SLE Photography wrote:
I mainly wanted to rant a little, but can we legitamtely put people like that in the chipper????

Yeah, but save her gear!

And if she has a film scanner, send it my way!!!!!

SLE Photography wrote:
I mainly wanted to rant a little, but can we legitamtely put people like that in the chipper????

Oh I love you!!! So I'm NOT the only person with the idea of tossing morons into a chipper shredder?!?!!! Now the only question is, how to dispose of the human waste after they are shredded? my ex suggests we give it to the fish but then we in turn would eat the fish slowly making us as stupid as the people we dispose of...so what would be the solution? any ideas? LMAO

*Disclaimer: this is a JOKE, so anyone about to post or report that I'm some homicidal maniac, don't bother, it's not meant seriously..I can just relate to the poster's frustration (Geez, it's sad I felt it necessary to post a disclaimer)

SLE Photography wrote:
She says "So you're the photographer?  Well I'M a photographer too.  But *I* shoot FILM.  I use a classic Nikon F3."
I blinked and said "That's nice.  I shoot film too, I have two Canon AE1 Programs with me, I left my Yashica 6X6 at home."
She pauses and then says "Oh.  Well I process all my black & white and have full darkroom experience."
Me: "Me too.  I taught for a year in high school as an ADDitions volunteer in a darkroom, and 2 terms as a TA in college."
Her: "Well, I do platinum printing for my gallery work."
Me: "So do I."
Her: "I guess I'll get back to work."

you:  hey wait.  let's go behind the curtain and whip-it-out.  you're perfect for that.

RedheadRobyn wrote:

Oh I love you!!! So I'm NOT the only person with the idea of tossing morons into a chipper shredder?!?!!! Now the only question is, how to dispose of the human waste after they are shredded? my ex suggests we give it to the fish but then we in turn would eat the fish slowly making us as stupid as the people we dispose of...so what would be the solution? any ideas? LMAO

*Disclaimer: this is a JOKE, so anyone about to post or report that I'm some homicidal maniac, don't bother, it's not meant seriously..I can just relate to the poster's frustration (Geez, it's sad I felt it necessary to post a disclaimer)

The only people who feel the need to post disclaimers are really guilty.  So, we're onto you now.

SLE Photography wrote:
So, I'm working an event last night.  A "respected local artist" is hauling out equipment & running a local film fest, and I'm working for the venue (who were promoting it) documenting the event.
The artist walks by as I'm unpacking equipment & glances at my D70s.
A few minutes later I walk over to see where they're setting up so I can plan shots.
She says "So you're the photographer?  Well I'M a photographer too.  But *I* shoot FILM.  I use a classic Nikon F3."
I blinked and said "That's nice.  I shoot film too, I have two Canon AE1 Programs with me, I left my Yashica 6X6 at home."
She pauses and then says "Oh.  Well I process all my black & white and have full darkroom experience."
Me: "Me too.  I taught for a year in high school as an ADDitions volunteer in a darkroom, and 2 terms as a TA in college."
Her: "Well, I do platinum printing for my gallery work."
Me: "So do I."
Her: "I guess I'll get back to work."

So I walk back to my equipment and am getting set.
One of the venue staff walks over & is asking about some of my equipment.
He asks about one of my "funny looking lenes" and the artist walks up as I'm saying "Well technically it's a macro lens, but with the macro adaptor removed it can work from some distance as a good normal angle lens, and it's an F2.8, the best low light lens I own, so I can shoot some long exposures of the front row with just reflected light from the screen.  That's hard to do with digital as they rarely have lenses much better than an F4.5"
The artist says "Oh gee.  I guess you're better than I am.  I don't know all that TECHNICAL stuff, I just take pictures of what FEELS right."

I sort of did a double take & I'm thinking "someone who brags about their darkroom work & shooting with an old Nikon F3 and she doesn't know what I mean when I talk about the lens rating and all that 'technical stuff'?  What the hell?"
But I just sort of had to smile and say "That's nice."
She's a good friend of my client, after all.
But I mean SERIOUSLY.  This's someone who was trying to trash me for using digital then hassle me about her "mad skillz" after.

