Dear Colleague,
Bob Talbot wrote:
Welcome back Steve (if that is indeed you and not Bob RosenI was never gone. (I do have over 5000 unread messages in my Photoforum folder though)
pretending).
The new "un(informed)Bob Rosen (Afterswift@xxxxxxxx) is all opinionI felt like adding a little spice into people's lives :-) And I was more than a little worried about what was being said in the "Digital lens question" thread.
and little substance in comparison.
It's interesting that people took almost no time to read what "Bob Rosen" had to say. For example,
"And now we hear that the very lenses we as photographers have placed our creative trust in have also been digitized. Like the cones in our eyes, is not the cone of light from our lens also a fundamental fact of nature? Or have those we trust become so digitized that we lose the truth of the lens?"
or this:
"Come now, it's only a coincidence that a few locquacious souls are named Bob. If I changed my name to Steve, would that make any difference?"
or even this:
"Cat, bag, rapid exit. "
Mind you, much of the rest was utter rubish.
Have you by any chance gone digital? Is that why you no longer feel
the need to worry about the technical aspects of photography that were
always only a distraction from real creativity?
No, but I still do have all my fingers.
I am about half digital. I shoot on film, scan it and view the images in much the same way as I once used proofs or contact sheets. I print B&W the old fasioned way because I like to. I get colour prints done from scans or negs as appropriate.
I've always worried about the technical asects of photography Bob (worried is no the right word). I still think that even with the best creativity in the world you must either know how things work, or limit yourself to what the automagic things do for you.
I must say, I do miss the real Bob Rosen ... I also miss the old SteveWell, I did speak (via email) to the *real* Bob Rosen and he's doing fine it seems.
Hodges ...the one who could post ...
I haven't spoken to myself a lot recently, although those that do report that I frequently claim to be doing well.
As for the long mathematical posts, I've got a lot less time than I used to.
In any case, there's only 2 things that have been posted recently that needed maths to solve. One was Andy's "figure out the focal length" question, and the other was your 2nd curtain flash photo.
I didn't answer the first because I was sure it would let the cat out of the bag, and I got accused of being Karl when I spoke about yours :-)
Karl and I are *very* different people Bob. (So are our headers)
Best, Steve (UnBob, UnKarl)
