I have driven in the back roads really close to this mountain, in CO. I
know what he means by 35mm pics do not do it justice. It is
extraordinarily beautiful, and something ethereal about it. I don't
think resolution has anything to do with it, and his pics prove this.
Its more than that, it has moods, and the weather/light around it have
alot to do with it. I also took pics, in K64, and they just don't
convey what you feel and see when you are there. The particular vantage
point he used is also not the best one.
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh...
In the middle of the night I was wakeful and
turned on my bedside radio to
NPR - the replay of Leonard Lopate's inerview with
Clifford Ross was on.
This morning, a friend sends me the link to the
site showing the photo.
It pisses me off.
This guy took a year to make this kinda pretty but
rather ordinary postcard photo
a 5 x 10 foot print?
(1) Looks better to me with a good chunk trimmed
off the bottom
(2) surely the mountain has a name. Couldn't he
tell us what it is and where
the photo was taken? (my first guess, not
doing and research really
was Mt. Shasta.
(3) Ross stresses that he is doing this for art's
sake - yet to me it is
mainly a technical tour de force.
Anyone else have a simliar reaction? (Or the
oppoiste?)
annsan
http://users.rcn.com/annsan
http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/R1-image.html
