[AGL] Mike Attack

[Jon Ford]

Great post, Gerry.

Jon


>From: "Gerry" <mesmo at gilanet.com>

>Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 

>60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 

>60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:04:17 -0700

>

>

><<Certainly if you live in the midst of

>nature and see few people you will be likely to photograph bushes and

>flowers. <<

>

>Actually Jon, more of the focus is on light. Most of the year our light is

>pretty much the same, dictated by high clouds (when there are some). Then

>when the rainy season comes we get incredible variations in light. On my

>recent visit to NorCal I was again struck by the light and the way the

>various clouds and fog create atmospheres, the incredible brightness of the

>ocean, the mysterious darkness of the redwood forests, the golden hills,

>etc. such a beautiful place. The old photos I have of the area when I was a

>resident are all about light.

>

>I have grown a little weary of art being equated to painting. With all the

>new techniques available today it seems to me that painting is on the wane.

>Yes, back in the past it was the way to go and the technical aspects of

>mixing oil and turpentine (or whatever) led to lasting images that are 

>quite

>powerful. Then the abstract impressionists developed new ways applying oils

>to canvas and this was also quite awesome. But today there are lots of way

>to make pictures, especially with the mixing of photography and digital

>techniques, that rival the ancient traditions. Artists like Jeff Wall seem

>to have taken it to a new realm. The brush is now replaced by the printer

>which follows the patterns created with a mouse in hand. For "permanent"

>pictures it is the limitations of the printer which dictate what one can or

>cannot do. And, of course, lots of pictures are viewed today on electronic

>screens, never intended to be put onto paper or canvas, but viewed and

>collected for the same kinds of pleasure. Some of the most amazing pictures

>I see are in the advertising realm, graphic arts taking the digital 

>approach

>to new limits. Or, you can go the other way. At any rate, the eye of the

>artist has new pastures in which to graze.

>

>The other day I was in Mexico (on the border) and watched Tarahumara women,

>seated on the street, sewing. Their clothes were an incredible canvas of

>stitched patterns, exquisitely applied, masterful technique. Yes, those

>"primitives" who never heard of art school can do things that we 

>"civilized"

>tribes no longer have to patience to even attempt. Oils? They would 

>probably

>laugh at the suggestion that our techniques are legitimate.

>

>The Mimbrenos, whose talent for design within a circle, has kept me excited

>for 15 years now, used the pointed tip of an aguave plant dipped in a black

>dye (which they made), applied to a fresh white bowl (which they made). The

>power of their work rivals most any visual experience before or since. When

>you add an additional color (yellow or adobe red most commonly) the

>possibilities become nearly limitless, but when you add the pigment you 

>also

>open up a Pandora's box which is easily violated.

>

>When I see gaudy applications of color for the sake of shock value or

>whatever, I am turned off. Color is always brightest when there is contrast

>(not that bright color is necessarily always pretty). Discipline with color

>is hard to acquire, easy to overdo. I like Madelon's compositions, using 

>the

>circle instead of rectangles and squares to frame the picture. Not easy to

>do successfully, no corners. Yes, the Capricorn eye, love it, no excess,

>just the required elements.

>

>Hard to corner in NM,

>G

>

>

>

>----- Original Message -----

>From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster at hotmail.com>

>To: <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:36 PM

>Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>

>

> > Gerry-- to each his or her own subject matter.  I like some of Ewie's

> > photography, and in fact he often shoots pictures of people and 

>landscapes

> > stamped with the human presence. Certainly if you live in the midst of

> > nature and see few people you will be likely to photograph bushes and

> > flowers. There's nothing wrong with nature photography. Ironically,

>though,

> > the best of it seems often to personify natural objects. Edward Weston,

>for

> > instance-- his nudes and his gnarley drftwood and twisted bell peppers--

> > it's all the same vision.

