time there were cars parked in the "north court". Then the sky was never right. It was the wrong time of day. Yada, yada, yada.

But I'll keep trying.

[Donald Miller]

No. Not really. My derision does no harm no fowl. I'm just trying to see in my crystal ball what photographic art will become in the future. What I'm seeing so far is troubling, and the ideas expressed both positive and negative are good. What you're really saying is please keep all judgement calls that dis-agree with yours to myself. I will not.

Jim,

That is not what I said, did not mean to say, or even thought about saying. I clearly mentioned the aspect of your comments that I found troubling being your derision. Perhaps you fail to grasp the content of what I meant being that your comments sought to ridicule. You say that you did no harm...and I will respond that your original post, was if nothing else, intended to harm.

Now I don't know about where you grew up Jim or how you live your life but ridicule is usually considered to be abusive in the circles that I frequent. I would have thought that your Christian orientation would have clearly imparted to you that abusive actions directed toward (an)other person(s) or of their beliefs was verboten.

So you can continue your ill conceived and destructive behavior towards others and I will recognize that is what one can expect from you...your behavior will thus become apparent to still other people and if that is the manner in which your God wants you to behave and what you want you are entitled to have that result. Good luck to you.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jim,

That is not what I said, did not mean to say, or even thought about saying. I clearly mentioned the aspect of your comments that I found troubling being your derision. Perhaps you fail to grasp the content of what I meant being that your comments sought to ridicule. You say that you did no harm...and I will respond that your original post, was if nothing else, intended to harm.

Now I don't know about where you grew up Jim or how you live your life but ridicule is usually considered to be abusive in the circles that I frequent. I would have thought that your Christian orientation would have clearly imparted to you that abusive actions directed toward (an)other person(s) or of their beliefs was verboten.

So you can continue your ill conceived and destructive behavior towards others and I will recognize that is what one can expect from you...your behavior will thus become apparent to still other people and if that is the manner in which your God wants you to behave and what you want you are entitled to have that result. Good luck to you.

Jeezzz Donald, you need to lighten up a bit. Jim is one of the easiest going, generous guy in this forum. I have many friends who have visited him and all come back saying what a nice guy he is. Myself I have had personal dealings with him, and while I have not had the pleasure of meeting him in person I can say he is a really nice guy.

Funny thing is that while Jim was passing judgement ( which in my opinion is not really accurate, I think what he posted was more in jest ) on a attitude, you are passing judgement on him.....WHat does that say about YOUR christianity? I guess passing judgement on people is allright in the circles you frequent.

[Donald Miller]

Jeezzz Donald, you need to lighten up a bit. Jim is one of the easiest going, generous guy in this forum. I have many friends who have visited him and all come back saying what a nice guy he is. Myself I have had personal dealings with him, and while I have not had the pleasure of meeting him in person I can say he is a really nice guy.

Funny thing is that while Jim was passing judgement ( which in my opinion is not really accurate, I think what he posted was more in jest ) on a attitude, you are passing judgement on him.....WHat does that say about YOUR christianity? I guess passing judgement on people is allright in the circles you frequent.

Jorge,

I did not pass judgement on Jim as a person. Nor did I pass judgement on Jim as a photographer who uses film. I did find his thinly veiled attack on digital photography to be contentious and ill advised. By his own admission he admitted that his post was derisive and my dictionary identifies derision as ridiculing. Ridiculing another is usually considered to be abusive.

Jorge, that is the point that I wish to illustrate here. If I were to post a thread on how most film based photographers have difficulty making meaningful photographs because by the time that they find their way out of the cave, daylight has gone for that week (something that I have not or would not do) you would be entitled to find my post in bad taste and demeaning to those photographers who choose to use film (I am in that group too, by the way).

Judgements of destructive and demeaning behavior are a far different thing than judgements of a person or their preferences.

By the way I am a declared Budhist. My religion does not allow this sort of behavior anymore than does Christianity...So go figure. Good to hear from you again...hope that all is well with you.

[Merg Ross]

One thing that this forum often lacks is levity. What it does not need are folks with a bias toward digital mentioning that they also use film, or those who have a bias toward film quick to mention that they also use digital. Who cares?

Anyone who perceives Jim's remarks to be demeaning, in my opinion, has missed his intent entirely.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

I did not pass judgement on Jim as a person. Nor did I pass judgement on Jim as a photographer who uses film. I did find his thinly veiled attack on digital photography to be contentious and ill advised. By his own admission he admitted that his post was derisive and my dictionary identifies derision as ridiculing. Ridiculing another is usually considered to be abusive.

Jorge, that is the point that I wish to illustrate here. If I were to post a thread on how most film based photographers have difficulty making meaningful photographs because by the time that they find their way out of the cave, daylight has gone for that week (something that I have not or would not do) you would be entitled to find my post in bad taste and demeaning to those photographers who choose to use film (I am in that group too, by the way).

Judgements of destructive and demeaning behavior are a far different thing than judgements of a person or their preferences.

By the way I am a declared Budhist. My religion does not allow this sort of behavior anymore than does Christianity...So go figure. Good to hear from you again...hope that all is well with you.

Are you kidding? There are many threads on this forum that poke fun at those using film. If anything I think Jim was poking fun at the offset prints being better than originals, not digital per se.

Lighten up men, if you don't agree with Jim, then move on, no reason to rake Jim over the coals.

funny how some people in this forum accuse those of us who prefer film of being close minded and worshippers of the process yet when anyting is said about digital they they don't like, there they are fighting tooth and nail....

[jetcode]

No. Not really. My derision does no harm no fowl. I'm just trying to see in my crystal ball what photographic art will become in the future. What I'm seeing so far is troubling, and the ideas expressed both positive and negative are good. What you're really saying is please keep all judgement calls that dis-agree with yours to myself. I will not.

Hey Jim,
You're one of a kind and I truly hope there are others that follow in your footsteps keeping these traditions alive. Something tells me that will happen.

As far as where photography is heading here's an image that might just tell the story well. These young things are at a Hannah Montana event (courtesy of the news portal)

Joe

[roteague]

Since Ansel, his work and influence seem to be almost the only point on which we all seem to agree, I thought we might as well let the master speak for himself on the subject.

It's easy to speculate on technology that doesn't exist, which was the case with Ansel and digital. It doesn't mean he would have felt that way once he saw what digital images really look like.

[roteague]

You really haven't used Photoshop much have you? You should try doing some of the above some time. Might calm you down a little.

I think he was kidding....

[Marko]

It's easy to speculate on technology that doesn't exist, which was the case with Ansel and digital. It doesn't mean he would have felt that way once he saw what digital images really look like.

Well, I didn't feel like speculating, so I quoted Ansel's own words. If you have an issue with that, you're welcome to take it up with him.