thank you, barbara. no reason for you to get flamed, my dear. you were merely stating fact.
(perhaps i use too many latin phrases. an antiquated language, ipso facto, might not be so easily understood by a fair percentage of people. i shall try to curb my usage.)
but i will never understand why people spew out such hateful words without provocation....
omnia vincit amor !!!!!!
the latin abbreviation i.e., stands for "id est", which means "that is", "that is to say", "in other words" or "specifically" as opposed to the letters e.g. which stand for the latin phrase "exempli gratia", which means "for example". hellooooooo!!!!!! don't make yourself look bad! how embarassing....
i thought that was common knowledge. if you don't believe me, look it up!
geez, never underestimate the lack of intelligence of the human race....
please, be sure the brain is engaged before putting the mouth in gear (or fingers to keyboard).
Wow, a good friend turned me on to your site.. I am enthralled! Will be showing my gothy daughter the site as well and keep checking back in case you DO get a book of photos published.. would love a couple copies.
How do you find places like this? And get permission to go in them and actually take pictures? I love your photos! And I hope to one day become a photographer and take photots like your's... E-mail me if you will... Marstardust_66@yahoo.com
motts, of course, you are correct! ansel most certainly enhanced his photos, e.g. burning in the sky to give his pictures greater depth and bolder relief. if it weren't for darkroom techniques, his photographs would be nothing more than snapshots. with the advent of digital photography, the classic darkroom manipulation (of which there are MANY ways!) is rendered obsolete, with such camera equipment, anyway. and no one can tell me that things like the "old" way of superimposing are really much different (i.e., better) than modern day photoshop. a lot of things have changed over the years and, imo, for the better. it is the way one is able to utilize the means that makes one a true artist, and not simply the means. or else, the louvre would only have cave paintings in it to this day.
Kevin, I'm not sure what you're point is... that altering photographs discredits the photographer or the image? You are still seeing images captured in true life, nothing is created by a computer here. I'm sure Ansel Adams burned and dodged his photos, maybe even overlaid a few to form one (I don't know much about his processes), how does that differ with digital photographs? Taking the picture is the first step in creating your photograph, how you treat it afterwards is the second, it's all part of the process in making a work of art that you spent extra effort doing. I've spent a lot of time in the darkroom, and just like using the computer it's a skill you develop... there's no "Make Good Picture" button in any editing program.
But again, your remark has no true substance, like "I don't like this photo because..."; it can only be inferred, so it's difficult to take your two cents into consideration.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume your opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you.
I see no real need for you to attack me with profane words, I am not here to fight with you. I am here to comment on a fellow photographers work and to put in my two cents, if you will. And no I am not jealous of Mr. Mott's ability (No real offence Motts, I may have been inebriated at the time of my Northampton comments). I do enjoy seeing the repsonses of the more than loyal following on this website, though.
(perhaps i use too many latin phrases. an antiquated language, ipso facto, might not be so easily understood by a fair percentage of people. i shall try to curb my usage.)
but i will never understand why people spew out such hateful words without provocation....
omnia vincit amor !!!!!!