> >

> > Jon

> >

> >

> > >From: "Gerry" <mesmo at gilanet.com>

> > >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > >60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > >60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:50:03 -0700

> > >

> > >Mike and John,

> > >Yeah, you city cats who live in high rises in the middle of large

>colonies

> > >beneath the dark brown cloud, seeing so many faces every day, idolizing 

>a

> > >photographer of, well, geeks...It figures, shoot what you see. Not that 

>I

> > >don't appreciate the late Ms. Arbus, but a little goes a long way.

> > >

> > >While I'm not into landscape art (bluebonnets in Texas, desert scapes 

>in

> > >NM,

> > >etc), photos of non-human natural subjects are my preference. I once

> > >watched

> > >a UT grad and onetime fellow student named Jim Bones photograph plants

>for

> > >inclusion in the Seeds of Change catalogue, not easy but beautiful when

> > >done

> > >well. BTW, that catalogue has superb photography. If you want to study

> > >photos of people I recommend the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition,

> > >currently available on the web with Brazilian models included...

> > >

> > >Ewie, a friend for 50 years and a genuine Renaissance man, shoots

> > >everything, with a 4X5, and does a dammed good job of it. He probably

> > >prints

> > >more in a week (when he isn't globetrotting) than you guys do in a 

>year.

> > >Check out his website. Not to say that he is all knowing and perfect 

>(he

> > >doesn't spell well) but he does spend lots of time outdoors where the

>faces

> > >are few and the subjects and the light change with the seasons.

> > >G

> > >

> > >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> > >From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster at hotmail.com>

> > >To: <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > >Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:17 AM

> > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > >

> > >

> > > > <IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a

> > > > year.

> > > >

> > > > my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.>

> > > >

> > > > Mike-- I couldn't agree more.

> > > >

> > > > Jon

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele at ando.pair.com>

> > > > >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > > > >60s<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > > > >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the

> > > > >60s"<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > > > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > > > >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:01:59 -0600

> > > > >

> > > > >i hadnt seen the bottom part of Ewie's supercilious email.

> > > > >

> > > > >Ewie, you do nature photography, right?

> > > > >

> > > > >IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a

> > > > >year.

> > > > >

> > > > >my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.

> > > > >

> > > > >like Hans Otto a professional photographer on our list, having

> > > > >learnt how photography is/has been done starting with t-shirts

> > > > >ruined by doing chemical processing, i dont need your introductory

> > > > >instruction on color casts and what it doesnt say on the little

>yellow

> > > > >boxes. and your advice to get my monitor adjusted because i seem

> > > > >to be a self-admitted computer something. this from a guy who cant

> > > > >do multiplication by threes.

> > > > >

> > > > >weren't you the guy with the self-nullifying philosophy mantra a

> > > > >few threads back on this list?

> > > > >

> > > > >i met you briefly at a Dave Moriaty party. you didnt want to talk

> > > > >about your heroic sailboat adventure that landed you in Hawaii

> > > > >in one piece. you are married to a chinese woman and we have

> > > > >met your ex-wife who does artistry hereabouts involving birdcages.

> > > > >

> > > > >well howdy there pardner. Dave Martinez told me he used to

> > > > >room with you in Austin

> > > > >

> > > > >on a not unrelated subject, when is the next reunion? where

> > > > >everyone, even me, is invited to.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >----- Original Message -----

> > > > >From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>

> > > > >To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"

> > > > ><austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:31 PM

> > > > >Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Mike, maybe you don't understand this resolution thing, it is

> > >confusing.

> > > > > > The D5 does not produce a 39meg file, if it did they would be

> > > > >advertising

> > > > > > the fact all over the place.

> > > > > > Here is a quote from the Cannon site:

> > > > > > File size:

> > > > > > (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.6MB (4,368 x 2,912) (2) Large/Normal

>2.3MB

> > > > > > (4,368

> > > > > > x 2,912) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.7MB (3,168 x 2,112) (4)

> > > > >Medium/Normal:

> > > > > > Approx. 1.4MB (3,168 x 2,112) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 2.0MB 

>(2,496

>x

> > > > > > 1,664)

> > > > > > (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 1.0MB (2,496 x 1,664) (7) RAW: Approx.

