[rollei_list] Re: Austin has Unsubscribed
- From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:31:22 +0100
Hi Mark,
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am an engineer and I
learned if theory and practice disagree it is the theory that is wrong
:-)
It has always seemed to me Austin concentrates too much on theoretical
resolution, where I would not take issue with him, and neglects other
aspects of a photograph such as tonality. His belief that one can not
tell a medium format picture from a small print, for example, is based
on resolution. I can usually tell a medium format picture in a magazine
(where the camera details are noted such as Outdoor Photographer
magazine) and have been able to AFAIR. I must be seeing something other
than resolution here.
Frank
On 19 Apr, 2005, at 03:11, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> On 4/18/05 8:07 AM, "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> typed:
>
>> Intresting. I cannot say I remember Austin really getting to the point
>> of using uncontrollable language in the various topics and off-topics
>> we have discussed here.
>
> I had given this some thought and some of it comes from Marc's use of
> the
> word "intemperate" and I checked Austin's posts to see if he used some
> fowl
> or semi fowl language and that did not check out.
> But then I looked up the word in Onelooks dictionaries and got some of
> this
> stuff:
>
> =A0... having or showing a lack of self-control, especially
> in expressing feelings or satisfying physical desires (of a person or
> their
> behavior or speech) not controlled and too extreme or violent: an
> intemperate outburst
> intemperate language
> lacking self-control. 2 characterized by excessive indulgence
>
> So there's a whole "attitude" thing included in the use of the word.
> Which I believe is covered here.
> Not just a certain "choice of words".
> It certainly seemed that an axe was being constantly ground.
>
> Often it was experience flying in the face of theory.
> If your hard copy "prints, slides, work" didn't agree with the
> "numbers"
> then you were in real trouble - Austinwise.
> Your real world experience was an affront to Austin's numbers.
> And Austin would like you know he was affronted under no uncertain
> terms.
> As if he felt you had affronted the status of the his universe.
>
> Thing is - theory flies in the face of real world results a good third
> of
> the time. Or visa versa. So the theory then has to be modified,
> discarded o=
> r
> put in a more narrow perspective. This just happens all the time.
>
> If somebody is all theory and no experience/results there's going to be
> continuous conflict.
> This might have been it.
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
