|
|
|
-
Hasty research suggests #1 suspect Inge Morath, with #2 suspect Eve Arnold. I could be wrong!!!!!! And like others, I see no particular reason to make a big secret of the photog's ID - neither pic could be described as essential or iconic.
-
 Originally Posted by Sparky
Who cares - ? They're boring photos anyway (not to be cantankerous - but get real!). I have to second roger on this stupid game biz. Maybe if you'd labelled the thread "guess the obscure third-rate photographer".
I can assure you the photographer is not third rate. The point of the mystery is that, it's kind of interesting and nice to 'discover' a talent not commonly known now. I was just curious to see how many folks might know of her work.
-
Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
Hasty research suggests #1 suspect Inge Morath, with #2 suspect Eve Arnold. I could be wrong!!!!!! And like others, I see no particular reason to make a big secret of the photog's ID - neither pic could be described as essential or iconic.
It's not Inge Morath or Eve Arnold. If you don't know who the photographer is how can you say that it isn't essential or iconic?
Besides that, the fact that I've managed to irritate Roger Hicks so much makes this thread worth while for me and probably others.
-
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
At the risk of appearing cantankerous, this thread irritates the hell out of me. What is the point of it? Essentially, "I know something you don't". Well, yes. No doubt you know lots of things I don't, just as I am very likely to know various things you don't.
All right, a thread that says "Who else knows the work of XYZ?" may not be compelling, but sometimes we learn about a new photographer whose work we like. Turning it into a low-grade quiz seems to me to add nothing.
It's rather like those 'What is it?' pictures, shot from odd angles or very close up, that appear in magazines from time to time (and have for as long as I can remember). My reaction to those has long been, "WHO CARES?" Either tell me something useful, or shut up.
Please don't take this as a personal insult, just as an observation on a particular style of thread -- and I'd be interested if others feel the same way about 'teasers'.
Cheers,
Roger
The whole point is to have a little fun, trying to make folks stretch their minds a bit and learn or discover something about American photo history.
Lighten up and quit acting like a bloviated old fart.
-
Originally Posted by donbga
The whole point is to have a little fun, trying to make folks stretch their minds a bit and learn or discover something about American photo history.
Lighten up and quit acting like a bloviated old fart.
Don, that was downright bloody rude. Or at least, 'old fart' was; I have not encountered the word 'bloviated' before. I look for your apology.
Three other people immediately agreed with what I said, so clearly I am not alone in being irritated.
One further thought is that using another photographer's picture in this way, without a credit, is almost certainly illegal. Actually it's illegal with a credit, but most people aren't going to be too worried about that. Irritate enough of the wrong people, though, and you could be on the wrong end of a lawsuit. I wouldn't bother, but some publishers and picture libraries would.
R.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Well, curiosity got the better of me and I did a quick search.
Hope I'm not spoiling the fun, but think it must be Esther Bubley, who I confess I hadn't heard of before. Great name (almost as good as 'bloviated'  ). Seems like she has very solid credentials...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Bubley
Cate
-
Originally Posted by donbga
Besides that, the fact that I've managed to irritate Roger Hicks so much makes this thread worth while for me and probably others.
GET A LIFE!
-
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
Either tell me something useful, or shut up.
Please don't take this as a personal insult, just as an observation on a particular style of thread -- and I'd be interested if others feel the same way about 'teasers'.
On re-reading my original post, I can only assume that you disregarded the last paragraph above, and were unduly stung by the first line above. If so, I apologize. As I said, apparently not clearly enough, it was not an attack on you, but on a particular style of thread.
It does however seem odd to take pride in irritating a fellow APUG member, and indeed to boast about that pride.
R.
-
Hey people lighten up. Yeah I was irratated but not because of not listing who it is. I was irratated with myself for not having the time to really research it out and find who it was. It was all meant as fun. Did it hurt anyone? If you didn't want to join in the fun, you can skip the whole thread. We do have the ignore thread feature. As they say, you can please them all.
-
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Great name (almost as good as 'bloviated' ).
Cate
Realised after I read your last post, Roger, that you might think I was laughing at you with the above, just to make it clear I wasn't - but I do think 'bloviated' is a great word (I had to look it up aswell).
Of course it doesn't in any way, shape or form apply either to you or to me  .
Back on topic - it IS good to discover new photographers. And words.( I admit, the latter is easier if it's not directed at you personally...).
lets not forget about Bubley
|
|
Adv Reply