I mainly wanted to rant a little, but can we legitamtely put people like that in the chipper????

is just me maybe ...but sounds like she needs a good spankin that orrrrrrrr she's just mad cause got tore down before she knew what hit her either way ppl like that tend to REALLY tick me off ...they want to ACT like they know what they are talking about but in the end they don't have the brains God gave a pi$$ant

SLE Photography wrote:
That's hard to do with digital as they rarely have lenses much better than an F4.5"

are you saying lenses faster than f4.5 in the dslr world are rare...?

studio36uk wrote:
Colleges [supposedly] producing fine arts photographers produce [often pseudo-photographer] artists like that. I met a student a while back starting their 3rd year of one of those courses that couldn't tell you the difference between an f stop and a stop sign... 2 full years of photographic "arts" study already completed and no technical education in photography at all. Bizarre but true. I do believe that is why we see such awful crap called "fine art photography" circulating in the netherworld of the arts community. It seems as if they are handed a camera at some point, and without the instruction manual, told to "Go forth and create [art]"

Now that, teaching art first with photography as the mere medium, is as opposed to a school that teaches [technical and technique] photography first and art [in the photographic medium] as the desired outcome.

Studio36

This is also true of other art media, whether it is oil on canvas, sculpture, charcoal, etc.  There is no technique taught.  It's considered an inhibition of the artistic talent.  [BULLSHIT!] If an artist cannot demonstrate basic technique in their chosen media, then they do not produce art, IMHO, but accidents posturing as art.

studio36uk wrote:
Now that, teaching art first with photography as the mere medium, is as opposed to a school that teaches [technical and technique] photography first and art [in the photographic medium] as the desired outcome.

Studio36

Are the two mutually exclusive?  Can't you learn to become an artist and an expert in the medium of choice at the same time?  My idea of an "artist" is someone who uses a medium to evoke an emotion, reguardless of the medium used.  Singing, acting, painting, drawing, etc.  I know painters who are perfect "drafter persons".  They can create a detailed image with almost perfect photographic detail....but the image is dead.  It says nothing.  On the other hand I know painters that are not so "draft person talented" who can create an image that will slew me through a wide range of emotions.  I'm not sure a school can teach someone to be an artist.  Maybe they can point the way.  Kevin

PK Digital Imaging wrote:
My response:

"Wow cool!  I don't have nearly as much film experience as you... but I'm wondering... with your head so far up your ass what filmspeed and aperture do you use?"

LOL go you! that was amusing

Hamza wrote:
Ever notice that "Artists" that have not yet "Arrived" who are broke as fuck always have an attitude?  As if we should bow down to them because they are "Artists".  Fuck that!

To be a "True Artist" you must have a body of work.  Not an attitude!

Just because you believe you are an "Artist" does not mean the world owes you anything!

Until you accumulate a body of work and have earned the title of "Artist" keep your Holier Than Thou attitude next to your head, in your ass where it belongs...

Actually, in my area, a good number of "Artists" are what are known as "trustafarians." 

Santa Cruz county, SC hills, average price for a home something like 1 million.  Most of the craftspeople, artisans have long since had to flee the area unless they had somehow managed to buy their home 20 years ago.

What's left is a large mix of trustafarians who in truth, are not really broke.  They're just playing like they are.  They have an attitude because it goes along with the lie and the stinky cigarettes they smoke.

PK Digital Imaging wrote:
My response:

"Wow cool!  I don't have nearly as much film experience as you... but I'm wondering... with your head so far up your ass what filmspeed and aperture do you use?"

see the top anal photographers thread

Rossi Photography wrote:
Why is it, artists (of really any kind) are such egotistical bastards always trying to one up one another??? Lol...

Whew! Glad photograpers aren't that way! ;-)

studio36uk wrote:
Colleges [supposedly] producing fine arts photographers produce [often pseudo-photographer] artists like that. I met a student a while back starting their 3rd year of one of those courses that couldn't tell you the difference between an f stop and a stop sign... 2 full years of photographic "arts" study already completed and no technical education in photography at all. Bizarre but true. I do believe that is why we see such awful crap called "fine art photography" circulating in the netherworld of the arts community. It seems as if they are handed a camera at some point, and without the instruction manual, told to "Go forth and create [art]" Ipso facto... what ever they do create must be "art."

Now that, teaching art first with photography as the mere medium, is as opposed to a school that teaches [technical and technique] photography first and art [in the photographic medium] as the desired outcome.

Studio36

I chatted with a fine arts photographer lately that didn't realize that you weren't supposed to point the camera at the sun, since it causes reflections from each lens element.  He may have thought all those scattering centers were artistic.

RedheadRobyn wrote:

Oh I love you!!! So I'm NOT the only person with the idea of tossing morons into a chipper shredder?!?!!! Now the only question is, how to dispose of the human waste after they are shredded? my ex suggests we give it to the fish but then we in turn would eat the fish slowly making us as stupid as the people we dispose of...so what would be the solution? any ideas? LMAO

*Disclaimer: this is a JOKE, so anyone about to post or report that I'm some homicidal maniac, don't bother, it's not meant seriously..I can just relate to the poster's frustration (Geez, it's sad I felt it necessary to post a disclaimer)

Oh, you haven't visited THE THREAD
https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?t … 1&page=120
If you jump back somewhere around the 60 or 70 page mark we started advocating putting models' escorts & models who insist on them in the chipper, and it's become a leit motif there now where we have chipper pics, chipper pate recipes, composting tips, etc etc

jeffcfetish wrote:
So, at the end of the evening, you introduced this 'artist' to your personal chipper.
what you don't have one???

I flew up
FAA won't allow them on the plane
I need to lure her back to my client's facility & put her thru their mulcher

SLE Photography wrote:
That's hard to do with digital as they rarely have lenses much better than an F4.5"

Bill Hudson wrote:
are you saying lenses faster than f4.5 in the dslr world are rare...?

They're not as common or affordable, in general, for dlsrs that're designed for AF lenses.  At least not for the Nikon series I use or a number of the Canons I shopped for.

kevin atkinson wrote:
Are the two mutually exclusive?  Can't you learn to become an artist and an expert in the medium of choice at the same time?  My idea of an "artist" is someone who uses a medium to evoke an emotion, reguardless of the medium used.  Singing, acting, painting, drawing, etc.  I know painters who are perfect "drafter persons".  They can create a detailed image with almost perfect photographic detail....but the image is dead.  It says nothing.  On the other hand I know painters that are not so "draft person talented" who can create an image that will slew me through a wide range of emotions.  I'm not sure a school can teach someone to be an artist.  Maybe they can point the way.  Kevin

Difference being that it doesn't take any real knowledge of the tool or special training to use a pencil or piece of charcoal
It does to operate a camera well

Hamza wrote:
Ever notice that "Artists" that have not yet "Arrived" who are broke as fuck always have an attitude?  As if we should bow down to them because they are "Artists".  Fuck that!

To be a "True Artist" you must have a body of work.  Not an attitude!

Just because you believe you are an "Artist" does not mean the world owes you anything!

Until you accumulate a body of work and have earned the title of "Artist" keep your Holier Than Thou attitude next to your head, in your ass where it belongs...

This one is a Long Island housewife with some local recognition and a rich husband LOL

SLE Photography wrote:
Difference being that it doesn't take any real knowledge of the tool or special training to use a pencil or piece of charcoal
It does to operate a camera well

I really wish that were true for me, not that my camera skills are all that good, but I'm having a much harder time mastering the stick.   The hand eye coordination of producing a good drawing, with all the various arrays of pencil types, blending techniques, getting the porportions correct, moving from light to shadow, the list is endless.  Then painting...the color wheel, mixing paint correctly, how to produce shadows of the same color as the light areas of an image, this list goes on and on also.  I've heard by some that learning the camera is more of a left brain function so maybe my EE background helped me there and I just need to switch over to right brain.  Kevin

kevin atkinson wrote:
Can't you learn to become an artist and an expert in the medium of choice at the same time? Kevin

Yes, but the point is that the arts schools are not teaching technique, or technical aspects of photography, beyond loading the camera. They seem to concentrate only creation of what the artist wants to call "art". How they arrive at the finished product is entirely up to them. Wonky, out of focus, badly exposed shots are taught to be art just as a pure, technically excellent, image can be art, and worse teaching that the two are equivalent "art"... one as valid as the other. Maybe true as "art,"  in the minds of the arts community, but certainly not true as photography in the minds of the photographic community.

Technically inept crap may be "art" to the arts facists but it is still, to a photographer's eye, technically inept crap.

Technically excellent crap is a whole other matter. LOL

Studio36

PK Digital Imaging wrote:
My response:

"Wow cool!  I don't have nearly as much film experience as you... but I'm wondering... with your head so far up your ass what filmspeed and aperture do you use?"

oldguysrule wrote:
see the top anal photographers thread

And talking about anal photogrpahers... lets see... shooting out your ass must be something like a 2seconds @ f180 with 400asa in bright daylight. LOL Think pinhole!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Yes, but the point is that the arts schools are not teaching technique, or technical aspects of photography, beyond loading the camera.
Studio36

I guess I got lucky.  My instuctor of three semesters of B&W spent the better part of class on "mechanics".  The zone system I don't think I'll ever forget.  We had quizzes on ever aspect of camera operation. At the beggining of the semester we calibrated our camera to the enlargers to eliminate the need of test strips.  Kevin

kevin atkinson wrote:
I guess I got lucky.  My instuctor of three semesters of B&W spent the better part of class on "mechanics".  The zone system I don't think I'll ever forget.  We had quizzes on ever aspect of camera operation. At the beggining of the semester we calibrated our camera to the enlargers to eliminate the need of test strips.  Kevin

I have seen that done as well but only for the UK's City and Guilds [aka C&G] "PHOTOGRAPHY" courses and similar training... not for [non-photography] arts students working in the photographic medium.

I was mentoring for one C&G class and the techniques and camera operation were indeed taught first and in depth; darkroom and printing second; with a smattering of other subjects related to "imaging" [pinhole and computer imaging]. I even worked on a project of imaging without light [making radiographs with radioactive mineral specimins as the exposure source] The course objective was to create competent photographs not to create unstructured "art" per se.

If you wanted to learn photography rather then learning to create "art" you were in the right place, and the right training, for that.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

I have seen that done as well but only for the UK's City and Guilds [aka C&G] "PHOTOGRAPHY" courses and similar training... not for [non-photography] arts students working in the photographic medium.

I was mentoring for one class and the techniques and camera operation were indeed taught first and in depth; darkroom and printing second; with a smattering of other subjects related to "imaging" [pinhole and computer imaging]. I even worked on a project of imaging without light [making radiographs with radioactive mineral specimins as the exposure source] The course objective was to create competent photographs not to create unstructured "art" per se.

If you wanted to learn photography rather then learning to create "art" you were in the right place, and the right training, for that.

Studio36

kevin atkinson wrote:

I guess I got lucky.  My instuctor of three semesters of B&W spent the better part of class on "mechanics".  The zone system I don't think I'll ever forget.  We had quizzes on ever aspect of camera operation. At the beggining of the semester we calibrated our camera to the enlargers to eliminate the need of test strips.  Kevin

I agree wholeheartedly--I see "photographers" on a daily basis that have more money than brains.

I have a BS in Physics, and approach photography a little differently. I only shoot film,  I could design a fair set of optics, and I do my own darkroom work most of the time. I have nothing against digital stuff. I just don't like BATTERIES.

SLE Photography wrote:

They're not as common or affordable, in general, for dlsrs that're designed for AF lenses.  At least not for the Nikon series I use or a number of the Canons I shopped for.

Were you shopping at Wallmart?
Just taking a guess:)