singscott said:
Who are one that start all these bullsh*ts on the first place. Who choose to attack people for something you don't know. Who is the name caller in the first place. Who the person that can't even give straight answer and attacking people using quote from other that are not even one of them use the zone system. Where your so call elementary scientific proof that zone system doesn't work. You have offer nothing. Just going back to your previous replies prove it.
Where the rest of us have answer truefully to other people inquiries about it. Where yours? You only choose to argue with us, which in the first place we were just trying to pass some useful information that is proven to work for alot of photographers including masters. We didn't even ask to people to accept it as the standard of any kind. We are here to pass you information about it, like or not it is up to you. The dogma is you. You choose to step on something you didn't understand if you do none of us would have anything to say about. I only wrote all these reply not for you, but for the people you are going to try teach your ignorant to.
Scott, I think this fudg****d does have ONE good suggestion,
He wrote and urged us to be "more opened to the words of an artist".
I will certainly agree to that. Certainly we should be opened to the ideas, words, experience and teachings of artists. But true artists. Not wannabees. Not half-baked "artists".
And if this "f*******d" has any vestige of pride and consistency, he should and will acknowledge his folly which will be exposed in the next few sentences. If not, well what do we expect? He is a "f*******d"!
Now who are acknowledged artists - artists whose works that have been shown to have lasting values and permanence?
Photobum had kindly given us a list (post #95) of some established artists. Most of these listed artists have works in permanent collections of museums etc., and represented by galleries.
Is Mr Hicks an "artist"? Sure he can take some decent pictures. Many CSers here can take decent pictures too! And some CSers can take better pictures than Mr Hicks! When I looked at his website, I noticed two things. Or rather the absence of two things. No mention of his works being in anybody's collections. And no galleries representing his works.
Why? Readers decide. But to me, the answer is obvious. There is little merit to Mr Hicks as an "artist" worth consideration.
Why is Mr Hicks more "reputable" than any CSers here? Because he makes better pictures? Everybody is free to decide how good an artist Mr Hicks is. To me, his photography is OK. But ho-hum.Take a look at the works from photographers like Michael Kenna, or Uelsmann, and others....You will find that Mr Hicks's photography is like kindergarten stuff compared to professorial quality from the others.
Why is Mr Hicks' "reputable"? Books. He wrote lots of books. But little on imagery. Take a look at his books, and see if Mr Hicks' photography deserves to be amongst the level of say, Uelsmann and Caponigro. I may be unkind here. Mr Hicks is not here to defend himself. But it was often said, "Those who cannot take good pictures, teach. And I may add, write".
An artist? Mr Hicks? Of course, to the uninitiated and ignorant, Mr Hicks' pictures may WOW!
That is, to the ignorant and uninitiated.
Now who are "real" artists? I am not sure of the training of all the artists listed by photobum. But I do know that Sexton, Alan Ross, and Paul Caponigro learnt from Ansel Adams. And there are many hundreds and thousands more who trained at the Ansel Adams Workshops. Sexton is/was a Kodak spokesman. And Caponigro is held as a genius.
But of course our "fud*****d" choose to ignore the words of an established photography artist like Ansel Adams. He chose to ignore the teachings of one whose place is firmly in the history of photography.
And he chose to listen to one Mr Hicks whose photography credentials and reputation will disappear into history without a mention.
Can we expect anything from this "fu******d"?
He wrote, with dismissive disdain (post #20) "Ansel Adams was not rooted in science - he was a pianist -which might explain things to an extent"
Can I expect anything intelligent to come out of this "fu**eh**d"? when he wrote (post #37) that "white and gray are fundamentally the same"
Can I expect anything of sense on photography to come out of this "f*d*e*ea*" when he have absolutely no idea what the meter readings mean? When his knowledge of printing is practically nonexistent - yet tried to sound like he knew anything about printing?
Before I come into my next installment on Mr Hicks, let me say one thing.
The zone system is only one of the means/tools that photographers utilise to make images. Possessing this tool or any other does not make one a great photographer. There are many who do not know the slightest "theoretical" bit about the ZS and makes wonderful photographs. Just as possessing a 1Ds MkII does not make one a great photographer.
Taking the quote from Mr Hicks about "rotten zonies" - To say that quite a few zonies are rotten photographers and therefore the ZS is bad, is as stupid as saying that because quite a few Canon 1Ds MKII users are rotten photographers, the Canon 1Ds MkII is a bad camera!
And for someone to speak so strongly against the ZS, and so dismissive of the works of zonies, Roger Hicks has yet to produce anything that galleries and museums are interested in, let alone to match the likes of Uelsmann and Caponigro - just to mention two zonies.
And to our "f*******d", yes I agree with you 100% that we should be opened to the words of artist. But which one?
Have you heard of the name Roger Hicks being mentioned in the History of Photography? Have you heard of the name Roger Hicks mentioned in books with titles like "Icons of PhotographY?
Which is the greater artist? Oh, I remember. You chose Roger Hicks!
Well what do I expect from a "f*******d"?
:bsmilie: