EiRiK said:
You now make sense! WASTE TIME!
If people cannot debate on facts (theories)...Sigh! If one cannot "win" on points put forth, and then side step the arguments, resorts to challenges, and then accuse the other of, well, always wanting to win.......
"HE WHO KNOWS NOT HE KNOWS NOT, SHUN HIM"
"HE WHO KNOWS NOT AND BOH CHAP! WELL............."
I am not here to win. I don't have to! As far as I am concern, I am beyond such petty childishness! This idea of having to win is SOOOO..... I dread to write what is in my mind...
I had written in my last post that I think a problem with the so called controversy is a difference in understanding of the word "MACRO PHOTOGRAPHY".
Someone suggested a poll to find out what members think. If the question is "what do you understand about macrophotography" it is perfectly fine. If the question is "Define macrophotography". Then, well. The definition is already there. And no amount of agreement in this forum or out of this forum will make any darn difference.
I will reaffirm my position that there is NO artist who works is "OF ANY MEANINGFUL STANDARD" who has not mastered the techniques and the undertanding and use of his tools. Of course we again can debate the phrase "OF ANY MEANINGFUL STANDARD".
We can start to ask ourselves "IS OUR PHOTOS OF ANY MEANGINFUL STANDARD". In case you have difficulty understanding this, it does not mean of no importance to YOU. They may be your most treasured photos and possession. But are they of "ANY MEANINGFUL STANDARD".
"STANDARD AS DETERMINED BY A BODY OF COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS CURATORS, ETC", not by........................