Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 09/21/2014 08:55 (09/20/2014 22:55) |
| Message-ID | <87y4tdping.fld@barrow.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Savageduck |
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:
SavageduckNot many who understand the basis for Street Photography would disagree with me on that.
On 2014-09-20 22:55:48 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:19:41 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:Floyd L. DavidsonEric Stevens
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:Savageduck
On 2014-09-20 05:01:11 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:51:48 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
<< Le Snip >>SavageduckEric StevensEric Stevensnospam
But you have turned your face away from what he was trying to say ...
nope. if there's anyone who has turned their faces it's you and floyd.
Sigh ...
The one thing which is quite obvious is Floyd's arrogant denigration of anybody who disagrees with him, interprets what he says literally, or fails to discern what it is he actually means from his arcane diatribes. He dismisses software and technics he does & won't use as some sort of lesser species. No wonder he has to live where he does, and I am sure that he is the most respected and sought out technical blabber mouth in Barrow. There are other folks who question Floyd's credentials and some of the stuff he says. This was a discussion which when it came up in rec.photo.digital fell apart quite quickly when Floyd told Tony Cooper he was wrong regarding "Street Photography". It seems he also tried to fly his concept in dpreview forums. <http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50358552>
Here is the criticism: "Here's an interesting bit of Street Photography. No people, no pavement, no city. An empty truck parked on an unmaintained gravel "road". The nearest concrete sidewalk is 500 miles south. A paradise to some, while others say it is desolation. http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2303.s.jpg I know of no street photographer who would not call this statement delusional." Here is what Wikipedia has to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography "Street photography is photography that features the human condition within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. The subject of the photograph might be absent of people and can be an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic." By that definition, Floyd is correct in calling that street photography. --- snip ---
...and yet there are those, many of whom engage in street photography, who disagree with Floyd. How dare they!
BTW: I think it made a nice surreal image.
Instead it's people who want to use their own special definition of Street, usually as a mechanical means of removing vast amounts of what they see as "competition" from consideration of where the stand. That is very common with the general population of photographers on the Internet, whether it is Street or any other genre. We see it in Macro Photography, we see it in Portrait Photography, we see it in Landscape Photography, and on and on.
The point is that authoritative definitions, not personal ones, make it a Street shot. It was selected specifically because it is an good example of the difference.
You should not miss the point that saying there are those who disagree means exactly nothing. The vast majority of recognized experts on that topic would not disagree, and that is what means something.
It's an example that _you_ can learn from, both about reasonable logic and about Street Photography.
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
09/13/2014-
