On 17/04/2013 12:59 PM, George Sinos wrote:
> ... they weren't that good.
>
>
<http://photofocus.com/2013/04/17/stop-romanticizing-about-the-good-old-film-days-they-werent-that-good/>
>
> Whether or not you agree with him, it's a fun read.
The guy comes across as a pompous and quite arrogant asshole. Sort of
Oscar Wilde with a lobotomy.
"Dan I have no intention of insulting you but my experience (which is
all I have to go on) tells me that if you’re a process guy – then you’re
not making photos that matter. Good luck."
What the fuck important pictures has this yo-yo done?
Why does it matter if the person is in it for the process, the final
image or a freaking Popsicle? We do what we do for whatever reasons give
us our jollies, and the person for whom the process is important is just
as likely, or probably more likely, to turn out "photos that matter"
than a joker who pays little or no attention to the process and turns
out ill defined crap. The process, whether film or digital is what turns
the picture from a concept into a reality. If you are working with a
process you are comfortable with, you are bound to turn out better pictures.
Was the film era better than the digital era? Who cares? That argument
is about process, not pictures. If you want to talk about pictures that
matter, talk about pictures. The process is just the steps in between.
A more important question is did Scott Bourne's mother have any children
who survived childbirth without massive brain damage?
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