> > >12.9MB

> > > > > > (4,368 x 2,912)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If it could produce a 39meg file they would certainly say so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I didn't see Polidori's photos but if they all look a little 

>blue

>to

> > >you

> > > > > > that may be a sign that you monitor is not color corrected.  

>Since

> > >you

> > > > > > seem

> > > > > > to be a computer buff I guess you know that monitors do not 

>always

> > > > >display

> > > > > > the correct colors and for critical work they need to be

>calibrated

> > >so

> > > > > > things have the correct color.   I have been doing this stuff 

>for

>a

> > >few

> > > > > > years and it is true if a scene is illuminated just by sky light

> > >only

> > > > >such

> > > > > > as in the shade,  can have a bit of a blue cast.  But if you 

>have

>a

> > >blue

> > > > > > sky

> > > > > > that means you have the sun out and scenes in sunlight never 

>have

> > >this

> > > > > > blue

> > > > > > cast - the engineers at Kodak have figured this out and make 

>their

> > >film

> > > > >to

> > > > > > show pretty damn good colors.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Better get your monitor calibrated if you want to peruse a 

>career

>as

> > > > >photo

> > > > > > critic.

> > > > > > Aloha

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > > > > From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >> Ewie,

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size

> > > > > >> as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its

> > > > > >> maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that

> > > > > >> and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary

> > > > > >> colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as

> > > > > >> the 40Megs you mention.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of

> > > > > >> film and chemical darkrooms.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in

> > > > > >> burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time

> > > > > >> if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> $2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.

> > > > > >> It will take some years before a used one will come

> > > > > >> close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.

> > > > > >> Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,

> > > > > >> process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them

> > > > > >> for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,

> > > > > >> and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined

> > > > > >> interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook

> > > > > >> the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting

> > > > > >> without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the

> > > > > >> shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by

> > > > > >> the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct

> > > > > >> light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree 

>when

> > > > > >> she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They

> > > > > >> don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might

> > > > > >> reduce sales.

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Mike

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> > Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like

> > >somebody

> > > > >to

> > > > > >> > give

> > > > > >> > me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and

>scanner

> > > > >combo.

> > > > > >> > Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem 

>of

> > >them

> > > > > >> > getting

> > > > > >> > stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500 

>loss,

> > >can't

> > > > > >> > afford

> > > > > >> > the $3000 loss.  A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to

>about

> > >40

> > > > > >> > meg,

> > > > > >> > the

> > > > > >> > Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg.  I don't know if the Cannon has this

> > >problem

> > > > > > but

> > > > > >> > many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing 

>the

> > > > >shutter

> > > > > >> > and

> > > > > >> > the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing

>fast

> > > > > > action.

> > > > > >> > Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for

>only

> > > > > >> > $31,995

> > > > > >> > but

> > > > > >> > sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide.

> > >But

> > >if

> > > > > > you

> > > > > >> > are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only 

>way

> > >to

> > > > >go!!

> > > > > >> > You

> > > > > >> > can buy them on Ebay for around $500.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >> > The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you 

>can

>do

> > >it

> > > > > >> > yourself or send it out.  Doing it yourself and sending it 

>out

> > >cost

> > > > > > about

> > > > > >> > the same price.  Only problem is not instant gratification.

>Some

> > >art

> > > > > >> > forms

> > > > > >> > require a little work.

> > > > > >> >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > > Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save 

>at

> > >MSN®

> > > > Shopping.

> > > >

> >

> >http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN

>2

> > >0A0701

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a

>month.

> > Intro*Terms

> >

>https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search

>=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117

> >

> >

>


_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. 
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE