Digital BW, The Print

Where may we view your superior work?

On Aug 27, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Paul Aparycki wrote:

> I have no problem with digital. I have a very serious problem with
>  mediocrity and the millions of feeble excuses it seems a lot of 
> digital
>  shooters use to justify it.
>
>  While not subscribing to the "ooooooommm Zen" attitude that many 
> profess
>  regarding large format shooting . . . i.e. the contemplative approach 
> that
>  allows for "better" images, I do agree that slowing down before you 
> hit the
>  damn button makes for a better picture. Most people don't, and in the 
> digi
>  age . . . well, you have heard it here a thousand times, "shoot, 
> shoot,
>  shoot, shoot, shoot!" . . . then sadly, much of it makes it onto the 
> web . .
>  . gallery after gallery of "maybes" and "it's pretty good" . . . the 
> only
>  person that it serves is the ego of the so-so photographer who wasn't 
> too
>  sure of what they were doing in the first place.
>
>  I shoot a little in digital, but mostly in film, predominately in MF 
> and LF,
>  up to and including on some jobs 8x10 . . . my clients who pay me a 
> good
>  amount of money are NOT screaming "digital, digital, digital, 
> digital!", I
>  guess they don't know what you know . . . maybe you should talk to 
> them and
>  teach them something.
>
>  As for my spelling, THAT is a major faux pas, I am well read and pride
>  myself on getting it right . . . I don't use or believe in 
> spell-checkers. I
>  apologize for that and hope that you will sleep better tonight.
>
>  A plaGue? yes, it is . . . borne of laziness and stupidity (which is 
> why is
>  pisses me off so much)
>
>  Paul Aparycki
>
>  p.s. a few years ago I started a project in southern Argentina . . . 
> a few
>  months traipsing about the countryside. I haven't had time to finish 
> it yet,
>  but plan on going back this year or next and spend 3-6 months 
> completeing it
>  . . . ALL on film, ALL at my expense. Your wannabee stories from the 
> "photo
>  press" are based on fact, but are really "harlequin romances" for the
>  uninspired . . . it sells, and they know it.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]