Re: [Leica] Don's PAW 41 Calla Lily

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>]

Don Dory  offered on his PAW 41 Calla Lily:
> BR,
> Were you a contest judge I would gladly show you my negatives.  When I
> took the image(s) I was counting on the OOF highlights in the
> background.  If you use an M long enough you learn to predict what the
> lens will do.  :)
>
> I will admit to burning in a leaf at the bottom that was distracting and
> I should have burned in that small piece of white on the R side.<<<<

 Afterswift@aol.com replied:
Re: Don's PAW 41 Calla Lily
 > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1814599 <<<<
> ---------------------------------
> Don,
>
> The fortuitous appearance of the gray aperture blade reflections in all
> the right places -- if that is what those octagonal figures are -- to
break
> up the black background and give the fluted flower an entourage provides
this
> image with distinction because the effect could not be predicted when
using a
> Leica M.<<<<

Dear notso swift sir,
If that's your opinion with lights in the background appearing as they do in
Don's photograph, I would have to offer you haven't been making exposures
very long if you doubt this happening without questioning the photographer's
integrity.

Had this happen many many times over the years as good and bad effects. 99%
of the time one isn't paying great attention to them unless they are an
obvious flair possibility. They're in the background and our eye, when
looking through a viewfinder or ground glass, concentrate on the
immediate.... the main subject.

Yes we do see them, the lights, but unless we see a possibility of a flair
effect we don't bother with them as "we do know using M or R, that they'll
be out of focus blobs of light."

On occasion they create to our delight attractive light objects as we see in
this picture. Others they become absolute pains in the butt as they draw the
eye away from the main subject or create flair. Yeah I know leica glass
doesn't flair! However!

>If this isn't a manipulated image, then we're looking at the rare miracle
that the camera can >come up with on its own.<<<

Miracle, schmiracle, BS! It happens all the time shooting into lights in the
back ground! You once again show you're all words and meaningless rhetoric
due to your lack of photographic experience.

>Being somewhat cynical as a judge these days, I would request to see the
original negative.<<

And if I were Don I'd tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine buddy!
As you're questioning this fine photographer's integrity due to your once
again lack of photographic experience.

> Not that I'm questioning your veracity,<<<

Hell you are or you'd have accepted it as a natural phenomena of a lens and
his damn good luck they appeared as they did. "Not questioning his veracity?
Bull s...t!"

> The declaration on PhotoNet is laudable re the NO box, but the
> definitions of  'unmanipulated' are somewhat too liberal for my tastes as
they would
> apply to the very talented and experienced field photographers on LUG who
can
> think on their feet and who don't need darkroom or Photoshop crutches.<<<

Man you're really on his ass questioning his integrity aren't you?  Besides
your reference to another list without printing it here is meaningless
because photonet means nothing to many of us who spend our lives as working
photographers and many times don't even have the time to cope with a couple
of lists as it is.

I usually read you posts only to see how weird your often ridiculous out
pourings regarding photographs and photography can be. In most cases it's
immediately a delete, as I probably should've here. But sometimes I just
can't hold myself back and have to respond. After all this is the LUG and
that allows me the right to do so in whatever manner I wish.

Unfortunately I realize this'll go right over your head and I have just
wasted my time that could've been better spent doing that which I love with
a passion, being a photographer!
Have a nice weekend.

ted



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html