Is it just me?

**Brian C. Miller** · 19-May-2007, 10:37

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

Sontag?

Yeah, Sontag?

What did Susan Sontag photograph? All she did was write a weird book that really had nothing to do with photography. She's regarded an an "intellectual," to wit, she produces nothing and shoots her mouth off about everything.

At least Michael Reichmann actually photographs.

(Personally, I prefer reading books is by Bill Jay, with a couple co-written with David Hurn. Both are photographers and speak knowledgeably about photography.)

**Rider** · 19-May-2007, 11:18

"his insistance that focal length doesn't really affect depth of field" is correct, last I checked. In the small format world, only magnification and f-stop affect depth of field. Or do the rules change with large format?

**tim atherton** · 19-May-2007, 11:31

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

Yeah, Sontag?

What did Susan Sontag photograph? All she did was write a weird book that really had nothing to do with photography. She's regarded an an "intellectual," to wit, she produces nothing and shoots her mouth off about everything.

At least Michael Reichmann actually photographs.

(Personally, I prefer reading books is by Bill Jay, with a couple co-written with David Hurn. Both are photographers and speak knowledgeably about photography.)

only photographers are allowed to write about photography?

Can you name anyone else who does better color landscapes?

almost anyone who can click a shutter...

**Rory_5244** · 19-May-2007, 12:22

If Michael's pictures looked better I might have bought a digital camera a long time ago.

**JW Dewdney** · 19-May-2007, 18:12

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

Yeah, Sontag?

What did Susan Sontag photograph? All she did was write a weird book that really had nothing to do with photography.

I can't think of a book which is more innately ABOUT the very ESSENCE of photography - even more so than anything ansel adams ever produced! May I ask you what on earth you're talking about?? It also seems her major interests about the medium are being tapped into... as seen on this site even (you know - the petzval thread... and the interest in 'retro' optics, etc...! may I suggest you read the wrong part of it..?? (like maybe the printing information next to the ISBN number or something?

**JW Dewdney** · 19-May-2007, 18:15

Originally Posted by George Kara

What would be good is a website that discusses the two year + old digital products in the context of todays market place. Often, after a product has been updated, the discussion stops on previous version.

THAT is the sh*t to buy, if you're in need of digital gear. If you actually step back, you'll realize that the people who are paying TOP dollar - are actually doing so - PURELY for the need to feed their own egos. You can still do amazing, and at LEAST as good work (if not better, probably) than people with the very latest stuff.

**JW Dewdney** · 19-May-2007, 18:16

That wasn't him who did the demo pictures of the Horseman SW612 on the luminous site, was it?? Those were absolutely DREADFUL..! I was a bit shocked...!

**Sylvester Graham** · 19-May-2007, 20:42

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

Yeah, Sontag? )

Yeah, I'd like to also point that out. There isn't a book more about photography. Have you even read the thing? Theres no way it could have been written by a photographer, it's just too good. A photographer attempting the same material would have a conflict of interest.
It's not technical, sure. But equiptment isn't photography it's... just go read the book. And if you already have read it again, this time with a dictionary on hand.

**Mark Sawyer** · 19-May-2007, 21:00

Originally Posted by Rider

"his insistance that focal length doesn't really affect depth of field" is correct, last I checked. In the small format world, only magnification and f-stop affect depth of field. Or do the rules change with large format?

The rules change with the focal length. As Jeff Conrad explains in his article "An Introduction to Depth of Field" on the large format home page, "The DoF depends on the CoC, the lens focal length, the object distance, and the lens f-number."

Shorter focal length lenses have more DoF at equivalent f/stops and distances. Photo 101.

**Brian C. Miller** · 19-May-2007, 21:10

Originally Posted by JW Dewdney

I can't think of a book which is more innately ABOUT the very ESSENCE of photography - even more so than anything ansel adams ever produced! May I ask you what on earth you're talking about??

Honestly, JW, I can't think of anything in that book that I would consider innate about photography. Inane, yes.

"To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed."

She goes on like that, applying it to people, as if you can own a person through a photograph. That people are violated when they are photographed. "...to photograph someone is a sublimated murder." Come on! Book goes back to library, and I will never buy a copy for my shelf.

I compare this to books by Bill Jay, of which I have a collection. I sincerely recommend Negative / Positive, On Looking at Photographs, and On Being a Photographer. "I have attempted to demonstrate that the ultimate goal of all photographers is to become great human beings and incidentally great photographers." (Negative / Positive, p.103)

Now, which to you aspire to: greatness or murder?