I agree that different styles are permissible. However, if an online magazine is designed to promote a particular camera line then why not fill it with photos that show the particular strength of that camera line?The pictures in Quadrat seemed taken haphazardly, with low depth of field (yeah, "bokeh" ...give me a break...) and of a photographic style and subjects much better suited to a 35mm SLR or a rangefinder. Indeed, I have had the same issue with some recent Leica catalogs "celebrating" someone's "postmodern blurriness". You don't need a Summicron (or Planar) for that - a digital snapshot camera will do!I am always suspicious when published pictures remind me of the many slides and prints I threw in the waste bin over the years. Just encouraging more discernment, not just critique-less awe of everything that "the artists" (or editors) tell us is "art".Jan
On May 21, 2008, at 2:24 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:28:48 -0300 (ART)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Die Quadratur des Kreises....
I understand your point Jan and in fact I also prefer
Fritz Henle (writing an example), however I find
interesting to see different point of views about
photography and other arts even if I dislike them, I
think F&H magazine took a right decision showing
different photography styles, the number 1 was
dedicated in part to classical B&W portraiture.
I disliked Mamiko Konishi work completely, anyway it
was interesting to know her work, I liked some
Toshihiro Oshima photographs.
Carlos
