[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.

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: