[pure-silver] Re: OT: Concerning Rudeness Was: Re: Re: NOW: Exposing paper was Re: POP with paper negs?
- From: Ray Rogers <earthsoda@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:25:47 -0800 (PST)
> It's amusing to note that some technical comments
> about a certain
> technique was switched to a rudeness issue.
I don't think it is amusing when one cannot express
what they think is sound scientific fact without
creating an aggressive atmosphere in the process.
Besides, while Scientific Facts may ALWAYS be right...
its proponents NEVER are.
For myself, I would not want to knock any method
untill I saw what kind of results it produced.
Technical perfection, if quantifiable at all, is
totally inadequate to define ART.
The whole sensitometric quad has nothing to do with
art, it is based entirly on an attempt to depict the
observable world in varrying degrees of greyness.
Science can have Facts only when there are laws which
must be obeyed.
Art does not have to obey the rules.
In photographic printing, when art is important,
scientific fact can best be regarded as a rough guide.
Otherwise, Where's the creativity?.
Perfect rendition may require skill... but a
technician does not an atist make.
I vaue science VERY highly. When it comes to printing
photographic art, however, Science is a back seat
driver.
Ray
----------------------------
Caution!
The views expressed by the author are probably
incorrect. They are in fact merely his opinion at this
momentin time and are actually under constant
revision.
Use with great caution. ;+)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
