I can handle it when folks write inaccurate information about things, technical matters and people they really don't know anything about. Most folks are smart enough to sort out the truth for the BS.

What I can't understand is how so many folks on the forum, including the admin, tolerate blatant rudeness, imbecilic behaviour, and purposeful disruption by these 2 actors. What's worse is some people seem to take pleasure in sparring with them and causing and stimulating more chaos.

Just because the forum is an online resource, why should this kinda nonsense be tolerated? It's disgusting when folks show such disrespect for each other, the subjects and topic they are deviating from, and the reasonable expectation of peace and enjoyment of other members.

There are so many aspects of photography that deserve discussion, analysis, exchange of ideas and real opinions besides equipment issues which are important as well. Why waste space and tie with childish, nasty and foolish personal attacks?

Come on y'all normal folks- report your disapproval to the admin, that is unless you enjoy this stupidity! Maybe he will do something about it.

I got the impression that you felt no one could be seriously interested in photography without knowing it's history and famous photographers' works. To me that was actually not a serious interest in photography, but a serious interest in the history of photography. I could see someone spending years doing photography, maybe becoming a master at it, without having studied it's history or the work of many of it's famous practitioners of the past. Do you think Frank Sinatra studied Bach? Was he not seriously interested in music?

I got the impression that you felt no one could be seriously interested in photography without knowing it's history and famous photographers' works. To me that was actually not a serious interest in photography, but a serious interest in the history of photography. I could see someone spending years doing photography, maybe becoming a master at it, without having studied it's history or the work of many of it's famous practitioners of the past. Do you think Frank Sinatra studied Bach? Was he not seriously interested in music?

On this and many other photo forums, my feeling is that folk know very little about portraiture. There are all kinds of myths, preconceptions, and technobabble but very little discussion of the finer points.

Not every successful portrait is made without focusing o so-called "bokeh" effects Some are mmade in that genre and are lovely, ethereal, romantic, etc. There is an entry school-of thought in environmental portraiture where the background is an integral part of the "story" or theme of the image and is renewed tack-sharp, Photographe lie Arnold Newman shot may of his iconic ports on a 4x5 camera-equipped with 90 mm Super Angulon lens and there was absolutely no subject distortion and all the background and forge elements were perfectly sharp. William MAcIntosg wrote an increased book on this method and theory.

Something that many folks do not consider is styles, trends, and tastes change and perhaps the average consumer of professional portrait photography would prefer less formal and more casual stylizations. So, nowadays we shoot a "headshot" with a small fas camera and short dozens of frames and may capture a good shot kida thing. Just imagine dd=oing that with an 8x10 big old wooden camera and have to focus, compose, insert the big unwieldy film holders, pull the dark slide and still capture the subject's peak expression by squeezing the bulb on an air drive Packard shutter. I have don't that and it ain't fun. I lie to see my light, facial for and express as well as eye contact or eye position at just about the instant of exposure THROUGH THE LENS! Being able to do that with a view camera was only part of Karsh's genius.

Now, I won't say that I have photographed Kings, Popes and Presidents. I have, however, photograph some top executives, politicians, "big shots" Many are real nice folks and many are terrible PIA types. Some act like spoiled kids, give you 5 minutes, don't like to follow any directions, hate being photographed. Some shoots are fun and some are like working in a mental health facility! Mr. Karsh managed to capture the character of many VIPs with that big old camera and all that in itself were all masterful feats.

Absolutely. But it doesn't appeal to me. I can understand it intellectually but can not enjoy it. For example the photo of the Vietnamese general shooting a Viet Cong in the head is an iconic photo, as is the naked girl running from napalm. But I wouldn't hang them on my wall. More than 50 years ago I saw a movie called Mondo Cane. Technically it was a bit of a masterpiece. But it was the most revolting movie I have ever seen, and the most revolting images stuck with me for half a century. Andy Warhol's Chelsea Girls had a big impact on me. It was a drab movie about junkies in a run down hotel. But most of the audience was gone by the time the film ended.