4 ms·
So, if I understand you correctly now, based on this response and your recent response to michrassena, is that your argument does not claim that these new rende
by nessus42 14y ago
So, if I understand you correctly now, based on this response and your recent response to michrassena, is that your argument does not claim that these new renderings of Proudin-Gorsky's work are less of a window into a past reality than any other photography. Instead your claim is that in no sense have we preserved Proudin-Gorsky's art with these reconstructions?
I might certainly buy that claim. I don't think that most people here were concerned with the artistic intent so much as the documentation of a past reality.
As to information content, your claim is that there is more information content in these reconstructed images than would have been received at Proudin-Gorsky's eyes while he was taking the photographs? I find that a bit hard to believe. Though I suppose sharpening via some sort of deconvolution might amount to that. Also, we don't need anything so "esoteric" as either night vision goggles or Photoshop to get more information onto a piece of photographic paper than would have been seen with the naked eye. A long exposure or a polarizing filter on the camera can do that.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- 001sky 14y ago[So, if I understand you correctly now], [your argument does not claim that...] [Instead your claim is that ...] [I might certainly buy that claim.] [As to ... your claim is ...?] [I find that a bit hard to believe.] [A long exposure or a polarizing filter on the camera can do that.] The combination of self-referential straw-man-building and false-false hypthesis rejection is priceless. Polarizing filters and long lenses? Really now. I'm very intrigued by your description of Gursky's photo being full of mind-bending and subtle tricks. What is unnatural about the space? I see what looks like compression, possibly by the use of a long lens. Now you're like a drunk at the bar talking-shit. In over his head. Talking to someone with real experience. Not imaginary, illusory braggadocio. Last call for you. For other HN readers of this thread, there is real information presented here. Ideas that might benefit them. Provding an increased understanding of the world. Fore nessus42, your false dichotomies and outdated academic modalities, are just the opposite. They are not enlightening or powerful. Nor even intimidating. Just sad and dull. We leave them behind.
- nessus42 14y agoPerhaps it it is telling when someone claims to be an expert in photography and doesn't know the difference between a "long exposure" and a "long lens". Talk about drunk at the bar shit! Furthermore, half of your little diatribe there misattributes to me things said by michrassena.