[I'm not really sure] [the point of your assertions is]. [I think that] [A seeming insinuation of what you are claiming is...] [That insinuation, if present, would seem to be groundless].
Rejecting a false assertion might be clever if it were not falsely asserted [in the first place]. But anyone can play this game. Its almost as good as the false [false dichotomy] that follows. This is pure [classic] trolling. And as HN readers will see...it continues in this thread ad infinitum from here.
If anyone here is a troll, it is you. Only you haven't been coherent enough to be trolling in the traditional fashion. It seems perhaps that you have invented a new style of trolling: State things with an affected air of authority, but never make it exactly clear just what your thesis is. Instead, just kind of ramble on, juxtaposing incontrovertible facts -- such as, "The images are monochromes, set with chemistry. 100yrs ago" -- with enigmatic and dismissive assertions such as "Its "cool". Its just different than what you think it is." Then when anyone tries to pin you down by providing a paraphrasing of what they think your claims are, start whining about straw men and false dichotomies and how your expertise should not be questioned.
Very clever! I think we've discovered your true genius.
Or maybe you are just bipolar [fnord]. I cannot say.
nessus42: I got my SB from MIT in Philosophy. MIT's Philosophy program is considered to be in the top few in the country, as is its Linguistics. I was taught creative writing by Joe Haldeman, photography in dark rooms that had been built by Minor White, psychology by Susan Carey, etc.
I normally don't call people out. But You're a MIT Philosophy Major spouting off. You know how bad these arguments are. This is my problem. With this type of background there is no excuse. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to a normal HN reader who may be lacking in technicals or experience. English as a second language. But these argument forms are rhetorical garbage.
I'm not sure in what decade you were at MIT. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe these simple-by-modern-standard ideas, techniques, and technologies are beyond than your training in photography? You owe more to the HN community than that. You owe everybody here some intellectual honesty.
This is the 21st century. We are deconstructing perception and re-constructing it image by image, pixel by pixel. And tools and techniques that have been field tested for two decades. With cognitive psychology in mind. Its a long way from Minor White's Darkroom. These are now the tools of the Documentary photographer.[1]
I happen to have first-hand experience with this. Years worth of training. In school and in the field.
I don't need to "argue" a point when demonstrating or illustrating a standard technique, it's superflous. You confuse actual experience with an "affected air of authority."
The point of my contribution on this thread is to share some experience. So, if nothing else, people can talk more precisely. About what they are looking <at>. I'm not hear to rain on a parade about what people do or don't <see>. Images are ultimately viewed for there enjoyment regardless of provenence.
Time for more enjoying.
______________
[1] A Rigorous and interdiscilinary book, written by a Philosopher: The Objective Eye: Color, Form, and Reality in the Theory of Art (Oxford, 2006)
Thanks for the book recommendation. It actually looks fascinating. I think I best avoid it for now, however, or no doubt I'll become too distracted from my programming duties.
In the meantime, I'll take one more stab at horribly distorting your position in a trollish and intellectually dishonest fashion. What you seem to be saying is as follows:
With the advent of digital image manipulation tools such as Photoshop, we've discovered the visual equivalent of glutimates, the previously unrecognized fifth "taste", which does not have its own distinct flavor, and yet somehow manages to make everything that is combined with it taste ever so much better. Editorial photographers now use Photoshop to dump glutimates into the images that we routinely see by the bucketful, and these visual glutimates were also liberally sprinkled into the restored Proudin-Gorsky images. Anyone who experiences any particular feeling of "wow" from seeing these restored images, is really just enjoying those glutimates. The original data, sans artificial glutimate enhancement, would never wow the modern eye.
I have no doubt that you are correct about the visual glutimates that are routinely added to our modern visual diet. But I should also think that this is actually nothing new. This has been routinely done long before the invention of Photoshop, just as it was routinely done in cooking before the scientific confirmation a decade or so ago of a fifth kind of taste bud. E.g., Modern French cuisine, as codified in the late 19th century, is largely based on getting plenty of glutimates into food through the use of veal stock and deglazing, etc. There's a similar story for Japanese food, which led to the patenting of monosodium glutimate in 1908.
For a famous editorial photo ladened with darkroom MSG, rather than Photoshop created MSG, we need look no further than the famous photo of RFK after he was shot:
Should I somehow feel cheated that too much MSG has gotten into the meat of what was supposed to be reality? Maybe I should. But I don't. And surely what moves me about this photo is not merely the darkroom. You have stated previously that people who are in awe of the Proudin-Gorsky restorations are really in awe of nothing more than Photoshop. In that case, what moves me in the RFK photo, is nothing more than the darkroom. That, of course, is absurd.
Also, I'm not convinced that this visual MSG in the Proudin-Gorsky photos has quite the immense effect that you seem to imply that it does.
Yes, the Proudin-Gorsky image looks more modern. But the Kodachrome image from 1941 is as equally impressive in its own way--those girls look like they could step right out of that slide and into my living room. And this is presumably without the addition of any MSG. Or at least not any that is not inherent in the Kodachrome process.
Rejecting a false assertion might be clever if it were not falsely asserted [in the first place]. But anyone can play this game. Its almost as good as the false [false dichotomy] that follows. This is pure [classic] trolling. And as HN readers will see...it continues in this thread ad infinitum from here.