1 iPhone picture / 1 µ4/3 picture - not telling which is which because IT DOESN’T F***ING MATTER
along the fence ~ (embiggenable)
along the fence ~ (embiggenable)
It's a warm and humid day which tends to aggravate the mean and nasty mood I'm in. So, I had to cool off, literally and figuratively, before writing this entry...
...The physical cooling off was easy. The mean and nasty took a while longer inasmuch as I tend to get that way when I read something as ignorant and wrong-headed as what I read on TOP yesterday. To wit, a comment by a TOP follower who wrote, re: Johnston's I have stopped discriminating against iPhones (mobile devices) as cameras and the pictures they produce post:
"...I do disdain cell phone cameras when used to make art photos .... or you can have a photography blog in which all photos distinctly are not equal. Of the not-equal photos, the iPhone shots are the least equal.
You might think I am in a mean and nasty mood because the comment was leveled at iPhone photography / pictures inasmuch as I use my iPhone to make "art photos". However, that is not the case. Not at all. My mood is dictated by the fact the comment is so utterly wrong-headed about the Meduim of Photography and Its Apparatus (conventions / a complex structure within an organization or system).
Or, as a concise sentence, it's about the pictures, stupid.
The commenter's ignorance is evidenced by the fact that he chose to base his ass-backward bias by implying that Robert Mapplethorpe's pictures-made with professional gear-are superior to those made using an iPhone, aka:, in his apparent opinion, amateur gear. Therefore, the only good pictures are those made with the right stuff - truly utter hogwash.
I have spent much time over the past 50 years visiting galleries, museums and other venues for the purpose of viewing / experiencing good photography. Never once have I formed my opinion on what is good photography-aka: what I like-based upon what gear was used or even how the pictures were created. Doing so, re: gear et al, is strictly the provence of "serious" amateur gear-heads.
It is possible that the commenter likes to view pictures which exhibit great detail, smooth tonal / color gradations and the like. If so, that's fine-like Julian's grandmother was heard to day, "For every pot there's a lid."-but to project that personal preference outward in the cause of denigrating work that does not exhibit that criteria is, well, stupid, ignorant and wrong-headed.
As a counterpoint to his specious opinion, I would submit Walker Evans' color SX-70 Polaroid work (which I have seen) as an obvious example-one of many I could mention-of stunning photography that defies, gear or print "quality" wise, the close-minded commenter's bias. Work which is different from but "equal" to that of Mapplethorpe and many others I could choose to mention.
Perhaps, rather than feeling mean and nasty, re: the commenter's bias, I should just feel pity for him and his opinion. After all, the Medium of Photography and It's Apparatus is a grand, glorious and messy domain replete with all manner of expressions and practices. How truly unfortunate it is for one to limit himself to just a small fraction thereof.
OK. I feel better already.