Roger what I posed is what the list was started as. That was my only point. I didn't write that THAT LIST CREATORS DID. Russ Kraus and Andrew Davidhazy.
I'm not bashing what you said at all. Which is why I asked how you felt about the any possible addition and if you felt that effected the image. I also then stated that I believe those lights are not added. I don't know I wasn't there.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Eichhorn, Roger <eichhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I missed the "technical not the purpose of the list" in my reply. The founder of the list is renowned for his contributions to the "technical" aspects of photography and has often sent us searching for his contributions. I disagree with your assertion, but perhaps the list has morphed in such a way to exclude it.roger
Sent from my iPadI guess I'm an interested "other" and should just shut up and let you artists trash each other as you do so ably.roger
Sent from my iPadI would have to say Roger that I don't believe them to be added.Andrew technique doesn't' discount technical but its not the purpose of the list.The PhotoForum is an educational network and databank established to serve the photographic and imaging communities in general with a medium for exchange of ideas and with an accessible databank of informational files about a wide variety of photo/imaging subjects.
A major goal of this network is to serve as a communications link for photo educators, and interested others, dedicated to discussion of photography and imaging including aesthetics, processes, history, digital imaging, instructional strategies, criticism, equipment and techniques, especially, but not exclusively, as these apply in an educational setting.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ahem. This began with an accusation of a detail being faked. how is that educational?On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:34 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Because, Jan, we are perhaps "interested* in how the picture was created,
from a technical perspective, including your favorite minutiae. If this
*photography* group was simply an Art Appreciation group, I could
understand your lament, but actually, it is a group of *technical*
photography folks, who are indeed interested in a lot more than the
feeling and mood of a photograph. Certainly, from an art perspective,
those are very interesting, and warrant a lot of attention and discussion.
But to claim that discussions of small details are not germane to this
photography group is rather missing the entire point of this email list.
Andrew
On Tue, January 14, 2014 4:17 pm, Jan Faul wrote:
Just offhand, I would say he is equipped with a remote shutter release,and also he’s done this more than a few times and is obviously no rank
amateur. He’s got a style, he knows his equipment, and he’s looking forshots of a certain style.I don’t understand why you guys fail to see the big picture and can onlycomplain about the itty bitty points an minutiae. Is it jealousy or what?On Jan 14, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Eichhorn, Roger wrote:Haunting photos, but doesn't the flashlight beam in some of them haveto be faked? The air seems clear and how much blue will be in aflashlight to scatter in the air unless it's an LED or Hg lamp. And he
sat perfectly still while the star trail was being exposed?r.Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:40 PM, "Jan Faul" <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photographer-puts-everyday-selfies-to-sh
ame-1389719641-slideshow/Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.com
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
