[Leica] RE: Don's PAW 41 Calla Lily

[Tim Atherton <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

OFF-LIST I know I'm going to regret this next post... oh well. I'm a
Yorkshireman and being blunt is in my blood....


tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Ted Grant
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:20 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Don's PAW 41 Calla Lily
>
>
> Don Dory  offered on his PAW 41 Calla Lily:
> > BR,
> > Were you a contest judge I would gladly show you my negatives.  When I
> > took the image(s) I was counting on the OOF highlights in the
> > background.  If you use an M long enough you learn to predict what the
> > lens will do.  :)
> >
> > I will admit to burning in a leaf at the bottom that was distracting and
> > I should have burned in that small piece of white on the R side.<<<<
>
>  Afterswift@aol.com replied:
> Re: Don's PAW 41 Calla Lily
>  > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1814599 <<<<
> > ---------------------------------
> > Don,
> >
> > The fortuitous appearance of the gray aperture blade reflections in all
> > the right places -- if that is what those octagonal figures are -- to
> break
> > up the black background and give the fluted flower an entourage provides
> this
> > image with distinction because the effect could not be predicted when
> using a
> > Leica M.<<<<
>
> Dear notso swift sir,
> If that's your opinion with lights in the background appearing as
> they do in
> Don's photograph, I would have to offer you haven't been making exposures
> very long if you doubt this happening without questioning the
> photographer's
> integrity.
>
> Had this happen many many times over the years as good and bad
> effects. 99%
> of the time one isn't paying great attention to them unless they are an
> obvious flair possibility. They're in the background and our eye, when
> looking through a viewfinder or ground glass, concentrate on the
> immediate.... the main subject.
>
> Yes we do see them, the lights, but unless we see a possibility of a flair
> effect we don't bother with them as "we do know using M or R, that they'll
> be out of focus blobs of light."
>
> On occasion they create to our delight attractive light objects
> as we see in
> this picture. Others they become absolute pains in the butt as
> they draw the
> eye away from the main subject or create flair. Yeah I know leica glass
> doesn't flair! However!
>
> >If this isn't a manipulated image, then we're looking at the rare miracle
> that the camera can >come up with on its own.<<<
>
> Miracle, schmiracle, BS! It happens all the time shooting into
> lights in the
> back ground! You once again show you're all words and meaningless rhetoric
> due to your lack of photographic experience.
>
> >Being somewhat cynical as a judge these days, I would request to see the
> original negative.<<
>
> And if I were Don I'd tell you to stick it where the sun don't
> shine buddy!
> As you're questioning this fine photographer's integrity due to your once
> again lack of photographic experience.
>
> > Not that I'm questioning your veracity,<<<
>
> Hell you are or you'd have accepted it as a natural phenomena of
> a lens and
> his damn good luck they appeared as they did. "Not questioning
> his veracity?
> Bull s...t!"
>
> > The declaration on PhotoNet is laudable re the NO box, but the
> > definitions of  'unmanipulated' are somewhat too liberal for my
> tastes as
> they would
> > apply to the very talented and experienced field photographers
> on LUG who
> can
> > think on their feet and who don't need darkroom or Photoshop
> crutches.<<<
>
> Man you're really on his ass questioning his integrity aren't
> you?  Besides
> your reference to another list without printing it here is meaningless
> because photonet means nothing to many of us who spend our lives
> as working
> photographers and many times don't even have the time to cope
> with a couple
> of lists as it is.
>
> I usually read you posts only to see how weird your often ridiculous out
> pourings regarding photographs and photography can be. In most cases it's
> immediately a delete, as I probably should've here. But sometimes I just
> can't hold myself back and have to respond. After all this is the LUG and
> that allows me the right to do so in whatever manner I wish.
>
> Unfortunately I realize this'll go right over your head and I have just
> wasted my time that could've been better spent doing that which I
> love with
> a passion, being a photographer!
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> ted
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html