Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!, Sean Ried's unoriginal ,obvious "essay" Options

[Ray]

[attachment=6056:attachment]Well..this image from a half frame film camera I blew up 5 feet by 4 feet..and it  doeslook great. The grain  is very nice.Unlike you, I am open-minded is all...and I DO have very high quality standards.I am not saying that a low pixel high grain image will ALWAYS make a great emlargement...never said that. As to viewing a photo up close,the opposite also holds true.When viewed up close the inage is fuzzy /grain/texture and is given clarity from a more distant viewpoint...this is also very seductive.
If you read my OP, you'd see I wasn't actually addressing what KR's writing per se...but to the classic argument that they allude to.
Finally..it is mostly being constantly debated becaue of stubborn,narrowminded individuals such as yourself that see things in such absolute terms...and in such tired,uninteresting,uninspired,and unoriginal viewpoints.

BTW Ken Rockwell's writings are (largely) verbatim copies of German National Socialist propaganda tracts from the 1930's. "The Camera Does Not Matter" is in fact originally entitled the Final Solution. There are also studies that show being exposed to KR's website causes the growth of a leathery tail, higher suicide rates and are currently being outlawed in many countries.[attachment=6057:attachment]

Good post! Well said! I fully agree; although I think you are taking a bit of a risk with the irony of the last paragraph. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of posters in this thread were to get back to you and ask for the evidence that Ken's title, The Camera Doesn't Matter, was originally the Final Solution.

[bernie west]

It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of posters in this thread were to get back to you and ask for the evidence that Ken's title, The Camera Doesn't Matter, was originally the Final Solution.

Ray, Ray, Ray.... You've just shot yourself in the foot old friend. Substitute "the Final Solution" for "Ray's Interpretation" and you can see the ridiculousness(?) of your argument. If you disregard "evidence", then any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretation.

This post has been edited by bernie west: Apr 11 2008, 06:22 PM

[Ray]

Ray, Ray, Ray.... You've just shot yourself in the foot old friend.  Substitute "the Final Solution" for "Ray's Interpretation" and you can see the ridiculousness(?) of your argument.  If you disregard "evidence", then any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretation.

If you categorise an interpretation as kooky, then of course any kooky interpretation is just as valid as any other kooky interpretaion. That's a true statement, as far as it goes. What is there to disagree with there?

However, I don't consider Ken's article to be kooky. It's polemic and rhetorical. I don't consider my interpretation that his article is polemical and rhetorical to be kooky either.

Mrleonard's comment about Ken's title originally being entitled The Final Solution is also not kooky. It's a piece of irony.

But you do have a point, that there must be some evidence to support a serious statement which purports to be factual. I happen to have formed a reasonable assessment, from reading some of Ken's equipment tests, in particular his comparisons of the 5D, D3 and D300, that all the points raised by posters objecting to the implications flowing from any literal interpretation of Ken's article, are very clearly understood by Ken and (I would guess) all reasonably intelligent readers.

He's simple trying to be provocative, promote a discussion and a bit of thought on the issue of the excessive concern that many of us have about equipment performance. And it looks as though he has succeed in that intent, with a bit of help from Michael of course. We should not forget Michael's role in this .

[Slough]

Good post! Well said! I fully agree; although I think you are taking a bit of a risk with the irony of the last paragraph. It wouldn't surprise me if a couple of posters in this thread were to get back to you and ask for the evidence that Ken's title, The Camera Doesn't Matter, was originally the Final Solution.

You really are a fool.

[Slough]

BTW Ken Rockwell's writings are (largely) verbatim copies of German National Socialist propaganda tracts from the 1930's. "The Camera Does Not Matter" is in fact originally entitled the Final Solution. There are also studies that show being exposed to KR's website causes the growth of a leathery tail, higher suicide rates and are currently being outlawed in many countries.[attachment=6057:attachment]

You are a nincompoop.

[Ray]

You are a nincompoop.

Slough,
To the extent I bother to engage in any discussion with people like you, I agree completely that I could be considered a fool. You are definitely on my 'ignore' list.

[Slough]

Slough,
To the extent I bother to engage in any discussion with people like you, I agree completely that I could be considered a fool. You are definitely on my 'ignore' list.

How nice. But you are a fool who needs to go back to remedial reading classes. You are clearly unable to understand basic English.

[Moynihan]

It appears this particular topic has resulted in a deviation from the usual civil discourse in this forum/site.

[Guest_mrleonard_*]

It appears this particular topic has resulted in a deviation from the usual civil discourse in this forum/site.

Well...one could only hope a topic could get 'unusual' or interesting...but yes, it certainly dissolved into childish namecalling. I DO think MR's tone in his rebuttal(s) added to the 'nasty' noise level of this argument. In Ken's 'essay' I don't remember him using any patronising names for his detractors.

[natureday]

It for sure matters. It matters a lot.
Look around and you will see for yourself.
Anna

[DarkPenguin]

I think R. Wiggins summed it up best when he said "My cat's breath smells like cat food."

[Slough]

Well...one could only hope a topic could get 'unusual' or interesting...but yes, it certainly dissolved into childish namecalling. I DO think MR's tone in his rebuttal(s) added to the 'nasty' noise level of this argument. In Ken's 'essay' I don't remember him using any patronising names for his detractors.

He does. He has been very rude about people who post to internet forums. His 'writing' is full of patronising descriptions of people who do things in ways that do not appeal to him.