[rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:59:55 -0400
Marvin -
The first and most important part of having a meaningful discussion is
remembering and understanding your own thoughts and words. Here is
your original statement:
"For one with an experienced eye it is quite easy to spot a body of
work on display, which is done with different cameras, as the subtle
aspects of the photographs which bind the collection together are not
unified. The worst thing to do in my opinion is to try to edit the
ratio of the photograph's either with the enlarger of a knife."
You have thoughtfully revised your thinking in subsequent posts. :-)
Cheers,
Eric Goldstein
On 9/24/08, marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric, though you are impressed with my credentials you need not be, my intent
> was not argument from authority, rather it was to try to get you to see a
> particular style and genre, hence the names I mentioned.
>
> Now, not only is it possible to see the difference between formats, this is
> also true of the types of camera, you missed that point!
>
> As for the question of putting me to a test-what are you talking about, we
> are both grown men, I can assure you, not under any circumstances will I be
> engaging in any such futile offer!
>
> If you can't tell the difference on portraits taken with say a Mamiya super
> press with a 150mm and a Nikon FM2 with a 80mm, in terms of close up detail
> just one instance, that is after both images having been cropped so as to
> appear to be the same camera then...
>
> Now, as for the fact that a single camera pulls a body of work together.. I
> never said that..notice one thing though, say Robert Mapplethorpe, does he
> change cameras and formats half way through a series?...of course not. A body
> of work depends of many factors, overall continuity in my opinion is one of
> the most important.
> The reason for this amongst other things is it is then easier to understand
> the intent of the artist.That's why its done.
>
> This is exactly what was meant by my original post, nothing that I have said
> so far is not a logical conclusion from the initial premise, so read the
> previous posts carefully, try to dislodge and a priori judgement's before
> posting
> >
> > From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: 2008/09/25 Thu AM 10:16:18 HKT
> > To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree
> >
> > Marvin -
> >
> > I am very impressed by your credentials. I myself have some small
> > experience, having hired hundreds of photographers and produced
> > thousands of film shoots trough the years. Yes, most experienced folks
> > can tell the difference between an MF and a 35 mm enlargement, but
> > that is a comparison very distant from your earlier statement. I will
> > speak for us both... if I put you to the test you described earlier,
> > with the cameras of my choice, you would fail. There is no doubt in my
> > mind.
> >
> > I still do not agree that a single camera pulls a body of work
> > together in any way in an artistic sense; there have been and are so
> > many notable examples in the legitimate/mainstream art world to
> > contradict you...
> >
> >
> > Eric Goldstein
> >
> > --
> >
> > On 9/24/08, Marvin Wallace <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (snipped)
> >
> > > Eric,
> > > lets consider a portrait done on say my Mamiya 6 razor sharp 150mm
> lens. Not
> > > much close focus capacity, it's a 6 x 6 camera. Now say I display this
> next
> > > to a portrait done on my Nikon FM2 with 85 mm lens with a much greater
> close
> > > focusing capacity. Now there will be a world of difference between the
> two
> > > photographs even if cropped so as to appear the same ratio, if you cant
> see
> > > that well....and that's not even taking into account sharpness etc...so
> and
> > > in conclusion I totally disagree with you that one can't see the
> differences
> > > in prints displayed together taken with different cameras. Maybe its
> true of
> > > yourself, but you are not speaking for me.
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
