Richard S. Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 07:39:38 -0600
Nothng unusual in that. This was quite an accomplished crowd, cameras our
part of our tool kit. People were there to learn all types of things. You
pulled out a camera. Had you pulled out prints the questions may have been
quite different.
In fact when I saw you showing prints -- mind you when I observed you, you
were deep into discussing how the prints were made. In fact one of the
first things you showed was a series of Ziatypes all made with different
ratios of chemicals etc. You were very much into explaining the various
technologies behind the making of the prints. Isn't this the flip side of
"What's your favorite F Stop?"
--Dick
At 02:21 AM 7/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Kurt Tomcala wrote:
>> ... It amazes me that in Photographic Images it seems
>> everyone wants to know the time, materials, and everything that materially
>> went into the image. What film did you use, developer, tray or tank, or
>> maybe rotary processor? What paper is that, developer and so on and on and
>> on. The point is who needs or cares what material things were used to
create
>> an image. The only thing that counts is what is felt inside of you when you
>> create it and when it is viewed by others....
>
>Amen. I found it interesting, typical, and disgusting that while I set
>up my camera at APIS several "photographers" ask me things like: What
>kind of camera? What kind of lens? What kind of ______? Aside from
>being annoying, they're missing the point. The question to be asked is
>WHAT KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHER ARE YOU? At least it's a question I would
>enjoy answering.
>
>--
>Jeffrey D. Mathias
>http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37