Digital BW, The Print

Hi Roger,

I think we are confusing our personal tastes and opinions with "art" or "quality".

You said:

"... Let's just stand back from the subject matter and
look at the photographic qualities - they are all there - great color,
detail in the shadows - sharp focus when the photographer want's it and
wonderful eye for composition."

Yes, they are.  And virtually anyone can become a technically proficient photographer; color, detail, focus, composition can all be learned and developed by just about anybody, "talented" or not.

"....How you can say you are not the least bit
moved by these images as purely examples of the photographic art is beyond
me."

What moves you, may not necessarily move me and vice versa.  In my humble, personal opinion, a work that does not move me becomes, in my eyes, ordinary and nothing special.  That does NOT change their impact on you, or others.

"... We all have a right to differences in taste, but calling these images
nothing special is a real mistake in my way of thinking."

I don't see how you can call my thinking, a "mistake".  It is merely different from you, not necessarily a mistake.

John

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John K. Stacy" 
<stacyj@j...> wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> I think we are confusing our personal tastes and opinions 
with "art" or "quality".

A few years ago I attended a show at the Decordova Museum of Modern 
Art in Massachusetts of photography from National Geographic.   Many 
people consider Nat Geo to have some of the consistently best 
photography in the world and they've published many 
successful "coffee table" books of their photography.    But I've 
met, talked with, or taken workshops from their photo editor and 
several of their photographers and I know that they regard 
themselves as PJ's.   So what do people here think of NatGeo 
photography - art or PJ?

>  So what do people here think of NatGeo
> photography - art or PJ?
>
>

I've never thought of them as pajamas, myself.

James


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

I don't know the answer, either.  But, a clue might be that National Geographic is not and art magazine.  It's a travel magazine.  Sure is nice, though.
 
Tom Baker
 


Peter Nelson <pnweb@...> wrote:
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John K. Stacy" 
wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> I think we are confusing our personal tastes and opinions 
with "art" or "quality".

A few years ago I attended a show at the Decordova Museum of Modern 
Art in Massachusetts of photography from National Geographic. Many 
people consider Nat Geo to have some of the consistently best 
photography in the world and they've published many 
successful "coffee table" books of their photography. But I've 
met, talked with, or taken workshops from their photo editor and 
several of their photographers and I know that they regard 
themselves as PJ's. So what do people here think of NatGeo 
photography - art or PJ?








Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links






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

I think NG is several notches above "photo-journalism", but not a fine art publication.  That being said, I'm sure they have images which if presented as such would qualify on their own merits as "fine art"

(so....does that now mean the "presentation", or venue determines if it's fine art or not???)

John

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Nelson 

  A few years ago I attended a show at the Decordova Museum of Modern 
  Art in Massachusetts of photography from National Geographic.   Many 
  people consider Nat Geo to have some of the consistently best 
  photography in the world and they've published many 
  successful "coffee table" books of their photography.    But I've 
  met, talked with, or taken workshops from their photo editor and 
  several of their photographers and I know that they regard 
  themselves as PJ's.   So what do people here think of NatGeo 
  photography - art or PJ?

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> I don't know the answer, either.  But, a clue might be that 
National Geographic is not and art magazine.  It's a travel 
magazine.  

????

You're thinking of National Geographic Traveler 
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/

National Geographic is an illustrated geography magazine.

---peter

My father was a senior editor for NG and I have worked there summers when I
was in college. NG has very high standards for its photography. Maybe not
art, but certainly excellent photos. In fact, the key to having a story
published was the pictures. NG was quite happy to assign a writer to ghost a
story for good pix. Never sent a photographer to illustrate a story that was
submitted from a non-staffer.

-Stephen
 www.sbillard.org/Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John K. Stacy [mailto:stacyj@jkstacydesigns.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:18 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: In defense of "Not Ansel"
> 
> 
> I think NG is several notches above "photo-journalism", but 
> not a fine art publication.  That being said, I'm sure they 
> have images which if presented as such would qualify on their 
> own merits as "fine art"
> 
> (so....does that now mean the "presentation", or venue 
> determines if it's fine art or not???)
> 
>