Say it ain't so, Walker.

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20...m-clock-part-3/

The only surprising thing, to me, is that so much space was taken up to write this stuff. With the world in chaos, perhaps worse than it was then, does it matter today?

That's the trouble with legends and probably most of history. It is all 'points of view' tailored to suit the requirements of whoever is paying the bills. Look at the French stuff from the glory days of HC-B, Doisneau and all of them: left-wing publications hired most of them. Could you expect them to show glamorous living or anything remotely upbeat, or if so, in other than critical manner?

If any truth exists, it's that you can't trust anyone to be its guardian.

Rob C

Which goes to prove what? That WE was an artist who cared about the composition? If he hadn't we probably would not know who he was.

These guys who are doing all the bitching ought to try photographing inside a sharecropper's cabin with an 11 x 14 view camera before they get all cranked out of shape. The article is a real hoot, written by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. When the picture of the beds that they're upset about was first printed for a show, the printer spotted out all the little spots on the coverlet. Walker made them re-print. The spots were flies.

Sorry to be a little dumb, but are you responding to me or to the original article? I assume probably not to me since there is no direct quote...

I have been sitting on this blasted swivel chair for so long that the blood is having difficulty reaching all the required parts of my brain.

;-(

Rob C

You see the advantage of 35mm?

Rob C

Actually, no. The flies wouldn't have been nearly as sharp on 35mm.

That, Russ, would have depended on the shutter speed.

Rob C