Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 2013-12-07 15:53 (2013-12-07 06:53) |
| Message-ID | <2013120706533558568-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | PeterN |
| Followups | PeterN (38m) > Savageduck Eric Stevens (11h & 21m) > Savageduck |
On 2013-12-07 14:00:34 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:
PeterNThe only arrogance evident here is your elitist stance regarding "good photo artists". There are photographs which please my eye, sometimes I can define why I like them, many times there are qualities which are less tangible. Some of those images could well be called art, some are documentary, but are still good photographs, in some cases compelling, sometimes disturbing, but hardly art.
On 12/7/2013 8:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:SavageduckPeterN
On 2013-12-07 13:23:12 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:PeterNSavageduck
On 12/7/2013 4:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:Eric StevensPeterN
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:59:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:nospamEric Stevens
In article <u7l4a9t5h6h49bikcrpj86m300lu31sock@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensnospamPeterNnospamPeterNSavageduck
would it shock you to know that most photographers do not record actions. the artist modifies each image, individually.
Not all photographers are "artists".
in fact, very few are.
And I was clearly only talking about good photo artists.
that's nice.
everyone else was talking about photographers, not a specific niche you picked.
For a given definition of 'photographer'. You seem to be using a different one.
a photographer is one who takes photographs.
what definition are you using?
The question is 'what definition is everyone else using in this discussion?' My impression is that the definition does not include merely holiday/family snap shooters.
See my response to Tony Cooper. I can't understand why my clear contextual definition was ignored.
...because it is biased, pretentious, and wrong. It is only worthy of being ignored. Your position is the same as saying that only graduates of the Harvard Law School should be called lawyers.
Not at all the same. the purpose for my definition was to make it clear that a good photo artists was all I was referring to. My definition was ignored because it attempted to preclude arrogant chest thumping, albeit unsuccessfully.
Next there are photographs taken by individuals who believe themselves to be artists, but who never truly consistently elevate their work to that level. They produce the occasional magnificent accident, but for the most part their "art" is awful, only called "art" to distract from the fact that they are not particularly good photographs.
Then there are shots taken without pretension, or deliberation, some of these are good, some interesting, most are ordinary and not particularly good.
What they all have in common is the fact that they were created with light focused through a lens or lens system onto a light sensitive medium where it is captured, to be processed via chemistry or computer to produce a visible, tangible image. Good, or bad, art, or not, they are all photographs taken by camera users, good, bad, professional, amateur enthusiasts, indifferent casual users, all termed photographer.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
2013-11-30-
-
