Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Quoting Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> MR> http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Whats_new/a_Recent_changes.html >> >> Now I understand why Ken Rockwell thinks of that as "hate site" ;-) >> > >Compare the two sites: > >Both are pontificating, >both have strong opinions, >both emphasise that what they write is solely opinion. > >Yet, Sulonen's site is interesting read, while Rockwell's site isn't. Rockwell >draws the attention to his person and alledged expertise where Sulonen use >examples from others. > >While I wouldn't trust Sulonen more than Rockwell, it's a lot more interesting >to read what he has to say. It's all in the attitude, I suppose. :-)
True. But aside from attitude, Sulonen actually tests equipment he reviews and posts demonstrative photos with the tests. I can say "Well I'm skeptical of his conclusion here..." but I can see from the images how he came to it. I stand far apart from him with my views of landscape photography, but that would be expected given our very different backgrounds ;-) (His interpretation of most landscape photography as somehow "socialist" says as much about how he views the images as about the images themselves.) But as a landscape photographer, I think I need to hear from people who don't like landscape photography in general. It's not difficult to please those who *do* like it, but if I'm going to improve I need to figure out how to reach people who don't normally go for this kind of photography. The fact that he does like some landscape photography indicates to me he's not just being didactic about this, so I believe can get value from his opinions even though I don't agree with them. So, oddly enough, I was most interested in his "Landscapes suck" section even though that's what I shoot. PS: On a tangentially related subject - Anyone looked at Michael Reichmann's photos from Bangladesh? Some great stuff there, IMO. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
