Re: Bob & Jeff

[pasha <supreme.pasha@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

===considerable snippage===

Bob Maxey wrote:

factory production lines, and product assembly photographs. Nothing I do is available for public consumption.

i met a movie director in the intelligence biz. he had a "book" of actors with security clearances. he said he did great work, had a lot of fun doing it and that none of us in the room would ever see his work. most people in the world wouldn't see it because the clearance level required to view it was quite restrictive.

it's just interesting how much work goes on that no regular folks will ever see. the war on terror is much like that; many secret operations by people who will never be known. the world is much larger than we usually ever think about, heh?

So what about me and my silly opinions? Others have posted images and I have not, therefore, Bob is full of crap and those that have posted are A-OK. Nothing Bob can say is valid because he has not posted images. Despite that posting images is not a list requirement.

reductio ad absurdam? sour grapes?

When I post information one cannot argue with, is everything I say suddenly invalid because I have not posted my work to the site? I have a photograph of the SLC Tribune building I took with a Hypergon. Do I need to post it to prove I know (and own) what a Hypergon is?

what's a hypergon?

By the way, I AM NOT accusing anybody of posting images they did not create.

it doesn't matter that you say that; you'll still be accused of it.

<>It is easy to be something you are not on the web. I understand this all too well

"the great thing about the internet is that no one knows you're a dog," heh?

Earlier today, I was looking at a negative showing an empty ballroom. The people are "invisible," even though they were there when the image was made. I could post that image and then lie about it. I can tell you exactly how the picture was made, yet I would be doubted because I did not post the image.

i've always wondered about that and just assumed it was the result of a very long exposure, no? as a child growing up in washington, dc i always marveled at the lack of people in the picture postcards of the monuments and buildings that i saw that ALWAYS had people around them. when i got into photography i figured it was a pinhole sort of thing. but, really, i am curious how you would do that in the ballroom?

<>Apparently reliable historical information, my love (and preference for) of old technology and accurate and unquestionable data is not enough for the list.

i'm with you on the old technology. i argue with the woman with whom i teach that digital imaging is just that, "digital imaging", not photography. (i've noticed that many of the proponents of "digital imaging" talk about it like it's better than photography. they have passion in their voices and react as if being attacked. this, even after i've carefully pointed out that i own a digital camera, a purchased copy of photoshop and point out that as sexy as 4x5 negs are they are just overkill when your output is for a computer monitor; a matter of the right tool for the job. i never say that one is "better"; just that they are different. i must admit a little sadness that "photography" has become so "democratic". i imagine that oil painters must have felt the same way when photo came into being.)

 

Bob

pasha