[AGL] Mike Attack

[blacky at cbn.net.id]

"I just stand there, looking cute,
And when something moves, I shoot!"





> 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

>